The Satire of John Marston 
 
 MORSE S. ALLEN 
 
Accepted by the Department of English 
 July, 1919 
 
The Satire of John Marston 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
 
 IN CANDIDACY 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 MORSE S. ALLEN 
 
 COLUMBUS, OHIO 
 
 1920 
 

 Columbus, Ohio: 
 
 The F. j. Heer Printing Co. 
 
 1920 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 I — Biography 5 
 
 II — Quarrels — 
 
 A — With Hall 11 
 
 B — Marston's part in the Stage-Quarrel 20 
 
 Histriomastix '- : ' 
 
 Every Man Out of His Humor 31 
 
 Jack Drum's Entertainment 34 
 
 Cynthia's Revels '10 
 
 What You Will 45 
 
 Poetaster 51 
 
 Satiromastix fi(J 
 
 Later references 74 
 
 Summary 81 
 
 III- — Formal Satires 84 
 
 A — Pygmalion's Image 88 
 
 B — Formal Satires 92 
 
 General 93 
 
 Morals 96 
 
 Humours 102 
 
 Fashions 105 
 
 Classes 107 
 
 Literature 109 
 
 Sources ' 113 
 
 General Estimate 115 
 
 IV — Dra matic Satire 128 
 
 Antonio and Mellida 128 
 
 Antonio's Revenge 132 
 
 Histriomastix 134 
 
 Jack Drum's Entertainment 134 
 
 What You Will 137 
 
 Dutch Courtezan 140 
 
 Malcontent 143 
 
 Parasitastcr, or the Fawn 149 
 
 Easttvard Ho 154 
 
 Wonder of Women, or Sophonisba 15(5 
 
 Insatiate Countess 157 
 
 Summary 158 
 
APPENDICES 
 Appendix A 
 
 I — References to Hall in the Satires (from pp. 11, 13, 110) 162 
 
 II — Marston's borrowings from Hall (from p. 15) 16") 
 
 Appendix B 
 
 Marston's share in Histriomastix ( from p. 23) 166 
 
 Appendix C 
 
 The original of Lampatho ( from p. V^) 169 
 
 Appendix D 
 
 Parody of the Spanish Tragedy in Antonio and Mcllida 
 
 ( from pp. 30, 75, 131) 170 
 
 Appendix E 
 
 I — Classical sources of the Satires ( from p. 114) 172 
 
 II — Personal Names (from p. 115) 173 
 
 Appendix F 
 
 The authorship of Eastward Ho (from p. 154) 17."> 
 
 Table of attributions of authorship 176 
 
 Bibliography 178 
 
 1 ndex 180 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 I wish to thank Professor Thomas Marc Parrott for his 
 direction, advice and encouragement, Professor Morris Wil- 
 liam Croll for his fruitful suggestions, and Dr. John DeLancey 
 Ferguson for assistance in proof-reading. 
 
THE SATIRE OF JOHN MARSTON 
 
 BIOGRAPHY ' 
 
 John Marston was horn about 1575 and died June 25, [634. 
 lie came of good family and was a gentleman. This was 
 acknowledged even by his enemy, Jonson'", who in fact lays 
 stress upon Marston's own insistence upon his gentility. His 
 family was an old Shropshire one; a Robertus de Marston is 
 mentioned in 1307. The dramatist's great-grandfather was 
 also a John Marston whose son Ralph was of Shropshire, 
 while the next generation, John, the poet's father, was of 
 Coventry. 
 
 The dramatist's mother, Mary Guarsi or Guersie, was 
 probably the descendent of Balthazar Guarsi, a man of some 
 prominence, living in the reign of Henry VIII s - Andrew 
 Guarsi, Marston's grandfather, who died in 1561, was prob- 
 ably Balthazar's son. He bequeathed to his daughter Mary 
 £100, to be paid when she should reach the age of eighteen, 
 or upon her marriage. This Mary Marston, who was the 
 poet's mother, died June 12, 1621. 
 
 John Marston, the poet's father, entered the Middle Temple 
 in 1570- He seems to have moved to Coventry soon after, 
 though he kept up his connections with London. In his will 
 he calls himself "of city of Coventry Gent." In Dugdale's 
 Warwickshire he is mentioned as a reader in the Middle 
 
 1 The facts concerning Marston's biography are for the most part 
 taken from the introd. to Bullen's ed. of Marston (which he sum- 
 marized for the D. N. B.) ; and from Grosart's introd. to Marston's 
 I 'or ins, in his Occasional Issues. These Issues of Grosart are rare, 
 only about fifty copies of each having been printed. 
 
 "Poetaster. II. i, 89f, and III. i, 27; 108. Cf. also infra, p. 63. 
 
 '' He was an Italian, and surgeon to Queen Katharine of Aragon ; 
 he was naturalized in England in 1521-2; Bachelor of Medicine from 
 Cambridge about 1530; and was surgeon to Henry VIII. In 1543 he 
 was collecting for the king accusations against Archbishop Cranmer. 
 By special grace he was admitted M. D. at Cambridge, 1 546. Royal 
 favor ended with the king's death, and we find him excepted out of 
 the act of general pardon by Edward VI. However, he was made a 
 Fellow of the College of Physicians in 1556. He was buried Jan. 10, 
 1557-8. 
 
 5 
 
Temple in 1592, and there is preserved a letter of his to a 
 mayor of Coventry, bearing the date October, 1597. He 
 died toward the end of 1599. In the Temple records he is 
 spoken of as "de Templo juris consultus in ecclesiae interiore 
 Templi sepultus." His first two sons seem to have died wh^rf'' 
 young; his third son was John. A fourth son, Tfyemas, 
 married a Lucy of Charlecote. There were three daughters. 
 Alice, Elizabeth and Margaret. 
 
 The dramatist. John Marston, was probably born in Coven- 
 try, though the records, incompletely preserved, do not men- 
 tion his birth or baptism. Oldys, in his annotated Langbaine, 
 says that Marston "died about sixty," which would place his 
 birth about 1574. When he matriculated at Brazenose in 
 February 1 591/2 he was sixteen, indicating a birthdate of 
 1575 or 1576. Therefore his birth may with some degree of 
 certainty be put down as 1575. 
 
 As was the case with Shakespeare at Stratford, Marston 
 presumably attended the grammar school of his town. The 
 Free School of Coventry had been endowed by John Hales 
 in 1573. "with a learned master to teach grammar, a learned 
 usher, and a man skilful in music to teach singing 'unto the 
 children of all the free inhabitants within the city and inner 
 liberties thereof gratis.' " 4 On "4 Feb- 1 591/2, John Marston. 
 aged 16, a gentleman's son, of Co. Warwick", was matricu- 
 lated at Brazenose College, Oxford; he took his bachelor of 
 arts degree on February 6. 1593/4. when only 18 years of 
 age"'- Wood says that "soon after completing that degree by 
 determination''' he went his way, and improved his learning 
 in other faculties." 
 
 'Staunton's Great Schools of England, quoted by Grosart, [ntrod. 
 1>. x. 
 
 'Bliss's Wood's Athen, O on., 1, 762-3; Fasti, 1. 602. Grosart shows 
 Anthony a Wood to have mistaken, for the poet a John .Marston of 
 Corpus Christi. Collier (Shakespeare, 1858, 1. IT! 1 ; Bibliog. Account. 
 I, xxiv, note) mistook a John Marston, Preacher of S. Mary Magda- 
 lene, Cambridge, who was alive in 1642. 
 
 It is interesting to note that Robert Burton was in Brazenose after 
 the long vacation of 1593, and so would have been acquainted with 
 Marston. 
 
 6 Determination signified an old examination given in the Lent fol- 
 lowing a candidate's presentation for a B. A. degree; it enabled him 
 to proceed for an M. A., and seems to have been required. It was 
 abolished early in the nineteenth century. 
 
This probably signified that he studied law, as is indicated in 
 a passage of his father's will : 
 
 "To s d son John my furniture &c. in my chambers in the Middle 
 Temple my law books &c. to my s d son whom I hoped would have 
 profited by them in the study of the law but man proposeth and God 
 disposeth &c." 
 
 In fact the poet was buried in the Temple, and was regis- 
 tered there as "sometimes of the Middle Temple." In this 
 connection Grosart mentions a passage in What You Will, I. i. 
 
 174: 
 
 "We see the son of a divine 
 Seldom proves preacher, or a lawyer's son 
 Rarely a pleader; for they strive to run 
 A various fortune from their ancestors." 
 
 Lawyers are seldom mentioned in Marston's satires, and at 
 ;h" end of his only censure of the law 7 , he cautiously dis- 
 claims any intent to satirize "grave and reverent legists." 
 This may have been because his father was still living. He 
 contents himself for the most part with attacking the law's 
 harsh terminology, the difficulties of which he himself prob- 
 ably experienced. It may be of his own attempts too that 
 he speaks in the Scourge of Villainy*, when he mentions 
 
 "each odd puisne of the lawyer's inn. 
 Each barmy-froth, that last day did begin 
 To read his little, or his ne'er-a-whit." 
 
 "Some span-new-come fry 
 Of inns-o'-court." 
 
 In May, 1598, four years after Marston left Oxford, 
 Pygmalion and Certain Satires was registered, and therem 
 for a space of about eight years Marston must have been 
 chiefly occupied with literature. The Scourge of Villainy was 
 published later in the same year. On June 4. [599, 
 Pygmalion ami Scourge of Villainy were ordered burned for 
 immorality, but this probably only increased their popularity. 
 
 7 S. V. VII, 92. 
 *In Led. 7; 77. 
 
 Ovid, in Jonson's Poetaster, is in many respects like Marston, de- 
 testing the law, and preferring the writing of licentious verse. 
 
He revised Histriomastix in 1599, and late in that year he 
 wrote Antonio and Mellida. Its conclusion, Antonio's Re- 
 venge, appeared early in the next year, and later in 1600. Jack 
 Drum's Entertainment. About February or March, 1601, 
 appeared What You Will. In this year his literary quarrel 
 with Jonson reached its height, with Jonson's Poetaster ap- 
 pearing about June, and Dekker's Satiromastix, inspired by 
 Marston, two or three months later. The Malcontent belongs 
 late in 1603; the Dutch Courtezan and the Fawn to 1604. 
 Early in 1605 he was working upon Eastward Ho with Chap- 
 man and Jonson, and contributed commendatory verses to 
 Jonson's Scjanus. Sophonisba was written in 1606. In this 
 year he seems to have left London, at least temporarily : the 
 title page of the second edition of the Fawn (1606) states it 
 was issued "as corrected of many faults, which by reason of 
 the author's absence, were let slip in the first edition" (also 
 of 1606). Furthermore, in this second edition Marston says, 
 "Reader, know I have perused this copy, to make some satis- 
 faction for the first faulty impression ; yet so urgent hath been 
 my business that some errors have still passed." This "busi- 
 ness," Grosart suggests, may have been his studies preparatory 
 to entering the church. A Latin pageant celebrating the 
 visit of the King of Denmark to James I in 1606 was probably 
 the last of Marston's literary work that we possess 9 - 
 
 When Marston took orders we do not know. He was 
 presented to the good living of Christ Church in Hampshire, 
 October 10, 1616, and he formally resigned it on September 
 ■3- ^31 , presumably from ill-health. 
 
 The date of Marston's marriage is unknown. His wife was 
 Mary, daughter of the Reverend William Wilkes, Chaplain 
 to James I and rector of Barford St. Martin. Wilts 10 . That 
 Marston married while he was still writing plays is made 
 probable by Jonson's sarcasm to Drummond, that Marston 
 wrote his father-in-law's sermons, and the latter wrote Mar- 
 ston's plays. So far as is known. Marston had no children. 
 
 "Attempted assignments of other work to Marston are dealt with by 
 Bullen, I, liv f . ; lix, note 1; III, 418. 
 
 10 Grosart (introd. xxii) guesses that Marston was curate at Christ 
 Church and assistant at Barford S. Martin. Barford is six miles west 
 of Salisbury, and at least thirty from Christchurch. 
 
In 1633 six of Marston's plays, oddly enough without the 
 Malcontent, which is perhaps his best, were issued anony- 
 mously by William Sheares. In a dedicatory address the 
 publisher speaks of Marston as being "now in his autumn and 
 declining age" and "far distant from this place," i. e. London. 
 However, his will was made the next year in Aldermanbury 
 parish, London, June 17, 1634; Marston was so ill he could 
 not sign it, but made a rough mark instead. The Temple 
 Church burial registry has the entry : 
 
 "1634, June 2C>. Mr. John Marston, Minister, sometimes of the Mid- 
 dle Temple, who died in Aldermanbury Parish : buried below the com- 
 munion table on the Middle Temple side." 
 
 Anthony a Wood in a reference to Marston's father-in-law 
 Wilkes says of Marston 11 : 
 
 "Dying "25 June, 1634, he was buried by his father ( sometimes a 
 counsellor of the Middle Temple), in the church belonging to the 
 Temple in the suburb of London, under the stone which hath written 
 on it Oblivioni Sacrum." 
 
 So his dedication of his satires at the end of the Scourge is 
 "To everlasting oblivion." 
 
 Thus we have a fairly complete outline of Marston's life, 
 although the dates of his marriage and ordination are un- 
 known. His life seems to show the same division of interest 
 as his literary work ; as he was both a licentious dramatist and 
 a divine, so in what he wrote he always shows a conflict 
 between the desire to depict lust in striking forms, and a 
 bent towards corrective satire. 
 
 The picture mentioned in his wife's will has disappeared, 
 and we know nothing of his personal appearance save what 
 
 11 Athen. I, !Cr2. Marston's will is to be found in Bullen, 1, xv. His 
 widow's will is given in full by Grosart. It is interesting for its evi- 
 dences of affection for her deceased husband; most of the legatees are 
 his friends. She desires to be buried by her "dear husband", and be- 
 queaths "my dear husband's picture . . . unto his ancient friend 
 Master Henry Walley of Stationer's Hall." She mentions "a trunk full 
 of books with lock and key, and a book of Martyrs not in the trunk," 
 the latter being perhaps the only one of her husband's books she cared 
 to keep out. To the famous Puritan minister lEdward Calamy >1 e 
 a small sum; he was an opponent of Bishop Hall, as Mar-ton had been, 
 and may well have been a friend of Marston's. 
 
 9 
 
we can glean from Jonson's hits at Crispinus in the Poetaster; 
 these do not amount to much more than that Marston had 
 red hair and small legs, and probably wore a feather in his 
 hat 12 . 
 
 Concerning his personal characteristics we know nothing 
 save that he won his wife's affection; he had literary quarrels 
 with Hall and Jonson; the latter claimed he beat Marston 
 and took his pistol from him, and in an epigram Jonson 
 accused him of personal cowardice 1 ' 1 . His seems to have been 
 a complex character, at war with itself and with the world. 
 Altogether. I believe that it may safely be deduced from his 
 writings, and from what we know of his life, that he belongs 
 lo the contemporary type of Malcontent, which is best known 
 in the figure of Jaques, in As Von Like It 14 . 
 
 My purpose in what follows is two-fold. First. J desire 
 to trace the progress of Marston's quarrels with Hall and 
 Jonson. in both cases endeavoring to clear up previous mis- 
 conceptions. Second. I propose to analyze the contents of 
 Marston's formal satires, and the satiric elements in his plays, 
 thereby contributing something to our conception of Marston 
 ami the satiric element in Elizabethan drama. 
 
 "CI. infra, p. 56. 
 
 '" Quoted infra, p. 74. 
 
 14 For treatment of the Malcontent type, see infra, p. 143f. 
 
 10 
 
THE QUARREL WITH HALL. 
 
 Marston's first literary work, his Satires, shows him 
 already engaged in wrangling 1 . Joseph Hall, later hishop 
 of Exeter and Norwich, was the object of his attack. At 
 the time Hall was a young man about a year older than 
 Marston himself, who was only twenty-three. Hall, who had 
 been a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, began his 
 extremely voluminous literary work with the publication of 
 satires, Virgidemiarum, in (597 and 1598, and won thereby a 
 considerable reputation. Undoubtedly it was their favorable 
 reception that inspired Marston. representing the other uni- 
 versity, to publish satires also. He would be the more urged 
 thereto, since he disagreed with some of the judgments pro- 
 nounced by Hall. 
 
 Hall claimed to be the first Englishman to enter the field 
 of satire. In the Prologue to Lib. I of the Virgidemiarum 
 he says : 
 
 "I first adventure: follow me who list, 
 And be the second English satirist." 
 
 This claim cannot be substantiated; Hake and Lodge had 
 already published poems calling themselves satires, and con- 
 forming to the type in almost every way 2 . But Hall was 
 
 ' See Appendix A, for details of Marston's satiric references to 
 Hall. 
 
 1 Lodge had already asserted priority for himself. For this and 
 other English satires before Hall, see infra, p. 85f. Hall was proud of 
 being an innovator — he claims to be the first to write, in English, (be- 
 sides Satires), Characters. Epistles and Aphorisms. Thus, in his 1008 
 dedication of his Epistles, to Prince Henry, he says : "Further, which 
 these times account not the least praise, your grace shall herein per- 
 ceive a new fashion of discourse, by Epistles: new to our language, 
 usual to others." Ascham and Howell are usually said to have an- 
 ticipated him with Epistles; for earlier writers of Characters, see Bas- 
 kerville, English Elements in J orison's Early Comedies, p. 68f. 
 
 Prof. H. V. Routh, Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit. IV, 377, gives Hall credit 
 for priority in satire, since, as Grosart conjectures (Oceas. Issues, IX, 
 1879; — Bp. Hall's Complete Poems, Memorial Introd., pp. vi-viii) Hall 
 may have written his as early as 1591; and because Hall was first to 
 
 11 
 
- 
 
 - 
 
 
 ; 
 
 ■ i 
 . - . : . 
 
 - - . : .. ■ 
 
 - 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 , ~ - 
 
 
 
 rf <. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 - 
 ■-.'■-. 
 
 r.r. tw&pgfr 0mr 
 
 : 
 
 -r:. 
 i'mimmm 
 
 : - 
 ---■ . ■:■-: .■.-.. : : ; - ./ : .■..•— —j- :•- . . : . : - - -.■ . . 
 
 ."■•- ~zr. Eat \ wmcsi ~r. ~s. ■ ~r. * rji.-.- 
 
 .:. r -- -o-.v- . £ fas -soes. pf«rtv . iiwg 
 
 " -.z.TT.:.-- ■ : : :~- .f '. 
 
 . . . . 
 
 - :.- '.. .- -. ".•- i I': - ...:-..- -."- - _-.. — . " . ■- ■- ■: 
 
 : "r -r: . - - :-.cr_—. -v: - - 
 
 ■ i - - 
 
 . flrr sn*t 
 
 ~.r . : . 
 
 
L31. "But come, fond braggart, crown thy brows with bay, 6 
 
 Entrance thyself with thy sweet ecstasy 
 
 Come, manumit tin plumy pinion. 7 
 
 And scour the sword of elvish champion; 9 
 
 Or else vouchsafe to breathe in wax-bound quill, 11 
 
 136. Ami deign our longing ears with music fill; 
 
 Summon the nymphs and Dryades to bring IT 
 
 Some rare invention, whilst thou dost sing 18 
 
 So sweet that thou may'st shoulder from above 7 
 
 The eagle from the stairs of friendly Jove 7 
 
 \rd lead sad Pluto captive with thy song, 8 
 
 ti racing thyself, that art obscured so long. 8 
 
 Come, somewhat say (but hang me when 'tis done) It" 
 
 Worthy of brass and hoary marble stone; 10 
 
 iak, ye attentive swains, that heard him never, 18 
 
 148. Shall not his pastorals endure forever?'' 
 
 151. Hath be not strongly justled from above 7 
 
 The eagle from the stairs of friendly Jove? 7 
 
 1")-".. May be, may be; tut I 'tis his modesty; 
 
 163 Envy, let pines of Ida rest alone, 1 
 
 For they will grow spite of thy thunderstone ; 1 
 
 Strive not to nibble in their swelling grain." 1 
 
 This satire of Marston's is referred to by Edward Guilpin, 
 iti the sixtli satire of Skialetheia, published in the same year 
 as Marston's satires, 1598: 
 
 "The double-volumed satire praised is 
 And liked of diverse for his rods in piss; 
 Yet other some who would her credit crack, 
 Have clapp't React io's action on her back."" 
 
 'Bullen has the note {Marston, 111. 286), "It is not improbable that 
 Hall published an early volume of pastorals which is now unknown." 
 and that in Virg. VI, i, 175-184, Hall replies to Marston's raillery. But 
 Hall and Marston are expressly disclaiming the existence of any such 
 pastorals. The latter part of Bullen's note is also incorrect (cf. supra.) 
 
 "Grosart {Poems of Hall, pp. xxv-vi) has been led astray in his 
 interpretation of these lines, partly because of the confusion of the 
 pronouns, and partly because "rods in piss" (i. e. in pickle), is found 
 in Marston (V. V. i, 14; cf. J. D. E., quoted infra, p. 35) and not in 
 Hall. But the phrase was not uncommon with the satirists of the time 
 (cf. Weever, Epigrams, 1590, opening of the 'Intention') and has a 
 classical source. In the second and fourth line of Guilpin. quoted 
 above, his and her both stand for the modern its, and both refer to 
 Hall's satires; some means Marston; the double-volumed satire is a 
 reference to the t- Toothless and Biting, of Virgidemiarum of 
 
 1 t 
 
Satire X, added in the second edition of the Scourge of 
 Villainy, is dedicated by Marston "To his Very Friend, Master 
 E. ( !.." who is supposed to be this Edward Guilpin. In this 
 satire. Marston quotes what may be supposed to be Hall's 
 answer to Rcactio: "An Epigram which the Author Virgi- 
 demiarum caused to be pasted to the latter page of every 
 Pygmalion that came to the Stationers of Cambridge." Doubt 
 has been cast upon Hall's authorship of this epigram 1 ", but 
 Marston's explicit statement throws the burden of proof on 
 those who would deny it; and considering Hall's reasons for 
 enmity and his Cambridge connection, there is little reason 
 for ascribing it to anyone else 11 . 
 
 Besides these two satires on Hall, references to him are 
 scattered through Marston's satires 11 ': Hall speaks so ob- 
 scurely no one can understand him; he attacks little faults 
 instead of great sins; Marston defends against him religious 
 and other poetry, and attacks his style, frequently calling him 
 "pedant", and ruder names. Most of this attack is unim- 
 portant and poorly done, and much is now hard to disentangle. 
 Like almost all of Marston's satires, it is obviously the work 
 of a young man, and not of much value. 
 
 So far the protagonists of this little literary melee have 
 been traced; now come up the rascal rout of the reserves, in 
 this case as usual anonymous or nearly so. A friend of Hall 
 wrote a poem called The Whipping of the Satyre, which was 
 entered in the Stationers' Register August 14, i6ot. It was 
 doubtless written soon after the appearance of the Scourge 
 of Villainy ; its publication had been delayed, perhaps, because 
 of the ban of June 1, 1599. on satires. It is signed "W. 1.", 
 whom Nicholson has identified, from interior evidence, with a 
 William Ingram of Cambridge. Quotations are here given 
 at some length, because of the extreme rarity of The Whip- 
 
 '" Alden. p. 145 ; Schulze, pp. 277-8. 
 
 11 Might it not have been William Ingram who added the doggerel 
 verses to Pygmalion? He was resident in Cambridge, and was Hall's 
 friend in the quarrel (cf. infra). Marston might have honestly be- 
 lieved it to be Hall's. Of course there is no evidence of authorship 
 save Marston's statement; and one would expect rather better 
 from Hall. 
 
 u See Appendix A for a list of Marston's allusion-; to and borrow- 
 ings from Ha!!. 
 
ping, and because it speaks against Marston so tellingly 13 . 
 The author begins by asserting that he 
 
 "Dares scourge the Scourger of base villainy.... 
 What though the world was surfeited with sin, 
 Must it of force his filthy physic lick? 
 
 Then know, thou filthy sweep-chimney of sin, 
 The soil thereof defiles thy soul within. 
 
 O wonder great ! Is it not villainy 
 
 That one should live by reckoning up of vice 
 
 And be a sin-monger professedly 
 
 In-voluming 13 offences for a price? 
 
 Yet by the same doth purchase but the shame, 
 
 And blaming others, merits others' blame. 
 
 Thus you supposed the people's hearts to win 
 
 By Machiavellian damned policy. 
 
 For seeing men inclined to such sin. 
 
 You feasted them with all variety, 
 
 And lest you should this vilde pretence reveal. 
 
 Did hypocrite it with a show of zeal. 
 
 But hark, I hear the Cynic Satire cry, 
 A man, a man, a kingdom for a man." 
 Why, was there not a man to serve his eye? 
 No, all men turned to beasts that headlong ran. 
 Who cried a man, a man then was he none. 
 No, but a beast by his confession 
 
 He scourgeth villainies in young and old 
 As boys scourge tops for sport on Lenten day ; 
 So scourgeth he the great town-top of sin, 
 And puts his wit's felicity therein." 
 
 Tn a prefatory prose Epistle W. I. says, "Think you that foul words 
 can beget fair manners? . . . You gathered up men's vices, as though 
 
 13 The book has not been reprinted, though it was to have been in 
 the Isham Reprints. Bullen quotes four stanzas. Collier has given an 
 account of these Whipping books in his Rarest Books, IV, p. 235f., 
 from which Alden gives some extracts. I quote from the fuller ex- 
 tracts given by Grosart, in his rare Occasional Issues. 
 
 14 Orig., Iouolumning. 
 
 15 The theme of 5". V. VIII., A lyric Satire, beginning with the 
 adaptation from Rich. III., and repeating "a man, a man !" in lines '28, 
 46, 100. Cf. infra, p. 153, and E. H., Ill, iv. 5; W. Y. W.. II, i. 125. 
 
 16 
 
they had been strawberries, and picked away their virtues, as they had 
 been the stalks. 
 
 They shall not make me believe, but that you were the Devil's in- 
 telligencer, for there went not a lie abroad, but it was presently en- 
 tertained of your ear; and every sin kept under writing, for fear lest 
 the devil, waxing almost six thousand years of age, should fail in his 
 memory, and so chance to forget. 
 
 Beshrow my heart, if I do not think you a very prompt and politic 
 gentleman: Prompt, wanting no words to express your anger; and 
 politic, using much hypocrisy to conceal your malice. So that a man 
 should blazon you aright, he must make you a tongue passant, your 
 anger rampant, and your malice couchant." 
 
 Thus \Y. I. made the same criticism on Marston's satires, 
 a year or two after they appeared, that almost all later critics 
 have made 16 . Marston obviously took too much delight in 
 portraying vice to make his punishment of it an effectual 
 warning. Of course many of the things for which Marston 
 is attacked in The Whipping of the Satire are equally true of 
 Hall, the author's friend, or of any satirist. Satire presup- 
 poses more or less of a catalogue of sins 17 - 
 
 A much poorer poem answered the W hip ping: The / 
 Whippet of the / Satyre his pennance / in a white sheete: / 
 Or. / The Beadles Confutation. / At London / Printed for 
 Thomas Pauicr / 1601. It was entered November 6, 1601, 
 obviously in rejoinder to The Whipping- I have not seen 
 The Whipper save in extracts; Bullen calls it ''the work of 
 one of Marston's personal friends, or of some admirer who 
 had more zeal than wit." Grosart 18 speaks of it as being 
 nerveless, pointless and poor in every way. He says that it 
 has been assumed to be Marston's own work, but has none 
 
 "Cf. infra, p. 117. 
 
 " Jonson, and, according to Collier, Nicholas Breton are pilloried 
 with Marston in the poem, which is addressed "to the vain-glorious, the 
 Satirist, Epigrammatist and Humourist." Humour plays and epigrams 
 are meant in the following stanza : 
 
 "It seems your brother Satire, and ye twain, 
 Plotted three ways to put the devil down : 
 One should outrail him by invective vain : 
 One all to-flout him like a country clown ; 
 And one in action on the stage outface, 
 And play upon him to his great disgrace." 
 ' P. xix. 
 
 17 
 
of Marston's characteristics, and contains the lines of encour-: 
 agement, apparently from an outsider: 
 
 "Then friendly satirist, to thy pen again 
 Let not one private novice terrify 
 With halting lines, thy iron lasting brain. 
 Where sacred truth doth daily nutrify: 
 But with a brow according to thy heart. 
 Frown on the world, and give it his desart !" 
 
 After the rival factions have thus snarled at one another. 
 there steps in a neutral as peacemaker, like the Prince to the 
 Montagues and Capulets. Nicholas Breton is undoubtedly 
 the author of No Whippinge nor trippinge: but a kinde friendly 
 Snippinge, entered September 14, 1601. Though it has the 
 air of closing the combat, from its date of entry it may have 
 been written before the Whipper. Breton endeavors to make 
 everybody happy, and gently discourages the writing of satires. 
 
 "It was my hap of late, passing through Paul's church-yard, to look 
 upon certain pieces of poetry, where I found (that it grieves me to 
 speak of) one writer so strangely inveigh against another, that many 
 shallow wits stood and weighed against their follies." 
 
 The poem is a long one, and wanders far from its ostensible 
 subject before the end; from certain references to plays of 
 humours it is evident that it is in part a reproof of Tonson 
 for ridiculing humours and gulls. Probably it also refers 
 generally to the Stage-quarrel, at its height about this time ; 
 but its title places it with the Hall-Marston affair. Its refer- 
 ences are so general, however, that its details are of little 
 value 10 . 
 
 Years after, Hall wrote a passage which seems to refer to 
 Marston, then probably best known as the author of the 
 Malcontent. One of Hall's Characters, 1608, was entitled 
 The Male-content ; it ends thus: 
 
 "He speaks nothing but Satyres, and libels, and lodgeth no guests 
 in his heart but rebels. The inconstant and hee agree well in their 
 felicity, which both place in change: but heerin they differ; the incon- 
 stant man affects that which will bee, the male-content commonly that 
 which was. Finally, he is a querulous curre, whom no horse can passe 
 by without barking at ; yea, in the deep silence of night the very 
 
 '• No Whipping has been republished in the I sham Reprints. 
 
 18 
 
moone-shine openeth his clamorous mouth: he is the wheele of a well- 
 couched fire-worke that flies out on all sides, not without scorching 
 it selfe. Every eare was long ago wearie of him, and he is now 
 almost wearie of himselfe. Give him but a little respite, and lie will 
 die alone; of no other death, than others welfare." 
 
 This quarrel between Hall and Marston, then, to judge 
 from its literary remains was not very complicated. Marston 
 was inspired to satire largely by the success of Hall, and 
 perhaps partly by a desire to express disagreement with him. 
 This is the only probable reason why Marston attacked the 
 Virgidemiarum. Unfortunately it has never been a long step 
 from critical disagreement to personal rancor. Hall himself 
 made little (if any) reply, but Marston added a satire to the 
 Scourge, ridiculing Hall. A friend of the latter, probably 
 Ingram, attacked Marston in a verse pamphlet, and was 
 poorly answered by an unknown supporter of Marston. 
 About the same time Breton tried to smooth things over- 
 There is no evidence in Hall's later writings that he himself 
 carried on the direct quarrel, and I have discovered no refer- 
 ences to it save the indirect one just quoted. 
 
 So far as we can judge, the quarrel was of no value to 
 Marston, and did not redound to his credit ; Hall by his very 
 imperturbability, as well as by the real merit of his work, 
 gained the victory, if a decision were to be made. 
 
 So far as Marston himself was concerned, the incident had 
 ended before the much more important quarrel with Jonson 
 began ; but the way in which it was carried on is good evidence 
 that Marston was ready for trouble. We know little about 
 the grounds of the stage-quarrel ; Marston's relation with Hall, 
 however, would tend to make us believe that the later quarrel 
 was not entirely Jonson's fault, since it is evident that Marston 
 was not at all averse to entering the literary lists, and in the 
 role of challenger. 
 
 19 
 
MARSTON'S PART IN THE STAGE-QUARREL 
 
 The so-called War of the Theatres, or Stage-quarrel, created 
 much excitement in the years about 1600, and has been the 
 subject of much critical excitement since. I propose to dis- 
 cuss it here from the standpoint of Marston. He, with Ben 
 Jonson, took the most important parts ; Dekker was merely 
 an auxiliary. The quarrel first came to light obscurely in 
 certain dramas ; there ensued an interchange of attacks in 
 alternate plays of Marston and Jonson, each play growing 
 more personal and less good-natured; finally the affair cul- 
 minated in the open and bitter assault of the Poetaster and 
 the reply, Satiromasti.x. 
 
 Eagerly-searching critics have of late drawn nearly a score 
 of plays into the maelstrom, some for only the slightest reasons. 
 I desire to review their work, so far as it treats of Marston, 
 and to dispose of a large mass of conjecture which further 
 investigation proves to be idle'. There remains, however, a 
 certain number of facts, from which a fairly clear history of 
 the whole matter can be drawn. 
 
 There are two considerations that narrow the personal im- 
 portance of this stage-quarrel. First, its expression in the 
 theatres depended very largely upon peculiar theatrical con- 
 ditions ; for a time these fostered quarrel-plays, but when the 
 conditions changed, this kind of play was no longer possible- 
 Prof. Wallace has shown- that the Roys of Black friars 
 were directly favoured and aided by Queen Elizabeth. "Their 
 novel entertainments of music, singing, masque and drama 
 under special favoring influences and select auditorial privi- 
 >und that following that made them recognized as the 
 foremost theatre in London. They became as a result the 
 
 'J. H. Penniman of the University of Pennsylvania wrote a mono- 
 graph on the subject, 1887, which was followed two years later by a 
 criticism in a larger monograph by R. A. Small. Fleay has contributed 
 many random guesses. Lately Penniman has gone over the field again 
 in his introduction to the Belles Lettres edition of Jonson's Poetaster 
 and Dekker's Satiromastix. In addition, almost every writer on the 
 Elizabethan drama has added a few conjectures or one or two facts. 
 
 "C. W. Wallace, Children of the Chapel at Black friars. 1908. 
 
 20 
 
object of imitation and envy." He states furthermore that 
 most Blackfriar plays imitated plays belonging to the other 
 theatres- This quarrel of the companies was brought upon 
 their stages ; and it is to this rather than to the quarrel of the 
 dramatists that Hamlet's words have reference : "There was 
 for a while no money bid for argument unless the poet and 
 the player went to cuffs in the question.'"'' With the change 
 of monarchs, special patronage to Blackfriars ceased, and 
 consequently the reasons for public quarreling. 
 
 Secondly, critics have seen entirely too much personal satire 
 in Elizabethan plays. This is particularly true in the case of 
 Jonson. While he quarrelled often and bitterly, only one of 
 his plays was directly inspired by a personal quarrel ; and even 
 in the Poetaster Jonson was almost more of a moralist than a 
 controversalist. In several of Jonson's plays there are char- 
 acters which represent Jonson himself, but even more defi- 
 nitely do they represent certain principles; and again and 
 again his Brisks and Hedons represent a general type much 
 more than they do any particular individual 4 . 
 
 With these limitations in mind, we find nevertheless sure 
 evidences of certain apparently bitter personal quarrels, which 
 were fought out for the most part by proxy, and on the 
 boards. Besides Jonson, Marston and Dekker, — Nash. 
 Harvey, Monday, Lodge and others seem to have been par- 
 ticipants ; here only Marston's share will be considered. 
 
 Jonson twice refers to the beginning of his quarrel with 
 Marston. In his conversations with Drummond, years later, 
 Jonson is recorded to have said : 
 
 "He had many quarrels with Marston, beat him, and took his pistol 
 from him, wrote his Poetaster on him; the beginning of them were 
 that Marston represented him on the stage." 5 
 
 3 Hamlet, II ii. 340f. Dr. Wallace dates the passage late in 1601. See 
 his Children of the Chapel, pp. 163f. 
 
 * Prof. Penniman has pointed out (Pref. to Belles Lcttres Ed. of 
 Poet, and Satiro.) that several of Jonson's sketches were drawn from 
 Wit's Misery of Lodge; this is characteristic of his typical satiric 
 method, borrowing from books rather than from life. For a discus- 
 sion of the attributed attacks of Jonson on Daniel, see Baskerville, 
 English Elements i)i Jonson's Early Comedies, p. 120. 
 
 5 The concluding words of the sentence, "in his youth given to 
 venery," probably are wrongly punctuated, and refer to what follows, 
 not to Marston's quarrel. See Small for discussion. 
 
 21 
 
In the Apologeiieal Dialogue appended to the Poetaster, Jon- 
 son wrote: 
 
 "But sure I am, three years 
 They did provoke me with their petulant styles 
 On every stage ; and I at last, unwilling 
 But weary, I confess, of so much trouble, 
 Thought I would try if shame could win upon em." 
 
 The Dialogue states it was "once spoken upon the stage," 
 which must have heen in 1601, when the Poetaster was pro- 
 duced. Thus the origin of the quarrel has been looked for 
 in 1598. At that date none of Marston's work save his two 
 volumes of satires had been published, consequently all early 
 investigators sought to find in them an attack of Marston 
 upon Jonson. 
 
 "Judicial Torquatus", with his "new-minted epithets, as reall, 
 intrinsicate, Delphic," referred to in the Preface and Satire 
 IX of the Scourge of Villainy, w r as first selected, by Gifford 
 in 1816. This identification was taken for granted by Halli- 
 well, Grosart, Bullen, Symonds and Penniman, until it was 
 finally disproved by Small, who also showed that the licentious 
 soldier Tubrio, the social aspirant Ruscus. and "Jack of Paris 
 Garden" do not refer to Jonson 6 - There is no reference, then. 
 to Jonson in Marston's formal satires ; indeed, there is none to 
 any dramatist or drama 7 . The failure to find the cause of the 
 quarrel here, however, should only have been expected. In the 
 first place, the satires were not produced on any stage. Fur- 
 thermore, does Jonson's "three years" mean that the trouble 
 started in 1598? The date of the Poetaster may be placed 
 about June-July, 1601 — certainly the Dialogue was not writ- 
 ten before that- Would not Jonson have counted 160 1 as one 
 
 " H. C. Harte has shown that Torquatus in both passages means Ga- 
 briel Harvey (N. & Q. Ser. 0, vol. XI, pp. 201, 281, 343). Tubrio is 
 in S. i and S. V. VII. He seems to have been identified with Jonson 
 because both had 'rocky faces,' had been in the Low Countries, and 
 were addicted to venery. But nowhere else is Jonson satirized at all 
 in this fashion ; Marston or Dekker never mention lust in his connec- 
 tion, but rail at him as a pedant. The connection with the parasite 
 Ruscus (S. i.) is simply a conjecture of Grosart's, based on a similar 
 device suggested in Every Man Out, I, i. Jack of Paris Garden was 
 a well-known ape! (S. J'. IX. 72.) 
 
 T Save fo- ^ne reference to Tamburlaine. 
 
of the three years? He obviously wished to appear to have 
 been patient as long as possible. This would place the begin- 
 ning of the quarrel in 1599, and in this year we find Marston 
 producing one play, Antonio and Mcllida; revising another, 
 Histriomastix ; and possibly collaborating in a third, "Robert 
 II, King of Scottc's Tragedy," now lost. It is in these plays, 
 then, that I believe the seeds of the quarrel should be sought. 
 Of these Histriomastix has been pointed out by Small. 
 
 HISTRIOMASTIX 
 
 This play contains the earliest dramatic work that can be 
 assigned to Marston, and presents many points of doubt. We 
 have but one edition, with a simple titlepage : HISTRIO- 
 MASTIX. / Or. / THE PLAYER / whipt. / Printed for 
 Th: Thorp. / 1610. Small, who has given it the most 
 extensive treatment, calls it "a poor half -allegorical comedy." 
 It begins as a tedious allegorical morality, with much un- 
 dramatic philosophising. In the third act new elements of 
 humour, satire and variety enter, obviously in Marston's style. 
 Small's division of the play is for the most part correct ; 
 Marston contributed the part from III, iv to V, iii, and other 
 scattered passages, altogether a little more than a quarter of 
 the play 1 . The old Histriomastix has been dated by Small 
 in the summer of 1596, on what seems to he sufficient evidence- 
 Concerning the authorship of the old Histriomastix, Simp- 
 son's 2 suggestion of Peele has been disproved by Small ; who 
 in turn suggests Chapman, because of certain similarities to 
 his Blind Beggar of Alexandria, 1596, Chapman's first extant 
 play. The Blind Beggar is the wildest extravaganza, in which 
 one man plays three parts. It is improbable that an author's 
 first two plays, produced in the same year, should he so 
 utterly different as is the case here- None of the similarities 
 noted by Small are distinctive, and there is no ring of Chap- 
 man's clearly marked style in the old Histriomastix"-. 
 
 1 For more detailed division of authorship, see Appendix B. 
 
 'Simpson, School of Shakespeare, Vol. II, Introd. to Ilistrio. 
 
 1 Small says the style of the two plays are similar: "monotonous, 
 generally end-stopped lines, devoid of passion and spring" — which 
 may be granted. That the general plan and subject-matter "are just 
 what might be expected in an early dramatic effort of Chapman", is 
 
 2:5 
 
Some resemblances to Dekker's Old Fortunatus exist 4 , but 
 the likenesses are less than the dissimilarities of tone, style and 
 wording. It might be that Dekker had a hand with Marston in 
 refurbishing the Histriomastix, and contributed a song, where 
 there seems to be close similarity ; but there is very little else- 
 where. 
 
 Thomas Hariott, a philosopher and the most famous astron- 
 omer in England before Newton, was suggested to Simpson by 
 the character of the academic philosopher Chrisoganus of the 
 old play. Hariott, for long the protege of Raleigh, was also 
 the friend of Jonson and Chapman, and probably a member 
 of the Mermaid club and Raleigh's free-thinking school, with 
 Marlowe and Kyd 5 . The author may have had Hariott's 
 character in mind when writing the play. We know of no 
 purely literary production of Hariott himself. 
 
 Little is to be learnt of the author from his allusions to 
 contemporary plays. Three passages in the older play have 
 been paralleled in the works of Green, and one in those of 
 Nash. There are references to Tavnbwrlaine, Gammer Gurton's 
 Needle, and apparently to Midsummer Night's Dream*. 
 
 not substantiated by what we know of Chapman's work, which con- 
 tains nothing else in this archaic form. Small admits the stanzaic 
 structure form, marked by couplets or repeated lines, is not peculiar 
 to Chapman ; it would have been well known from passages in 
 Tamburlaine, e. g. the "To entertain divine Zenocrate" passage. The 
 parallels with the Blind Beggar have only a very general similarity. 
 Chapman uses hungcrstarved, but it was not uncommon in Elizabethan 
 or later times (cf. N. E. D.) 
 
 * The blank verse refrain is found in O. F. several times (Shepherd's 
 ed., 1873, pp. 84, 105-6, etc.) The closest resemblance is that of the 
 harvesters' song at the end of Act I of Histro., to two songs in O. F.; 
 pp. 89, 173. Allegorical figures are used in much the same way, at 
 times taking part in the action. There are a few verbal similarities. 
 
 But Dekker uses few Latin words or phrases, and always writes 
 very clearly, while the old Histrio, is heavily Latinized, and often 
 obscure in style. 
 
 '"' Boas, Works of Kyd, p. lxxi. Life of Thomas Harriot, by H. 
 Stevens of Vermont. Privately printed, 1900. 
 
 ' F. Hoppe, Marston's Erstenwerke. To Midsummer Night's Dream, 
 cf. calling of the players' roll, I. ii, 130; players selecting their parts, 
 near end of Act IV,; and V, v, 241. All that can be gathered from 
 these references is that the author was somewhat conversant with 
 current dramatic literature. 
 
 24 
 
It is evident that the author must have heen a scholar. The 
 multiplicity of Latin words, names and quotations, and the 
 dissertations of Chrisoganus on mathematics, astronomy and 
 philosophy, indicate this more than sufficiently. I believe 
 Histriomastix to have been a school play- It was obviously 
 not a closet drama, but intended for acting. Being in part a 
 satire on players, it would scarcely have been produced by an 
 ordinary company. No children's companies were playing in 
 1596. The large number of songs 7 and of female parts 8 indi- 
 cate that it was written for a boys' school rather than for a 
 university- 
 
 The old Histriomastix was. in its general plan, a satire on 
 the main classes of society ; so the players do not refer to a 
 particular company — the plan of the play requires a most 
 general application. Chrisoganus, who is throughout held up 
 as a model, and guide for society, may possibly have been 
 drawn with Hariott in mind. It seems probable that Posthaste 
 the hackwriter was meant as a type figure. If personal satire 
 were intended, his original would be Anthony Monday. The 
 original Posthaste is a former ballader (VI. v. 235) whom 
 critics scorn for his extempore doggerel (II, v), and of whom 
 a fellow-player says, "Is't not a pity this fellow's not employed 
 in matters of state?" (II. 130). (Possibly some of this may 
 have been inserted by Marston. to particularize Posthaste.) 
 In general, then, the original play was a satire on society as 
 a whole, written in something of the form of a morality, and 
 not descending to personalities. 
 
 Marston's additions were probably made in 1599- They 
 must have been acted in that year, because they are referred 
 to in Every Man Out, acted about the turn of the years 1599- 
 1600 9 . Small attempted to fix the date of Histriomastix in 
 
 ' There are five songs and a morris in the remaining portion of 
 the old play. (Small says six, but his list has three songs wrongly 
 mentioned.) The portion replaced by Marston would have had several 
 songs; he gives three and a masque: II, 247-55; 304-19; III. 78-9; VI, 
 288-95. 
 
 " In the first act eight female and five male figures are all on the 
 stage at once, something impossible for an ordinary company. 
 Marston's additional ending, written for a children's company, em- 
 ployed a considerably greater number of female characters 
 simultaneously. 
 
 8 Cf. infra, p. .* J >1, n. 1. 
 
 25 
 
August, 1599, because of the line, "The Spaniards are coming," 
 hut this line cannot "he restricted to any month or year ; it 
 could never have heen meaningless during the latter part of 
 Elizabeth's reign. However, Jonson would not have selected an 
 old play to satirize. Furthermore, the numher of songs and 
 female parts indicate a children's company, and this would 
 probably have been the Children of Paul's, who presented all 
 of Marston's other plays written before 1603 ; if so, the 
 earliest date possible is 1599 10 . 
 
 When Marston's personal satire in the play is examined, 
 it is found to be individualized only in the characters of Chris- 
 oganus and Posthaste. Marston quite alters the character of 
 Chrisoganus. He early introduces into the midst of older 
 material (II, 63-7) a passage which shows the academical 
 philosopher and eminently harmless stoic in a new light : 
 
 "How, you translating scholar, you can make 
 
 A stabbing satire or an epigram, 
 
 And think you carry just Rhamnusia's whip, 
 
 To lash the patient ; go, get you clothes, 
 
 Our free-born blood such apprehension loathes." 
 
 The main part of Marston's additions to the play begins 
 with another treatment of the new Chrisoganus (III, 180). 
 He demands of the players the large sum of ten pounds for 
 writing a play for them, and when refused flies into an un- 
 philosophical rage. The old play never presents Chrisoganus 
 as a dramatist. 
 
 The other appearances of Marston's Chrisoganus only 
 enlarge on this same character of pedantic satirist. In IV, ii 
 he bursts into curses of "this idiot world that comforts all 
 
 w The first mention of Paul's Children is in Marston's Jack Drum. 
 which they produced in 1600, (V, 102-4) : 
 
 "I saw the children of Paul's last night . . . 
 The apes in time will do it handsomely." 
 
 A little later they are said to have played, previously, "Musty fop- 
 peries of antiquity," which sounds much like Histrio. I see no reason 
 why their revival should not have dated from the previous year, 1599. 
 It is of course possible, though not very probable considering all his 
 other early plays, that Marston should have revised Histrio. for the 
 Children of the Chapel, which Wallace believes began their revival 
 with Johnson's Case Is Altered, Sept.-Oct., 1597; (Children of the 
 Chapel, p. 58.) 
 
 2G 
 
saving industrious art"; in V, iii (103) he tries to act as 
 peacemaker to the quarrelsome nobles, and receives for his 
 reward, "Peace, prating scholar! ... A pox upon this linguist, 
 take him hence." 
 
 Thus Marston found a stoic, scientilic, not very individual- 
 ized philosopher, the personification of Wisdom crying out in 
 the streets, and no man regarding. In Marston's hands, this 
 calm servant of the Muses becomes a railing satirist, rating 
 his own plays very highly while abusing those of others. 
 
 There seem to have been three sources for this character. 
 One is the older Chrisoganus, whom Marston has carried over 
 especially in his academic traits. So in IV, ii, he bewails the 
 decay of learning, 
 
 "whilst pale Artizans 
 Pine in the shades of gloomy Academes, 
 Faint in pursuit of virtue, and quite tired 
 For want of liberal food for liberal art, 
 Give up the goal to sluggish ignorance!" 
 
 Oftener he is a representative of Marston instead of the un- 
 known scholarly dramatist. So in V, iii : 
 
 "Now is the time wherein . . . 
 
 Pity and Piety are both exiles, 
 
 Religion buried with our fathers' bones, 
 
 In the cold earth, and nothing but her face 
 
 Left to adorn these gross and impious times . . . 
 
 Justice hath whips to scourge impiety." 
 
 This is quite in the frame of mind of Marston's satires, — 
 how evil are these times ! 
 
 Finally, Chrisoganus possesses a few traits that seem to 
 have more special contemporary reference. He is called 
 "translating scholar"; "you can make a stabbing satire or an 
 epigram"; you think yourself to be Nemesis herself; "go, get 
 you clothes." Meanwhile he demands "ten pound a play"; 
 he calls his own poetry "rich invention", "sweet smooth lines 
 held precious" ; he constantly despises "this common beast 
 the multitude." Here it seems that Marston had Ben Jonson 
 in mind. The most frequent charges against Jonson were 
 that he was arrogant, full of self-conceit, had poor clothes, 
 satirized society, was exactly a "translating scholar". He 
 
 27 
 
himself says of Horace-Jonson in the Poetaster, that he is 
 accused of "his self-love, his arrogancy and his impudence in 
 commending his own things and his translating." 12 The only 
 other person who has been suggested for the model is Marston 
 himself 1 "'; we have seen that part of the portrait seemed to 
 express his feelings, but he was no translator, nor poor, nor, 
 so far as we know, did he write arrogantly, but rather with 
 perhaps too much outward humility 14 - 
 
 If it be Jonson at whom the character of Chrisoganus was 
 aimed — and it seems almost certain — in what spirit was it 
 written ? On the whole, evidently in one of praise. He may 
 be called the hero of the play, the only high-souled character 
 shown. The play, as the title indicates, was directed chiefly 
 against the adult players, and especially Monday, whom Jon- 
 son was also satirizing in The Case is Altered and Every Man 
 In; so far Marston would be acting as an ally. 
 
 But Chrisoganus is shown to be exactly what Jonson is ; 
 he is attacked as well as praised ; and we know from the 
 Poetaster and elsewhere that Jonson did not view himself 
 in a well-balanced way, but was almost absurdly arrogant. 
 Marston took the old unreal morality figure, and turned it into 
 a satirist and dramatist, with sharp temper and great arro- 
 gance- He shows how Pride attacked the characters of the 
 play, including Chrisoganus : puffed up with a sense of his 
 own worth Chrisoganus demands an extraordinary price for 
 a play, and falls into a rage when he fails to succeed. Quite 
 aside from general satire, it seems very probable that we have 
 
 12 Chrisoganus, when under the influence of Envy, talks just as 
 Macilente does in Every Man Out — an example of the close connec- 
 tion in tone between Jonson and Marston. Baskerville (pp. 298-9) 
 has collected a considerable number of parallels between Histrio. and 
 the Poetaster, showing the probability of some conscious or uncon- 
 scious connection. 
 
 Penniman suggests (Introd. Poetaster, p. xlvii) that Marston is 
 putting into Chrisoganus' mouth, the charges Jonson had made against 
 Monday (Antonio Balladino), in The Case is Altered. 
 
 "Simpson (School of Shakespeare, II, Introd. to Histrio.) was the 
 first critic to give this play any special attention. He believed that 
 Chrisoganus was meant to represent Marston himself, but with Jonson 
 as an ideal, and hence borrowing many Jonsonian traits. But C. is 
 not altogether an ideal character. 
 
 14 Save here and there in the satires, where his rule demanded im- 
 periousness. 
 
 28 
 
here a mischievous caricaturing of some special incident in 
 Jonson's career as a playwright 15 . Marston would be quite 
 capable of showing both sides of Jonson ; apparently praising 
 him, by showing him as a learned and good man, and at the 
 same time exposing his failings. Jonson would need no more 
 incitement to quarrel ; he had not altered his characteristics 
 when, a score of years later, Drummond wrote of him (Jan.. 
 1616): 
 
 "He is a great lover and praiser of himself — thinketh nothing well 
 but that either he himself or some of his friends or countrymen hath 
 said or done — jealous of every word and action of those about him; 
 he is passionately kind and angry — interpreteth best sayings and deeds 
 often to the worst." 
 
 I believe that this rather ambiguous characterization was 
 the starting-point of the whole stage-quarrel. Marston very 
 probably did not expect such a result. Judging from their 
 reconciliations and from the tone of passages which Marston 
 seems to have inspired in Satiromastix 16 , Marston had a sin- 
 cere liking for the "passionately kind and angry" Jonson. But 
 when Marston's satiric, saturnine, observing disposition 
 coupled with his genuine ability as a writer met Jonson's sus- 
 picious temper and arrogance, conflict was inevitable. It is 
 interesting to imagine the circumstances of the scene when 
 burly Ben "beat him. took his pistol from him", with Jonson's 
 English sturdiness contrasted to Marston's Italian strain. 
 
 Marston's Posthaste has been thought by some to be intended 
 for Shakespeare 17 . Their case rests on a line in the burlesque 
 interlude of Troilus and Cressida (II, 273) : 
 
 "That when he shakes his furious Speare" 
 where we have a conjunction of the name of Shakespeare 
 and that of one of his plays. However, the facts show it to 
 be a coincidence. It takes bold guesswork to place any of 
 
 15 Baskerville (p. 302f.) suggests Jonson's disgrace in connection 
 with his trouble over the Isle of Dogs. That he was 'provoked for 
 three years on every stage' may indicate lampooning arising from this. 
 Histriomastix might present a burlesque of this quarrel between 
 Jonson and the players. Jonson, ashamed of the Isle of Dogs, might 
 well resent such a half-favorable reference to it. Crispinus in Poet. 
 is made the poet for players, like Chrisoganus in this play. 
 
 "Cf. infra, p. 73 f. 
 
 ' 7 Simpson, School of Shakespeare; H. Wood, Am. J. Phil. XVI, 3. 
 
 •20 
 
Shakespearean work on Troilus and Cressida before 1599. 
 The resemblance of the interlude is anything but close to the 
 passage in Troilus and Cressida (V, ii) with which it is 
 usually compared. What was parodied was probably a Troilus 
 and Cressida now lost, on which Dekker and Chettle were 
 engaged by Henslowe in April-May, 1599. Numerous 
 examples of the coincidence of shake and spear in literature 
 have been collected by Small and Hoppe, none of which can 
 possibly refer to Shakespeare. 
 
 It is much more probable that Posthaste was intended for 
 Monday. In the older part of the play we have seen that 
 the characteristics of the two were not unlike. Marston adds 
 much that is particular ; what we know of Monday so closely 
 corresponds that the personal satire seems established 18 - 
 
 Marston did not alter the older writer's conception of the 
 players 19 . The old author did not think much of the dramatic 
 profession, and let it be seen ; Marston was writing for a 
 children's company, and so was at liberty to berate the common 
 players. 
 
 It is probable that "Mr. Maxton, the new poet" of Hens- 
 lowe's diary was Marston ; it is quite possible, as Small sur- 
 mises, that the unnamed play for which he was paid was 
 Robert II, King of Scotte's Tragedy. If so, we find Marston 
 collaborating with J on son and two others in September. 1599 
 — in itself not at all unlikely 20 . 
 
 Both parts of Antonio and Mellida we know to have been 
 on the stage in 1599 21 , but there was no further satire on any 
 dramatist in these plays as first acted 22 . Indeed, Marston 
 copied some of the humours Jonson had made popular in his 
 first Humour play. 
 
 "For parallels, see Small, Stage Quarrel, p. 173 f. 
 
 18 The only instance of much individuality is in the players' song 
 preceding the Troilus interlude, with its mention of the three and 
 four companies. Too much stress should not be put upon the words 
 of an obscure song. 
 
 20 About the same time Dekker and Jonson were collaborating on 
 the Page of Plymouth. 
 
 "Wallace cannot be far wrong when he dates A. and M. in the 
 first half of 1599, and A's. R. in November. 
 
 22 Cf. infra, Appendix D. 
 
 30 
 
EVERY MAN OUT OF HIS HUMOUR 
 
 Jonson's retort to what he rightly or wrongly considered 
 the insult of the Chrisoganus, was in this his next play, which 
 was produced about the end of the century 1 . Two characters 
 in the play have commonly been spoken of as intended to 
 represent Marston — Carlo Buffone and Clove. I believe 
 neither identification is correct. That of Carlo Buffone is still 
 in dispute 2 , and there are difficulties in any identification of 
 the character with a single person. The most prominent 
 characteristic cf Carlo is that he is "a public, scurrilous and 
 profane jester;" "no honorable or reverend person whatso- 
 ever can come within reach of his eye, but is turned into all 
 manner of variety, by his adulterate similes." 
 
 "O, 'tis an open-throated, black-mouthed cur, 
 
 That bites at all, but eats on those that feed him." " 
 
 His second most important characteristic is that he is a 
 great glutton and wine-bibber, and plays the toady to be 
 invited to supper. Everyone fears him for his wit, and 
 despises him for his lack of heart. Carlo fears the quick- 
 saturnine spirit of Macilente, who in turn "hates him as he 
 hates the devil". 
 
 The principal reason for the identification of Carlo with 
 Marston is a line in II, i. where Puntarvolo addresses him, 
 "Thou grand Scourge, or Second Untruss of the Time." 
 It will be remembered that Hall's Virgidemiarum, or 
 
 1 The play speaks of being acted in the spring, and of "this year 
 of jubilee coming on". J., after his slow habit, "scarce a play a year," 
 had presumably been working on this play ever since he had finished 
 Every Man In, in the autumn of 1598. Cf. Baskerville, p. 144, n. 2: 
 "E. M. O. was doubtless finished toward the end of 1599, N. S." 
 Wallace, Child, of Chapel, dates it "ca. Aug. '09." 
 
 2 Fleay has identified Carlo as' both Marston (Chr. I, 97) and Dek- 
 ker (I, 360). Marston has been named by Herford in D. N. B., Sy- 
 monds, Penniman and Schelling (Elic. Dra. I, 481; 1907.) Small 
 {Stage Quarrel) after Gifford suggested Charles Chester as the 
 original, and has convinced Thorndike (Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., VI, 
 Ch. ii) and partially Schelling (Everyman ed. of Jonson. I, p. xiv, 
 1910.) Bullen named Dekker (D. N. B.) 
 
 3 In Every Man Out, Carlo is described in the Character of Per- 
 sons prefixed to the play; toward the end of the Prologue; the play 
 passim, especially I, i ; IV, iv ; V. iv, where his lips are sealed with 
 wax. 
 
 31 
 
'harvest of rods', was followed by the Scourge of Villainy 
 by Marston, who thus became in a sense the second English 
 satirist, scourge, or 'untruss' of the time*. But this is almost 
 the only likeness between Carlo and Marston, while there 
 aiv many differences; Carlo, for instance, was not in any way 
 connected with the stage or literature, and in no way resembles 
 Jonson's later avowed portrait of Marston in Crispinus- Does 
 not the line in question mean simply that, as Marston had 
 been widely known for his Scourge of Villainy, so Carlo was 
 a second such figure, in that he railed at everyone? At any 
 rate, the differences in the characters are so great that if there 
 be any identity, which I doubt, it must be only a momentary 
 one. I believe that Carlo partly is drawn from the figure of 
 Charles Chester, and partly is simply a type, one of Jonson's 
 Humour-characters r> . 
 
 * Marston does not use the word untruss or untrusser, but at the 
 end of S. V. IX he wrote: 
 
 "I'll strip you nak't, and whip you with my rhymes, 
 Causing your shame to live to after-times." 
 
 5 The arguments against Chester are not so strong as those for 
 him. Aubrey, sometimes over-credulous, in his Life of Raleigh (II, 
 184) said: 
 
 "From Dr. Pell: In his youthful time, was one Charles Chester, 
 that often kept company with his acquaintance; he was a bold im- 
 pertinent fellow, and they could never be quiet for him ; a perpetual 
 talker, and made a noise like a drum in a room. So one time in a 
 tavern Sir W. R. beats him and seals up his mouth [i. e. his upper 
 and nether beard] with hard wax. From him Ben Jonson takes his 
 Carlo Buffone in Every Man Out of His Humour." 
 
 The objections of Gifford can be answered. In Raleigh's youth 
 Jonson was very young; hut "In his youthful time" may refer not to 
 Raleigh, hut to Fell. Even though the incident had occurred a score 
 of years before E. M. O. it would not be unlike Jonson to adopt it. 
 Chester was well known at the end of the century — he is mentioned 
 twice in Harrington's Metamorphosis of Ajax. Gifford could see no 
 likeness between Chester and Carlo ; to me they seem remarkably alike. 
 
 If Carlo be drawn from Chester, at least in part, it does not neces- 
 sarily follow that Puntarvolo, who seals Carlo's mouth, is taken from 
 Raleigh. On this matter cf. Hart's ed. of Jonson, I, xxxviif. ; II, ixf. 
 Penniman, ed. of Poetaster, p. lv. Small, Stage Quarrel, pp. 36, 47. 
 Baskerville, p. 174-5, 197n. 
 
 In the Dedication to Volponc Jonson seems to admit doing some- 
 thing similar to using Chester: "Where have I been particular? where 
 personal? except to a mimic, cheater, bawd or buff on?" 
 
 Is it not possible that Johnson was intending a pun: Carlo Buffone, 
 Charles Jester, (Chester) ? 
 
It frequently has been declared that Clove and Orange 
 represent Marston and Dekker, whereas in reality they are 
 only type figures. They are best described by Cordatus in 
 the only scene in which they appear, III, ii : 
 
 "A couple, sir, that are mere strangers to the whole scope of our 
 play . . . Tis as dry an Orange as ever grew : nothing but salu- 
 tation, and O Lord, sir, and, It pleases you to say so, sir ! one that 
 can laugh at a jest for company with a most plausible and extemporal 
 grace ; and some hour after in private ask you what it was. The 
 other monsieur, Clove, is a more spiced youth ; he will sit you a 
 whole afternoon sometimes, in a bookseller's shop, reading the Greek, 
 Italian, and Spanish, when he understands not a word of either." 
 
 Clove exemplifies this, by talking three nonsense sentences 
 filled with big words, when he is in the hearing of some 
 auditors. Two of the sentences use no especially Marstonian 
 words ; but the second of the three runs as follows ( words 
 especially used by Marston italicised) : 
 
 CLOVE. Now, sir, whereas the ingenuity of the time and the 
 soul's synderisis are but embrions in nature, added to the paunch of 
 Esquiline, and the intervallum of the Zodiac, besides the ecliptic line 
 being optic, and not mental, but by the contemplative and theoric part 
 thereof, doth demonstrate to us the vegetable circumferancc, and the 
 ventuosity of the tropics, and whereas our intellectual, or mincing 
 caprcal (according to the metaphysics) as you may read in Plato's 
 Histriomastix — You conceive me, sir? 
 
 ORANGE. O lord, sir!" 
 
 It is easy to perceive how Clove represents pretentious 
 ignorance, and Orange the absence of any thought at all. It 
 is these general types that Jonson is presenting. They are 
 given no personal characteristics save the one trait jonson 
 wished to satirize. Even the language Clove uses was not 
 meant primarily to satirize Marston, for his first and last 
 paragraphs contain only three long words found in Marston, 
 and those not uncommon ones". Indeed, when the words 
 distinctively Marstonian, and so likely to be used in ridiculing 
 him, are sought, the;,- are reduced to two phases, paunch of 
 
 "Meteors, mathematical and Pythagorical (only Pythagoras is 
 found in Marston). In the third paragraph, in which these occur, 
 is to be found also a reference to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, III, ii ; 
 "Oh, judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts." 
 
Esquiline and mincing capreal, and two words, synderisis, and 
 intellectual used as a noun. None of the words in this passage 
 did J on son in the Poetaster cause Crispinus-Marston to dis- 
 gorge save ventuosity — and that has not been discovered in 
 Marston's works. 
 
 Jonson, looking about for long words to fill up the preten- 
 tious patter-speech of Clove, evidently thought of Marston's 
 recent play Histriomastix, which, like all of Marston's work, 
 had a peculiar vocabulary, — even the title was a word such 
 as Jonson was seeking. Besides, there was a chance of paying 
 back for Chrisoganus, whom Marston had made somewhat 
 like Jonson, and then called "Prating scholar", and told "Go, 
 get you clothes !" So it would be natural for Jonson to use 
 from Histriomastix such unusual words as he might remember, 
 and even go to the Scourge of Villainy and pick out a few 
 strange words 7 - To make the reference certain, and because 
 the word fitted his purpose, he even used the title, Histrio- 
 mastix. 
 
 Thus he struck a blow at Marston in passing, but this was 
 not the reason for his creation of Clove and Orange, nor was 
 what little character they have, derived from Marston or 
 Dekker 8 . 
 
 JACK DRUM'S ENTERTAINMENT 
 
 The next phase of the quarrel is to be found in Jack Drum's 
 Entertainment 1 , which was produced in i6co, the year after 
 
 'Especially from Satires VIII-X. There are eight words from 
 Histriomastix (mostly from the non-Marstonian astronomy of the 
 first act) and eight from the Scourge of Villainy; though the three 
 in the last paragraph may not be from Marston at all. 
 
 Small argues that Jonson was not aiming at Marston since words 
 from the old Histrio. are used. But Jonson would not pick and 
 choose between different parts of the play ; indeed he probably was 
 ignorant of the older school-play. 
 
 8 There is no reason to believe Jonson and Dekker were at odds 
 as early as this ; had they been, the only reason for believing that 
 Orange represented Dekker is that he is the companion of Clove- 
 Marston. We do not know of Marston's and Dekker's relations at 
 this time. 
 
 ' Bullen excludes /. D. and Histrio from his edition of Marston only 
 because 'they are of little value and easily accessible' (I, p. lii, n.), 
 scarcely sufficient reasons. The text used for these two plays is that 
 of Simpson's School of Shakespeare, compared with facsimile reprints. 
 
 34 
 
Histriomastix and Every Man Out'. It was published anony- 
 mously, but there can be no doubt of Marston's authorship, 
 so plain is his marked style and vocabulary 3 . Critics have 
 made numerous guesses at the originals of some of the char- 
 acters, for the most part without any basis of fact. 
 
 Some of the characteristics of Brabant Senior were intended 
 as a hit at Jonson. Brabant was a rather foolish, well-to-do 
 man, whose chief delight was in gathering about him those 
 at whom he could laugh- He is the practical joker who shows 
 oft the weak sides of his companions. Near the end of the 
 first act lie says : 
 
 "Why, this is sport imperial, by my gentry ! I would spend forty 
 crowns, for such another feast of fools . . . Why, 'tis the recrea- 
 tion of my intellect . . . These are my zanies; I fill their paunches, 
 they feel my pleasures ; I use them as my fools, faith, ha, ha !" 
 
 He is conceited, and dislikes all "our modern wits" ; thus 
 he detracts, when the company are praising the Children of 
 Pauls : 
 
 "Aye, and if they had good plays. But they produce 
 
 Such musty fopperies of antiquity, 
 
 And do not suit the humorous age's backs 
 
 With clothes of fashion. 
 
 PLANET. Well, Brabant, well, you will be censuring still. 
 
 There lies a jest in steep, will whip you for't." 4 
 
 This jest comes at the end of the play. Brabant becomes 
 a self-made cuckold, after setting John fo de King to attempt 
 Brabant's wife, in whose chastity he mistakenly trusts. Planet 
 forces a horned hat upon Brabant, saying : 
 
 2 It is dated from references to the Irish rebellion and especially 
 to leapyear ("What! 'tis woman's year!" — I, 66). 
 
 % Simpson, and Small (Stage Quarrel, pp. 94-5) have given suffi- 
 cient evidence of Marston's authorship. Many of the words Jonson 
 ridicules in the Poet, are found only in /. D. E. among Marston's 
 works. A few parallels to Marston not before given are : Introd., 
 25-6: W. Y. W., II, i, 51. I, 162: S. V. Ill, 25. I, 222; S. V. IX, 56, 
 A. & M. II, i, 151. I, 346; Sat. iii, 81.! \l, 123: A. & M. Ill, ii, 188. 
 [, 127: W. Y. W. II, i, 72-3, III, 64f: cf. Laverdure in W. Y. W. 
 II, i, esp. 1. 157. IV, 124: A. R. II, ii, 219. 
 
 4 V, 102. In Brabant's words Marston seems to be alluding to some 
 criticism of Jonson upon Histriomastix. 
 
"Why dost thou not well deserve to be thus used? 
 Why should'st thou take felicity to gull 
 Good honest souls, and in thy arrogance 
 And glorious ostentation of thy wit, 
 Think God infused all perfection 
 Into thy soul alone, and made the rest 
 For thee to laugh at? Now, you Censurer, 
 Be the ridiculous subject of our mirth. 
 Why, fool, the power of Creation 
 Is still omnipotent, and there's no man that breathes 
 So valiant, learned, witty, or so wise, 
 But it can equal him out of the same mould 
 Wherein the first was formed. Then leave proud scorn, 
 And, honest self-made cuckold, wear the horn." 
 
 One of Jonson's prominent characteristics in his humour 
 comedies is his lack of sympathy with almost all of those he 
 portrays. The only ones whom he depicts favorably are those 
 who draw out fools or persons with humours, and make them 
 appear ridiculous. It is natural for a dramatist to ally him- 
 self with knowledge and wit against folly ; but Jonson does 
 this in a particularly heartless way, coldly and in what would 
 be an almost inhuman manner if his gulls were felt to be alive, 
 instead of being, for the most part, only careful mechanical 
 constructions of the dramatist's able brain. The character of 
 Brabant Senior in Jack Drum's Entertainment is aimed against 
 this aspect of Jonson's plays. Brabant is made as foolish as 
 his dupes, and Marston takes their side against him, making 
 him fall into the pit that he digged for others. I do not 
 believe that the figure of Brabant Senior on the stage was 
 intended to bring the figure of Jonson before the eyes of the 
 audience ; but Marston was combating a literary device of 
 Johnson's, and more than that, a real and fundamental failing 
 — lack of human sympathy. The play was not intended to 
 imply that Ben Jonson went about London with a train of 
 simpletons, in order to amuse himself ; but it attacked Jonson 
 because he apparently sympathised with those of his characters 
 who on the stage did just that 5 . A part of the last speech 
 quoted : 
 
 6 Marston was taking the same stand as Sidney : "and the great 
 fault, even in that point of laughter, and forbidden plainly by Aris- 
 totle, is that they stir laughter in sinful things, which are rather 
 execrable than ridiculous ; or in miserable, which are rather to be 
 pitied than scorned." (Defense of Poesie, Cook, p. 51). 
 
 36 
 
"Why should'st thou . . . 
 
 in thy arrogance 
 And glorious ostentation of thy wit, 
 Think God infused all perfection 
 Into thy soul alone, and made the rest 
 For thee to laugh at?", 
 
 might have been intended to apply directly to J orison in 
 propria persona, in reference to the magniloquent introduction 
 to the Every Man out of his Humour- 
 In brief. Marston did not put Jonson himself on the stage, 
 or satirize him personally, in the person of Brabant Senior. 
 What he did was to rebuke Jonson for a characteristic of 
 his dramas, and incidentally satirize his arrogance, and his 
 disdain for contemporary literature . 
 
 Many guesses have been made as to the meaning of the 
 minor characters. Planet seems to represent the author. He 
 is a representative of the Malcontent type, discontented with 
 life in general, and delighted in exposing its pettiness. He is 
 not intended, of course, to be Marston, but simply to express 
 his views of life. In general, he represents the norm of reason, 
 from which the other characters more or less widely depart. 
 It is evident he is largely modeled on Jonson's Macilente. 
 
 Several critics have asserted that Marston is portraying 
 himself in Young Brabant 7 . The only grounds for this belief 
 are in a single passage (I, 227-32) : 
 
 "Indeed young Brabant is a proper man ; 
 
 And yet his legs are somewhat of the least; 
 
 And, faith, a chitty, well-complexioned face ; 
 
 And yet it wants a beard ; a good sweet youth . . ." 
 
 ( 'rispinus-Marston also has little legs; but lie has a red 
 beard. Besides, Young Brabant is a jilted and rather foolish 
 lover, of the type Marston so often satirized. 
 
 There is a passage in the fourth act (II, 37f.) where 
 Brabant Senior depreciates the poets of the day 8 . He heads 
 
 '' Cf. infra. 
 
 Fleay and Simpson believe that Brabant Senior was meant for Hall. 
 But it was not that kind of scourging satire that Marston was attack- 
 ing in this play, but rather that which displayed the foolish with- 
 out sympathy. 
 
 "Simpson, School of Shakespeare, II, 120; Fleay, Chr. II, 74; Pen- 
 niman, War, 72. 
 
 8 Cf. the idea of the opening of the // Return from Parnassus ; 
 infra, p. 7!'. 
 
 :^7 
 
the list with "the new poet Mellidus", where he is probably 
 referring to Marston himself, as author of Antonio and 
 Mellida. In what is perhaps an adaptation, of some criticism 
 of Jonson, he calls him "a slight bubbling spirit, a cork, a 
 husk." 
 
 Musus in this passage has been called either Chapman, who 
 finished Marlowe's Hero and Lcandcr, taken from Museaus; 
 or Daniel, whom Drayton 9 called "the sweet Museaus of these 
 times." These are simply guesses, as is the one which links 
 the Decius of the passage with Drayton, simply because he is 
 so denominated in an epigram (not entered till 1610) of John 
 Davies. Not enough is said about any of these poets, save 
 perhaps Mellidus, to identify them with any contemporary, if 
 indeed Marston had particular men in mind- 
 
 Fleay has a mass of conjectures regarding this play, for 
 few of which he has anything like proof. He supposes Jonson 
 to be indicated in the character of John fo de King, partly 
 I suppose because of the similarity of names ; and partly be- 
 cause Jonson told Drummond "that a man made his own wife 
 to court him [i. e., Jonson], whom he enjoyed two years ere 
 he knew of it, and one day finding them by chance, was 
 passingly delighted with it", while John fo de King was 
 invited by Brabant Senior to court Brabant's wife, in jest, but 
 the courting proved too successful. John was a Frenchman 
 whose whole aim in life was lust. Penniman, who argues in 
 favor of the identification, admits too much when he says : 
 
 "Although to us the character of Monsieur John fo de King does 
 not seem to resemble Jonson, yet stage 'business' and mimicry were 
 possibly introduced in presenting these plays, so that to the audience 
 it was perfectly clear who was represented." 
 
 No 'business' or mimicry could have made John, with his 
 accent, his constant offers to 'teach French' and his burning 
 lust, into the scholar and poet Jonson 10 . 
 
 ' In Endimion and Phoebe, 1594. 
 
 10 Penniman further says (p. 71): "Marston probably refers to 
 the attack made on him in the 'fustian' conversation between Clove 
 and Orange, when he makes Planet say: 'By the Lord, fustian, now 
 I understand it: compliment is as much as fustian.'" (Ill, 87.) 
 There is absolutely no allusion to Every Man Out in this chance use 
 of the word fustian, which is clearly prepared for and called out by 
 the context. It is such dragging in of far-fetched allusions which 
 do not allude to anything, that makes some criticism on the stage- 
 quarrel so ridiculous. o0 
 
 00 
 
Fleay identifies Sir Edward Fortune, the care-free revelling 
 father, with Edward Alleyn, who was that year building the 
 Fortune theatre- But the name Fortune seems to be significant 
 only of the knight's wealth and disposition 11 . Mammon he 
 connects with Henslowe, because Mammon is a usurer who 
 is hated by the people. But Mammon is a Jew ; the original 
 list of characters includes "7. Mammon the usurer, with a 
 great nose." 12 
 
 Such a nest of conjecture as the following can only pro- 
 ceed from a wrong conception of the part played by personal 
 satire in Elizabethan drama: "Timothy Tweedle seems very 
 like Anthony Monday, and Christopher Flawn I take to be 
 Christopher Beeston. John Ellis, with his similies, is a gross 
 caricature of John Lily . . . Pasquil is perhaps Nicholas 
 Breton" or Nashe 13 . Few if any plays were cryptogramic 
 mosaics such as this would indicate. It was only the excep- 
 tional Elizabethan play which contained any personal satire, 
 and such satire was almost always limited to a few characters. 
 Audiences could not have been expected to recognize the 
 foibles, more or less disguised, of a dozen authors. 
 
 11 Cf., in other plays of Marston, the names of Feliche, Bilioso, 
 Malheureaux, and many of the characters in the Fawn. Fortune was 
 an elderly father; Alleyn at the time was only thirty-four, and 
 childless. The passage given to Fortune, disdaining to "lean upon 
 the vulgar's rotten love," could not have referred to a popular actor. 
 
 u Fleay believes Sordido in Every Man Out to be Henslowe. This 
 Small disproves. For Mammon's nose, cf. II, 328f. 
 
 "Fleay. No disproof is needed, because no proof can be given, 
 of these identifications of Tweedle and Flawn. The name John Ellis 
 is somewhat like John Lily, but Ellis' foolish similes are not built after 
 the pattern of the similes of Enphues. 
 
 The word Pasquil is equivalent to Pasquin, meaning lampooner or 
 satirist, which is not at all the character of Pasquil in the play ; he 
 is simply the ardent, at times frantic lover of Katherine. Nash some- 
 times wrote under the name of Pasquil, and may have died in this 
 year, 1600. But the fact that Pasquil in the play is supposed to be 
 dead, and that Katharine talks of his ghost, (II, 233) does not neces- 
 sarily imply that Nash is referred to, as Small would have it, (p. 100). 
 
 If a personal reference is needed at all, Pasquil would seem rather 
 to refer to Nicholas Breton, who in this same year published four 
 books whose titles all contained the word "Pasquil's". But Pasquil in 
 the play is not much individualized ; I think his name was merely 
 the adoption of a popular phrase, as was Jack Drum's Entertainment. 
 
 39 
 
Jack Drum's Entertainment, then, represents a distinct at- 
 tack upon a dramatic practice of Jonson's, with incidental 
 references to certain of his personal characteristics. But no 
 one, I believe, was really brought upon the stage in recogniz- 
 able likeness to Jonson. 
 
 CYNTHIA'S REVELS 
 
 The next play to be considered for its bearing on the course 
 of the stage-quarrel is the Cynthia's Revels of Jonson, which 
 was acted probably a little later than Jack Drum's Entertain- 
 ment. Neither play refers to the other, and they were prob- 
 ably composed at about the same time. 1 Cynthia's Revels is 
 a satire on court manners. Two characters only engage our 
 attention : Anaides and Hedon ; each of these has been said 
 by various critics to represent either Marston or Dekker. 
 Both Anaides and Hedon, however, I consider to have repre- 
 sented for the most part types, without personal satire. 
 
 The more commonly accepted interpretation is that Marston 
 is brought on the stage in the character of Hedon, and Dekker 
 in that of Anaides. The main proof advanced is a quotation 
 of the Cynthia's Revels in Satiromastix. Johnson had written 
 (C. R. Ill, ii) : 
 
 "But when I remember 
 'Tis Hedon and Anaides, alas, then 
 I think but what they are, and am not stirred. 
 The one a light voluptuous reveler, 
 The other, a strange arrogating puff, 
 Both impudent and arrogant enough." 
 
 Dekker wrote in Satiromastix (I, ii, 183) : 
 
 "HORACE. That same Crispinus [i. e., Marston] is the silliest 
 dor, and Fannius fi. e., Dekker] the slightest cobweb-lawn piece of a 
 poet, oh God ! 
 
 'Wallace dates it April-May, 1600 (Children of Chapel); Basker- 
 ville (p. 214n), the winter of 1600-1; Small (p. 24), Feb.-Mar. 1601, 
 N. S. Nearly a thousand additional lines appeared in the folio of 
 1616, that had not been in the quarto of 1601. Baskerville (p. 227) 
 believes these lines to have been in the original acting version, but 
 this view is successfully opposed by Judson in his edition of Cynthia's 
 Revels in the Yale Studies (p. x). The lines in question will not be 
 taken up here. The references are to Judson's edition. 
 
 40 
 
Why should I care what every dor doth buzz 
 
 In credulous ears ; it is a crown to me, 
 
 That the best judgments can report me wronged. 
 
 ASINIUS. I am one of them that can report it. 
 
 HOR. 'I think but what they are, and am not moved. 
 
 The one a light voluptuous reveler, 
 
 The other a strange arrogating puff, 
 
 Both impudent and arrogant enough.' 
 ASI. S'lid. do not Criticus revel in these lines, ha, ningle, ha? 
 HOR. Yes, they're my own." 
 
 J orison's lines clearly make Heclon the 'reveler' and 
 Anaides the 'puff'. Most critics have likewise taken for 
 granted that Dekker's lines make Crispinus (Marston) the 
 'reveler' and Fannius (Dekker) the 'puff'. But this is by no 
 means certain. Six lines intervene between the mention of 
 the names, and that of their attributes; the original speaker 
 ha> been interrupted by another. The quotation from 
 Cynthia's Revels seems to be in a rather different train of 
 thought and not connected closely with the mention of Cris- 
 pinus and Fannius. Even if some reference does exist, in 
 such a hastily written play the order of names, 'Crispinus 
 and Fannius', may well have been inverted in the quotation 
 of 'reveler and puff'. At the best, these passages cannot bear 
 the entire weight of the identification, as Small, for example, 
 in his elaborate treatment of the point, assumes. 2 
 
 It may be taken for granted that Jonson meant Crites, the 
 speaker of the lines in Cynthia's Revels, to represent, not 
 exactly Jonson himself, but the ideal critic, imbued with Jon- 
 son's ideals, and acting as Jonson would have desired to act. 
 Attacks on him would be understood to be attacks on Jonson- 
 
 Hedon is twice described in the play at some length — in 
 the Induction, and near the beginning of Act II. He is a 
 courtier par excellence, 'a gallant wholly consecrated to his 
 pleasures.' He has little money, but makes a great show, with 
 fine clothes and 'a fencer, a pedant and a musician seen in 
 his lodgings a-mornings'. He courts ladies with telling of 
 his exploits in the mock tournaments; he is always over- 
 
 ''Judson (Cyn. Rev. p. 71) think that Dekker did not intend any 
 identification when introducing the passage, but was merely ridiculing 
 "the pompous egoism of Crites-Horace-Jonson". This is quite prob- 
 able. 
 
 41 
 
perfumed. Naturally he is opposed to the sham-hating Crites, 
 of whom he says (IV, v, 50) : 
 
 "I wonder the fellow does not hang himself, being thus scorn'd 
 and contemned of us that are held the most accomplished society of 
 gallants ... I protest, if I had no music in me, no courtship, 
 that I were not a reveler and could dance, or had not those excellent 
 qualities that give a man life and perfection, but a mere poor scholar 
 as he is, I think I should make some desperate way with myself; 
 whereas now — would I might never breathe more, if I do know that 
 creature in this kingdom with whom I would change." 
 
 We have one picture which Jonson drew avowedly of 
 Marston — Crispinus . in the Poetaster. The best test of 
 whether Hedon be intended to satirize Marston is to compare 
 Hedon and Crispinus; and we shall find the likeness small. 
 Hedon is an assured courtier, and apparently little else; Cris- 
 pinus is "a gentleman born", to be sure, but he is a newcomer 
 to court, who is able to say nothing save to commend others' 
 jests. Hedon does not seem to be worried about money, has 
 a retinue and fine clothes ; Crispinus is poor, pursued by bail- 
 iffs, and threadbare. They are both rhymers rather than poets ; 
 but Crispinus intends to be a poet, while Hedon disdains the 
 name as unbecoming to a courtier. Nowhere in the play does 
 Hedon use any suggestion of Crispinus' style. Jonson had 
 already noted the oddity of Marston's vocabulary (in Every 
 Man Out) : had he intended a portrayal of Marston, would he 
 not at least once have used a Marstonian expression, or at any 
 rate some of his model's harshness of manner? Hedon, with 
 his "By the tip of your ear, sweet lady" — "By the white 
 valley that lies between the alpine hills of your bosom, I 
 protest — ", is the exact opposite. Both Hedon and Crispinus 
 sing; but in a play written for presentation by a Childrens' 
 Company, very little can be inferred from that. Both Hedon 
 and Crispinus are contemptuous of the character standing for 
 Jonson ; but they take quite a different attitude toward him : 
 Hedon scorns and contemns him, while Crispinus desires to 
 be friendly with him, and only when he is repulsed becomes 
 his enemy. Hedon and Anaides, though unlike, are social 
 equals, and friendly ; Crispinus is familiar with Demetrius, but 
 superior to him. 
 
 Thus the only important likeness is that both Hedon and 
 Crispinus belong to pairs of characters who are enemies of 
 
 42 
 
Jonson (in so far as he puts himself into his plays), 
 does not of course aid in distinguishing Hedon from Anaides. 
 A fairly good case has been made out for the identification of 
 Hedon with Daniel 3 ; at any rate he is much more probably 
 Daniel than Marston. Had it not been for the Satiromcstix 
 lines, no one would have picked out Hedon as representing 
 Marston. The truth of the matter seems to be that Hedon 
 was primarily intended as a satire on a type of courtier, closely 
 corresponding to Fastidious Brisk and Mirston's Castilio — 
 the elegant, dapper courtier who is somewhat effeminate- 
 Some traits of Daniel may have been in Jonson's mind ; but 
 there was no reference to Marston, or to Dekker. 
 
 There is somewhat more doubt concerning the significance 
 of Anaides, because he is not such an utter opposite to Mar- 
 ston as was Hedon. He is fully described in the Induction 
 and II, i. He is more of the ordinary gallant than the cour- 
 tier, though "he has two essential parts of the courtier, pride 
 and ignorance . . . 'Tis Impudence itself, Anaides." He 
 jests brazenly, and is extremely blasphemous. He has had 
 land come to him by chance; he will give no money to a friend 
 in need, but "Marry, to his cockatrice or punquetto, half a 
 dozen taffeta gowns or satin kirtles in a pair or two of months, 
 why, they are nothing." He is said by other courtiers (IV, i 
 33f.) to have 'a small voice, a very imperfect face, hands too 
 great, by at least a straw's breadth, and they say he puts off 
 the calves of his legs, with his stockings, every night'. He 
 hates Crites, despises him because he is a scholar, and fears 
 him on account of his satire. 
 
 What resemblances can be found in Anaides to Crispinus 
 or to what is otherwise known of Marston? His name, Im- 
 pudence, reminds one of Crispinus thrusting himself upon 
 Horace ; but that incident was only adapted from Horace, and 
 the types of impudence are different — one overbearing, the 
 other servile. Anaides is not the absolute courtier, a.s was 
 Hedon, but an arrogant and ignorant gallant; in this he is 
 somewhat nearer Crispinus. He 'speaks all that comes in 
 his cheeks, and cannot blush', a phrase which might have been 
 applied to Marston. His small legs, which are called a sign 
 
 1 Penniman, War, 81-4 ; Poetaster Introd., xxxviii ; Baskerville, 
 Eng. Elements in Jonson's Early Comedies, 120-2. 
 
 43 
 
of gentility, are also assigned to Crispinus ; but here in 
 Cynthia? s Revels the scene is evidently satirizing the ladies of 
 the court for their foolish reasons of preference. 
 
 Anaides is attended by Gelaia, laughter, the daughter of 
 Moria, folly ; Gelaia is attired as a page. He says of her 
 (IV, iii), "I have not humoured Arete [i.e., virtue], that is 
 held the worthiest lady in court, next to Cynthia, with half 
 that observance and respect, as I have done her [Gelaia] in 
 private." and he is furiously angry when he thinks her untrue. 
 In this curious allegorical episode, Jonson seems to mean that 
 Anaides loved to produce foolish laughter; became angry 
 with it and scorned it when used by others, but wished to use 
 it himself again, respecting it far more than wisdom. If 
 Anaides were intended to be Marston, perhaps Gelaia might 
 refer to his comedies; or the "wench in page's attire" might 
 refer to Marston's satire, which was merely disguised sensu- 
 ality. But these allegorical meanings are farfetched, and 
 probably unnecessary. It is best taken as an example of the 
 impudence of a certain type of courtier, giving him an oppoi- 
 tunity for the exhibition of his foul temper. 4 
 
 Certainly Anaides abuses Crites-Jonson, plots against him, 
 and charges him with plagiarism, as does Crispinus. Other 
 likenesses, to sum them up, are few. He has the name of 
 Impudent, and a coarse and cruel humor; pride in station and 
 rank, as Crispinus in gentility, and, as a single physical re- 
 semblance, small legs. 
 
 There is a much greater resemblance to the class of Jonson's 
 figures represented by Tucca and especially Carlo Buffone. 
 Here his impudence, looseness, oaths and coarseness corre- 
 spond with the unblushing bravado of Tucca and Carlo. No 
 one would think of calling Crispinus a "swaggering coach- 
 horse," but it would fit the others. When Anaides in his 
 anger says to Hedon, "I will garter my hose with your guts," 
 he is talking somewhat in Marston's vein, as Penniman in- 
 sists ; but even more like Bobadill and his successors, Carlo 
 and Tucca. In short, his whole tone is that belonging to this 
 
 4 Baskerville says (p. 270), "Gelaia is one of the most piquant 
 figures in the play, but I know of no similar treatment in literature." 
 He mentions a slight resemblance to Pipenetta in Lily's Midas (p. 
 240). Certainly the incident does not sound like one of Jonson's own 
 invention, and knowing his habits, one would expect a classical source. 
 
 44 
 
type of the impudent, loud-mouthed, bullying jester, and is 
 not at all that of Crispinus-Marston. It seems that he is a 
 type-figure, perhaps with certain traits drawn directly from 
 life, but not from either Marston or Dekker. I can find no 
 sure reference in the entire play to either of them. 
 
 Small identified Hedon with Marston chiefly upon the 
 evidence of the pasage in Satiromastix, which is very uncertain 
 ground. He also tried unsuccessfully to identify Hedon with 
 Crispinus. Penniman took Anaides to be Marston, from a 
 still more unwarranted use of the Satiromastix passage, and 
 because he had already wrongly identified Carlo Ruffone with 
 Marston, on the strength of a single passage- 
 In Cynthia's Revels we have Jonson writing a play primarily 
 against the follies of courtiers. He was not writing it pur- 
 posely against his detractors, as he was to do in the Poetaster. 
 But having, perhaps, 'too much ego in his cosmos', he took 
 the opportunity of showing himself, in the character of Crites, 
 undergoing undeserved detraction. Probably his thought was 
 that Crites was simply an emblem of virtue persecuted but 
 finally victorious. I do not believe he identified any character 
 with Marston. He used in the play a trifling man of pleasure, 
 such as Fastidious Brisk had been ; and a truculent, swearing, 
 impudent man, such as Bobadill, Carlo Buffone and Tucca 
 were. Both types of characters were elevated, however, to 
 fit their court surroundings ; instead of city-gallants or bluster- 
 ing sham-soldiers, he showed courtiers. He opposed to 1 them 
 a figure which possessed many of his own characteristics ; 
 therefore he possibly was led to give them now and then some 
 of the general traits of his enemies. That is as much as we 
 can affirm with tolerable certainty. That the play was chiefly 
 satire upon the affectations of the court is evident; any cle- 
 ment bearing upon the stage-quarrel would have to be thrust 
 in. I do not believe it is to be found. 
 
 WHAT YOU WILL 
 
 Marston's What You Will must be dated between Cynthia's 
 Revels, 1600- 1601. to which it contains references, and the 
 Poetaster, of the early summer of 1601, to which it does not 
 allude. Oddly enough, no allusion of the Poetaster can be 
 traced to What You Will, which seems an easy play to satirize, 
 and which was quite plainly directed against Jonson. The first 
 
 45 
 
known edition of What You Will is that of 1607; this seems 
 to be a revised form, since there are passages where the 
 same character is given two names. 1 Marston may have prof- 
 ited by attacks in the Poetaster on this play, and altered it 
 so that we have lost the clue to Poetaster references. This 
 would also help to explain the fact, that of the thirty-two 
 words and phrases cast up by Crispinus less than half have 
 been found in Marston's works. 2 
 
 The sources of the plot are Plautus' Amphitrito, and Sforza 
 D'Oddi's / Morti Vivi, 1576. But the characters of Lampatho, 
 Quadratus and Simplicius are original with Marston. 
 
 Quadratus in the general plot greatly resembles Planet in 
 that of Jack Drum's Entertainment) Planet was largely repre- 
 sentative of the author. Simultaneously Quadratus is cynic, 
 stoic and epicurean. This appears where he is introduced, 
 scoffing at distracted love. Like Hamlet, he says, "All that 
 exists takes valuation from Opinion, a giddy minion." When 
 the lover jacomo calls on pity and piety, Quadratus pessi- 
 mistically but half jocularly answers : 
 
 "Fetch cords ; he's irrecoverable ; mad, rank mad. 
 
 He calls for strange chimeras, fictions, 
 
 That have no being . . . 
 
 Pity and piety are long since dead . . . 
 
 Ha! Fortune blind? away! 
 How can she, hoodwinked, then so rightly see 
 To starve rich worth and glut iniquity? . . . 
 Love only hate ; affect no higher 
 Than praise of Heaven, wine, a fire." 3 
 
 He laughs at the satirist Lampatho and his follower Simpli- 
 cius as he does at Jacomo. When Lampatho threatens, 
 
 "So Phoebus warm my brain, I'll rhyme thee dead, 
 Look for the satire," 
 
 Quadratus disdains him with mockery and then anger: 
 
 "Rivo ! St. Mark ! Let's talk as light as air ; 
 Unwind youth's colours, display ourselves, 
 
 1 For references, cf. Small, Stage Quarrel, p. 109. 
 
 'Cf. infra. 
 
 * I, i, 40f. Cf. his song near the end of II, i — 
 
 "Music, tobacco, sack and sleep 
 
 The tide of sorrow backward keep, etc' 
 
 46 
 
So that you envy-starved cur may yelp 
 
 And spend his chaps at our fantasticness . . . 
 
 Why, you Don Kinsader ! . . . 
 Think'st thou a libertine, an ungyved breast, 
 Scorns not the shackles of thy envious clogs? 
 You will traduce us into public scorn? 
 LAMPATHO. By this hand I will.' (II, i, 139). 
 
 Quadratus often returns to this subject — Lampatho's at- 
 tempt to restrict gaiety : 
 
 "So't be fantastical 'tis wit's life-blood . . . 
 And I were hanged, I would be choked 
 Fantastically . . . 
 
 Nay, leave protests ; pluck out your snarling fangs . . .Go to, 
 here's my hand ; and you want forty shillings, I am your Mecaenas." 
 
 In IV, i Quadratus is seen praising wine ; he dips in it a 
 sonnet of Lampatho's, "to make it sweet". 
 
 "LAM. I'll be revenged ! 
 
 QUAD. How, prithee? in a play? Come, come, be sociable." 
 
 Quadratus. then, is a mixed character. Sometimes he is 
 gay ; sometimes, as at the end of the play, with the prince, 
 he is almost a malcontent. He frequently satirizes, but the 
 object of his attack is chiefly satire itself, as personified by 
 Lampatho. Most frequently he is a witty hedonist: gallant 
 rich, fat, a firm believer in wine, woman and song, and yet 
 having an undertone of sadness. Marston always depicts him 
 favorably. He was not putting himself on the stage in Quad- 
 ratus, but I believe he was representing his feelings toward 
 life, as they were at that stage of his development. It was a 
 phase full of odd mixtures, of beginnings and endings, and 
 was bound to be a passing one. 
 
 Opposed to Quadratus is Lampatho ; contrasted to the genial, 
 fantastic but clear-witted courtier-satirist is the snarling, en- 
 vious scholar-satirist. It seems clear that Marston is intend- 
 ing to contrast the gentlemanly spirit in which he himself sat- 
 irizes, to the more bitter spirit of Jonson's satire. 
 
 Simplicius, the foolish admirer of Lampatho, introduce s 
 I 
 
 "Do you see that gentleman? He goes but in black satin, as you 
 see, but, by Helicon! he hath a cloth-of-tissue wit. He breaks a jest; 
 
 IT 
 
ha, he'll rail against the court till the gallants — O God, he is very 
 nectar." (II, i, 29). 
 
 The succeeding speech of Lampatho is probably a burlesque 
 of Jonson's manner of speaking : 
 
 "Sir, I protest I not only take distinct notice of your dear rarities 
 of exterior presence, but also I protest I am most vehemently 
 enamoured, and very passionately dote on your inward adornments 
 and habilities of spirit ! I protest I shall be proud to do you most 
 obsequious vassalage." (II, i). 
 
 Lampatho threatens Quadratus, "I'll rhyme thee dead ! Look 
 for the satire !", but Quadratus answers by calling him 
 
 "Thou canker-eaten, rusty cur ! Thou snaffle to freer spirits ! 
 . . . Shall a free-born, . . . quake at the frowns of a ragg'd 
 satirist, a scrubbing railer? 
 
 LAM. O, sir, you are so square * you scorn reproof. 
 
 QUAD. No, sir; should discreet Mastigophoros . . .", 
 
 and he proceeds to parody a speech of Crites in Cynthia's 
 Revels, III, ii, which began, "If good Chrestus" etc. 
 
 During the course of the play Lampatho is gradually re- 
 formed by Quadratus. In the next scene, II, ii, he is shown 
 as melancholy, because his scholarship has brought him so 
 little. There is what seems to be a parody of Jonson's style: 
 
 "I relish not this mirth; my spirit is untwist; 
 My heart is ravelled out in discontents. 
 I am deep-thoughtful, and I shoot my soul 
 Through all creations of omnipotence." 
 
 In III, ii, Lampatho is the typical satirist: 
 
 "Dreadless of racks, strappado, or the sword . . . 
 
 I'll stand as confident as Hercules, 
 
 And with a frightful resolution, 
 
 Rip up and lance our time's impieties." 
 
 But his companions make fun of him as his wrath mounts, 
 until he suddenly subsides, acknowledging : 
 
 * Marston takes the name Quadratus from the four-square, 'entire' 
 man of Senecan philosophy. 
 
 48 
 
"This is the strain that chokes the theatres ; 
 
 That makes them crack with full-stuffed audience ; 
 
 This is your only humour in request, 
 
 Forsooth, to rail . . . This people gape for, . . . 
 
 This admiration and applause pursues," 
 
 but he says his humour is changed and he will rail no more. 
 His arrogance has so diminished, by the end of IV, i, that 
 when a play of his announced, and Jacomo asks, "Is't good? 
 Is't good?" Lampatho answers, 
 
 "I fear 'twill hardly hit. 
 
 QUAD. I like thy fear well ; 'twill have better chance ; 
 
 There's nought more hateful than rank ignorance." 
 
 It turns out (V, i) that the play is "A comedy, entitled 
 Temperance", and the duke greets the name with, "The itch 
 on Temperance, your moral play." 'Temperance' would refer 
 to the moral of Cynthia's Revels. 
 
 Lampatho was obviously meant to bring Jonson to the mind 
 of the audience, and it would seem that the actor who took 
 the part must have impersonated Jonson. He dresses in ragged 
 black (the 'satin' of II, i is perhaps ironical) ; is a 'rusty, 
 fusty scholar' (IV, i) with starved ribs — a 'stiff-jointed, 
 tatter'd, nasty, tabor-faced 5 pedant' (II, i). Likewise 
 Simplicius on the stage may have been made up to suggest one 
 of Jonson's admirers. Lampatho is taunted with "Lamp-oil, 
 watch-candles, rug gowns, and small juice, thin commons, 
 four-o'clock rising," and with being an 'inky scholar' who 
 could not get into the way of the times. Simplicius says of 
 him, 'If you but sip of his love, you were immortal', referring 
 to Jonson's estimate of his own work. He is 'devote to 
 mouldy customs of hoar eld', that is, the classics. His absurd 
 compliments when he first meets Laverdure (II, i) may be 
 paralleled by the rebuke in Satiroma-stix to Horace, when 
 he is compelled to swear not to use "compliment" in the lords' 
 rooms after the play. 
 
 There can be no question of Marston's intent to satirize 
 Jonson in the person of Lampatho 6 , or that we find here a 
 
 "Jonson's lack of a beard is ridiculed in Satiromastix. Cf. infra, 
 pp. G9-70. 
 
 'For an account of the confusion arising from "Don Kinsader" ap- 
 plied to Lampatho, see Appendix C. 
 
 49 
 
fairly accurate if malicious portrait of Jonson. it is interest- 
 ing to compare it with the other satires on Jonson, — Chrys- 
 oganus in Marston's part of Histriomastix, Brabant Senior in 
 Jack Drum, and Horace in Satiromastix. Chrisoganus is 
 much like Lampatho, in so far as they are both poor and 
 bitter satirists. Brabant was not intended as a satire on Jon- 
 son himself, but on one of his literary methods which is not 
 alluded to in What You Will; consequently there is little if 
 any likeness. Horace is a fuller portrait, but cast in the same 
 mould, and only altered by the necessity of adapting the 
 Horace of the Poetaster. 
 
 The real purpose of What You Will, however, was not to 
 attack the person of Jonson, but his last play, Cynthia's Revels. 
 Jonson had made a justified attack on the extremes of court 
 frivolity and mannerism, in a well-worked-up if somewhat 
 cumbrous plan. Marston twisted his meaning, making it 
 appear that Jonson was attacking freedom and jollity, or. at 
 the worst, 'fantasticness', and wrote What You Will to over- 
 throw this man of straw. There are continual allusions to the 
 subject-matter of Cynthia's Revels, and at least two direct 
 parodies 7 . It was to make this satire of the play more effect- 
 ive that he attacked the author as he did, asserting that he 
 was a dull pedant, and a bitter satirist opposed to innocent 
 merriment. To draw this character more sharply, he con- 
 trasted with it a genial, courtly satirist, who might be called 
 Marston's ideal of a maker of satire. The relations of these 
 two iin the play is Marston's picture of the relation between 
 himself and Jonson. It is no wonder that Jonson was furious, 
 and broke his self-imposed and only partially preserved silence 
 to write his answer, the Poetaster. 
 
 The only other personal satire in What You Will is that on 
 Simplicius Faber. He is drawn at greater length in Satiro- 
 
 7 One already referred to, "Should discreet Mastigophorus" etc. ; 
 cf. supra, p. 48. The other follows it ; Quadratus says that railing 
 is the fashion, and that a man can "scarce eat good meat, anchovies, 
 caviare, but he's satired and termed fantastical." Mercury had said 
 of Asotus (Cyn. Rev. II, i), "He doth learn to make strange sauces, 
 to eat anchovies, maccaroni, . . . and caviare, because he loves 
 them." 
 
 50 
 
mastix as Asinius Bubo s . We do not know enough about 
 Jonson's circle to hazard a guess as to the original of 
 Simplicius, but he seems to be taken from real life. 'Faber' 
 might just possibly indicate that the man attacked was named 
 Smith. 9 
 
 THE POETASTER 
 
 This is one of the greatest of English satiric plays. It was 
 produced in the spring of 1601. 1 Whether or not Jon son 
 had previously attacked Marston directly, here at any rate 
 he avowedly comes out, with horse, foot and artillery, bring- 
 ing up all his powerful resources for the overthrow of his 
 younger critic. The play is conclusive evidence of the great- 
 ness of Jonson's powers ; like everything he did, it is a massive 
 piece of work, thoroughly planned and skillfully executed, 
 each detail thought out. If any evidence were needed to show 
 the difference between the temper of the combatants, it would 
 be furnished by even a casual reading of this play and the 
 Satiromastix. It is a fight between battleaxe, grimly wielded 
 to kill, and wooden bludgeon, used by a smiling antagonist to 
 give a bloody coxcomb. 
 
 9 Here we get a hint of Marston's influence in Dekker's play. 
 Asinius left school at "as in praesenti", the beginning of the con- 
 jugations in Lily's Latin Grammar ; so did the schoolboy Holofernes 
 in What You Will, II, ii, 75. 
 
 ' There have been other attempts at identification. In the Induc- 
 tion are mentioned Snuff, Mew and Blirt, "three of the most-to-be 
 feared auditors" who "sit heavy on the skirts of his scenes." 
 Fleay indicates, with no apparent reason, Armin, Jonson and Middle- 
 ton as their originals. (Chr. II, 77). It was half a year after that 
 Middleton brought out his Blurt, A faster Constable. (See Bullen's ed. 
 of Middleton for evidence that the play was after Sept., 1601.) In 
 truth, these three auditors are merely personifications of the usual 
 means of expressing displeasure by an audience; there would be no 
 point in bringing any real person into the Induction in such a man- 
 ner as is done here. 
 
 Fleay also conjectures that Philomuse, one of the speakers of the 
 Induction, was "Daniel, whose Musophilus was written in 1599". 
 Much more probably Philomuse simply represents a friend of the 
 poet — any admirer of his work, as the name indicates. 
 
 1 Small, p. 203, says June ; Wallace gives the date as April. The 
 play was inspired by What You Will, and was written in 15 weeks, 
 as Jonson states in the Prologue. But there is no certain date for 
 What You Will, save its relations to this play. 
 
 51 
 
Jonson himself asserts almost in so many words that this 
 is his first answer to the three years' assaults of his profes- 
 sional enemies. 
 
 "Sure I am, three years 
 They did provoke me with their petulant styles 
 On every stage ; and I at last, unwilling, 
 But weary, I confess, of so much trouble, 
 Thought I would try if shame could win upon em." - 
 
 h is not necessary to believe that Jonson meant that this 
 was the first time he had made personal allusions in his plays, 
 directed at his detractors. Thus he says in the Dialogue, 
 
 "I used no names. My boohs have still been taught 
 To spare the persons, and to speak the vices." 
 
 This is in answer to the allegation that he attacked 
 
 "The law and lawyers, captains and the players 
 By their particular names." 
 
 He used no names, indeed ; but that was because it was 
 both libelous and unnecessary. No matter how many profes- 
 sions of superior aloofness from quarrel Ben Jonson might 
 make, we find it hard to believe that a man of his irascible 
 and eager temperament could have endured without audible 
 protest the slings and arrows of the satirists, 'the spitting 
 forth of the squeezed juice from their black jaws'. It is 
 possible that there are a number of personal references in his 
 plays which are completely lost upon modern readers. 
 
 Nevertheless, so far as we can judge now, Jonson had not 
 really attacked Marston at all personally on the stage, — the 
 naming of Histriomastix was as close as he had approached 
 to it. It is possible that Marston was able to see uncom- 
 plimentary references to himself in Cynthia's Revels, where 
 we today see nothing. At any rate, he answered with a direct 
 
 - Apologetical Dialogue. It almost seems as though Jonson wrote 
 the following lines of his Prologue with modern commentators of 
 his earlier plays in view : 
 
 "They could wrest, 
 Pervert and poison all they hear or see, 
 With senseless glosses and allusions." 
 
 52 
 
assault in What You Will; and then Jonson determined to 
 overwhelm his presumptuous foe. To find a fitting and unas- 
 sailable representative for himself — a great but sensitive 
 author attacked, from sheer malignity and perversity, by a 
 swarm of 'base detractors and illiterate apes' — he went on a 
 congenial journey to classic Rome of the Augustan age, and 
 chose the first great Roman satirist, Horace. By keeping 
 strictly to classical atmosphere, literature and history, he be- 
 lieved he could best shield himself from any return criticism : 
 Envy herself is to despair, because the scene is Rome. 3 
 
 Marston was the principal object of assault ; Dekker is 
 wholly secondary. It is Crispinus who is lashed; Fannius is 
 contemptuously laughed at. The personal satire upon Marston 
 begins in the second act. Crispinus is a poor relation of a lady 
 who is on the fringe of court, and he comes to the tradesman's 
 house where she has been living. He is received, after some 
 doubt, and wins the favour of Chloe, the tradesman's wife. 
 In the third act Jonson borrows from the Satires of Horace 
 the incident where Horace is dogged by a persistent poetaster. 
 In the fourth act Crispinus goes to the unfortunate banquet 
 where the 'younger set' at court are detected and punished by 
 Augustus. Crispinus and others plot to disgrace Horace and 
 Virgil, btit in the fifth act Crispinus and Demetrius are 
 brought before an informal court presided over by Virgil, with 
 Horace as prosecutor. The poetasters are punished, Crispinus 
 being compelled to vomit his uncouth vocabulary. Tucca 
 throughout plays the part of bully, false friend and blundering 
 jester. 
 
 There is no doubt but that Jonson is satirizing Marston 
 under the name of Crispinus ; but here again the critic should 
 beware of being carried too far in his enthusiasm for identifica- 
 tion. Crispinus is by no means identical with Marston. There 
 is a large amount of personal reference, but much of it is for 
 us doubtful in its application, and we must be cautious in 
 ascribing any personal trait to Marston unless it be elsewhere 
 corroborated. We probably have here an unusually accurate 
 portrait, since the play was so direct an attack; but as with 
 
 :I Envy's speeches rather set the tone for those of Horace's de- 
 tractors later. Baskerville (p. 288) has suggested that Jonson's use 
 01' envy is an example of the various satiric defiances to Envy or De- 
 traction common at the time. 
 
 53 
 
all these satiric characters, some of the details arc those of 
 the type, not of the individual, and others are introduced 
 merely to help on the plot of the play. Thus, we must not 
 suppose that Crispinus' songs are introduced to indicate that 
 Marston was a wretched musician. A parody of bad singing 
 could only have lasted for a few lines. Jonson was writing 
 for a children's company, whose singing was one of their chief 
 attractions; an important member of the cast, such as would 
 necessarily play the part of Crispinus, would be expected to 
 display his voice, and the play would accordingly be written to 
 exhibit it. 
 
 Again, episodes and details that are borrowed by Jonson 
 directly from the writings of Horace, or are naturally sug- 
 gested therefrom, are clearly not personal to Marston. The 
 third act is largely Roman, not Elizabethan. Even Crispinus' 
 vanity, in desiring to be urged to sing, is Horatian. 4 As 
 Marston shows his own character in his plays, we cannot 
 imagine that he was a toady or a parasite ; indeed as far as 
 fortune went, he seems to have been Jonson's superior, and 
 incidents such as his arrest for debts at the end of the act, 
 and his poor costume at the beginning are only applicable to 
 the character of Crispinus, as distinct from Crispinus the 
 caricature of Marston. Here Jonson was striving to give 
 the effect that, as Crispinus was to Horace, so Marston was 
 to Jonson, and it is only in lines here and there that Marston 
 seems to be personally referred to. We can well believe the 
 "hot disposition naturally" to have been true of Marston. 
 But it was enough for Jonson's purpose to represent the 
 Roman Crispinus as mean and degraded. Thus he was first 
 introduced as a rather negligible character ; even the sub- 
 servient jeweller does not pay much attention to him, Chloe 
 suspects his gentility, and he seems more at ease with the 
 characters of lower rank. 
 
 4 Hor., Lib. I, Sat. ix is Jonson's main source for this third act, and 
 here we find a hint for the song-contest of the previous act : "Invideat 
 quod et Hermogenes ego canto." 'Cf. also I, ii : "Ut, quamvis tacet 
 Hennogenes, cantor tamen atque optimus est modulator", and 
 
 "Omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus, inter amicos 
 Ut nunquam inducant animum cantare rogati, 
 iniussi numquam desistant." 
 
 54 
 
It is probable that personal satire was put on the Elizabethan 
 stage with considerable caution, much less frequently than 
 has often been assumed by critics, who tend to find a bird 
 or two in every bush. Many characters were undoubtedly 
 drawn from life, as they are today on our stage ; and occa- 
 sionally a figure was put on that was meant to be recognized 
 by the audience, and yet escape the charge of libel. The 
 Register of the Privy Council on May 10, 1601, records 
 troubles sprung from staging "the persons of some gentle- 
 men of good desert and quality that are yet alive under obscure 
 manner, but yet in such a sort that all the hearers may take 
 notice both of the matter and the persons that are meant 
 thereby." 5 This would seem to indicate that the practise 
 was then a novel one, and was not likely to be long tolerated. 
 There is justification for looking for hidden references to real 
 men, but it has certainly been carried too far when almost 
 every character in certain plays is related to the history of 
 contemporary literature. 6 
 
 It is not sure, though it is probable, that Crispinus would 
 be represented on the stage as some sort of recognizable cari- 
 cature of Marston's ordinary appearance. But certain points 
 of his person and character are introduced again and again, 
 and probably throw light on the real Marston. When Crispi- 
 
 6 Ordish, Early London Theatres, p. 90; Halliwell-Phillipps, Out- 
 lines, 6th ed., I, p. 342 ; Penniman, War, p. 106. 
 
 'The identification of Horace with Jonson is even less close than 
 that of Crispinus with Marston ; e. g., Jonson at this time, player 
 and playwright for Henslowe, and branded in 1599, was by no means 
 a friend and frequenter of the English court, as he came to be later, 
 and as he makes Horace in the court at Rome. 
 
 Similarly, in the case of his Virgil, Jonson did not refer to any 
 contemporary. Was Ben Jonson the man to set up any of his fellow 
 poets as his entire superior? Such a rank he would have allowed 
 to none but his masters, the classic writers. The Poetaster furnishes 
 a study in Roman history preparatory to Sejanus, to which indeed 
 Jonson alludes at the end of the play. 
 
 Tucca was drawn from "honest Captain Hannam", as we are told 
 in the Prologue to Satiromastix. This is all we know of him ; Jonson 
 was evidently attracted to build up a character sketch by certain odd 
 and forceful characteristics of Hannam. (There is a Richard Ham- 
 man, the 'keeper' of the "Roaring Girl", mentioned in Bullen's Mid- 
 dleton, Vol. IV, p. 4.) That Tucca formed the bond between Crispinus 
 and Demetrius (Dekker) is of course no more than an exigency of 
 the plot of Jonson's play. 
 
 55 
 
nus appeared in the second act, he must have formed a con- 
 trast to the brilliantly arrayed courtly assemblage. Marston's 
 father seems to have been well-off, and it is doubtful if he 
 were ever reduced to extreme poverty of apparel. The poor 
 clothes which are indicated might be simply one means of 
 degrading the character for stage appearance, and as much is 
 implied in Satiromastix.' But it would be probable that 
 Crispinus and Demetrius, and possibly Horace, would appear 
 on the stage made up in such a way as would identify them 
 to their audience. Elizabethan London was a small enough 
 city so that established dramatists would be public characters ; 
 many of the spectators at plays must have known their authors 
 by sight. 
 
 Two personal characteristics Jonson insists upon in his 
 portrayal of Crispinus — red hair and little legs. It is remark- 
 able that in several of Marston's plays he should have ridi- 
 culed red hair, s and one would naturally expect that he him- 
 self did not have it ; but from the evidence of the Poetaster 
 we must be compelled to think that he did, and that his own 
 references were ironic — which after all would be not unlike 
 what we know of Marston's usual vein in regard to himself. 
 
 Crispinus is made the butt of many jokes concerning his 
 boasted gentility ; the only point of this would have been 
 Marston's own pride of ancestry, a trait which would naturally 
 arouse the self-made Jonson's ire. The play's stress on this 
 point suggests possible previous recriminations on the part 
 of Marston ; Jonson, in spite of his brick-making, himself 
 claimed arms. The word "gentleman" is used of Crispinus 
 again and again throughout the Poetaster, until it must have 
 become something like a gag. Much comment has been 
 
 7 Prologue. 
 
 8 "But, in good verity, la, he is as proper a gentleman in reversion 
 as — and, indeed, as fine a man as may be, having a red beard and 
 a pair of warpt legs:" Malcontent (1604) V, iii. "Troth, I have a 
 good head of hair, a cheek not as yet waned, a leg, i'faith, in the full. 
 I ha' not a red beard, take not tobacco much;" Ant. and Mell. Ill, ii. 
 "His beard is directly brick-colour;" What Yon Will, IV, i, 31. 
 
 Crispinus is given no praenomen in Horace; perhaps Jonson's addi- 
 tion of 'Rufus' was suggested by the colour of Marston's hair. 
 
 9 For example, Caesar, after the banquet, asks Crispinus who he is. 
 He answers, "Your gentleman parcel-poet, sir ;" to which Caesar an- 
 swers, turning away, "O, that profaned name!" 
 
 56 
 
expended upon his arms — 'Cri-spinas : a face crying in chief, 
 and beneath a bloody toe, between three thorns pungent' — 
 but the suggested similarity to the arms of Marston seems too 
 far-fetched and slight to be anything more than an ingenious 
 guess of the Fleay variety. The crude jest of the foolish 
 interpretative picture would be all that could have been dra- 
 matically effective. 10 
 
 The chief means of attack upon Marston and Dekker is 
 evidently ridicule of their literary style, and especially of their 
 vocabulary. This attack is divided into two parts : through- 
 out the play we find Crispinus speaking in an affected way: 
 and at the end are the parodies and penalties of the trial 
 scene. At the first entrance of Crispinus, we find Jonson 
 already putting into his mouth unusual and 'hard' words, and 
 endowing him with preciosity of speech. He begins by 
 affectedly saying, "You are most delicately seated here, full 
 of sweet delight and blandishment." He is "most strenuously 
 well"; he "vehemently desires to participate in the knowledge 
 of her fair features"; farther on: "Let it suffice, I must 
 relinquish, and so, in a word" (thus calling attention to the 
 inflated phraseology), "please you to expiate this compliment." 
 The use of the word "sweet" at the beginning of the third act 
 is noticeable ; it is repeated six times on the first two pages. 
 At one time it seems to have been a favorite of Marston, 
 especially in his Antonio and Mellida. When Crispinus is 
 seized by bailiffs he exclaims magniloquent ly, "Seek not to 
 eclipse my reputation thus vulgarly. . • Nay, I beseech 
 you, gentlemen, do not exhale me thus, remember 'twas but 
 
 10 Heraldry was rapidly running to seed in Elizabethan times, and 
 these word-pictures were very common among the newer nobility. 
 Jonson had utilized them before in his treatment of Sogliardo. Dr. 
 Nicholson (Grosart's ed., Marston's Poems) suggests that Jonson in 
 the 'bloody toe between three thorns' may have had reference to 
 Marston's true arms, which included a fess dancetee (Horizontal band 
 across the middle of the shield, indented) between three fleur-de-lis. 
 Grosart. disbelieves the suggestion; Mallory adopts it. The special 
 mark (difference) of Marston's particular branch of the family was 
 a crescent in one upper corner — hence the "crying face in chief". 
 But this connection seems fanciful. 
 
 Fleay's idea that a play upon the word 'Marston' was meant — 
 'mars' and the obsolete plural 'toen', seems far-fetched, especially 
 since, as Small pointed out, only one toe was represented. 
 
 57 
 
for sweetmeats. I am forfeited to eternal disgrace, if you do 
 not commiserate. Good officer, be not so officious." Little 
 of this affected language sounds to a reader's ear particularly 
 Marstonian — the extremes of that style are unmistakeable, 
 and they are not found here. That Jonson could catch his 
 literary style is more than sufficiently proved in the last act ; 
 and this forcing of Crispinus' language would lose most of 
 its point if it were not aimed at Marston. It is possible that 
 Marston's talk had contracted the fashion of the day, and was 
 here ridiculed as Hamlet ridiculed Osric, whose tongue was 
 affected by the same disease. 
 
 We can better appreciate the assault on Marston's style 
 which concludes the play. The verses which are acknowl- 
 edged by Crispinus as his own work, form a clever and just 
 parody, and the passage is worth quoting in full because it 
 exposes so completely Marston's two worst faults of style — 
 turbid thought and turgid vocabulary : 
 
 "Ramp up, my genius, be not retrograde, 
 But boldly nominate a spade a spade. 
 What, shall thy lubrical and glibbery Muse 
 Live, as she were defunct, like punk in stews?" 
 
 (The licentious Tucca interpolates, "Excellent!") 
 
 "Alas, that were no modern consequence. 
 To have cothurnal buskins frighted hence. 
 No, teach thy incubus to poetize 
 And throw abroad thy furious snotteries, 
 Upon that pufft-up lump of barmy froth . . . 
 Or clumsy chillblained judgment; that, with oath, 
 Magnificates his merit, and bespawles 
 The conscious time with humorous foam, and brawls 
 As if his organons of sense would crack 
 The sinews of my patience. Break his back, 
 O poets all, and some : For now we list 
 Of strenuous venge-ance to clutch the fist. 
 Subscri. Cris. 
 
 TUCCA. Aye marry, this was written like a Hercules in poetry 
 now." 
 
 I hat this is fair parody is evident, when such passages as 
 the following, from the beginning of the Scourge of Villainy, 
 can be found not infrequently in the early work of Marston: 
 
 58 
 
"Black cypress crown me, whilst I up do plough 
 The hidden entrails of rank villainy, 
 Tearing the veil from damn'd impiety. 
 Quake, guzzle dogs, that live on putrid slime, 
 Skud from the lashes of my yerking rhyme." " 
 
 Most of the words or phrases Jonson ascribes to Crispinus 
 can be found in Marston's work, and there arc numerous 
 reasons to account for those that cannot. It was an imitation 
 of style as well as vocabulary, and would include odd words 
 because they were odd and of the same general kind that 
 Marston used. Small conjectured that in Marston's altera- 
 tion of What You Will he may have omitted words which 
 Jonson had derided. Certainly we do not find most of them 
 in Marston's later work. 12 
 
 Verses confessed by Demetrius follow, in sing-song measure, 
 as contrast. No satire on Dekker's vocabulary is intended, 
 but merely on his general style, with its rather slipshod manner 
 and loose thought. 
 
 The farcial ending of the purge was borrowed from Lucian, 
 as the Satiromastix noted in its Prologue ; 13 it must have been 
 
 "Or compare the beginning of the sixth satire of the 5. V. 
 
 ta A few notes on individual words, supplementary to the work of 
 Mallory and Penniman, follow. Liibrical has not been found in 
 Marston, but it is exactly the kind of word he would be expected to 
 use (cf. the frequent appearances of glibbery, slippery, lewd, snot- 
 tery, etc.). Modern is defined for this place in Mallory's glossary as 
 'trivial, trifling'; but it would seem to have the other, regular mean- 
 ing, 'of the time, fashionable', which is also used in the Poetaster, 
 III. iv. 332. Cf. A. M., Ind. : "acting a modern braggadoch." In- 
 cubus is found in A. R. IV, ii. 21, and 1. i. 1: "If the incubus that 
 rides your bosom would have patience." Poetize may be meant to 
 ridicule the formation of verbs by adding this ending, as in Clove's 
 use in Ev. Man Out, III. i: modelizing, diamondizing . Magnificates 
 his merit is plainly borrowed from the S. V., Lib. II, Proem.: "I can- 
 not with swol'n lines magnifkate mine own poor worth". It also 
 may have reference to the poetaster's anger against the close of 
 Cynthia's Revels, "By — 'tis good, and if you like't you may." 
 Humourous foam of course refers to Jonson's Humour plays; I do 
 not recall a use of the word foam in Marston, though froth is com- 
 mon. Of strenuous venge-ance to clutch the fist is taken from An- 
 tonio's Revenge, V. i: "The fist of strenuous vengeance is clutched." 
 But Marston seems generally to have used it as two syllables. A. M., 
 Ill, ii, 261; IV. i, 115; S. V ., XI, 153. 
 
 11 For similar earlier examples on the English stage, see Baskerville, 
 pp. 1 1. and 307, note 2. 
 
 :>9 
 
one of the best-acting scenes of the Poetaster. That it was 
 not without effect we can see from the chastened vocabulary 
 of Marston's subsequent plays. As 'Horace' said, the pills 
 "were somewhat bitter, sir, but wholesome." 14 
 
 It must be remembered that the Poetaster had a wider 
 design than a simple attack upon Marston. It was the one 
 most important statement of Jonson's case in his long quarrel 
 with his surroundings. According to his belief, his was a 
 case of greatness not only unrecognized, but slandered. The 
 trial scene displays Jonson's attitude most forcefully. After 
 praising himself under the name of Horace, he set out his 
 grievances in the shape of a formal indictment, 15 which sums 
 up the scattered attacks in the rest of the play : 
 
 14 Cf. supra, p. 49. There are 29 words, as distinguished from pe- 
 culiar phrases, given in the qto. Of these words, 13 are nor to be 
 found in the writings of Marston, and 9 of these are still in use. It 
 may be noticed that the words occur roughly in groups, first from 
 5". V.:(glibbery, common; magnificat e, Proem. II; snotteries, II, 71); 
 then from Jack Drum: (chilblaincd, II, 136; clumsy, ib ; barmy, I, 35; 
 froth, ib.) ; then seven in succession which are not to be found in 
 Marston (inflate, turgidous, vcntosity, with which cf. Clove in Every 
 Man Out, III, i; obiatrant, obcaecate, furibund, fatuate). Then fol- 
 lows strenuous, not uncommon in Marston, and conscious, the only one 
 of the words to be found in our version of W. Y. W. (Ill, iii. 25). 
 From Antonio's Revenge come damp (I, ii, 140) clutched, (I, i, etc), and 
 snarling gusts (prol.). The list is concluded with five words not found 
 in Marston, obstupefact, tropological, analogical, loquacity, pinnosity. 
 The last four, together with obcaecate, are omitted from the folio. 
 It may well be that these four words, different in quality from the rest, 
 were added by the actors, and excised by Jonson from his carefully 
 edited quarto. From the grouping given above, it may be surmised 
 that the seven words not found in Marston, but sounding like words 
 of his choice — the words beginning with inflate — may have occurred 
 in the first version of W. Y. W ., especially as conscious, just after, is 
 still to be found there. These vomited words would be very likely to 
 be remembered by audiences, and what more likely than that Marston 
 should have changed them in his play of about the same time, if only 
 to avoid unpleasant reminiscent laughter? 
 
 Retrograde was used in Cyn. Rev. V, iii, 4, in affected language. 
 Reciprocal. Penniman says (Poet. p. 256) is not found in Marston, 
 though he had given the reference Mai. II, ii, 62 in his War, p. 118. 
 Prorumpt is not found; Jonson may well have used it only for its ex- 
 cellent onamatopoeic effect. 
 
 " The indictment is drawn up in the same form as one in the second 
 act of A Warning for Fair Women, printed 1599. Both are pre- 
 sumably drawn from regular law- forms. 
 
 60 
 
HORACE. I am the worst accuser under heaven . . . 
 
 I take no knowledge that they do malign me. 
 
 TIB. Aye, but the world takes knowledge. 
 
 HOR. Would the world knew 
 
 How heartily I wish a fool should hate me." 
 
 The indictment is against 
 
 "Rufus Laberius Crispinus, alias Crispinas, Poetaster and Plagiary ; 
 the other, by the name of Demetrius Fannius, playdresser and plagiary ; 
 that you (not having the fear of Phoebus, or his shafts, before your 
 eyes) . . . have most ignorantly, foolishly, and (more like yourselves) 
 maliciously, gone about to deprave, and calumniate the person and 
 writings of Quintus Horatius Flaccus, here present. Poet, and priest 
 to the Muses : and to that end have mutually conspired and plotted 
 . . . for the better accomplishing your base and envious purpose; 
 taxing him, falsely, of self-love, arrogancy, impudence, railing, filching 
 by translation, etc." 
 
 So far as we can judge today, their taxing had on the con- 
 trary not been false; precisely these characteristics were true 
 of J on son to a very high degree. Even impudence was his, 
 when he could call Marston and Dekker poetaster and play- 
 dresser, and himself "Poet, and priest to the Muses." That 
 he was much the greater poet is true, but his arrogance was 
 
 There follow the parodies of the poetasters' verse, after 
 which Horace defends himself: 
 
 "When hast thou known us wrong, or tax a friend? 
 I dare thy malice to betray it . . . 
 Rather such speckled creatures as thyself, 
 Should he eschewed and shunned : such as will bite 
 And gnaw their absent friends, not cure their fame ..." 
 
 This retort"'' simply turns back upon them the character that 
 Marston had given Lampatho-Jonson in What You Will. 
 Horace goes on to sav that they "devise things never seen or 
 heard, t'impair men's names." This may be an allusion 
 to characters such as Lampathb or Brabant Senior, which, 
 while they do contain hits at Jonson, are not intended to be 
 actual portraits of him — though he may well have taken them 
 for such. 
 
 ""Taken from Horace's Satires, I, iv, 78-85. 
 
 61 
 
Jonson's Virgil sums up the trial: 
 
 "Where there is true and perfect merit, 
 There can be no dejection . . . 
 Here-hence it comes, our Horace now stands taxed 
 With impudence, self-love and arrogance, 
 By these, who share no merit in themselves, 
 And therefore think, his portion is as small. 
 For they, from their own guilt, assure their souls, 
 If they should confidently praise their works, 
 In them it would appear inflation, — 
 Which, in a full and well-digested man, 
 Cannot receive that foul abusive name, 
 But the fair title of erection . . . 1T 
 
 Now, Romans, you have heard our thoughts. Withdraw, when you 
 please." 
 
 This passage, of which I have quoted only a part, is his real 
 defence against all his adversaries, and the conclusion was 
 written in much the same vein as the famous ending of 
 Cynthia's Revels, "By — 'tis good, and if you like't, you may." 
 Undoubtedly Jonson had enough strength in satire 'for any- 
 thing', but he spoils the whole effect of what he says so well, 
 by evincing extreme arrogance even while he is engaged in 
 denying that he has it. The half-playful retorts of the 
 'poetasters' in Jack Drum and What You Will and Satiro- 
 mastix, are smaller projectiles propelled with much less force, 
 but they do more effective execution because they do not 
 explode of themselves before reaching the mark, as does the 
 Poetaster. 
 
 17 Or, as he says in the Prologue, "a well-erected confidence". Virgil 
 goes on to defend translation (which they had not attacked in itself, 
 but in his extreme use of it — where else could scenes be found like 
 Poet. Ill, i or III, v?) and then excuses the author's "sharpness in this 
 play," which he calmly says "was forced out of a suffering virtue." He 
 ends with superb pride: 
 
 "This, like Jove's thunder, shall their pride control : 
 'The honest Satire hath the happiest soul'. 
 
 Now, Romans, etc." 
 The play concludes with the effective little song : 
 "Blush, folly, blush, here's none that fears 
 
 The wagging of an ass's ears. 
 
 Although a wolvish case he wears. 
 
 Detraction is but baseness' varlet ; 
 
 And apes are apes, though clothed in scarlet." 
 
 62 
 
The difference in Jonson's attitudes toward Marston and 
 Dekker is interesting. Even when Jonscn is flaying the former 
 most angrily, he still seems to have some respect for him as an 
 adversary; but Jonson affects to feel only contempt and pity 
 for Dekker, treating him as though almost beneath notice. 
 Probably this was to serve two purposes. Jonson would really 
 feel some such contempt for the facile turning-off of plays 
 by the Henslovve hack-of-all-work ; certainly Dekker's reply, 
 Satiromastix, if judged simply as a play must have justified 
 Jonson's attitude as an artist. On the other hand. Dekker 
 appears to have been an amiable man, one against whom jon- 
 son had felt little personal offence. By putting Demetrius, as 
 he did, into an entirely secondary, subservient place, Jonson 
 couid satisfy his contempt for the lack of care and substance 
 in Dekker's work, and yet not press too fiercely upon him. 18 
 The introduction is a key to the way in which he is treated: 
 
 TUCCA (to Actor). My Poetaster [i. e., Crispinus] shall make 
 thee a play . . . 
 
 What's he with the half-arms there, that salutes us out of his cloak 
 like a motion, ha? 
 
 HISTRIO. O, sir, his doublet's a little decayed ; he is otherwise a 
 very simple honest fellow, sir, one Demetrius, a dresser 19 of plays about 
 the town here; we have hired him to abuse Horace, and bring him in 
 a play, with all his gallants." 30 
 
 So Demetrius ends IV. i by saying, 
 
 "I'll go write, sir. 
 
 TUCCA. Do, do ; stay, here's a drachm to purchase gingerbread for 
 thy muse." 
 
 All of Jonson's wrath is saved to pour upon the head of 
 Marston. but his contempt of Dekker must have been most 
 galling. One is surprized that the Satiromastix is for the 
 most part so light in tone. 
 
 1S Or possibly Penniman is right in guessing that Jonson did not 
 think of Dekker until the Poetaster was practically finished, and then 
 inserted a few lines in III, iv and V, iii {Poet. p. lx). 
 
 1U This word is used several times in the play ; perhaps a pun on 
 'Dekker' is intended. 
 
 20 Poet. Ill, i. The last phrase would imply that some of Jonson's 
 friends were satirized in some of the minor characters of Satiromastix; 
 hut this vague hint is the only fine we have. 
 
 63 
 
It is probable, from the somewhat vague references to 
 conspiracy in the Poetaster, that jonson was rather in the dark 
 concerning the plot which he claimed was made against him. 
 His idea seems to have been that the players, for gain, united 
 in furthering the personal spite of Marston ; between them 
 they hired Dekker to attack Jonson in a play, which was being 
 written at the time the Poetaster was composing. In III, i the 
 actors have hired Demetrius to abuse Horace in a play, for 
 the reason that ''it will get us a huge deal of money, captain, 
 and we have need on't; for this winter has made us all poor 
 as starved snakes, nobody comes at us." In IV, i Tucca says 
 Demetrius will get a new suit for his share of the work ; so 
 "sting him, my little neufts ; . . . we'll all hang upon him 
 like so many horseleeches, the players and all." 
 
 Jonson thus assumes that the hard winter of 1600-1 was, in 
 addition to 'envy, malice and hypocrisy', the real occasion of 
 the plays written against him. Tucca has alluded, a little be- 
 fore, to the stage-quarrel ; he did not wish to go to the theatre : 
 "I would fain come with my cockatrice some day and see a 
 play, if I knew when there was a good bawdy one ; but they 
 say you have nothing but Humours, Revels and Satires, that 
 gird and f — t at the time, you slave." So Rosencrantz says, 
 "Faith, there hath been much to-do on both sides, and the 
 nation holds it no sin to tarre them to controversy; there was, 
 for a while, no money bid for argument, unless the poet and 
 the player went to cuffs in the question." 21 That this hard 
 winter had much to do with encouraging the stage-presenta- 
 tion of the quarrel there can be no doubt. Though the seeds 
 of enmity seem to have been sown some time before, it is 
 doubtful if Poetaster and Satiromastix could have been pro- 
 duced unless personalities were required to drum up trade. 
 It is this fact which lends an air of falsity to much of the 
 fatuous 'War of the Theatres' — it is impossible to say how 
 much of the "throwing about of brains" was inspired by real 
 anger, and how much by the necessity of stimulating public 
 
 w Hamlet, II, 11. This speech probably refers to the winter of 
 1600-1. Even if it should refer to the next winter, however, it would 
 make little difference; conditions were about the same, and the Chil- 
 dren of the C'bapcl still under special patronage. Cf. Lee's Shakespeare 
 p. ::-77, n. :'.. Wallace (Children of Chapel, Ch. XIV ; p. 164, believes 
 this passage to have been written late in 1601. 
 
 84 
 
curiosity. It seems natural that Jonson should have been the 
 storm center, from his personal disposition, his popularity 
 as a dramatist, and his connection with the children's stage 
 which was just then impoverishing the adult companies. So 
 we see that Kemp is apparently made to voice the feeling of 
 his company against Jonson : "Why. here's our fellow Shakes- 
 peare puts them [i. e.. university pens] all down, aye, and 
 Ben Jonson- 2 too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, 
 he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow 
 Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray 
 his credit." 23 
 
 We have watched Marston in his plays become more and 
 more personal in his assaults on Jonson, warned only by a 
 growl or two — the suggestion of an attack here and there 
 in Every Men Out and Cynthia's Revels. Xow for the first 
 time we see Jonson turning upon his antagonist, with the 
 purpose of rending his literary reputation limb from limb, and 
 so getting rid once for all of the nuisance. There is no more 
 doubt, no elaborate proof required, that it is Marston who is 
 attacked ; and when we compare the supposed satires of 
 Marston under the names of Carlo and of Hedon or Anaide,, 
 we see how little real ground there is for believing that any- 
 thing more than the threat of an attack is to be found in them. 
 Carlo and Anaides were intended to represent types, with any 
 personal element purposely made vague; Jonson may have 
 had Marston sometimes in mind in details now and then, but 
 not in his general scheme. Here he directs the whole play 
 against Marston — the treatment of Dekker is strictly sub- 
 ordinated. There is intended to be no mistake that Marston is 
 the individual meant, both in a personal and a literary way. 
 
 In the ApologeticaL Dialogue, written some time, perhaps a 
 year, after the Poetaster, Jonson said, 
 
 22 Kemp is speaking for actors and the ordinary playwrights, as op- 
 posed to learned writers such as Jonson. There has been a difference 
 of opinion whether Ben Jonson here be subject or object; the latter 
 is the case. 
 
 21 Return from Parnassus, Two: IV. iii. (The scene is numbered in 
 the original edition iv, through a misprint.) January 1, 1601-2. The 
 university writer was being ironic here in his praise of Shakespeare, 
 but the passage shows well enough the hostility between Jonson and 
 the players. 
 
 65 
 
"I can profess, [ never writ that piece 
 
 More innocent, or empty of offence. 
 
 Some salt it had, but neither tooth nor gall . . . 
 
 POL. No? Why, they say you taxed 
 
 The Law, and Lawyers ; Captains ; and the Players, 
 
 By their particular names. 
 
 AUTHOR. It is not so. 
 
 I used no name. My books have still been taught 
 
 To spare the persons, and to speak the vices." 
 
 This I believe was in the main true of his earlier plays, but 
 it was not true of the Poetaster. The very vividness of its 
 portraiture supports J orison's disavowal of personalities in 
 earlier plays. Had he meant Every Man Out or Cynthia's 
 Revels to contain a Marston character, in all probability it 
 would have been as clear. 
 
 SATIROMASTIX 
 
 The Poetaster was not answered by Marston in person, but 
 by Dekker in Satiromastix, which only concerns us so far as 
 it was inspired by Marston or as it illuminates his share in 
 the quarrel. The most probable date for the production of 
 Satiromastix seems to be the summer of 1601, 1 soon after the 
 staging- of Poetaster. 
 
 It is hard to say how much Marston had to do with the con- 
 ception of the play. Jonson says that Marston hired Dekker — 
 and Dekker was certainly for hire. Furthermore, we know 
 of no attack of Jonson on Dekker previous to the Poetaster. 
 The satire is much more forceful that anything else of the 
 kind in Dekker's works, but it is written by him, and there 
 is almost no definite trace of Marston's easily distinguished 
 Style. Yet in Jonson's prefatory address, To the World, and 
 in Tucca's Epilogue, poetasters, in the plural, are spoken of as 
 having ''untrussed Horace". While there is no good reason 
 for doubting that the hand, throughout, is the hand of Dekker, 
 
 1 Cynthia's Revels can be dated in the spring of 1601. Then Jonson 
 began the Poetaster, which took fifteen weeks to write. The Satiro- 
 mastix must have appeared soon after the Poetaster, while interest 111 
 the case was at its height ; it was entered in the Stationers' Register 
 November 11, 1(501. It is doubtful if it would have been registered 
 until its first novelty had been worn off; consequently it seems safe to 
 place it in the summer of 1601. 
 
 66 
 
nevertheless there seem to be two distinct tones used in the 
 passages of attack on Jonson. One is the rather coarse but 
 not very bitter personal abuse, which I take to be Dekker's. 
 But here and there throughout the play there crops up an 
 underlying tone of almost friendly and certainly respectful 
 admonishment. This I take to be directly inspired by Marston. 
 The praise in the Dedication to the Malcontent was no hypoc- 
 risy, but a true expression of Marston's feeling towards Jon- 
 son, though the two characters were so contrasted and so often 
 at odds. The very number of persons and incidents in 
 Marston's plays which have reference to Jonson, shows 
 Marston realized that Jonson's work was worth repeated 
 criticism. 
 
 Altogether, Marston must have been the originator of a 
 reply to Cynthia's Revels, but entrusted its accomplishment to 
 Dekker, perhaps from personal fear of Jonson. Jonson evi- 
 dently learned of the design soon after its inception, and 
 hastened to forestall it by his Poetaster. It would appear 
 that when the other playwrights discovered this intention of 
 Jonson's they delayed their play until the Poetaster appeared. 
 Certainly Dekker could have beaten Jonson at a game of speed, 
 had he been so minded, especially as he had the start. Possibly 
 in the interval Dekker took a simple plot, that of William 
 Rufus and Terril, with the design of weaving into it an answer 
 to Jonson's play after that should have appeared. The result, 
 when it was discovered that Augustan Rome had to be inserted 
 into Norman England, was the singularly incongruous mixture 
 of Satiromastix. Tucca's part could not have been written 
 until after the appearance of Jonson's Tucca. and most of 
 the abuse of Horace is put into Tucca's mouth in Satiromastix, 
 and is in his peculiar vein, which Jonson originated. Similarly 
 the entire satiric element of the play is dependent on the 
 Poetaster. Jonson was simply repaid in his own coin ; it is 
 another instance of lions beginning to sculpture hunting-scenes. 
 
 Satiromastix is not such an unutterably bad play as most 
 critics have stated. The modern eye is immediately caught 
 by the anachronism of Horace in King William Rufus' court. 
 To Englishmen of Elizabeth's day. who habitually saw figures 
 from all eras of history on the stage in the latest fashion of 
 hose and doublet, it did not seem so impossible. It is to be 
 further remembered that this was not designed to be a serious 
 
 67 
 
play ; the original tragi-comedy was nearly swamped in the 
 farce relating to the stage-quarrel. The main plot of William 
 Rufus, Sir Walter Terril and Czelestine is not badly written, 
 and is well on a level with Dekker's other plays. This 
 extremely simple plot is elaborated by a subplot of humours. 
 Then evidently into this unfinished play was thrust a mass of 
 material satirizing Horace. The result must have been some- 
 what equivalent to the modern light comedy with plenty of 
 topical hits. It was certainly not intended to be seriously 
 taken. Too many modern critics have neglected the motto 
 from Martial which proceeds it. — detractors will be able to 
 say nothing worse of the frivolous trifle (Nugas) than the 
 author himself had said. As a work of serious literature of 
 course it would have no standing, but that is just what the 
 author did not mean it to be. For what he did mean it, a 
 continuation of the quarrel, in a half-serious vein, and with 
 much less of the deadly but self-defeating sincerity of the 
 Poetaster, it succeeded excellently well. 
 
 To it was awarded the popular verdict in a much larger 
 degree than to the Poetaster, much greater work as that 
 undoubtedly is. Jonson had to confess, in his Address to the 
 Reader, that he had by his play only aroused more and 
 stronger enemies : 
 
 "I hoped at last they would sit down and blush, 
 But nothing could I find more contrary. 
 And though the impudence of flies be great. 
 Yet this hath so provoked the angry wasps . . . 
 That they fly buzzing, mad, about my nostrils." 
 
 Not only had it not silenced his enemies, but the popular judg- 
 ment had undoubtedly gone against him. So, like a true artist, 
 he damns the crowd in good poetry : 
 
 "But, that these beggarly and base conceits 
 Should carry it, by the multitude of voices. 
 Against the most abstracted work, opposed 
 To the stuffed nostrils of the drunken rout, 
 O, this would make a learn'd and liberal soul 
 To rive his stained quill up to the back, 
 And damn his long-watch'd labours to the fire. 
 Things that were born when none but the still night 
 And his dumb candle saw his pinching throes, — 
 Were not his own free merit a more crown 
 Unto his travails, than their reeling claps." 
 
 68 
 
Thus his conceit saves him from too much punishment ; to 
 himself he can still be the great man holding his enemies at 
 the mercy of his pen, if he care to use it in writing satires or 
 public prints, though they, "like so many screaming grass- 
 hoppers held by the wings, till every ear with noise." 
 
 Jonson's very gifts defeated themselves when employed 
 upon drama as he chose to write it. That he had wonderful 
 power in psychologic character-portrayal can not be doubted. 
 That he could put it successfully into popular form is evident 
 from his additions to the Spanish Tragedy. He was primarily, 
 however, a scholar ; he combined both mastery of detail and 
 great constructional ability. But he seems to have almost 
 entirely lacked the ability to portray, perhaps to feel, the 
 tenderer, more romantic emotions. He was essentially intel- 
 lectual, and his attempts to depict passion, such as the Ovid- 
 Julia parting scene, are machine-made, rather than natural 
 expressions of his own "emotions recollected in tranquillity." 
 The age was a romantic one, and cared little for scholarship 
 on the stage ; so it is no wonder that Jonson's dramas, great as 
 they are from the standpoint of literature, should have been 
 something like failures in his own time. Dekker, on the other 
 hand, was obviously unhampered by any conscientious theories 
 of art, and knew from long apprenticeship just how to catch 
 the popular ear. Moreover, he did not have to sustain the 
 impossible burden of proving himself by argument and in- 
 vective the greatest poet of the age. 
 
 The Satiromastix tells us very little about Crispinus, but a 
 great deal about Horace. Some of this personal informa- 
 tion about Jonson we know of in no other way, but it is 
 probably true to fact, if not always to implication. As usual, 
 his rugged personality dominates the scene. His personal 
 appearance is referred to again and again: He is "thin- 
 bearded" ;- Tucca calls him "great Hunks", and says he has 
 a tanned skin f He is "hungry-faced, 1 "as hard-favoured a 
 fellow as your majesty has seen in a summer's day". 5 "Thou 
 has such a villainous broad back that I warrant thou art able 
 
 2 1, ii, 344. 
 Ibid., 1. 387. 
 ' Ibid. 1. 455. 
 5 II, i. 151. 
 
 69 
 
to bear away any man's jests in England"; he walks "so 
 stately" ; T he has "the most ungodly face, by my fan ; it looks, 
 for all the word, like a rotten russet apple when 'tis bruised. 
 'Tis better than a spoonful of cinnamon water next my heart. 
 for me to hear him speak, he sounds it so in the nose, and 
 talks and rants for all the world like the poor fellow under 
 Ludgate. . . It's cake and puddings to me to see his face 
 make faces when he reads his songs and sonnets." Tucca 
 brings on the stage a picture of Horace and a caricature of 
 Jonson, and compares them: 
 
 "Thou hast such a terrible mouth, that thy beard's afraid to peep out ; 
 but look here, you staring Leviathan . . . Parboiled face, look : 
 Horace had a trim long beard, and a reasonable good face for a poet 
 (as faces go nowadays) . . . No, Horace had not his face punched 
 full of eyelet holes, like the cover of a warming-pan . . Horace 
 was a goodly corpulent gentleman, and not so lean a hollowcheekt 
 scrag as thou art." 8 
 
 Jonson's clothes are mentioned in the usual terms : he 
 "walks in rug" 9 and thanks God he never fell into the hands 
 of satin ; 10 Tucca calls him "Apollo's frieze-gown watchman". 11 
 There are a number of gibes at his past life. "Thou writ'st 
 in a most goodly big hand, too — I like that — and read'st as 
 legibly as some that have been saved by their neck-verse". 12 
 The poetasters "swear they'll bring your life and death upon'th 
 stage like a bricklayer in a play". 13 There are some interest- 
 ing details of Jonson's unsuccessful career as an actor, con- 
 cerning which we know nothing save what we learn here, 
 which is probably true. 
 
 "TUCCA. Thou hast been at Paris Garden, hast not? 
 
 HORACE. Yes, Captain, I ha' played Zulziman there . . . 
 
 TUC. Thou call'st Demetrius journeyman poet, but thou putst up 
 a supplication to be a poor journeyman player, and hadst been still so, 
 but that thou couldst not set a good face upon't; thou hast forgot how 
 
 e II. ii. 5. 
 'Ill, i, 77. 
 8 V, ii. 
 9 1, ii. 335. 
 10 Ibid, 1. 412. 
 "IV, ii, 1. 
 " I. ii, 140. 
 "Ibid, 1. 172. 
 
 70 
 
thou amblest, in leather pilch, by a playwagon, in the highway, and 
 tookst mad Jeronimo's part, to get service among the mimics ; and 
 when the Stagerites banished thee into the Isle of Dogs, thou turnst 
 bandog . . . and ever since bitest ; . . . read, lege, save thyself and 
 read." ' 4 
 
 There is one possible reference to the fact that Jonson was 
 the writer for the favoured Children of the Chapel at Black- 
 friars, — Sir Yaughan's "Hold, silence, the puppet-teacher 
 speaks !" 15 
 
 In such references as these 1 * 5 one detects more vividness and 
 closeness to reality than in Jonson's allegory of Crispinus, 
 strong as that is. Surely here Jonson was repaid for what- 
 ever personal abuse he bestowed upon the poetasters. 
 
 On the literary side of the quarrel the difference from the 
 Poetaster's tone is noticeable, and here it is one detects Mar- 
 ston's personal attitude. In the Address to the World prefixed 
 to Satiromastix, "that terrible Poetomachia lately commenced" 
 is spoken of. This supports the view that the stage quarrel 
 was not primarily an affair of personalities, did not really have 
 the desire to injure, until the publication of the Poetaster. 
 Before that it had been partly a conflict of dramatic theories, 
 and partly of the theatres themselves, adult companies resent- 
 ing the children's successes. Jonson had received criticism on 
 himself as dramatist with ill-concealed dislike, ever since 
 Marston had begun to praise him in dubious terms in Histrio- 
 masti.v, and had continued to criticise his methods in Jack 
 Drum's Entertainv.ient and What You Will. What You Will 
 proved too much for Jonson's patience ; not only was the 
 play as a whole designed as an attack upon Cynthia's Revels, 
 but it contained the obvious personal picture of Lampatho. 
 The strained theatrical condition of the time enabled Jonson 
 to burst out into the vitriolic abuse of the Poetaster, which in 
 its turn was answered in Satiromastix. In this way Dekker 
 is right in saying that the real Poetomachia had only recently 
 
 14 IV, i, I51f. 
 
 15 IV, hi, 215. 
 
 " It seems odd that no mention is made of his branded thumb, in 
 any of the satires upon Jonson, especially in this play, where several 
 other incidents of the duel are brought up. Doubts have been ex- 
 pressed as to whether Jonson's sentence were ever carried out. See 
 Athenteum, Mar. 6, 1886, p. 337 and June 1!), p. 823. 
 
 71 
 
commenced, as he is right in a measure when he goes on to 
 add that "it would be found on the Poetasters' side, se 
 defendendo." Marston's criticisms were, I believe, well 
 meant, but they had contained too much personal ridicule. 
 Nevertheless it was Jonson who began the real contest, if we 
 can judge from what remains written of the controversy. So 
 Crispinus says : 
 
 "We come like your physicians, to purge 
 Your sick and dangerous mind in her disease. 
 DEM. In troth we do, out of our loves we come, 
 And not revenge ; but, if you strike us still, 
 We must defend our reputations; 
 Our pens shall like our swords be always sheathed, 
 Unless too much provoked." " 
 
 But Jonson would not be likely to appreciate the kindliness 
 which made the poetasters assert that they were not his 
 enemies, only physicians for his sick mind. 
 
 Indirectly they acknowledge the truth of some of Jonson's 
 statements concerning them ; they do not reproach him for 
 untruthfulness, but for betrayal of friendship. He has mis- 
 used the opportunities for observation which their intimacy 
 had afforded : 
 
 "But when your dastard wit will strike at men 
 In corners, and in riddles fold the vices 
 Of your best friends, you must not take to heart 
 If they take all the gilding from their pills, 
 And only offer you the bitter core . . . 
 Say that you have not sworn unto your paper 
 To blot her white cheeks with the dregs and bottom 
 Of your friends' private vices . . . 
 Say you swear . . . 
 
 That when your lashing jests make all men bleed, 
 Yet you whip none. Court, city, country, friends, 
 Foes, — all must smart alike." 
 
 This confirms what would have been believed from the char- 
 acter of the man ; as Drummond later told of him, he says 
 truth but cares not for injuring friends. 
 
 Jonson had rated Demetrius-Dekker below Crispinus-Mar- 
 ston. That his estimate of the relative rank of the two men 
 
 11 1, ii, 294. 
 
 72 
 
was correct is shown by the fact that Satiromastix continues 
 it: 
 
 "TUCCA (to Horace). Thou wrongest here a good, honest rascal, 
 Crispinus, and a poor varlet Demetrius Fannius (brethren in thine own 
 trade of poetry) ; thou sayest Crispinus' satin doublet is raveled out 
 here, and that this penurious sneaker is out at elbows . . . Crispinus 
 shall give thee an old cast satin suit, and Demetrius shall write thee 
 a scene or two, in one of thy strong garlic comedies; and thou shalt 
 take the guilt of conscience for it, and swear 'tis thine own, old lad, 'tis 
 thine own." ,s 
 
 The heart of the poetasters' complaint against Jonson is 
 contained in the following serious lines, well-intentioned if 
 sometimes not very clear. I believe Marston inspired them. 19 
 Horace has been made to repeat one of his avowed reasons 
 for writing the Poetaster. 
 
 "What could I do, out of a just revenge, 
 But bring them to the stage? they envy me 
 Because I hold more worthy company. 
 DEM. Good Horace, no ; my cheeks do blush for thine. 
 As often as thou speakest so. Where one true 
 And nobly-virtuous spirit, for thy best part 
 Loves thee, I wish one ten, even from my heart. 
 I make account I put up as deep share 
 In any good man's love, which thy worth c:irn<, 
 As thou thyself. We envy not to see 
 Thy friends with bays to crown thy poesy. 
 No, here the gall lies, that we" know what stuff 
 Thy very heart is made of, know the stalk 
 On which thy learning grows, and can give life 
 To thy (once dying) baseness, yet must we 
 Dance antics on thy paper. 
 HOR. Fannius — 
 
 CRIS. This makes us angry, but not envious. 
 No, were thy warpt soul put in a new mould, 
 I'd wear thee as a jewel set in gold." 21 
 
 This seems to have been written personally and in sincerity, 
 almost in praise. It again states the real reason of the quarrel, 
 
 w I, ii, 392. 
 
 19 Compare quotations on p. 78. 
 
 20 So I substitute, for the sake of clearer reading, for the original 
 "we that". 
 
 " IV, iii, 260-278. 
 
 73 
 
as the poetasters saw it ; for their criticism he had retaliated 
 by wounding wouldbe friends. 
 
 A passage such as this helps to show why the Poetaster was 
 not at the time effective as an attack. As Chesterton says in 
 his essay on Pope and the Art of Satire, unmixed invective is 
 not good satire, because it is felt to be false: "It is impos- 
 sible to satirize a man without having a full account of his 
 virtues." Jonson was not generous enough to write really 
 great satire, because he attempted to overwhelm his adver- 
 saries "with an infinite number of furious epithets." The 
 higher kind of satire emphasizes the enemy's merits, for the 
 sake of contrast, and in order to show that he is unworthy of 
 possessing them. — 
 
 "But were there one whose fires 
 True genius kindles, and fair fame inspires, . . . 
 Should such a man — " 
 
 It was this kind of large-mindedness which Jonson lacked, 
 and which made his satire, cruel as was its intent, overreach 
 itself. On the other hand the 'poetasters' show in such 
 passages that this quality was what they did possess, and this 
 goes far to retrieve their deficiencies of genius. 
 
 Jonson's only answer to the Satiromastix was his Apologeti- 
 cal Dialogue, added to the Poetaster some time after the 
 appearance of Dekker's play. He defends and praises him- 
 self, as being unhurt by spite. If their attack gave them a 
 livelihood, he says, he is glad, except that "some better 
 natures" had been drawn into the ranks of his adversaries. 
 He will not answer the Satiromastix, though he could with his 
 satire disgrace them forever. He defends his railing by classi- 
 cal examples. At the end he announces he will next try 
 tragedy, referring to Sejanus. To this Sejanus Marston was 
 to supply complimentary verses ! 
 
 The only other references of Jonson to Marston are what 
 he said to Drummond of Hawthornden in 1616, and one of his 
 posthumously published Epigrams, No. 68: 
 
 "Playwright, convict of public wrongs to men. 
 Takes private beatings and begins again ; 
 Two kinds of valour he doth show at once: 
 Active in's brains, and passive in his bones." 
 
 74 
 
There are a few other epigrams in 'the collection addressed 
 to "Playwright'*, most oi which arc quite indefinite in con- 
 tent. 22 
 
 Toward the end of 1601 Marston in Antonio and Mellida 
 parodied a passage of Jonson's additions to the Spanish 
 Tragedy. 2 * In addition to this, there is probably another 
 fling at Jonson. We have noted that the Epilogue to Cynthia's 
 Revels ended in a defiant assertion of the play's merit : 
 
 "By — 'tis good, and if you like't you may." 
 The Epilogue to Antonio and Mellida is spoken by Andrugio, 
 still clad in the armor he wore in the last scene. It begins: 
 
 "Gentlemen, though I remain an armed Epilogue, I stand not as a 
 peremptory challenger of desert, either for him that composed the 
 Comedy, or for us that acted it ; but a most submissive suppliant for 
 both." 
 
 It is impossible to date this epilogue of Marston's exactly. 
 Antonio and Mellida was produced some time before February- 
 March, 1600 (N. S.), and the Epilogue might have been 
 written at any time from then until the play was printed some- 
 time in 1602. I believe it followed Cynthia's Revels, and 
 preceded the Prologue to the Poetaster, which was written 
 about June, 1601. The following passage of the Poetaster 
 Prologue I believe clearly refers to the Antonio and Mellida 
 armed Epilogue : 
 
 "Enter Prologue hastily, in armour . . . 
 If any muse why I salute the stage, 
 An armed Prologue, know, 'tis a dangerous age. 
 Wherein who writes, had need present his scenes 
 Forty-fold proof against the conjuring means 
 Of base detractors and illiterate apes . . . 
 'Gainst these, have we put on this forced defense 
 Whereof the allegory and hid sense 
 Is, that a well-erected confidence 
 Can fright their pride, and laugh their folly hence. 
 Here now, put case our author should, once more, 
 Swear that his play were good, he doth implore 
 You would not argue him of arrogance, 
 Howe'er that common spawn of ignorance. 
 Our fry of writers, may beslime his name ..." 
 
 23 Epigram 4V probably refers to Marston. 
 
 23 For the argument over this parody, see Appendix D. 
 
 75 • i 
 
This certainly sounds as though the writer had been reproved 
 for the arrogance of his previous epilogue, and Marston's 
 epilogue sounds as though it had furnished at least a part of 
 that reproof. 
 
 It seems, then, that Jonson produced his Painter addition to 
 the Spanish Tragedy about September, 1601, and that Marston 
 soon after added to the stage version of Antonio and Mellida 
 a parody upon it. About the same time he added an armed 
 Epilogue which rebuked the Epilogue to Cynthia's Revels 
 (written about the winter of 1600-1). This Epilogue of 
 Marston's was in turn retorted to by the armed Prologue of 
 the Poetaster. 
 
 It also seems probable that the Prologue of Shakespeare's 
 Troilus and Cressida 24 referred to one or both these plays, but 
 especially Jonson's : 
 
 "... Hither am I come 
 A prologue armed, — but not in confidence 
 Of author's pen or actor's voice ; but suited 
 In like conditions as our argument." 25 
 
 This mild reference is the only probable connection of Shakes- 
 peare's with the stage quarrel. 26 
 
 24 Troilus and Cressida was entered in the S. R. in 1603. The pro- 
 logue, however, does not appear in the first quarto of 1609, but not 
 until the First Folio. 
 
 Sidney Lee (Shakespeare, ed. 1890, p. 228, n.) believed that Shake- 
 speare here distinctly disclaims all concern in the stage quarrel. This, 
 on his own showing of dates (that is, that the play was written some- 
 time before Feb. 7, 1602-3, when Roberts obtained his license) is more 
 probable than his statement in the last edition (p. 371, n.) : "Troilus 
 cannot, on any showing, be assigned to the period of the war between 
 Jonson, Dekker and Marston in 1601-2." 
 
 25 That is, the armored Prologue was suited to the warlike nature of 
 Troilus and Cressida. This was also the case with Andrugio in An- 
 tonio and Mellida; but Jonson's armed Prologue had no connection 
 with the play. 
 
 26 There is no sufficient reason for believing with Wyndham (Poem 1 ; 
 of Shakespeare, p. lxvii f . ; Fleay, Chron. Eng. Dra. I, p. 366) that 
 Thersites is drawn from Marston. For source of this character see 
 Small, Stage Quarrel, p. 164-5 ; for good summing up of evidence, 
 though no conclusion is reached, see Penniman's War of Theatres, pp. 
 144-150. 
 
 It is only for the sake of completeness that I here mention other 
 supposed connections of Shakespeare with the quarrel. Wyndham 
 
 76 
 
Professor Wallace 27 assigns Marston's Dutch Courtesan to 
 the fall or winter of 1602, though he gives no reasons for 
 changing the usually assigned date of 1604. At any rate, the 
 Dutch Courtesan contains absolutely no notice of the quarrel, 
 nor indeed any literary satire, unless the following be con- 
 sidered in the light of a retraction by the reconciled Marston : 
 "Were I to bite an honest gentleman, a poor grograrian poet, 
 or a penurious parson. . . I were doomed beyond the 
 works of supererogation". 28 Probably no such reference was 
 intended. 
 
 The Stage Quarrel was very definitely slopped at the time 
 of the writing of Marston's Dedication to the Malcontent, 
 1604, 20 and his verses of commendation to Jonson's Sejanus, 
 1605. The fine Dedication reads : "Beniamino Ionsonio, 
 Poetae elegantissimo, gravissimo, amico suo, candido et 
 cordato, Ioannis Marston, musarum alumnus, asperam hanc 
 suam Thaliam D [at] D [edicatque]." 
 
 (Ibid, ff.) first started the cry that Shakespeare's Pistol was intended 
 to satirize Marston, and he was followed in full voice by the German 
 critics (Sarrazin, Beitr. rom. engl. philol., 1902, 182f . ; C. Winkler, 
 Eng. Stud. 1904, vol. 33, p. 218). The principal proofs are, that Jonson 
 took Marston's pistol from him, hence Pistol must have been Marston's 
 nickname; and, that Pistol used certain popular playscraps also quoted 
 in Marston's plays. Comment seems unnecessary, notwithstanding the 
 considerable amount of work spent in bolstering up the hypothesis. 
 
 Fleay (Life and Work of Shakespeare) says concerning All's Well 
 that Ends Well, "I take the boasting Parolles to be Marston." Small 
 (p. 138) has shown how little validity there is to the grounds he gives 
 for his belief. Fleay says of Tzvelfth Night (p. 220), "I believe that 
 Sir Toby represents Jonson and Malvolio Marston; but that subject 
 requires to be treated in a separate work from its complexity." In 
 Shakespeariana (I, 136) he undertakes to identify Malvolio with Mal- 
 evole of the Malcontent and says that "the mysterious M. O. A. I. of 
 Maria's letter is an anagram of IO (UN) MA (RSTON)." This is 
 the kind of conjecture valuable in proving that Bacon wrote Shake- 
 speare. 
 
 -** Children of the Chajwl. 
 
 "Ill, ii, 38. 
 
 29 Stoll has endeavored to advance the date of the Malcontent to 
 1600, though it certainly contains some allusions to James I and his 
 new Scotch knights. However, the dedication would be written for the 
 publication, not presentation of the play, which was entered July 5, 
 1604. Cf. infra, p. 143, n. 
 
y 
 
 The Epilogue has another complimentary reference to Jon- 
 son' 10 . 
 
 After this reconciliation, however, the quarrel immediately 
 broke out again. In 1606 Marston in the prefaces of two 
 plays attacked Jonson on the old charges. Marston signed an 
 address "To My 31 Equal Reader," prefixed to the Fawn: 
 
 "As for the factious malice and studied detractions of some few 
 that tread in the same path with me, let all know I most easily neglect 
 them ... Of men of my own addiction I love most, pity some, hate 
 none; for let me truly say it, I once only loved myself for loving them, 
 and surely I shall ever rest so constant to my fine affection, and let 
 their ungentle combinings, discourteous whisperings, never so treacher- 
 ously labour to undermine my unfeared reputation, I shall (as long as 
 I have being) love the least of their graces, and only pity the greatest 
 of their vices." 
 
 This is made more definitely an attack on Jonson by a 
 reference to Scjanus (pub. 1605) in the Address to the Gen- 
 eral Reader prefixed to Marston's Sophonisba (1606). The 
 author has "not laboured in this poem to relate anything as 
 an historian. . . To transcribe authors, quote authorities, 
 and translate Latin prose orations into English blank verse, 
 hath, in this subject, been the least aim of my studies," just 
 as it had been one of the chief aims of Jonson's play. 
 
 Nothing is known of this fresh quarrel save these refer- 
 ences, to which Jonson made no public reply. 
 
 In 1609 Dekker in his Gull's Hornbook, the chapter on 
 How a Gallant should behave himself in a Playhouse, turns 
 over the ashes of the quarrel. Better, he writes, than to twit 
 
 ""Then till another's happier Muse appears, 
 To whose desertful lamps pleased Fates impart, 
 Art above nature, judgment above art, 
 Receive this piece ..." 
 
 The 'happier Muse' must refer to the comedy of Volfrone, which 
 was to appear in 1605 or 6. (See Fleay and Holt, Mod. Lang. Notes, 
 1905). Jonson would have begun it soon after finishing Sejanus, 1603; 
 his only intermediate dramatic work was his unimportant collaboration 
 in Eastward Ho. Since the Epilogue requests silence, it is therefore 
 evident that the Malcontent was being produced somewhere between 
 1603 and 1606. Though the Epilogue might possibly have been added 
 at a revival of the play, still this forms an additional reason for doubt- 
 ii :, r StoM's early dating of the play. 
 Bui n tnispi i its it "the". 
 
 78 
 
a poet with his red beard, little legs, and ash-colored feather 
 (as Jonson had Crispinus-Marston in the Poetaster), or better 
 than to toss him in a blanket (as Dekker had Horace-Jonson, 
 at the end of Satiromastix) , is to get up in the middle of his 
 play and walk out. It is evident that Dekker here is indulg- 
 ing in reminiscences, and not making a fresh attack. 
 
 The anonymous Cambridge play, The Return from Parnas- 
 sus, tin second part, written about December-January, 1601-2. 
 is i iteresting as containing our only important outside refer- 
 en :e to the stage quarrel. It includes a direct criticism of 
 Marston, and a character, called Furor Poeticus, which has 
 been said 32 to represent him. The direct reference occurs 
 near the beginning of the play, 33 in a long passage where con- 
 temporary poets are being passed in review. 
 
 INGENIOSO. John Marston. 
 
 JUDICIO. What, Monsieur Kinsayder, lifting up your leg and pis>i: ig 
 
 against the world? put up, man, put up for shame. 
 Methinks he's a ruffian in his style, 
 Withouten bands or garters' ornament. 
 He quaffs a cup of Frenchman's Helicon. 
 The roister-doister in his oily terms 
 Cuts, thrusts, and foins at whomsoever he meets, 
 And strows about Ram Alley meditations. 
 Tut, what cares he for modest, close-coucht terms, 
 Cleanly to gird our looser libertines? 
 Give him plain, naked words stript from their shirts, 
 That might beseem plain-dealing Aretine. 
 Ay, there is one that backs a paper steed 
 And manageth a penknife gallantly ; 
 Strikes his poinado at a button's breadth ; 
 Brings the great battering-ram of terms to towns, 
 And at first volley of his cannon-shot, 
 Batters the walls of the old fusty world." 
 
 This shows that Marston appeared to men of his own day 
 precisely as he does to us, an exaggerated satirist, sometimes 
 without decency but with a good deal of power ; and a 'ruffian 
 in his style'. 
 
 It is not easy to assign a definite place to Furor Poeticus, 
 who seems the nearest of the characters to Marston. He had 
 
 "Fleay, Chr. II, 352. 
 In orig. qto., sheet B2. 
 
formerly been a student at Cambridge 1 ' 4 with Phantasma ; they 
 are always represented as being together, and Phantasma 
 frequently directs the thoughts of Furor. 30 When Ingenioso- 
 Nash's 36 exile to the Isle of Dogs is being discussed 37 , Philo- 
 musus asks : 
 
 "But say, what shall become of Furor and Phantasma? 
 INGEN. These my companions still with me must wend. 
 ACAD. Fury and Fancy on good wits attend." 
 
 It is evident that sometimes they are thought of as being 
 allegorical ; at other times, they are certain students, filled with 
 poetry and fancy. 38 Occasionally, from the style and refer- 
 ences of Furor, it would seem that the author had Marston 
 in mind. In III, iv some particularly Marstonian words are 
 used : 
 
 "Howe'er my dulled intellectual 
 
 Capres less nimbly than it did before . . . 
 
 INGEN. Nay, prithee, good Furor, do not rove in rhymes before thy 
 
 time : thou hast a very terrible roaring muse, nothing but squib 
 
 and fine jerks, quiet thyself awhile . . . 
 FUROR. I'll shake his heart upon my verses' point, 
 Rip out his guts with riving poinard, 
 Quarter his credit with a bloody quill. 
 PHAN. Calami, atramentum, charta, libelli, 
 Sunt semper studiis arma parata tuis. 
 INGEN. Enough, Furor, we know thou art a nimble swaggerer with 
 
 a goose quill." 
 
 Compare this with the criticism of Marston quoted from the 
 beginning of the play, and with Jonson's parody of Marston, 
 "whereas, our intellectual, or mincing capreal", 39 both Mar- 
 stonian words. 
 
 Later 40 Furor is represented as using high-flown terms, until 
 the old knight exclaims, "Precious coals, . . . it's even so, 
 he is either a mad man or a conjuror ; it is well if his words 
 were examined, to see if they be the Queen's or no." 
 
 34 V, iv. 
 
 38 As in I, vi. 
 
 M See Schelling, Eliz. Drama, II, 67 for identification. 
 
 87 V, iv. 
 
 M In certain passages Furor recalls Lily (I, vi ; V, iv). 
 
 39 Clove, in Every Man Out, III, i. 
 " IV, ii. 
 
 80 
 
Furor is not Marston ; he is poor, conceited, from Cam- 
 bridge, much more full of poetic or near-poetic afflatus than 
 he can hold. But there are so many correspondences between 
 his poetry and that of Marston, in the use of words and 
 unpleasant phrases; and the play's criticism of Marston is so 
 similar in tone to its criticism of Furor, that I feel sure 
 Marston was at times in the writer's mind, and that we have 
 here an exaggerated Marstonese spirit of poetry held up to 
 ridicule. Thus light is thrown upon the contemporary atti- 
 tude toward Marston's work and style. Jonson was not alone 
 in his censure — the ordinary reader of the time must have 
 1 absurdity of some of Marston's work, but at the same 
 time must have been impressed by his vigor and stinging 
 satire. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 We ,find, then, that -Marston's part in the stage quarrel 
 extended from some time, probably late, in 1599, to late in 
 160 1, peace being signed in Marston's dignified Latin dedica- 
 tion to Jonson of the Malcontent in 1604. A later quarrel 
 found but slight expression on the stage. 
 
 In Histriomastix, 1599, Marston had satirized Monday in 
 the figure of Posthaste, and had introduced some satiric allu- 
 sions to Jonson, in the depiction of the hero of the play, 
 Chrisoganus. Jonson, who apparently had taken umbrage, 
 slipped some abuse of Marston's vocabulary into Every Man 
 Out of his Humour, just at the beginning of the century; he 
 even went to the extent of mentioning the word Histriomastix. 
 Later in the same year Marston retorted by defending the 
 guMs whom Jonson had displayed for ridicule in the Humour 
 plays ; he showed the guller himself gulled, in the character 
 of Brabant Senicft, who, incidentally, appreciates no one's 
 poetry but his own. This was in Jack Drum's Entertainment, 
 which included nothing that we would call a real impersona- 
 tion of any literary figure, in spite of the multitude of con- 
 jectures which have been expended. This is also true of 
 Jonson's Cynthia's Revels, written about the same time, save 
 that in it Jonson displayed himself as Crites, and held enemies 
 of Crites up to ridicule. 
 
 Marston came nearer towards bringing his antagonist in 
 ria bersona on the stage, by his character of Lampatho 
 
 81 
 
iii What You Will, in 1601. Just as Jack Drum had been a 
 reply to Every Man Out and its guller, so ostensibly What 
 You Will was a similar reply to Cynthia's Revels and its 
 detraction of the court. But Brabant Senior in the former 
 had not been really a portrait of Jonson, save in one or two 
 particulars, mostly matters of art-opinion ; while Lampatho 
 in What You Will was practically Jonson brought upon the 
 stage. 
 
 Jonson replied within fifteen weeks with the invective of 
 Poetaster, where he abused Marston to the utmost of his 
 power, and showed him on the stage in a degrading caricature. 
 Dekker was pilloried by his side, perhaps because Jonson 
 had gotten wind of the fact that Dekker was writing a play 
 against him. What brought Dekker into the quarrel at this 
 point is uncertain; it may have been that he was simply hired 
 by Marston and some others, especially actors, whom theat- 
 rical reasons and Jonson's arrogance had angered. He was 
 always a playwright-to-let, and he probably was not unwill- 
 ing to take a try at lowering Jonson's overweening pride. 
 
 Directly after the Poetaster appeared Dekker's Satiroma- 
 stix; in its conception Marston probably had a hand, though 
 he does not seem to have written any of it. Here the tables 
 were turned on Horace-Jonson, and he got as good as he had 
 given, with apparently a greater popular result. 
 
 It is possible that Jonson was warned by the authorities to 
 desist, or perhaps popular opinion was too strongly against 
 him ; at any rate he made no reply save for his Apologetical 
 Dialogue, appended to his play when it was printed in 1602. 
 Toward the end of 1601 Marston burlesqued a scene of Jon- 
 son's additions to the Spanish Tragedy, in a passage inserted 
 in Antonio and Mellida. The conflict was formally ended in 
 T604 with the Dedication of Marston's Malcontent to Jonson. 
 though in 1606 there are traces of a revival in Marston's Pro- 
 logues to the Pawn and Sophonisba. 
 
 The quarrel thus took place in the main in seven plays, 
 three of Marston's, three of Jonson's, and finally one of 
 Dekker's inspired by Marston. From the mere hints of its 
 beginnings it increased in vehemence to what was really its 
 climax, the word-vomiting of the Poetaster. The 'poetasters' 
 nevertheless had the best of it in the popular opinion of the 
 time, and today also it seems that they were more offended 
 
 82 
 
than offending, to judge from the only evidence we possess, 
 the plays. 
 
 There would have been no personal quarrel had it not been 
 for Jonson's arrogance, and this arrogance was the cause of 
 his failure. They were alleging the truth while he was shower- 
 ing abuse. 
 
 Thus the enormous 'War of the Theatres' which has been 
 gradually evolved by the critics, is reduced to comparatively 
 modest proportions. There were certain other personal al- 
 lusions to poets in other plays of the time, but they are, I 
 believe, much fewer in number and harder to prove than has 
 been assumed, and we know of answers on the stage by no 
 one save Marston and Dekker. Whatever division into two 
 camps of playwrights there may have been, sprung from the 
 rivalry of the children's companies, and was but ephemeral. 
 In the seven plays that have been discussed, however, we have 
 a definite series of provocation and attack, rebuttal and re- 
 joinder, steadily increasing in animosity until the fight was 
 undisguised in the Poetaster and Satiromastix. 
 
 »'• **.**■ 
 
 83 
 
MARSTON'S SATIRES 1 
 
 Marston's work in the satire was inspired by the literary 
 fashion of the times in which they were produced. In order 
 to understand his 'scourging of villainy', it is necessary to bear 
 in mind the trend of satiric history. 
 
 Of the Elizabethan critics, perhaps Puttenhanr comes 
 nearest to giving a definition of satire, when he writes, "The 
 first and most bitter invective against vice and vicious men, 
 was the Satyre;" the word satire he explains as coming from 
 the fact that, for the sake of anonymity, the first reciters of 
 satires appeared disguised at Satyrs. Perhaps the best defini- 
 tion of formal satire would be one adapted from Heinsius 3 : 
 'Formal satire is a kind of non-narrative poetry in which 
 human faults are reprehended, and erring classes or individu- 
 als, the latter usually under assumed names, are made hateful 
 
 1 Mr. R. M. Alden has admirably gone over the ground of English 
 formal satires, in his Rise of Formal Satire in England under Classical 
 Influence, (Pub. of U. of Penn. in Philol. etc., Vol. VI, No. 2. Phil- 
 adelphia, 1899). It is unfortunate that he should have been obliged 
 strictly to limit the scope of his work to formal satire, thereby shutting 
 out much satiric material. I know of nothing of importance written 
 upon the epigrammatic form of satire, which at times so closely ap- 
 proaches the longer kind that if epigrams on like subjects had been 
 joined, the result would have been no other than formal satire. Thus 
 Martial drew upon Juvenal and Persius for part of his material ; and 
 Elizabethan epigrammatists such as John Davies and Weever were 
 doing exactly the same thing as Donne and Hall, save in the outward 
 form in which their works were presented. Likewise we have in longer, 
 looser form the half-narrative poems such as the Pasquil productions 
 of about 1012; T. N's. Barleybreak, or warning for wantons, 1607; and 
 Parke's Curtaine Drawer of the World, 1612; these are in their whole 
 intention satiric. (These may be found in Grosart's Occasional Issues.) 
 Again, there are the very numerous prose productions of the time, in- 
 cluding the many by Lodge, Nash, Greene and Dekker, which differ 
 from formal satire mostly in running to greater length, and describing 
 as well as denouncing. Finally, the vast field of dramatic satire has 
 never been treated at any length. 
 
 "Art of Poesie, I, xiii. 
 
 3 Dissertations on Horace. Quoted by Dryden, in his famous Essay 
 on Satire, whence Alden quotes it, (p. 2.) 
 
 84 
 
or ridiculous.' Each satire usually attacks a single vice under 
 several different aspects. 
 
 There was a considerable amount of informal satire in 
 earlier English literature, such as Chaucer's, Langland's and 
 Skelton's. but formal satire did not appear until it was pro- 
 duced by direct emulation of the classic satire. The depend- 
 ence of the Elizabethan satirists, more especially the formal 
 satirists and epigrammatists, upon the Latin classics was well 
 nigh absolute. The most cursory reading of Donne, Hall, 
 Lodge, in conjunction with Horace, Juvenal, Martial, reveals 
 an astonishing lack of originality of the Elizabethans in this 
 regard. Often they did not even attempt to adopt Roman 
 satire to English ways, but with the classic names which they 
 affected, took over classic manners 4 . Thus we find little de- 
 velopment of the form, when once the classic model was 
 adopted: Donne's satires of 1593, at the beginning of the 
 vogue of satires, are little different in form or subject matter 
 from those of Fitzgeffrey, writing after Shakespeare's death. 
 The only important change was introduced by Wither, about 
 1 61 3, who enlarged on the moral and impersonal side, and 
 who had great influence on succeeding satirists. 
 
 Formal satire in England really began with Sir Thomas 
 Wyatt. who wrote three poems of this sort about 1 541-2. 
 They were stoic in character, and were based especially on 
 Horace, though the second poem is from the Italian Alamanni. 
 These poems, although in reality satires, were not so called 
 until modern times. Wyatt's friend the Earl of Surrey in 
 1543 wrote a poem called a Satire Against the Citizens of 
 London, which is hardly a satire at all, but rather a moralizing 
 poem. 
 
 Omitting unimportant works, — the first English satires to be 
 given that name were those by Edward Hake in 1567: News 
 
 4 See the third satire of Hall's third book, Martial writ large, where 
 he sets forth a Roman menu, and the next satire, on ostentation, which 
 begins : 
 
 "Were yesterday Polemon's natals kept. 
 That so his threshold is all freshly steept 
 With new-shed blood? Could he not sacrifice 
 Some sorry morkin that unbidden dies? etc." 
 The sixth satire, also from Martial, concerns a drunkard drinking up 
 Acheron. 
 
 85 
 
out of Powles Churchyarde . . . Written in English Satyrs. 
 Wherein is reprooved excessive and unlawfull seeking after 
 riches, and the evil! s /'ending of the same. Hake's sources 
 were English, not classical. The most influential of the 
 early satires was The Steele Glas. A Satyre corn piled by 
 George Gascoigne, Esquire, in ! i/6. It was written in an un- 
 usual vehicle tor satire, hlank verse. This too is essentially 
 a moral poem rather than a true satire, — that is, its method 
 is to stimulate virtue directly, rather than by exposing vice. 
 The steel glass was represented as the kind used in the good 
 old days, which did not flatter. The poem condemns riches 
 and luxury, and judges the several stations and professions of 
 life; the epilogue attacks the luxurious women of the time. 
 The only distinct source seems to be Piers Ploughman, which 
 it mentions with praise. 
 
 Nearly a score of years passed between the Steele Glas 
 and the beginning of the flood of satires which swept over 
 England near the close of the sixteenth century. John Donne 
 seems to have been the originator, beginning to write his 
 satires about 1593, when he was a youth of twenty. There 
 is a MS of that date containing three satires, and all seven 
 were completed shortly after the accession of James I. 
 Though none of them are known to have appeared in print 
 until the first edition of Donne's poems, 1633, they were cer- 
 tainly widely known shortly after they were written, and 
 they set the tone for their successors."' The first satire attacks 
 a 'humourous' courtier — that is, a creature of whims ; inci- 
 dentally it attacks snobbery, lust and self-conceit. The next 
 two deal with lawyers and religious sectaries. The fourth 
 is the Horatian satire, later used in the Poetaster, of the 
 assiduity of a bore; affectations of language and dress, and 
 the court, are also satirized. The other satires utilize Juvenal 
 and to a less degree Persius as sources. Donne's use of the 
 heroic couplet for his satires probably determined the verse 
 form employed by most of his successors ; Lodge seems to 
 have used it independently at about the same time. 
 
 5 From internal evidence, the first four were written before Hall's 
 book of 1597, with his claim to be the first English satirist. The fact 
 that Hall's satires are more often mentioned arises simply from their 
 having been published, while Donne's were not. But Donne's had at 
 
 least as great an influence. 
 
 86 
 
Thomas Lodge, the playwright, poet, pamphleteer and doc- 
 tor, included four satires in his Fig forMomus, published in 
 I 595- fi I' 1 hi s address To the Gentlemen Readers whatsoever, 
 he claims priority in writing satires, epistles and eclogues : 
 
 "I have thought good to include Satyres, Eclogues and Epistles . . . 
 because I would write in that forme, wherein no man might chalenge 
 me with servile imitation . . . My Satyres (to speake truth) are, by 
 pleasures, rather placed here to prepare and trie the eare then to feed 
 it; because, if it passe well, the whole centon of them, alreadie in my 
 hands, shall sodainly be published." 
 
 Apparently the Fig for Momus did not "passe well", for 
 no more of his satires appeared, though their mention by 
 Meres in 1598 indicates some fame. 7 He goes on, 
 
 "In them (under the name of certaine Romanies) where I repre- 
 hend vice, I purposely wrong no man, but observe the lawes of that 
 kind of poeme. If any repine thereat, I am sure he is guiltie, because 
 he bewrayeth himself." 
 
 He is here, thus early, speaking of the formal satire as hav- 
 ing a fixed shape and being governed by certain laws, evi- 
 dently those to be deduced from the classics. We find Juvenal 
 to have been his principal source ; as in previous satires, there 
 is a minimum of reference to contemporary life. 
 
 In 1597 the first three books of Hall's satires were printed. 
 In 1598 appeared his last three books, Marston's Pygmalion 
 and certain Satyres and his Scourge of Villainy, and Edward 
 Guilpin's Skialctheia: or, a Shadowe of Truth in certain Epi- 
 grams and Satyres. This last was entered on the Stationers' 
 Register September 15, a few days later than Marston's 
 Scourge of Villainy, and was evidently written with a knowl- 
 edge of Marston's work. He also knew Hall and Donne, and 
 had unusually little dependence upon classical sources. 
 
 In the next year, 1599, besides perhaps three further edi- 
 tions of Hall's 8 and two of Marston's satires, appeared Micro- 
 
 ' The book also included seven Epistles and four Eclogues. 
 
 '"With us, in the same faculty of satire, these are chief: Piers 
 Ploughman, Lodge, Hall of Emmanuel College in Cambridge ; the 
 author of Pygmalion's Image and certain Satires: the author of Skial- 
 theia." Palladis Tamia, reprinted in Arber's English Gamer, p. 100. 
 
 "For bibliography of Hall's Virgidemiarum see Die Satiren Halls, 
 Konrad Schulze, Palaestra cvi, pp. 4 and 7. 
 
cynicon, Sixe Snarling Satyres, which has heen doubtfully 
 assigned to Thomas Middleton. If so, it is his first literary 
 work, as satires had been Marston's first. Micro-cxnicon 
 shows knowledge of both Hall and Marston. This same year 
 came the order of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
 Bishop of London, for the burning of the satires of Hall, 
 Marston, Guilpin, and the Micro-cynicon. 9 That this occur- 
 ence had an effect upon Marston's reputation is shown by 
 the entry in the Stationers' Register for Antonio and Mellida, 
 October 24, 1601 ; the play was to be entered "Provided that 
 he can get lawfull license for yt", which shows him still under 
 suspicion. Perhaps it was of his own case Marston was 
 thinking when he wrote in the Dutch Courtezan 10 
 
 "For as in the fashion of time those books that are called in are 
 most in sale and request, so in nature those actions that are most 
 prohibited are most desired."" 
 
 PYGMALION 
 
 It was this tide of fashion which directed Marston's 
 earliest work toward satire. But the long poem at the be- 
 ginning of his first thin volume 12 was not apparently satiric 
 at all, though the author so called it. It was in another favor- 
 ite vein of the day, a narrative poem giving a poetic rendering 
 of a classic love story. We have many of the same genre, most 
 of them drawing their material from Ovid's Metamorphoses. 13 
 
 9 Fleay (Life of Shakespeare, p. 208) attempts to date As You Like 
 It soon after this occurrence, by the line "The little wit fools have was 
 silenced" (I, ii, 94), which he believes alludes to this burning. 
 
 10 III, i, 44. 
 
 " This passage is a borrowing from Florio's Montaigne, III, v : "It 
 is not herein as in matters of books, which being once called in and 
 forbidden become more saleable and public." 
 
 12 The Metamorphosis of Pymalions Image, and Satyres, entered in 
 S. R. May 27, 1598, and published the same year. This edition Grosart 
 places among "the many that appear to have been in continuous cir- 
 culation" — merely guesswork, as there is no evidence of any other 
 edition. Pygmalion's Image, without the Satyres, was reprinted with 
 Alcilia, Philoparthen's loving Folly, Love of Amos and Laura, etc., in 
 1613 and 1628 (Bullen, Marston, I, xvii). 
 
 1 Perhaps the first was Thomas Peend's Salmacis and Hermaphro- 
 ditus, 1565. Among others later were Grove's Pelops and Hippodamia, 
 
Critics have been sharply divided as to the satiric element in 
 Pygmalion's Image. These are the facts. No one reading 
 the poem would for a moment suspect that it was meant as 
 satire or contained any hidden meaning at all. 14 There is 
 nothing in the dedication, "To the World's Mighty Monarch, 
 Good Opinion", in the Argument of the Poem, or even in the 
 address "To his Mistress" (though that seems to be in a 
 somewhat less serious vein) that would lead one to suspect 
 that Pygmalion was not what it purported to be. a frankly 
 amorous poem, like a dozen of the same kind that had preceded 
 it. It is not until we come to "The Author in praise of his 
 precedent Poem", placed between the poem and the satires, 
 that we first discover that the author is not taking his work 
 seriously. This is more directly personal, and from its tone 
 is evidently more akin to the satires than to the poem. It is 
 written in heroic couplets, like the satires, while the poem is 
 in six-line stanzas. It employs typical language of the satires : 
 
 "Now, Rufus, by old Glebron's fearful mace, 
 Hath not my muse deserved a worthy place? 
 Come, come, Luxurio, crown my head with bays. 
 Which, like a Paphian, wantonly displays 
 The Salaminion titillations 
 Which tickle up our lewd Priapians." 
 
 He goes on to deride his address to his mistress, and tries to 
 connect the poem's happy ending with some other contempo- 
 rary work : 
 
 etc., 1587; Thomas Lodge's Glaucus and Scylla, or Scylla's Metamor- 
 phosis, 1589; Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, Marlowe's and Chap- 
 man's Hero and Leandcr, Samuel Daniel's Complaint of Rosamund 
 (with an English story), 1593; about this time were written Gervaise 
 Markham's lost Thyrsis and Daphne, and Henry Constable's Sheep- 
 heard' s Song of Venus and Adonis (first published 1600, but perhaps 
 written before Shakespeare's poem) ; Richard Barnfield's Affectionate 
 Shepherd, Shakespeare's Rape of Lucrece, 1594 ; Chapman's Ovid's 
 Banquet of Sense, Drayton's Endymion and Phoebe, Edwards' Cepha- 
 lus and Procris, and his Narcissus, 1595. But by 1598 the fashion 
 seems to have been dying out. For later examples, see infra, p. 121, n. 
 14 Certainly it required unusual perspicuity to discern that "the 
 wooing of Adonis by the queen of love (i. e.. Shakespeare's poem) is 
 very roughly but very cleverly parodied." Anon, in Enc. Brit. 9th ed., 
 XV, 575. Not repeated in 11th ed. 
 
"So Labeo did complain his love was stone . . . 
 Yet Lynceus knows that in the end of this 
 He 15 wrought as strange a metamorphosis. 
 Ends not my poem then surpassing ill ?"'* 
 
 He concludes by saying that he censures himself, so disarming' 
 criticism : 
 
 "My lines are froth, my stanzas sapless be . . . 
 Ye changing Proteans, list, 
 And tremble at a barking satirist." 
 
 Then follows the first satire. Thus "The Author in praise" 
 is evidently a device for transition from the poem to the 
 satires ; it furnishes primarily an introduction to them rather 
 than a serious criticism of Pygmalion. 
 
 In the sixth satire of the Scourge of Villainy Marston 
 elaborates this view of his poem. Pygmalion has been cen- 
 sured : 
 
 "Curio, knowst my sprite. 
 
 Yet deem'st that in sad seriousness I write 
 
 Such nasty stuff as is Pygmalion? 
 
 Ha, how he glavers with his fawning snout, 
 
 And swears he thought I meant but faintly flout 
 
 My fine smug rhyme . . . 
 
 Hence, thou misjudging censor: know I wrote 
 
 Those idle rhymes to note the odious spot 
 
 And blemish that deforms the lineaments 
 
 Of modern poesie's habiliments." 
 
 Thaji is, Pygmalion was written as a burlesque on the poetry 
 of the day. 
 
 Altogether, Marston devotes some eighty lines of this satire 
 to Pygmalion, roundly asserting that it was satire ; and still, 
 few feel completely satisfied that the poem was conceived 
 satirically. As Grosart says, Marston here gives "a kind of 
 apology for Pygmalion, albeit more ingeniously than ingenu- 
 ously." And Winkler 17 writes truly, "das alle Versuche 
 
 1S I. e., Labeo, whom I take to indicate here some complaining son- 
 netteer, impossible to identify, and certainly not Hall, who wrote no 
 love-poetry. Lynceus is always used by Marston to indicate the sharp- 
 sighted observer. 
 
 '"L. 29 f. 
 
 17 John Marston's litterarische Anfangc. Dissertation. Carl Wil- 
 helm Winckler. Breslau, 1903. P. 38. 
 
 90 
 
Marstons, den Pygmalion als satirische Dichtung hinzustellen, 
 an den Tatsachen selbst scheitern. Wahrend er zuerst (in 
 the Author in praise u.s.w.) seine eigene Dichtung ganz 
 zutrefrend als lasciv brandmarkt, aber den beweis schuldig 
 bleibt und bleiben muss, dass die zeitgenossische Litteratur 
 denselben Charakter trage, kennzeichnet er spater (in Scourge 
 o. V. VI,) eine Reihe von Swachen seiner Zeitgenossen ganz 
 richtig, ohne sie indessen, wie er behauptet, in Pygmalion 
 verspottet zu haben." 
 
 Elsewhere, Marston himself states that he had written 
 amorous poetry. Satire II opens, 
 
 "I that even now h'op'd like an amorist 
 Am turned into a snaphance ls satirist." 
 
 and he goes on to say that he has not been immaculate. In 
 all probability he is referring to Pygmalion. 
 
 It is not difficult to conjecture what probably happened. 
 Pygmalion was Marston's first work, just as J'enus and Adonis 
 was the first heir of Shakespeare's invention. Perhaps it was 
 written when Marston was in college, at the time when the 
 vogue of the amorous poem was at its height ; at the very 
 latest, Marston could not have been more than about twenty- 
 two at its composition. It was indeed, conventionally erotic. 
 Though Marston went further than most of his contempo- 
 raries in the use of daring language, we feel that he himself 
 while writing was never emotionally carried away; the poem 
 is always cold and intellectual. 111 
 
 Later, after he had lived in London, he easily fell into the 
 prevailing satiric fashion. Perhaps after his first satires had 
 h( ,i composed, the publication of Hall's Virgidemiarum 
 prompted him to bring out what he had written, and the earlier 
 poem was utilized to fill out the book;'-'" probably Marston. 
 though by this time somewhat ashamed of it, really desired its 
 
 18 Hair-trigger. 
 
 19 We are reminded of the temper of Swift's erotic poetry, which, 
 however, is obviously satirical. 
 
 "As in Hake's satires, News out of Powlcs Churchyardc, with its 
 notice: "Gentle Reader, for the fillings up of emptie pages, this letter 
 written by the Author to his friends lying at the point of death is in- 
 serted." Other instances are of course frequent in Elizabethan lit- 
 erature, as in some of Lodge's and Greene's tracts. 
 
 01 
 
publication, as his first work. Since its character was obviously 
 just that which the accompanying satires attacked, he con- 
 nected the two by satiric lines which made fun of the poem. 
 This evidently did not disarm contemporary critics, who 
 rightly thought he 'meant but faintly flout his fine smug verse'. 
 So he braved out the attempt at denial in the Scourge of Vil- 
 lainy, explaining faults of matter and manner by saying that 
 they were intentional, and even hinting, though not actually 
 asserting, that the Pygmalion contained definite hits at con- 
 temporary poetry. These have been sought for, of course 
 vainly, by modern critics. 21 In brief, Marston first ridiculed 
 his own poem to reconcile it with the satires, and was later 
 drawn on to try to make it seem a parody, which the poem 
 evidently was not. 
 
 FORMAL SATIRES 
 
 Marston wrote sixteen formal satires, besides preliminary 
 and concluding matter. Five of these were in the volume 
 entitled The Metamorphosis of Pygmalion's Image ; and Cer- 
 tain Satires; ten were in the first edition of the Scourge of 
 Villainy, and one more was added to its second edition. The 
 Scourge of Villainy is divided into three books, for no appa- 
 rent reason save imitation of the classics ; these books contain 
 four, three and four satires respectively. If any generaliza- 
 tion can be attempted where none seems to have been designed, 
 it may be said that the Satires treat generally of hypocrisy ; 
 the first book of the Scourge, of lust ; the second, of man's 
 general depravity; and the third, of his minor faults. Alto- 
 gether the satires, etc., take 2757 lines, 22 thus allowing room 
 for a great variety of attack. It will be my aim to classify the 
 objects of Marston's satire, and to show briefly his apparent 
 attitude toward his surroundings, at least as far as he chose to 
 put it in his satires. 
 
 The subjects of Marston's satire may be divided 23 into six 
 large and not too clearly defined groups: First, general, 
 
 21 Winckler, Ibid.; Grosart. 
 
 22 Bullens ed. This number does not include the poem of Pygmalion. 
 Cf. Gascoigne's Steele Glas, about 1140 lines ; Hake's Neives Out of 
 Powles, about 2800 short lines; Donne's Satires, 713; Lodge's, 395; 
 Hall's, 2812. 
 
 "Generally following Alden. 
 
 92 
 
including the nature and mission of satire itself, the wretched 
 state of the world, and the degeneracy of the age ; second, 
 morals, including hypocrisy, lust, religion, and the varieties 
 of crime; third, humours, or what we might today call exag- 
 gerated hobbies and idiosyncracies ; fourth, manners and fash- 
 ion, as of clothes, eating and drinking; fifth, classes of man- 
 kind — including woman ; and finally, sixth, literature. 
 
 GENERAL SATIRE 
 
 Perhaps the most baffling problem connected with Marston 
 is that of discovering what his own attitude toward life 
 really was. Generally Marston seems in deadly earnest in 
 scourging an useless world ; at times he laughs at the follies 
 of the world; again he confesses that it was all make-believe: 
 
 "Though angry brow was bent. 
 Yet have I sung in sporting merriment." 
 
 lie pitches the general key of his satire very high. The 
 satirist he takes to be a missionary, a kind of Scourge of God 
 for the chastisement of the times. I do not think Marston 
 really believed this ; but he thought it was the proper tone 
 for Satire to adopt, because he was following Hall's magnilo- 
 quent example, the only English satirist he knew. Hall had 
 written, for example, in this vein:'-' 4 
 
 "Nay, no despite : but angry Nemesis 
 Whose scourge doth follow all that done ami<s : 
 That scourge I bear, albe in ruder fist, 
 And wound, and strike, and pardon whom she list." 
 
 1 knee it is that Marston derives the inspiration of such lines 
 as : 25 
 
 "Now, grim Reproof, swell in my rough-hued rhyme. 
 That thou mayst vex the guilty of our time." 
 
 "Now doth Rhamnusia Adrastian, 
 Daughter of Night, and of the Ocean, 
 Provoke my pen. What cold Saturnian 
 Can hold, and hear such vile detraction?" 
 
 2 " Virgid. Prol. to Lib. II. 
 
 2r ' S. iii. 1. Other passages of the same tenor are Author in Praise; 
 SV. In Led. 38; Proem, Lib. I; I. 43; II, 1; 37; 70; 80; III, 126; V, 
 10.",; VI, 13: Pr. in Lib. Ill; IX, 1 ; 126. 
 
 03 
 
This last 26 is a parody of Hall's Defiance to Envy, but other 
 passages 1 ' 7 show how Marston went from parody to imita- 
 tion : 
 
 "I bear the scourge of just Rhamnusia, 
 Lashing the lewdness of Britannia." 
 
 "Grim-faced Reproof, sparkle with threatening eye ! 
 Bend thy sour brows in my tart poesy ! 
 Avaunt, ye curs ! howl in some cloudy mist, 
 Quake to behold a sharp- fanged satirist!" 
 
 Marston derived this sort of thing from Hall, and Hall from 
 Seneca, not from the classic satirists. Juvenal it is true had 
 something of the spirit, but it was expressed in a very different 
 form. The Senecan rhodomontade was introduced into Eng- 
 lish satire by Hall, 28 for it is not found in Gascoigne, Hake, 
 Lodge or Donne. Marston adopted and over-used it, until 
 every reader is inclined to rebel at the high-mightiness of his 
 self-constituted authority. 
 
 His general attitude is that the world has become altogether 
 degenerate, and is now in a frightful state. He speaks not in 
 admonition, but in shrill abhorrence, which he continually 
 says he cannot restrain himself from expressing. 29 Even 
 when he laughs at mankind's follies, it is such violent, bitttr 
 laughter that again and again he has to beware of 'breaking 
 his gall'. 30 Marston's theory of the cause of the time's evi!- 
 ness was that the connection between God and man had been 
 interrupted ; the union between soul and body had therefore 
 been broken, and the body was left to its bestiality. He 
 expresses this in characteristic terms : Goodness was piped 
 into man from the Deity, but the slime from our natural souls 
 "Have stopped those pipes by which it was conveyed", and 
 
 28 S. iv. 1. 
 
 27 Proem, Lib. T ; SV. IX, 1. 
 
 28 Cf . Prologue to Lib. I, Virgid. 
 
 29 So he heads one of the satires with a quotation from Juvenal, 
 "Difficile est Satiram non scribere." SV. II contains a number of such 
 statements. 
 
 so S. i, 51, where Democritus laughs at a foolish lover — a fore- 
 runner of Burton's Democritus Junior; cf. also SV.K. 80. For violent 
 laughter, cf. S. i, 51, 124; iii, 71, 81; SV. XI, 12, 239. For classical 
 sources of this hilarity at folly or vice, cf. Juvenal X. 33; Persius, 
 I, 12. 
 
 94 
 
now 'the blessed Synderesis' which united the soul and body 
 of man has vanished.' 1 
 
 Naturally he has the greatest contempt for most of his 
 readers, for whom his book is much too good: 
 
 "What though the sacred issue of my soul 
 1 here expose to idiots' control ' ,sa 
 
 "Nay then, come all ; I prostitute my muse, 
 For all the swarms of idiots to abuse." a; ' 
 
 Marston's satire is direct; he has no ability to use such 
 finer tools as irony."' 4 Once he attempts it in a clumsy way : 
 vice is so prosperous that the satirist must have been deceived 
 into taking wrong for right, hell for heaven ; if that be the 
 case he has nothing further to satirise. But he confesses his 
 inability to deal further in the vein : 
 
 "Now doth my satire stagger in a doubt, 
 Whether to cease or else to write it out. 
 The subject is too sharp for my dull quill." 35 
 
 Nevertheless he uses a sort of irony when attempting to 
 forestall the criticism which his work would provoke. Hall 
 had written a Defiance to Envy, which Marston read very 
 carefully, first in order to parody, then to imitate, though giv- 
 ing it his own peculiar twist. His first work, Pygmalion, 
 had been dedicated "To the World's mighty Monarch, Good 
 Opinion," and his first edition of the Scourge, "To his most 
 esteemed and best beloved Self." In 1599 he dedicated the 
 Scourge of Villainy to Detraction. We see here a change of 
 tactics ; his state of mind at first was that of the young author 
 anxious for praise and afraid of censure; his dedication to 
 himself shows him. stung by criticism, attempting to fall back 
 upon himself and disdain whatever the world said ; the dedica- 
 
 ai SV. VII, XI. i 
 
 33 SV. VI, 105; cf. SV. IV. 167f. 
 
 3:1 SV. In Lect: 61. Cf. the attitude in the Preface to Chap- 
 man's Ovid's Banquet of Sense, and toward the end of Every Man 
 Out (quoted, Baskerville, p. 313). 
 
 34 This is another reason for doubting that all Pygmalirn was in- 
 tended as a gigantic piece of irony. 
 
 36 S. v. 139f. 
 
 95 
 
tion to Detraction itself may well show him as driven out of 
 wouldbe isolation into a blustering attempt to show that he 
 desired censure. It is evident from the number of times he 
 mentions his reputation as author" 1 that he was greatly in- 
 terested, and this Dedication to Detraction was only his char- 
 acteristic device to avoid danger by flattering it. So it was 
 that on his tombstone appeared "Oblivioni Sacrum". Marston 
 was the Malcontent, taking shelter in the tyrant's very court 
 and favour, till time should serve for revenge. 
 
 MORALS 
 
 Under this heading are included, first and most important, 
 lust, with its several varieties; hypocrisy, and the love of 
 money include most of the other objects of attack. 
 
 Lust is the most prominent subject of Marston's literary 
 work. He began by writing Pygmalion, the most frank in its 
 wording of any of the erotic Elizabethan poems. As for his 
 plays, the briefest reading makes it only too evident how 
 engaged the dramatist's mind was with the flesh. So, it is 
 not surprising that attacks on lechery fill the main part of his 
 satires. They begin with it, for llie Author in Praise, follow- 
 ing Pygmalion, is really the satire's preface. Its purpose is to 
 try to make Pygmalion appear a satire too, and one on sensual 
 poetry, to "tickle up our lewd Priapians". General attacks on 
 lust are everywhere in the Satires themselves. In the Scourge 
 of Villainy, satires I, III, and VII are principally concerned 
 
 " Detraction is warned from his work, SV. VI, 101, and a slanderer 
 is satirized, SV. I, l>4. He especially accuses Hall of detraction, S. 
 iv, 4, 109. In the Author in Praise, following Pygmalion, he tries to 
 disarm criticism by proclaiming his own faults : he will 
 
 "Censure myself, 'fore others me deride . . . 
 Mj lines are froth, my stanzas sapless be." 
 
 (This sounds as though it might mask the beginning of his change 
 of mind about Pygmalion. At first he may have thought to reconcile 
 it thus with the Satires, by admitting its faults. Certainly he is. not 
 here thinking that the poem was intended to be a parody.) 
 
 Bullen in a note says he fails to understand why Marston signed 
 the last of his Satires, Epictetus. It probably is to be explained by 
 a passage in the preface to the Fawn: "My bosom friend, good 
 Epictetus, makes me easily to contemn all such men's malice." (Cf. 
 also the mention of Epictetus in the Proemium in Lib. II, SV.) 
 
 96 
 
with it, as are large parts of IV, Y1J1 and XI ; and it is con- 
 stantly alluded to even when it is not the theme, indeed when 
 the immediate object of attack seems quite foreign, as gam- 
 bling, embezzling or stupidity. 37 
 
 When lust is so carefully and lingeringly dwell u]>on, 
 it -is impossible to avoid the suspicion that its consideration 
 was pleasing to the author. There is no reason for doubting 
 that such was the case. From his own day to this, his 
 readers have been shocked, or at least displeased, because 
 Marston is so vivid in his frankness, his eagerness to reveal 
 strikingly facts usually left unmentioned, at least by art. He 
 has the ability and the desire to retail graphically and forcibly 
 all the ugly details of illicit sexual relations. One naturally 
 wonders how this teacher recked his own rede, but we cannot 
 answer; we know nothing of Marston's private life or morals 
 save what we can glean from his own works. He certainly 
 displays a large and varied knowledge of depravity. I leinsius 
 called satire a kind of poetry 'invented for the purging of our 
 minds', and it may have had this effect upon its writer. 
 
 Marston's satires do not effect their avowed and real pur- 
 pose — that of punishing and so lessening vice — because his 
 readers are not as coldblooded as the author. It is true that 
 he nearly always puts vice in an unpleasant light- — certainly 
 sensual vice. So far he fulfills well enough the demand of 
 literary morality, that nothing be written which tends "to 
 debase the affections, sophisticate or deaden the conscience, 
 enfeeble the will". 38 But readers are diverted from disliking 
 the vice to disliking the scourge. — and so, in spite of his 
 undeniable power of phrasing, Marston is little read. It is 
 largely a matter of taste, and good taste he utterly offends. 
 Contemporary criticism, as in the The Whipping of the Satire 
 and The Return [nun Parnassus, shows even the less fas- 
 tidious canons of Elizabethan taste were transgressed. And it 
 is no wonder that in 1887 Mr. Bullen mentioned a fleeting 
 doubt concerning a possible censoring of his reprint of Mar- 
 si (.'.1. Marston. like Swift, frequently connected lust and 
 bodily tilth; and this combination, when expressed as forcibly 
 and effectively as his genius enabled him to write, is only too 
 likely to he more than modern sensibility can stomach. 
 
 3T SV. [V, 88; S; VIII, 165. 
 
 ^Winchester, Principles of Lit. Crit., p. 111. 
 
 97 
 
As might be expected, Marston does not hesitate to speak 
 freely of almost every variety of sexual vice. Whores of all 
 ranks are given considerable attention. He has none of Ford's 
 and the modern world's sentimental pity for their fallen estate ; 
 in his eyes they are thoroughly evil, bringing the downfall 
 of men, and they are what they are simply because "modesty is 
 roosted in the skies". 39 But his principal interest is in men. 
 He not only warns them in too forceful words from whores, 40 
 but condemns them bitterly for their open lewdness. One 
 satire 41 dwells almost entirely on this subject, of men's souls 
 lost through "riot, lust, and fleshly seeming-sweetness". Eliza- 
 bethan morals were far from rigid, but if they were as openly 
 vicious as the satirist attempts to show, England would have 
 vied with Imperial Rome. 4 - Indeed, Marston's tone is more 
 that of Juvenal here than anywhere else ; yet he seems to have 
 taken almost no details from the classics. Cuckolds and 
 adulterers are mentioned in the usual Elizabethan terms : the 
 citizen more or less unwillingly allows his wife to be seduced 
 by the courtier; 43 but in addition Marston seems to have had 
 an attraction toward the mentioning of incest and various 
 family confusions. 44 Homosexuality is unsparingly dealt 
 with, 45 and he utters the customary complaint against travel- 
 lers, that they bring in "beastly luxuries, Some hell-devised 
 lustful villainies ; Even apes and beasts would blush with 
 
 89 SV. II, 109. Some references to this subject are: S. ii, 107; SV. 
 In Lect. 12; I, 15; 56 (cf. Virgid. IV. 1: "all day simpering"); III, 
 29; VIII, 172; IX, 121; XI, 199. 
 
 40 SV. II, 38f. 
 
 41 SV. VII. 
 
 42 S. i, 90, 98, 107; ii, 118; SV. In Lect. 76. refer to the dissolute 
 soldiar Tubrio. For other references, see esp. SV. I, 60, 71, 38f ; 
 III, 88, 91, 130, 180; IV, S, 33, 88; V, 82, 90; VII passim; VIII, 118f; 
 XI, 137. 
 
 43 S. i, 55, 63; SV. I, 73f ; III, 99, 185; V, 78; XT, 115, 167. 
 
 44 SV. I, 37, 60 ; III, 95, 184 ; V, 97. In X, 27 a younger cuckolds 
 an elder brother, and by the consequent birth of an heir loses his in- 
 heritance; this incident is expanded in the Fawn, IV, i, 73, 90. 
 
 45 S. iii, 33; SV. II, 49; III, 38f., 58-68, where he says that from 
 its source at Douai seminary it has spread to 'Valladolid our Athens', 
 — as he calls Oxford, in rivalry with Hall's use of Athens for Cam- 
 bridge. VII, 25, 158. Diogenes (SV. Ill, 47) and frequently 
 Socrates (as IX, 119) are accused. For a doubtful reference to 
 masturbation, sec 111, 52. 
 
 OS 
 
native shame". 4 '" The theatre is mentioned a couple of times 
 as furnishing opportunities for immorality. ,T The mention 
 of sexual disease is of course frequent. 4S Aphrodisiacs are 
 cited, such as oysters, marrow pie, eringoes, sweet potatoes, 
 crab and buttered lobster, 41 ' while their opposites — camphire, 
 lettuce and thistles — he obtains, characteristically, from 
 Hall. 50 Perverted marriages are only alluded to, 51 not com- 
 ing strictly within the scope of his satire. Effeminacy"'- is 
 touched upon but lightly. But Marston hates those who have 
 fallen into subjection to women ; Hercules as Omphale's 
 servant is a type of the state which his plays often flout. 53 
 
 Hypocrisy is the real theme of the first two satires, and 
 attacks on it are scattered through the others, in many different 
 forms. 54 Thus Tubrio, the soldier, appears brave, but is so 
 only in the wars of the stews, 55 and the covertly sensual man 
 is elsewhere described as "but a muck-hill overspread with 
 snow". 5,i His chief assault is upon parasites, which word he, 
 in common with other Elizabethan satirists, uses almost inter- 
 changeably with hypocrite. He contrives to make few merely 
 
 48 SV. IX, 125. Foreign vices are esp. mentioned S. ii, 127f. Bruto, 
 the traveller, is in some respects an early example of the Malcontent 
 type ; — dressed in sad colors, he exclaims against the corrupted age, 
 while he himself went abroad to seek evil. The resemblance to 
 Shakespeare's Jaques is striking. May not Bruto and Jaques both 
 have been drawn from some actual London figure? 
 
 Other foreign references are S. iii, 70; SV. IX, 90, with which cf. 
 Hall, III, i. For other contemporary portraits of travellers, see 
 references in Baskerville, p. 271f. 
 
 17 SV. In Led. 45; IX, 121. 
 
 4S E. g.. SV. I, 56; S. ii, 150; S. V., III. 01: VII. lOOf. 
 
 " SV. II, 30; III, 69. 
 
 '"SV. Ill, •;:•; I'irgid. IV, iv, 109. Cf. also Virgid. IV. i, 122; Ovid, 
 Ars Am., II, 415; Dutch Courtezan, IV, iii. 35. 
 
 51 SV. I, 32; IV, 105; Pr. Lib. 11. ad Rhyth., 20; V, 59. For sell- 
 ing of wives, see references to adultery, supra. 
 
 63 S. ii, 125; Pyg., Aut. in Praise. 24. Effeminate is used in the 
 different sense of lustful, SV. VII, 34; cf. Ins. Court. I, i, 60, and 
 contrast Male. Ill, i, 28. 
 
 53 SV. VII, 32. 
 
 64 S. i, Ruscus, and Castilio (cf. infra, p. HIS). S. ii, Hall is in- 
 cluded under hypocrites, because his satires only pretend to do good, 
 but are too obscure. SV. Ill, 151 ; VII, 14-3f.; S. i.. 73; SV. III. 127. 
 
 "'•S. i. 
 
 " SV. VI 1. 155. 
 
 99 
 
typical figures; even when the vice is common, his keen vision 
 separates the figure clearly from the mob, by means of small 
 details which frequently contrive to be highly individual. It 
 would seem to be the rule in his descriptions to have some 
 definite individual in view, and he did not protest so strongly 
 against that supposition as satirists were wont to do. 
 
 The Machiavellian is the highest form of parasite, 57 but 
 Marston goes down the list until he reaches Ruscus, who will 
 leave off flattering when he gets some new clothes. 58 
 
 The desire for money is one of the reasons for parasitism ; 
 but money with Marston is not nearly so much emphasized 
 as with most of his contemporary satirists. This may have 
 been because Marston himself seems to have been in easy 
 circumstances, but it is extraordinary when the prevalence 
 of English satire on the love of money is noted. 59 Among 
 others 00 he mentions those who (like Falstaff) embezzle war- 
 funds, "bright dirt" as he calls it; 61 and those who owe money, 
 and so make poor ballads out of flattery. 62 Twice he attacks 
 the practise of buying the care of orphan heirs. 63 Usurers are 
 seldom mentioned, but his harshest whipping is given to a 
 
 67 S. ii, 87f. 
 
 68 SV. IV, 57f. S. i, 13. The title of Marston's play The Fawn 
 means one who fawns, a use original with him, while its subtitle is 
 the Parasitaster. 
 
 59 Hake's Newes out of Powles was Otherwise entituled, syr Num- 
 mus. Written in English Satyrs. Wherein is reprooved excessive 
 and unlawful seeking after riches, and the evil spending of the same. 
 (I sham Reprint, 1872.) The Steele Glas satirizes all those who work 
 for gain under the name of peasants. Lodge's first Satire deals largely 
 with bribes and usury ; his third is addressed "to a deere friend lately 
 given over to covetousnesse", and describes a miser. Hall's Satires 
 II, ii ; v; III, i; iii ; IV, ii ; v; V, ii, iv, are wholly or largely given 
 to this subject. 
 
 '" S. i. 08; SV. IV, 39; V, 95; 2Qf. Gambling, misers and spend- 
 thrifts are given their due; SV. Ill, llf. : 
 
 "A die, a drab, and filthy broking knaves, 
 
 Are the world's wide mouths, all-devouring graves." 
 
 See also for gambling, SV. Ill, 108; IV, 02; XI, 84. Misers, be- 
 ginning of SV. III. Monopolies, SV., IV, 83; VII, 33; XI, 137. 
 m SV. IV, 2. 
 
 •Mb. 9. Cf. Hall, I, i, llf. 
 98 SV. II, 58-68; III, 157. 
 
 100 
 
certain Puritan usurer with whom he ruefully acknowledges 
 to have had dealings : 
 
 "With his bait of purity 
 He bit me sore in deepest usurery. 
 No Jew, no Turk, would use a Christian 
 So inhumanely as this Puritan. 
 Diomedes' jades were not so bestial 
 As this same seeming-saint, — vile cannibal !" M 
 
 Here he passes from satire concerning money to that of 
 Puritanism. Religion was no safe ground for careless satire, 
 and Marstcn is exceedingly circumspect in dealing with this 
 subject. The state of the Church needed reproof as much 
 perhaps as anything in the age, but reprovers were not popular, 
 and ecclesiastics had long arms, — and were the censors of the 
 press. Apart from a few side hits, as at indifference and 
 simony , 65 there is no mention of the Establishment. But with 
 dissent he had a free ground. To the satire of the Puritan 
 usurer he added a long and aptly expressed passage on his 
 religion, typical of the drama's satire of Puritans: 
 
 "That same devout meal-mouth'd precisian, 
 
 That cries 'Good brother', 'Kind sister', makes a duck 
 
 After the antique grace, can always pluck 
 
 A sacred book out of his civil hose, 
 
 And at the opening and at our stomach's close 
 
 Says with a turned-up eye a solemn grace 
 
 Of half an hour; then with a silken face 
 
 Smiles on the holy crew, and then doth cry, 
 
 'O manners! O times of impurity!' 
 
 What that depaints a church-reformed state, — 
 
 The which the female tongues magnificate. 
 
 . . . Who thinks that this good man 
 Is a vile, sober, damned politician? . . . 
 Who all confusion to the world would bring 
 Under the form of their new discipline: 
 
 . . . to set endless contentious strife 
 Betwixt Jehovah and his sacred wife!" 00 
 
 " S. ii, 71. A clergyman is also attacked, SV. V, M. See also SV. 
 I, 25; IV, 73. 
 
 85 SV. Ill, 133; 151; IV, 31; 39; V, 64. 
 
 88 I. e., the church. S. ii. 58. Cf. Every Man Out, Asper on 
 Puritans. Prol. 39-46. 
 
 101 
 
Elsewhere he says that the 'lewd' precisians scorn church-rites ; 
 being forced to take the sacrament, they 
 
 "take the symbol up 
 As slovenly as careless courtiers slup 
 Their mutton-gruel."" 7 
 
 Besides the Puritans, the Roman Catholics were his other 
 permitted prey ; rather tediously he shows that he shared the 
 prevailing detestation of them. 68 
 
 He intimates that murder is common, especially inside 
 families ; but this is probably a reflection of classic or Italian 
 conditions. 69 
 
 HUMOURS 70 
 
 In the first few satires, humours are clearly divided from 
 other faults. The distinguishing characteristic of a humour is 
 that it is a comparatively small habit or hobby which has 
 warped a man's whole life, until it appears in everything he 
 does. Humours are distinguished from real offences against 
 morals, such as lust, by their comparative harmlessness, yet 
 they engross a man's whole attention. They tend to make 
 him appear ridiculous rather than detestable. So SV. XI, 
 whose title is Humours, begins : 
 
 "Sleep, grim Reproof ; my jocund muse doth sing 
 In other keys, to nimbler fingering. 
 Dull-sprighted Melancholy, leave my brain — 
 To hell, Cimmerian night! in lively vein 
 I strive to paint, then hence all dark intent 
 And sullen frowns ! Come, sporting Merriment, 
 Check-dimplingl Laughter, crown my very soul 
 With jouisance, whilst mirthful jests control 
 The gouty humours of these pride-swoll'n days 
 . . . I shall break my sides at vanity." " 
 
 " 7 SV. II. 94. Other references to Puritans: SV. II, 13; IX, 109f. 
 
 *Pyg., -hit in Praise, 37; SV. Ill, 58, 65; VIII, 83. Alden has 
 noted the singular way in which Marston often abuses the morals 
 of the classic pantheon (p. 138). 
 
 W SV II, 114-128; III, 133. Cf. Juvenal, Sat. Ill, 116-7. 
 
 Lying and blasphemy are mentioned, SV. Ill, 81 ; V, 45, VII, 116. 
 Gallus swears "with whole-culverin, raging oaths, to tear the vault 
 of heaven", etc., IV, 21. 
 
 70 Perhaps best dealt with in Baskerville, Chap. III. 
 
 71 Besides the correspondence of theme, the italicised words occur 
 near the beginning of L' Allegro; there would seem to be many sim- 
 ilarities for mere coincidence. 
 
 102 
 
Thus, one of the objects of Marston's ridicule is Curio, who 
 was always dancing in the street ; in characteristic language he 
 says of him: 
 
 "His very soul, his intellectual, 
 
 Is nothing but a mincing- capreal."" 
 
 Luscus can think of nothing but the theatre, and can speak 
 
 "Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo. 
 
 Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio? . . . 
 
 He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts — what not? — 
 
 And all from out his huge long-scraped stock 
 
 Of well-penned plays." 73 
 
 There are quite a number of other pure humours, 74 most of 
 which seem to us either quite unreal, or simply the result of a 
 man's being wrapt up in his profession. Here lust is plainly 
 outside the ordinary meaning of the term humours, follies to 
 be laughed away ; but Marston cannot forbear introducing the 
 subject, the connection being that a man is shown who gives 
 himself up entirely to it. 75 At the end of the satires 76 he 
 still more enlarges the term, by a long warning against sub- 
 mitting to humours, including in them all errors. 
 
 The humour most exactly the opposite to Marston's own 
 is that of romantic and formal love-making, which had spread 
 over courtly Europe at the time. Marston was a gentleman, 
 but like Swift he could not have been an especially polite one. 
 
 72 S. i, 125; expanded in SV. XI, 15. Capreal is used twice in 
 Davies' Orchestra, a poem to which Marston directly after alludes 
 by name. Intellectual and mincing capreal are quoted by Jonson 
 in Every Man Out (see supra, p. 133). 
 
 78 S. i, 132. This reference to Shakespeare's play is one of the best 
 evidences of its popularity. Cf. Insat. Count. I, i, 195. Drusus has 
 been identified with Shakespeare, Roscius with Alleyn (Gerald Massey, 
 Secret Drama of Shakespeare's Sonnets Unfolded, 1872, pp. 520-3; 
 Grosart, Introd. to Marston's Poems; Alden, p. 134). There are no 
 sufficient grounds for argument one way or the other ; Marston simply 
 meant by the names to indicate well-known actors. Alleyn might 
 probably be in his mind, Shakespeare improbably. Massey's argu- 
 ment that Luscus himself is meant for Shakespeare the plagiarist is 
 absurd. Cf. with this, Pistol's humour. 
 
 74 S. i, 129; 131 and SV. XT, 52; SV. XI passim. 
 
 75 SV. XI, 135f. 
 
 76 Here occurs a single reference to gluttony, where he really has 
 lust in mind. 
 
 103 
 
He hated formalities of every kind; he hated hypocrisy; he 
 despised women as a class : altogether nothing could have been 
 more hateful to him than love-making of the regularized and 
 excessively conventional type which Jonson was to parody 
 in Cynthia's Revels?" 1 Again and again in his plays is this 
 affectation of the age ridiculed, and the satires contain fierce 
 attacks upon it. 
 
 His most complete picture of the inamorate fool is of 
 Lucian, who is sick abed for love, in a chamber hung round 
 with elegies and sonnets, its window-glass full of scratched 
 love-knots. He 'perfumes his mistress with sweet epithets', 
 "Then with a melting look he writhes his head, . 
 cries, 'O cruel fair", 78 Shall such a being, who knows no more 
 language than "Sweet lady, kind heart, fair mistress!" and 
 who has never read further than his mistress' lips dare to 
 criticise satires? Again, the monkey of Curio's mistress is 
 dead : it is his duty to attend the funeral and compose mourn- 
 ful elegies. Publius is quite beside himself with joy if he 
 gets possession of one of her hairpins, raving: 
 
 "Celestial bliss. 
 Can heaven grant so rich a grace as this? 
 Touch it not (by the Lord, sir!) 'tis divine! 
 It once beheld her radiant eyes' bright shine ; 
 Her hair embraced it !" "' 
 
 Marston bittery attacks various lovers' wishes for metamor- 
 -phoses. 8 " 
 
 77 Marston attacks Cynthia's Revels more because of the manner 
 than the object of the play. 
 
 Cf. Jaques in As You Like It, II, vii, 147: "The lover sighing like 
 a furnace, with a woeful ballad made to his mistress' eyebrow." Note 
 how in Shakespeare the satire is kept strictly impersonal. 
 
 Marston made fun of his own Pyg., where, he says (S. ii, 1), he 
 himself "lisp'd like an amorist". 
 
 7s In orig., fear: (cf. Hall, I, vii). 
 
 W S. iii, 55; SV. In Lect. 15; SV. VIII (entitled Inamorato, Curio). 
 
 m SV. VIII, 122: wish to be mistress' dog; cf. Lodge, Fig for Momus, 
 Epist. VI. Line 126: wish to be wine she drank, or her necklace; cf. 
 Barnes' Parthenophil, Son. 63. Line 146: wish to turn hermaphrodite; 
 cf. ibid., Madrigal 13. Compare generally Watson's Heeatompathia. 
 In 28, from Ronsard, the lover wishes he were a fly, perfume, or a 
 fountain; in 23, he wishes he were a mirror. There are scores of 
 such wishes in literature: e.g., Anacreon, Odes XXIII, LXXVII 
 (Moore's translation). Cf. infra, p. 110, n. 
 
 104 
 
FASHIONS 
 
 The new civilization of the Italian Renaissance had been 
 penetrating England ever since the time of Ascham ; but 
 luxury was still so novel that it was a staple source of abuse 
 for the satirists of the close of the sixteenth century. The 
 principal method for the display of luxury, then as now, was 
 by means of clothes ; satire had a fit mark in the dandy of the 
 time who 
 
 "walks all open-breasted, 
 
 Drawn through the ear with ribands,* 1 plumy-crested — 
 
 He that doth snort in fat- fed luxury." 88 
 
 In fact, Marston does not attack many other nutlets of the 
 new craze for display. v; 
 
 The male costume of the time gave a splendid opportunity 
 for satire. Most stuffs and colors were exceedingly expensive, 
 coming as they did by hazardous trade-routes, and men vied 
 with one another for display, ordinarily quite out-doing the 
 stiff and ugly apparel of women. The fashions changed with 
 startling frequency, and only varied from one mode of exag- 
 geration to another still more outrageous. 84 Thus Marston 
 describes a youth who has taken two years to get his display 
 together: his ruff 
 
 "hath more doubles far than Ajax' shield . . . 
 Under that fair ruff so sprucely set 
 Appears a fall, a falling-band forsooth. 
 O dapper, rare, complete, sweet nitty""' youth ! 
 Jesu Maria ! how his clothes appear. 
 Crossed and recrossed with lace . . . 
 His hat — himself: small crown and huge great brim, 
 Fair outward show, and little wit within; 
 And all the band with feathers he doth fill. 
 Which is the sign of a fantastic still . . . 
 His clothes perfumed, his fusty mouth is aired, 
 His chin new-swept, his very cheeks are glaired." " 
 
 81 Cf. SV. Iii Lcct. 32; IV. )'. W. IV, i, 80: Ev. Man Out. II. i. 
 
 82 SV. VII, 30. 
 
 S1 A few seem to have classic sources: SV. Ill, 143, baths of milk 
 and rose-juice; II, 124, precious metals for base vessels, cf. Martial, 
 I. 37. 
 
 84 Cf. Fungoso's chase of fashion in Ev. Man Out. The best account 
 of Eliz. fashions is in Shakespeare's England, ch. XIX. 
 
 "Neat [Bullen] 
 
 "" I. e.. glazed, with white of egg. [Bullen.] S. iii. 
 
 io--> 
 
The falling-band, which hung down over the shoulders, under 
 the ruff, was new at the time, and attracted Marston's particu- 
 lar attention. In the first Satire, Tubrio's ostrich feather 
 waves gallantly, while his falling-bands of twenty ruffles of 
 Venetian lace, under which he swims along, "doth make him 
 wondrous brave". Another is nothing but a fashion-monger : 
 
 "All fashions, since the first year of this queen, 
 May in his study fairly drawn be seen" — S7 
 
 which would mean that he would have a very sizable picture- 
 gallery. It was he who originated the fashions of the long 
 fool's-coat. the huge slop or breeches, and the lugged or eared, 
 boot. A tissue, or lace, slop is mentioned. ss A religious hypo- 
 crite 
 
 "demurely goes 
 Right neatly tripping on his new-blacked toes." M 
 
 Compared to the comment on men's dress, women get little, 
 and that usually in connection with 'surphuled' or painted 
 faces. There is one elaborate portrait of a lady, who comes 
 up in a coach with armorial bearings ; at first she wears a 
 mask, but even when she takes that off she is still vizarded : 
 
 "So steeped in lemons' juice, so surpheled, 
 I cannot see her face." 
 
 She wears a loose gown, with a long slit sleeve, stiff busk, 
 puff farthingale, and a bright-spangled crown. Her ruff 
 makes her appear winged, angelic, but 
 
 "Alas, her soul struts round about her neck ; 
 Her seat of sense is her rebato 90 set." 91 
 
 But in his satires as elsewhere, it is evident that Marston 
 was more interested in men than in women. It is for this 
 reason that his dealings with them turn mostly on the matter 
 of lust. 
 
 " SV. XI, 156. 
 
 ■SV. VII. L43. 
 
 h9 SV IV. 40. 
 
 "Ruff. 
 
 91 SV. VII, 170. See also S. ii. 144; SV. VIII, 8. 
 
 106 
 
The fashion of tabacco seems, from some references in the 
 plays, 9 - to have beer, distasteful to Marston, but it is only 
 mentioned neutrally in the satires f' J and there are but few 
 references to drunkenness, which habit he asserts is imported 
 from the Low Countries. 04 
 
 CLASSES 
 
 Courtiers and gallant- seem to take up too great a part, 
 not only in Elizabethan satire, but in the drama also. We 
 have to reckon, not only with the critical theory based on 
 Aristotle's dictum of 'greatness' for the subject, but also with 
 the comparative importance of the court. In mere numbers 
 it was a large establishment, and with its various dependencies 
 it formed a considerable fraction of the population of London. 
 Moreover, in it and dependent noblemen's houses was centered 
 the country's intellectual life, now that the culture of the 
 clergy was at a low ebb. It was a little world of its own. 
 with its own customs, which the rest of England followed afar 
 off. Moreover, it was the great center of spending ; it pro- 
 duced nothing and expended much. Being a leisured com- 
 munity, and the most cultured of the country, all innovations, 
 luxuries, and their attendant virtues and vices were necessarily 
 prevalent, the observed of all observers. 
 
 Remarkable unanimity prevailed in literature as to the moral 
 atmosphere of a court. The sovereign around which it cen- 
 tered might be either good or bad ; but the court as a whole 
 was invariablv evil. This comes out most clearly in Fletcher's 
 comedies, but he was only adopting the general con vera ion. 
 There would be one or two wise councillors, a brave and vir- 
 tuous young courtier (to provide the hero), and a model 
 voung lady, preferably a ward (to provide the heroine). The 
 rest of the court were all dissolute, cowardly, hypocritical. 
 
 "A. M., I. i. 125; 111. ii, 74; 281 ; V. i. 141 ; D. C\ HI. iii. 55; Faun, 
 IV, 1, 5; V. i. 361. 
 
 m SV. In Led.. 11 ; IX. 77. See also his Entertainment (Bullen, III, 
 3f>!) : "Charm hence . . . beards and great tobacco-takers." Other 
 references in Eliz. satire: Hall, Virgid., IV. iv, 40; V, ii, 73; Donne, 
 Sat. I ; Parkes, The Curtain Drawer, 1612, The World to her Children, 
 p. 4; K. Bastard's Chrestoleros. 1598, Lib. VI, Ep. 19. Other referen- 
 ces. Schulze's Hall, Satiren, p. 228. 
 
 ,4 S. ii, 153; cf. SV. III. 142; SV. VII, 107; 124. 
 
 107 
 
false. When a courtier or a court lady is mentioned, we imme- 
 diately expect a villain, and are rarely disappointed. In all 
 probability the court, filled with idle rich and those struggling 
 to get rich quickly without work, pretty well deserved its 
 reputation. 
 
 At any rate, Marston took this view without any hesitation. 
 He gives a picture of the complete courtier in his first Satire. 
 His Castilio is probably named from Castiglione, who had 
 written that book of palace etiquette, the Courtier. 95 Castilio 
 is the model courtier: he can trot a horse in a perfectly harm- 
 less tourney ; he can invent devices and mottoes for his shield ; 
 he can rhyme, ogle, flirt, compliment ; he is famous for revel- 
 lings and other men's wit. ! ' fi He looks fair and intends foul. 
 With other courtiers he haunts the citizen's shops, drawn there 
 by their fair mistresses. With this useless effeminate taking 
 the place rightfully due a brave warrior, 'Alack! what hope 
 for Albion ?" " 7 
 
 Gallants are of the same kidney, though they may not be 
 of such high rank, Or frequenters of court, and may be coarse 
 rather than effeminate. Their qualifications are to have a 
 good suit, to be in debt and patronize brokers, to keep whores, 
 swear, swagger and smoke, and use false dice. 98 Gallants are 
 the special class to which Marston addressed his satires ; he 
 specifically speaks to them at the end."'' 
 
 The lower classes never had much sympathy from Marston, 
 nor from most other dramatists. His favorite appellation 
 for them was 'dunghill peasants', 10 " but he did not object to 
 the variant dungscum rabble, or on occasion mechanic slave 
 and tinkering knave. 1 " 1 He was bitter at the thought of hav- 
 
 * Marston uses the name Castilio Balthazar for the same type in 
 A. M. Guilpin in Skialetheia uses Castilio and Balthazar. Baskerville 
 shows how Brisk and Puntarvolo and the satire of Cynthia's Revels 
 are related with this type and this passage of Marston; p. 22, note; 
 190-6. 
 
 88 Oddly, he does not practise music ; but Briscus, who in this pas- 
 sage does, was later utilized by Jonson as Fastidious Brisk in Every 
 Man Out. See Baskerville, p. 191 f. 
 
 M See SV, VIII. 59f., 72f. 
 
 08 SV. IX, 72. 
 
 M XI, 187, 204. 
 
 ,t0 SV. In Lect., 2; IV, 17. He obtained this term from Hall, Virgid. 
 Ill, i, 78; IV, v, 97. 
 
 101 SV. In Lect. ; X, 14. 
 
 108 
 
i rite for any but the cl I .v.'"" Km he does com- 
 
 mend the people in exactly one instance, where he bewails the 
 common system of short-term tenancy, and asserts that it has 
 killed the strength of England's yeomanry. 103 As Hall said 
 of the malcontent, he was ready enough to praise a thing once 
 it was dead. 
 
 Professional men get off rather easily. The old jokes are 
 cracked on doctors : one practitioner killed more men last 
 autumn with hellebore, than the number of the year. 1 '" 1 
 Marston's attitude toward the bar is interesting, as his father 
 was a lawyer, and he himself tried law-studies for a time. 
 He mentions new-come law-students a couple of times;'"'' and 
 we seem to see reflection of his own difficulties with legal 
 vocabulary, in the part of the law he chooses really to satirize 
 — its barbarous language. 10 " Lawyers in general love de- 
 lays, and are 
 
 "vile necessary evils, 
 Smooth-seeming saints, yet damned incarnate devils." 
 
 Women play a very slight part in the satires ; Marston was 
 not yet expressing (perhaps not yet feeling) his later abundant 
 contempt for them. But it is easy to see his general estimate, 
 in almost his first lines; Pygmalion had avoided women, 
 "knowing their wants and man's perfection." 107 
 
 LITERATURE 
 
 It is with this division that Marston began his satiric work 
 for he first of all satirized his own Pygmalion, under the pre- 
 tence that he had not meant it seriously. 108 After this start. 
 
 ,na SV. X, 14; IV, 17. 
 
 103 SV. II, 139. Another somewhat vague passage may be sympa- 
 thetic with the hard-working lot of the tenant-farmer. In it he ad- 
 dresses "sad civility"; N. E. D. quotes the passage as the only illus- 
 tration of "civility" meaning "a community of citizens collectively." 
 
 104 SV. I, 5 ; 47 ; 44. 
 
 105 SV. In Lect. 7 ; 77. 
 100 SV. VII, 81-99. 
 im Pyg., Stan. 1. 
 
 W8 Anth. in Praise; S. ii, 1, 11; SV. VI, 7 (cf. Persius, Sat. I, 2f.), 
 60, 65, 89 ; X, 37. 
 
 109 
 
as would be expected he was not backward in attacking con- 
 temporary literature — excepting always that which had been 
 attacked by Hall. When the satires were written, Hall was 
 Marston's chief literary enemy, and he devotes much space 
 to attack both on the Virgideiiiiarum and on Hall's personal 
 life. 109 
 
 That Marston knew nothing of Donne's Satires is proved 
 by the fact that Marston did not refute Hall's claims to 
 priority. There are few similarities between the satires of 
 Marston and Donne, and those do not show evidence of imi- 
 tation. 110 
 
 Guilpin's Skialetheia was published the same year as the 
 Satires, and evidently was written with a knowledge of them. 
 Marston dedicated his Satira Nova to Guilpin, and as a friend 
 
 109 See ante, p. llf. and Appendix A, Marston's treatment of Hall 
 in the Satires. 
 
 110 Donne, II, 45f . ; a lover "woos in language of the Pleas and 
 Courts," as Martius does in terms of fencing, and Luscus in terms 
 of the theatre, SV. XI, 52, 49. Donne, I, 86 : his embodied Humour 
 is urged not to dance in the street ; as Curio is rebuked for doing, 
 S. i, 124. 
 
 One of Marston's lovers desires to be a flea (SV. VIII, 130) ; 
 Bullen observes that the conceit is out of the ordinary, and wonders 
 if Donne's poem, A Flea in his Mistress' Bosom, had been already 
 written. A comic poem, The Flea-hunt, was already well known in 
 German literature ; and the same idea had been expressed at least 
 three times previously in English. The Clown in Dr. Faustus utters 
 the wish, Sc. iv, and in Sc. vi Pride says, "1 am like Ovid's flea, etc.", 
 alluding to the mediaeval Carmen de Pulicc, ascribed to Ovid. Mat- 
 thew Grove, in his History of Pelops, 1587, under The Restless Estate 
 of a Lover (p. 68, Grosart Reprint), desires to be, among other things, 
 'a pretty little hound on her with faithful heart to fawn', a chirping 
 mouse, a linnet in a wretched cage, a Philip Sparrow on her fist, 
 and finally 
 
 "A little Robin that doth hop 
 about with reddish breast 
 
 Or else if Jove would me convert 
 a black flea in her nest." 
 
 Thus there is no occasion to refer the conceit to Donne. It was again 
 expressed in Pasquil's Nightcap, 1612 (1. 121!)). 
 
 110 
 
■ well have seen Skialetheia before its publication, but 
 tli re is little connection between the two pieces of work. 111 
 
 Lodge was attacked, justly, for writing as a foolish amorist. 
 His first satire was on hypocrisy, as were the first satires in 
 both of .Marston's volumes; it was, however, a common subject 
 for satirists. Barnes is attacked for an amorous wish in his 
 Parthenophil, a wish of the sort that would particularly at- 
 tract Marston's attention. 
 
 In S. i, 120, Marston bids the lewd soldier Tubrio unmask, 
 and show Dametus' face; Dametus, as Bullen notes, was the 
 foolish shepherd in Sidney's Arcadia. There are two allusions 
 to >i>enser. u - 
 
 Besides these, there are a considerable number of references 
 to unrecognizable (or perhaps imaginary) poets. He attacks 
 lacivious and amorous poets, such as the writer of 'Sixty 
 sonnets on kissing his Laura's picture'. 113 One would think 
 that Marston of all men had no reason to make fun of the 
 vocabulary of others, at least for using unusual words, but 
 
 111 Bullen noticed a couple of similarities (S. i, 20; SV. VII, 167). 
 J. P. Collier, Introd. to Skialetheia, (Miscel. Tracts), states that 
 "Marston is ridiculed as Fuscus", but this is guesswork. Guilpin's 
 first Epigram, Proocmium, says that English wits, having overcome 
 barbarism, 
 
 "with self-wounding spite 
 Engrave themselves in civil wars' abysms, 
 Seeking by all means to destroy each other;" 
 
 Therefore we would expect to hear more or less of the literary quar- 
 rels of the day. Ep. 8, To Deloney, ends: 
 
 "At every street's end Fuscus' rhymes are read, 
 And thine in silence must be buried"; 
 
 and Ep. 10 says that an admirer says Fuscus's rhymes instead of 
 grace at meals. This is a small foundation for a theory. With Ep. 
 46, On the Viol de Gambo, cf. S. i, 21. Guilpin's Satire 5, p. 50, calls 
 a gallant : "The exact pattern which Castilio Took for's accomplished 
 courtier ;" this is evidence that Marston's Castilio was certainly taken 
 from Castiglione. For Guilpin's mention of Reactio, see supra, p. 14. 
 There are a couple of passages connected with other plays: Ep. 68 
 speaks of "the Irishmen crying Tip, fine pip' with a shrill accent", as 
 in Old Fortunatus. Chester, the original of Carlo Buffone, is referred 
 to. Satire Preludium. p. 27, and 5*0*. I, p. 35. 
 
 " 3 SV. VI, 36, 5!). 
 
 m SV. VIII, 141; XI, 146. 
 
 Ill 
 
he did not hesitate. 114 He himself borrows occasionally quite 
 freely, hut nevertheless he attacks plagiarism even more 
 freely. 118 
 
 Various poets are satirized in SV. VI, but most of the 
 references are so vague as to make identification very haz- 
 ardous. One has to invoke some drab before he can write; 
 Marston might well have been thinking of his own verses 
 prefatory to Pygmalion, entitled To his Mistress, which he 
 elsewhere asserts, however, to have been written as a satire 
 on their kind. 11 ' 1 Another poet has produced "a prodigy, some 
 monstrous misshapen balladry", probably one of the long 
 histories in verse such as the Mortimcriados or the Mirror for 
 Magistrates which he elsewhere defends. 
 
 A poet while out walking lies down, and falling asleep 
 dreams of fairies and a flowery vale. Winckler 117 suggests 
 Thomas Edwards, the author of Cephalus and Procris, but 
 the correspondence is too slight, the heroine only meeting an 
 elf in the woods. Grosart somewhat mere plausibly suggests 
 John Dickenson, the publisher of a collection of verse. The 
 Shepherd's Complaint, 1594; or Drayton. Neither fits the 
 situation very well, however. 
 
 It is of little use to try to identify the poet whose strains 
 were so high that his poetry collapsed; or the poet who to 
 get a reputation for learning wrote fustian in unintelligible 
 words. Winckler proposed for the latter the anonymous 
 author of Zepheria, 1594, but the use of foreign words such 
 as is found there is not what Marston seems to be referring 
 to. Likewise the poet who made Homer cite Spenser has 
 not been discovered — if indeed he ever existed. 
 
 Critics are thoroughly overhauled 118 — rich and poor, young 
 and old. courtier and artizan are scorned in this first of 
 Marston's work, before they had had a chance to criticise him. 
 Their reproof, he says, only makes him 'bristle up his 
 plumes of pride'. He does allow, in conclusion, that there 
 exist some diviner spirits who by reading his work will not 
 
 114 SV. To Perusers, 15 ; VI, 48, 55. 
 
 1,5 S. i, 46 ; ii, 47 ; SV. XI, 77 ; Entertainment, p. 399. Cf . SV. VI, 59. 
 
 " 6 Auth. in Praise, 11. 
 
 117 P. 37. 
 
 118 In his address In Lectores before his S. of V . 
 
 112 
 
disgrace him. After another passage 119 chastising critics, he 
 ends, "He that thinks worse of my rhymes than myself, I 
 scon: him, for he cannot ; he that thinks better, is a fool . . . 
 If thou perusest me with an impartial eye. read on; if other- 
 wise, know i neither value thee nor thy censure." Were this 
 to be taken literally, one fails to see why he should object to 
 his critics, save on the general principle that he objected to 
 nearly everyone ; but of course the sentiment is simply the 
 conventional expression of the malcontent satirist. 
 
 That he did care much for what was said of him is shown 
 by the devotion of most of a satire — the sixth — to the critics of 
 his Pygmalion. In connection with the passage just quoted. 
 it is interesting to read the conclusion of this satire: 
 
 "What though the sacred issue of my soul 
 1 here expose to idiots' control ; 
 What though I bare to lewd opinion. 
 Lay ope to vulgar profanation. 
 My very genius, etc." 
 
 No one could take his work more seriously. 
 
 In general Marston is a good literary critic, as is evi- 
 dent in some of his prefaces. In these early satires, where 
 Hall is not concerned he shows himself fair, so far as we 
 can judge, and usually interesting; but so much cannot be 
 said for his savage censures of Hall, and these form much 
 the greater part of his literary satire. Aside from a few 
 clever hits at real absurdities, they seem inspired by hatred, 
 envy and malice, for which we can find no just cause. 
 
 SOURCES 
 
 The English formal satire existed because of imitation of 
 the Roman satirists. From them were drawn its form, its 
 style, its obscurity, its use of proper names, and, more im- 
 portant, much if not most of its subject-matter. Most of 
 the Elizabethan satirists abused this natural dependence; Hall. 
 Donne and Lodge, for instance, besides using general classical 
 settings and incidents, 120 translated whole short satires directly 
 from the Romans, without acknowledgment. 
 
 "'To those that seem judicial Perusers. 
 " supra, p. 85. 
 
 113 
 
Among them Marston was singularly independent. He 
 adopted the general form, the proper names, and on some 
 special occasions the obscure style which was theoretically 
 the proper dress for satire. Hall's satires were his starting 
 point, and his work can frequently be referred to them, but 
 he opposes rather than imitates. No wholesale borrowing is 
 to be found in Marston's satires, and careful search is neces- 
 sary for even minor instances of imitation of the classics. 121 
 
 His bent toward lust and his inclusion of bestial crimes, 
 would, one naturally supposes, have sent him to Juvenal and 
 Persius for inspiration ; yet he has availed himself of them but 
 slightly. Martial is of all classic poets most akin to an im- 
 portant phase of Marston's work, — the depiction of instances 
 of lust in telling phrases. There are enough references" to 
 make us sure that he was acquainted with Martial's epigrams ; 
 but we find almost no copying of Martial's ideas. 
 
 Grosart says, "Speaking generally of his Satires, Persius 
 rather than Juvenal is followed. This is seen in the cryptic 
 obscurity of Reactio." v -- Marston himself speaks of both 
 a- being obscure, 1 -* ancl as a matter of fact, he seems to have 
 made more references to Juvenal than to any other classical 
 source. On the whole, English satire seems to have received 
 more of its guiding impulse from Juvenal than from any 
 other source. Hall owed his inspiration and considerable 
 material to Juvenal, 'his tone to Seneca. He was followed 
 by Marston save in the matter of direct borrowing from the 
 classics. Nowhere has Marston utilized the classics for more 
 than isolated details; and he knew no other English satire 
 save Hall's. 
 
 His true sources were his own observation and imagination, 
 and (as his foe, the IV hip per of the Satire, alleged) the 
 rumors of the streets, and the devil. His borrowings from 
 the classics are so trivial that I have felt it possible merely 
 to indicate them in an appendix. 124 When the strength of the 
 
 121 He ridicules a critic who pretends to find classic sources for his 
 "respectless, free-hand poesy." SV. VI, 03. 
 
 m Introd. to Poems of Marston, p. liii. 
 
 123 In his prefatory address to Judicial Perusers, 
 
 ut A list of allusions and quotations from the classics is given in 
 Appendix E. 
 
 114 
 
influence under which he worked is considered, he must be 
 credited with a remarkable degree of originality. 
 
 Marston's use of proper names is more conventional. Eng- 
 lish satirists early adopted the habit of using classic pseudo- 
 nyms for the objects of their satire. Gascoigne began the 
 practise by introducing two traditional type-names, Lucrece 
 and Lais. Classical names were used freely for the first time 
 by Donne, followed by Lodge, Hall and Guilpin. About nine- 
 tenths of the names used by Marston are classical. In few 
 cases did he preserve the characteristics which classical satir- 
 ists had attached to the names, save with several which he used 
 as Hall had done. 1 -' 
 
 GENERAL ESTIMATE 
 
 Among the productions of the school of Elizabethan satir- 
 ists, Marston's satires may safely be ranked third. In interest 
 they are surpassed by Hall's, and in literary ability by Donne'- ; 
 but to al! others of the period they are distinctly superior. 
 
 These satires came at the height of a passing phase of Eliza- 
 bethan activity. Satire succeeded the vogue of the sonnet in 
 lyric poetry, the supremacy of romantic comedy in drama. It 
 ushered in the more serious Jacobean poetry of Sylvester, 
 1 )avies. the Fletchers, Brown, Wither — the school of Spenser 
 and the tribe of Ben ; in the drama, it immediately preceded 
 the dominance of tragedy and tragic-comedy. It thus formed 
 a transition from one era to another. 
 
 Again, together with the work of Jonson the satire began 
 a temporary reaction of the classic influence. The human- 
 ists had ruled the first two-thirds of the century ; but with 
 the passing of such men as Sydney and Harvey, they ceased 
 to exert primary influence. The dominant late Elizabethan 
 note is romantic. At the end of the century, however, classic- 
 ism led by Ben Jonson made another struggle for supremacy. 
 Tt was not to succeed, in poetry or drama, till after the Revo- 
 lution ; nevertheless its attempt at this time left its impress 
 on all literature. It is easily to be discerned, for instance. 
 in Ike prose style of Bacon and Hall. In poetry, the dominant 
 mode was satiric, and this was directly inspired and guided 
 
 ]2S See second part of Appendix E. 
 
 115 
 
by classic models. The Epigram and Character show satiric 
 prose also influenced by the classics. 
 
 What caused the sudden outburst of satire at the end of 
 the sixteenth century? It is difficult to explain satisfac- 
 torily any such literary movement. The other great age for 
 English satire was during. the latter part of the seventeenth 
 and the beginning of the eighteenth century, and was in 
 essence a return toward Puritanism, after the licence of the 
 Restoration. 126 It may be that some such cause produced the 
 Elizabethan satire also. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the Reformation in England 
 dealt tremendous blows, at least temporarily, to popular re- 
 ligion. The repeated alternations of the state form of religion 
 under the different Tudor monarchs ended by producing 
 passionate partizanship to particular views in the few, and 
 considerable indifference to religion in the many. The clergy, 
 deprived of all foreign support and the prestige of an uni- 
 versal church organization, became almost powerless, and de- 
 pendent as never before on patronage for existence, until such 
 a state of servitude as is pictured in the second Return from 
 Parnassus, for instance, could become not unusual. 
 
 With the decline of religious influence, there happened to 
 come into England more luxury. Rapid growth in wealth 
 and, after the defeat of the Armada, an increasing feeling of 
 security, tended to complete the work of the Renaissance. 
 Furthermore, all society was taking its tone from Italian man- 
 ners and books. Puritanism was already beginning to leaven 
 the lump of English materialism, but its influence was not yet 
 powerful enough to change the outward, much less the inward 
 tone of society. 
 
 The effects of this increasing culture and decreasing re- 
 ligious control were shown vividly in the usual ways ; dress, 
 literature, the drama, and sexual relations were all showing 
 extravagances and excesses. These it were which brought on 
 the attacks of the satirists, because the less and less restrained 
 excesses were visible to all men. 
 
 Thus it is not so entirely strange that a young literary man 
 beginning his profession in the closing years of the sixteenth 
 century should have been affected by both trends of feeling: 
 
 iaj Hudibras belongs rather to the earlier age of Restoration con- 
 troversy. 
 
 116 
 
that in the same year he should both write lascivious poetry, 
 and also write against writing it But it required the odd per- 
 sonal twist of a Marston to publish both pieces of work in the 
 same book. His formal satires were all written before Mar- 
 ston was 25, and too much should not be expected from them. 
 But having begun thus, he continued the practice, though 
 somewhat less openly, all through his literary career. There 
 is not one of his plays which does not contain some plain 
 bawdry, and most contain much ; but he invariably assumes 
 that by it he is serving a moral purpose. In this, so complex- 
 is human character, he may well have been sincere. 
 
 Satire suited Marston's critical, mordant spirit. Yet we 
 seldom feel that he is giving all his heart to it. No matter 
 how much he protests, now and again we detect a hollow 
 ring in his speech. This is true also of the lust of Pygmalion 
 il e his marble statue, form is there, but no life, nor is 
 that life ever breathed into it. Marston was not really moved 
 by what he was writing, and neither is the reader. The inter- 
 est is intellectual, not emotional ; one has ever the feeling of 
 a literary exercise. The same thing is true of Marston's 
 dramatic work. This. I believe, is the main reason why Mar- 
 ston ranks as low as he does, notwithstanding his consider- 
 able gifts of expression. It is only now and then that one 
 feels the author's emotion behind the printed page — in the 
 denunciation of the Puritan usurer, for instance, or in the de- 
 piction of Franceschina in the Dutch Courtezan. ■ 
 
 It results that no commentator has been able to believe thai 
 Marston was sincere in his denunciation of contemporary 
 society. Thus Warton says, "The satirist who too freely in- 
 dulges himself in the display of that licentiousness which he 
 means to proscribe, absolutely defeats his own design.'" Al- 
 den, 127 quoting this, observes of Marston: "That he was in- 
 spired by any very serious desire of promoting reform, how- 
 ever, it is difficult to believe. He shows an unpleasant satis- 
 faction in dwelling on unclean details." And Bullen says, 128 
 "Mi ■' : rulers will feel thai Marston was not driven by 
 'sacva. indignatio' to write satires, and they will not be in- 
 clined to accept the young author of Pygmalion as a sedate 
 
 "*" P. 135, Formal Satire. 
 v ^ Marston, I. xxiii. 
 
 117 
 
moralist." Probably his highest praise as a satirist has come 
 from Grosart. 129 
 
 "I am not blind to offences versus good manners and taste, and 
 even worse, in Marston's Satires. But I must claim for them — even 
 above Hall's — a fearless, trenchant striking at the highest-seated 
 evildoers ... I am willing to believe that he wrote from patriotism 
 and conscience. (See his manly lines To Detraction, and the grave, 
 solemn close of all, To Everlasting Oblivion. Equally throbbing with 
 emotion and vitality of conviction is the final close of the Proemiuin 
 in Liber Tertium.) For putridities of allusion, common to him with 
 the Virgidemiarum and Donne and all, there is Henry Parrott's 
 pleading : 
 
 'Be not aggrieved my humourous lines afford 
 Of looser language here and there a word : 
 Who undertakes to sweep a common sink 
 I cannot blame him though his besom stink.' " 
 
 Hut it is difficult to believe that the world was for him such 
 a black place as he pictures it in his satires. 
 
 It was, however, no temporary pose of Marston ; the more 
 one reads his plays, the more one is obliged to admit that at 
 any rate he was always consistent in his low opinion of life. 
 Satire is usually a passing phase. Many men, as Persius, 
 Donne, Hall, have been satirists when they were young, and 
 today the most intemperate criticisms of society and morals are 
 apt to come from undergraduates. But it has not been so with 
 the great satirists : Juvenal is said to have been banished 
 for his satires when an octogenarian ; Swift, Pope, the modern 
 Samuel Butler were satirists all their lives. When the history 
 of the satiric element in the Elizabethan Drama comes to be 
 written, it will be found that the proportion of satire in the 
 dramas of Marston is unsurpassed by that of any poet of 
 the age, with the possible exception of Jonson. And it is all 
 the bitter, extreme, rancorous satire of the Scourge of Villainy. 
 It is evident that in his first literary work Marston was not 
 pretending to a feeling he did not possess. 
 
 Critics have been misled by Marston's own attitude. He 
 openly flouts his own work. In the margin opposite Line 15 
 of the first satire of the Scourge of Villainy, he puts "Hue 
 usque Xylinum" : Thus far, bombast. At the conclusion of 
 
 '"* Introd., p. xx. 
 
 118 
 
his satires he apparently takes off his tragic mask, and shows 
 the face of the jester underneath : 
 
 "Here ends my rage. Though angry brow was bent, 
 Yet have I sung in sporting merriment." 
 
 Such lines as these cannot but give the idea that the poet 
 had not really meant much of what he had been saying so 
 furiously ; that the crack of his satiric whip was but the empty 
 threat of a ring-master. 
 
 The satiric spirit was too much a part of Marston, to allow 
 us to take this natural conclusion as the truth. Doubtless he 
 did say more than he meant in his satires ; he must have 
 known that the world was not as bad as he was assuming. 
 His conception of the requirements for the role of satirist 
 made him preternaturally severe, and filled his verses with 
 scourgings. His ridicule of himself shows reaction against 
 this abnormal gloom, which was partly his own, partly as- 
 sumed professionally. But at the bottom Marston was indig- 
 nant at the world, and contemptuous of it: he had something 
 of what Swinburne apostrophized as his "noble heart of 
 hatred." The true and natural expression of it in his work- 
 is hard to find, because in his satires it was overlaid by his 
 makebelieve schrecklichkeit, the machinery which he deemed 
 necessary for the formal satire; in his plays expressions of 
 his detestation for vicious environment are discounted by im- 
 mediately surrounding licentious passages. ( )ne must en- 
 deavor to judge Marston, not from details, but from his work- 
 as a whole. 
 
 Taking this wider outlook. I feel sure that Marston re- 
 garded himself as being, like his own Malcontent or Fawn, 
 in the world but not of it. He is among enemies ; to save him- 
 self his true worth is disguised, and he chooses to play the 
 part of fool although he is wiser than those who despise him. 
 He apparently falls in with the schemes and baseness of those 
 about him, since thus he amuses them and so will gain his own 
 ends. In reality he despises them. and. so far as he is obliged 
 to be like them, despises himself also. No doubt he is wiser, 
 he feels, but only in being able to perceive the weaknesses of 
 their natures, and consequently, of his own. This feeling of 
 playing a part, of going in disguise, is what enables him to 
 
 119 
 
make fun of his own work, and to appear double-natured, 
 sinning and opposing sin at the same time. This underlying 
 melancholy would bring forth such utterances as his dedica- 
 tion of the satires to oblivion. 
 
 Marston himself may be viewed as a Malcontent. Certain 
 characteristics of Hamlet, and portions of Burton's Anatomy 
 of Melancholy, are very suggestive of explanations for Mar- 
 ston's life and writings. Most of his critics have been at 
 fault in their conceptions of the man, because he displayed a 
 type of feeling which is foreign to our day ; he practised a 
 code well recognized by his contemporaries, but forgotten by 
 us. though we have Hamlet as its perfect exemplar. 
 
 The experience might be called one of the growing-pains 
 of the modern world — our world which was born amid the 
 birth pangs and joys of the Renaissance and the Reformation. 
 The unified Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages had to 
 be abandoned, bit by bit, and this could only be achieved 
 through anguish. To thoughtful Elizabethans the earlier sim- 
 plicity of faith was gone, and there was nothing certain to 
 replace it. To Marston as to Hamlet the world was out of 
 joint. They were between two worlds, one dying, the other 
 powerless to be born, and more truly so than Matthew Arnold. 
 When the results of the theory of evolution began to show 
 Victorians that another saving remnant of the mediaeval faith 
 could not survive, the world had the ideals of liberty, democ- 
 racy, fraternity or service, and science to take its place. The 
 Elizabethans had no similar ideals, save the dawnings of na- 
 tionalism and science. 
 
 Thinking men fell back upon the libertine and stoic phil- 
 osophies of the ancients. Both of these are represented in 
 Montaigne, and this may help to explain why his influence 
 was so great with the Elizabethans. These philosophies both 
 are attempts to make the best of an incomprehensible world, 
 and so certain of their elements were acceptable together, but 
 systems they are ultimately incompatible. The attempt to 
 assimilate both produced the Malcontent type in certain sin- 
 cere men who lacked the optimism which other causes had 
 engendered in the age. They were at odds with their en- 
 vironment; their philosophy was incoherent; therefore they 
 were at odds with themselves. Marston's mixture of villainy- 
 scourging and ribaldry is but typical. 
 
 120 
 
Most of the condemnation of Marston has been caused by 
 his treatment of lust. Pygmalion is perhaps the most frankly 
 sensual— at any rate free-spoken— poem with much pretence 
 to being literature, that the Elizabethan age produced, and it 
 was an age by no means squeamish. 130 Certainly none of his 
 predecessors m in this kind of poetry — the amorous narrative 
 with a classical source — were so consistently lascivious ; nor 
 were his successors. 132 His satires which followed Pygmalion 
 fully carried out this theme. It is not that so great space is 
 given in Marston's satire to lust — though it far exceeds that 
 devoted to any other subject. It is the quality that is espe- 
 cially noticeable, 
 
 "Which, like a Paphian, wantonly displays 
 
 The Salaminian titillations 
 
 Which tickle up our lewd Priapians." 
 
 His attitude in this regard is connected with that in another, 
 his treatment of filth. Marston's mind, in this as in many other 
 instances, reminds us of Swift's. Swift, we know, had an 
 almost morbid detestation of dirt in any form, and was him- 
 self almost painfully clean; yet his writings, especially some 
 of the poems and his description of the Yahoos, continually 
 present to the reader vivid pictures of filth. It is as though 
 his mind could not escape the subject ; lie almost gloats on it, 
 when it appears in other, and to him despicable persons, or in 
 humanity as a whole. Marston must have had much of Swift's 
 nature in this regard. He continually employs, for example, 
 such onamatopoeic words as blandishment, lusk. nasty, streak- 
 ing. 133 , surphuled and such-like. The following is a good 
 sample of his verbiage, with its abundant liquids and sibil- 
 lants and open vowels: 
 
 For comparison, one must take such a poem as Nashe's The 
 Choise of Valentines, c. 1505. 
 
 m Cf. supra, p. 88, n. 
 
 ,32 In such works as T. N.'s Barley-break, or Warning for Wantons, 
 lb'07; Barksted's Mirrha, Mother of Adorns, 1607; or his Hiren the 
 Fair Greek, lb'll; Austin's Scourge of Venus, or the Wanton Lady. 
 1G14; or Gresham's Picture of Incest, or Cinyras and Myrrha, 1624. 
 
 ,ss I. e., stretching, as on a bed. 
 
 121 
 
"Lust hath confounded all; 
 The bright gloss of our intellectual 
 Is foully soiled. The wanton wallowing 
 In fond delights, and amorous dallying, 
 Hath dusked the fairest splendor of our soul ; 
 Nothing now left but carcass, loathsome, foul ; 
 For sure, if that some sprite remained still. 
 Could it be subject to lewd Lais' will? 
 
 . . . Leaving the sensual 
 Base hangers-on lusking at home in slime. 
 Such as was wont to stop port Esquiline." '"'' 
 
 Visions of lust and filth have a fascination for Marston, 
 not only in his satires, where, if anywhere, they might be in 
 place, but also in all his plays; and they are presented force- 
 fully and tellingly. His was no more a normal mind than 
 Swift's; I do not think we can judge one any more than the 
 other solely from his writings. In the case of Swift we have 
 a large number of external accounts, and can get some idea 
 of this, one of the greatest figures of English literature, apart 
 from what he has chosen to set down for us. That is not 
 possible in the case of Marston. We are not able safely to 
 judge of his character. Amazement has been expressed over 
 his entering the church ; but needlessly. In the first place, 
 holy orders did not mean then what they do now in regard to 
 strictness of living. Moreover, it seems to me that Marston 
 would have made a better clergyman than Herrick or, later, 
 Sterne. His piety one imagines would have been of the type 
 of Swift's: cold, detesting vice, doing good by stealth rather 
 than openly. 
 
 Like Swift, again, Marston was prevailingly intellectual, not 
 emotional. The lust described in Pygmalion or anywhere in 
 Marston does not stir us, because we feel that the author him- 
 self was cold at the time of composition, without even much 
 recollected passion. He touches certain nerves with the scien- 
 tific feeling that possesses a surgeon in a dissection. The 
 result is a lack of life, of glow, which in the satires he vainly 
 tried to supply by rhetorical extravagance. This purely intel- 
 lectual exposure of ugliness tends to disgust us, even as it 
 does in Swift; and Marston does not have the redemption of 
 Swift's genius. 
 
 " 4 SV. VIII, 165f. 
 
 122 
 
Furthermore, the satires are often obscure. This arises 
 from policy, not lack of ability; in the rest of Marston's work 
 there is almost always clear and most vigorous expression. In 
 the preface of the Scourge of Villany he gives his own doc- 
 trine in the matter of satiric style. The general view of his 
 day was that one of the requirements of a satire was ob- 
 scurity, 135 such as that which readers found in Persius. But 
 Persius, Marston says, is hard to read because he is ancient, 
 and because of his references to private customs of his time 
 now forgotten; the same is the case with Juvenal. "Yet both 
 of them go a good seemly pace, not stumbling, shuffling." V.xvn 
 Chaucer, he says, is difficult for us to understand ; "but had we 
 then lived, the understanding of them would have been noth- 
 ing hard. I will not deny, there is a seemly decorum to he 
 observed, and a peculiar kind of speech for a satire's lips," 
 which he can more easily understand than explain, lie would, 
 however, have the subject-matter rough, rather than the style. 
 "I cannot, nay, I will not, delude your sight with mists; yet 
 I dare defend my plainness against the verjuice-face of the 
 crabb'st satirist that ever stuttered." To satirize vices in such 
 an obscure way that tio man understands you, is foolishness 1 '' 
 Here we see that Marston had the true doctrine: hut he was 
 far from always living up to it. The Elizabethans felt that 
 the Roman satirists were especially hard reading, and this 
 quality was imitated along- with the others of their models. 
 Marston correctly understood the reasons for the lack of clear- 
 ne - in the older satires; but he was swayed by his time to 
 the extent ' zing in "a peculiar kind of speech for a 
 
 satir '- iips". which peculiarity consisted largely of fustian. 
 It must not lie forgotten that the Elizabethans had a good 
 cause for obscurity, because of the necessity for avoiding 
 libel suits and personal quarrels : hence too the many state- 
 ment- of the satirists that they attack no individuals, hut only 
 classes. 
 
 The Elizabethan satirists are not so obscure as most critics 
 have asserted. Donne's style is of course crabbed, but his 
 meaning is throughout fairly clear. Mall is very regular in 
 
 his general attitude of the Eliz. satirists, and the universal 
 modern criticism of their obscurity, is fully dealt with by Alden. Rise 
 of Formal Satire in lingland, pp. 102-8, 131-2. 
 ,w He is presumably hitting at Hall. 
 
 123 
 
style, though now and then intentionally cloudy in meaning, as, 
 for instance, in the first satire of his fourth book. Marston, 
 in spite of his protestations of clear writing, is the most diffi- 
 cult to read of the three. Sometimes he is intentionally talking 
 in the "peculiar kind of speech". 1 " 7 But more frequently the 
 reader's difficulty arises from Marston's extreme concision 
 of style. He packs meanings into short phrases, discards con- 
 nectives, and indulges freely in interjections. Take for 
 example the account of the sectary who has obtained riches 
 from his followers, but who will conform to the Church of 
 England if his wealth be threatened : 
 
 "When that the strange ideas in his head 
 (Broached 'mongst curious sots, by shadows led) 
 Have furnish'd him, by his hoar auditors, 
 Of fair demesnes and goodly rich manors ; 
 Sooth, then he will repent when's treasury 
 Shall force him to disclaim his heresy. 
 What will not poor need force? But, being sped, 
 God for us all ! the gourmand's paunch is fed ; 
 His mind is changed." VM 
 
 Of the cheating tradesman. Marston wrote: 
 
 "Now since he hath the grace, thus graceless be, 
 His neighbors swear he'll swell with treasury. 
 Tut, who maintains such goods, ill-got, decay? 
 No, they'll stick by thy soul, they'll ne'er away." 1S * 
 
 While this conciseness is frequently a fault, it has its other 
 aspect. It gives to Marston's work a rare degree of force 
 and vividness. We may not like what he says, but if we read 
 him at all we cannot disregard him. He is apt at drawing 
 little character-portraits in which no world is lost, and some- 
 times his couplets have a Pope-like compression: 
 
 "Then Muto comes, with his new glass-set face. 
 And with his late-kissed hand my book doth grace, 
 Straight reads, then smiles, and lisps, ' 'Tis pretty good'. 
 And praiseth that he never understood." 140 
 
 '" As in S. iv and v, and SV. Proem. Lib. I, and VI. 
 138 SV. IV, 43f. 
 , * SV. V, 74. 
 
 140 SV. VI, 77. 
 
 124 
 
Bis style lends especial vehemence to his expression of scorn: 
 
 "Here's one would be his mistress' necklace, fain 
 To clip her fair, and kiss her azure vein. 
 Fond fools, well wished, and pity but should be ; 
 For beastly shape to brutish souls agree. 
 If Laura's painted lip do deign a kiss 
 To her enamoured slave — "O Heaven's bliss!" 
 (Straight he exclaims) "not to be matched with this!" 
 Blaspheming dolt ! go three-score sonnets write 
 Upon a picture's kiss, O raving sprite." U1 
 
 Marston wrote very little poetry that is quotable for its 
 own sake. One would not expect it in satires, whose object 
 is, not beauty save negatively, in the scorn of ugliness. But 
 his plays show that he lacks almost entirely the lyric gift of 
 the Elizabethan age. Many of his plays were performed by 
 children's companies, and as a matter of course, contained 
 much singing. It is true there are many stage directions for 
 songs, but very few of the songs themselves are printed, and 
 those are mostly doggerel or scurrilous hits. 14 -' In the six 
 plays collected in the 1633 volume there are only seven songs 
 printed ; and four of them are doggerel. There is an eight line 
 love song, of no especial merit 1I:; Sophonisba contains a queer, 
 abrupt, infernal song to F.rictho ; 144 and Quadratus in What 
 You Will sings or says an Epicurean poem: 
 
 "Music, tobacco, sack and sleep, 
 
 The tide of sorrow backward keep. 
 
 If thou art sad at others' fate, 
 
 Rivo, drink deep, give care the mate . . . 
 
 Whilst quickest sense doth freshly last. 
 
 Clip time about, hug pleasure last.""'' 
 
 In the one play of Jack Drum there are five songs, all of 
 them comic. There is the usurer's 
 
 "Qiunck-chunck, chunck-chunck, his bags do ring, 
 A merry note with chuncks to sing." 
 
 141 SV. VIII. 138. He probably means that Laura's face is so 
 painted that there is no difference between kissing her and her picture. 
 
 " J Thus. A. M., III. ii. 32; 271: Mai. V, ii. 1: D. C. I. ii, 120; IV, 
 v, 70; J. D. Li. 1. 53; 11. 17; 78. 
 
 "■•/>. C. V, ii. 36. 
 
 "MV, i, L92. 
 
 145 II, i. 272. 
 
 125 
 
Two make an attempt at love poetry, 146 one beginning well: 
 
 "Delicious beauty that doth lie 
 Wrapt in a skin of ivory." 
 
 Finally there is a repetitive drinking song of nearly fifty lines, 
 rehearsing the measures of wine. 147 
 
 These thirteen songs are all that we have in the plays, and 
 not one of them sustains or more than hints at the true lyric 
 note. Marston was attempting what he could not do. Like- 
 wise there are several attempts at fine writing in the plays, but 
 successes are lamentably few. Lamb picked out thirteen pas- 
 sages of varying lengths from Marston's plays. 148 One of 
 these 140 was taken bodily from Sylvester's Du Bartas, and 
 some others may be from as yet unidentified sources, — be- 
 cause Marston was not. from his nature, really poetical. He 
 had a clear vision, which he usually bent downward ; and an 
 incisive, graphic way of speaking. His thoughts are constantly 
 jetting out, in exclamations and broken sentences and rhetorical 
 questions ; 150 his emotions are almost never tender, or soft, 
 though they are sometimes kindly ; even his smiles are bitter. 
 This is not such stuff as lyrics or lyrical passages are made of. 
 Marston was essentially intellectual, and was only rarely and 
 then incompletely dominated by emotion. With his critical 
 faculty and ability for powerful writing, he would have felt 
 much more at home in Augustan than in Elizabethan England. 
 
 The chief value of Marston's satires lies in their de- 
 piction of the times and of Marston's attitude toward them. 
 With all due allowance for his exaggeration for the sake of 
 effect, much of what he writes he must have observed. For 
 Marston was not a highly imaginative poet, but rather of Ben 
 jonson's realistic turn of mind. Furthermore, he does not 
 
 148 II, 17 and III, 140. 
 
 147 V. 338. 
 
 l "A. M. Ill, i. 1-91; A. R. Prol.; III. i. 142-203; II, i, 78-84; IV, 
 ii, 292-310; IV, i, 36-48; I, i, 107-9; Mai. III, i, 157-170; IV, ii, 41-51; 
 Soph. IV, i, 89-123; 144-168; W. Y. W. I, i, 133-155; III, ii, 86-94; 
 II, ii, 151-5; 159-180. These do not include selections from the In- 
 satiate Countess, since proved for the most part not Marston's. 
 
 ,,s Mfll. IV, ii, 41-51. 
 
 150 There are many passages where Marston's blank verse, espe- 
 cially when conversational, by its rapidity and conciseness reminds 
 one of Browning. 
 
 126 
 
stem to have drawn largely for his facts from any liscover- 
 able literary source. On the subject of lust he was certainly 
 carried away by the fascination the subject possessed for him, 
 and it is here we feel most strongly the influence of the classic 
 satirists, though lie rarely draws his material directly from 
 them. Certainly, if we can judge from the other literature 
 of the time, some of the gross abuses of this kind which he 
 retails were not common faults of his age. Aside from this, 
 his lovers, gallants, usurers, puritans, fops and soldiers arc 
 depictions of individuals and classes as they actually existed 
 in London in 1600. 
 
 We learn much too about himself, and are aided to a better 
 understanding of his dramas. We find that he was express- 
 ing himself in the characters of malcontents, and so we can 
 see how far he is the embodiment of that 'humour' of the 
 time which produced for us the character of Hamlet. He 
 displays his interest in lust, combining strangely fascination 
 and disdain ; he shows his deep scorn for weak affected love, 
 and infatuation, which must have been incomprehensible to his 
 cold temperament, save in its Stoic explanation as a form of 
 insanity. Meanwhile his comparative lack of interest in 
 women is evident — he only writes of them as they affecl 
 men, and this is to be his consistent method in his plays. 
 Therefore, while Marston's satires cannot be placed in the 
 first or in the second class of literary productions, they are 
 nevertheless valuable from the standpoint of their bearing on 
 contemporary literature, his times and himself. 
 
 127 
 
DRAMATIC SATIRE 
 
 We have seen that Marston initiated his literary career by 
 publishing an erotic poem in the same volume with Certain 
 Satires. This indicated the path which his plays were to 
 follow, for they all combine these two elements of lust and 
 satire ; the proportions may vary, but both are always present. 
 The purpose of the following pages is to indicate the relative 
 amounts and varying aims of the satire in the different plays, 
 and to discover some definite progress or trend in Marston's 
 practice. The kind of satire occurring in each play will be 
 roughly grouped as was done for the formal satires — i. e., 
 under general satire, morals, humours, fashions, classes and 
 literature. 
 
 ANTONIO AND MELLIDA 
 
 This play may be called a tragi-comedy of intrigue. It 
 was written at about the same time as the Satires, 1598-9. 
 Since it was the initial attempt of Marston at drama, the 
 romance is crude, its simplicity sometimes absurd. This makes 
 more evident the discrepancy between the romantic story and 
 the satire, which is the most prominent element of the play. 
 
 The young playwright's attitude is one of scorn for the 
 world ; and it is by means of scorn that he chiefly endeavors 
 to make his protagonists heroic. He does not do this so much 
 positively (except by a general ascription of the virtues) as 
 negatively, by making their attitude one of disdain for their 
 environment. It is not that they are so good, but that every- 
 one else is so much worse. 
 
 This is the attitude of Marston himself in the satire which 
 the play contains. It is dedicated to Nobody, 1 "the only 
 rewarder of virtuous merits, bounteous Mecaenas of poetry 
 and Lord Protector of oppressed innocence". One actor in 
 the Induction says of himself that 'he plays the part of all 
 the world — a fool', 2 and Andrugio concludes that "earthly dirt 
 
 "For this use of Nobody as a convention of the time, cf. Basker- 
 ville, p. 11, n. Something of the same idea may be in the Dedication 
 of SV. to Oblivion. 
 
 a Cf . SV. VII, 130, the world drowned in all vileness, and the motto 
 of SV. X, Stultorum plena sunt omnia. 
 
 128 
 
makes all things, makes the man, moulds me up honor".' 1 In 
 most of his plays, Marston introduces a character representing 
 his own opinions, who usually acts and talks as it may be 
 supposed Marston himself would have done in like circum- 
 stances. In this play Feliche is the author's representative. 
 He is the honest courtier who befriends the hero and e> 
 foolishness, and whose philosophy is the one current about 
 1600, stoicism. He is described at some length in the induc- 
 tion. 4 as possessing the true stoic a ntent — he never thinks 
 any man perfect, either in nature or fortune, consequently he 
 is fitted to judge the world justly, without favoritism because 
 without envy. This is of course Marston's real attitude 
 throughout the satires, though it is never expressed there so 
 clearly. Feliche views the world as an evil place, possessing 
 little more of virtue than the idea. 
 
 Under MORALS, the usually prominent place of lust is 
 taken by flattery, especially as manifested in parasites. This 
 vice is embodied in the 'supple-chapt flatterer' Forobosco. who, 
 as Marston characteristically expresses it. attempts with 
 "servile patches of glavering flatter}' to stitch up the bracks 
 of unworthily honored" gentility. 5 
 
 As would be expected from the date of Antonio and Mel- 
 lida, it comes under the influence of Jonson's humour plays, 
 and is full of HUM( >.URS itself. Indeed, the lengthy Induc- 
 tion is little more than description of the different humours 
 of the characters, quite in Jonson's style. Here Feliche, the 
 author's representative, describes himself, and then turns to 
 the hero. Antonio, with "But last, good, thy humour?" These 
 two, Feliche and Antonio, are the most important characters 
 in the play, from the author's standpoint, for he promises 
 their further depiction in a second part.''' It was by uniting 
 these two characters that Marston later framed the Malcontent. 
 Antonio is the hero in misfortm and struggles, 
 
 ■III, i. 31; cf. Ill, ii. 42f. 
 
 4 Lines 108f. 
 
 5 Cf. also the opening of Act III; Feliche in II, i: opening of III, 
 ii. and 1. 164. For satire on pride, see 1, i. 45. Money, III, i. 
 The last line has a Marlowian ring. Cf. also mention of money ob- 
 taining love, V, i, 55. Cf. 98, rightly spoken of the duke by Feliche, 
 who then exits. 
 
 ■lnd. 150. Not fulfilled. Cf. infra. 
 
 129 
 
and finally vanquishes 7 ; Feliche is the man in court who is 
 honest in a world of knaves, and who exposes and ridicules 
 them ; he too is secretly scheming- for the rightful ruler. It 
 is easy to see why he was not developed in the second part, as 
 the first had promised ; Antonio in the sequel combines 
 Feliche's role with his own, and so rapidly developes the con- 
 ception of the Malcontent. He is himself at court in dis- 
 guise, both the injured prince and the secret courtier awaiting 
 an opportunity for revenge and the exposure of evil. 
 
 The Induction furthermore describes Piero as the type of 
 proud duke, who 'strokes up the hair, and struts', as Marston 
 vividly puts it; Alberto the distressed lover; Balurdo the rich 
 fool ; Forobosco the parasite and flatterer ; Matzagente the 
 braggadoccio ; and Castilio Balthazar the affected courtier. In 
 these characters, avowedly typical, we see the immediate effect 
 of the school of humours upon English drama. 
 
 The foolish amorist had much attention paid him in the 
 satires, and here he is exemplified by no less than three figures, 
 Castilio, Alberto and coarse Balurdo, all drawn out by Feliche. 
 Thus in a scene which brings one out of melodrama into real- 
 ity, the foolish little Castilio boasts that he 'cannot sleep for 
 kisses, cannot rest for ladies' letters, that importune him'. 
 Feliche answers sensibly that though he himself has good 
 parts and has attempted courting, he never found the ladies 
 so wondrously 'forthcoming'. When Castilio to prove his case 
 pretends to read from an example of his love-letters : "From 
 her that is devoted to thee, in most private sweets of love, 
 Rosaline", Feliche snatches the letter, and discovers it to be, 
 "Item, for straight canvas, thirteen pence half-penny", some- 
 thing like FalstafT's.* 
 
 7 So far as appears in this part. 
 
 8 III, ii, 25f. Castilio Balthazar has much in common with Jonson's 
 Fastidius Brisk, and with the Castilio of Marston's satires. The 
 satire is like that of Every Man Out, Feliche taking the part of 
 M'acilente. See Raskervi'le, p. 196, n. 
 
 The poor and melancholy lover Alberto speaks (II, i, 13-5; V, i, 55) 
 couplets echoed from As You Like It (III, ii) ; he ends with a naive 
 withdrawal from the play : 
 
 "For woods, trees, sea or rocky Apennine, 
 Is not so ruthless as my Rossaline. 
 Farewell, dear friends, expect no more of me: 
 Here ends my part in this love's comedy." 
 
 L30 
 
The FASHIONS of the time receive comparatively little 
 comment. There is some attempt to keep an Italian back- 
 ground to the play ; this and its highly romantic atmosphere 
 both tend to lessen this element of satire. Cosmetics 9 and 
 tobacco 10 are mentioned with disapprobation several times. 
 Beards and tobacco taking are connected twice 11 in this play, 
 as they are often by Marston. 
 
 Chief among the CLASSES satirized are rulers and cour- 
 tiers, the former for their pride and unrighteous government, 
 the latter for their flattery, pride and vanity. 12 The common 
 people he finds utterly fickle. 13 Marston had not really begun 
 his attacks on woman. 1 * 
 
 In spite i t the fact that Antonio and Mellida is full of 
 parallels to other plays, 15 thus showing Marston's early interest 
 in the theatre, there is little literary satire. The most im- 
 portant is the parody on the Spanish Tragedy. 1 '' In the Induc- 
 tion the braggadoccio Matzagente begins : 
 
 "By the bright honour of a Milanoise, 
 
 And the resplendent fulgor of this steel . . ." 
 
 when Feliche interrupts: "Rampum scrampum. mount tufty 
 Tamburlaine! What rattling thunderclap breaks from his 
 lips?", indicating the contemporary attitude toward Marlowe's 
 play. Euphuism is also ridiculed. 17 
 
 Mil, ii, 129 f; for rouging see also II, i, 251. For foreign vices, 
 Ind. 1021 
 
 "' 1, i. 126; HI. ii. 281. 
 
 n V, i, 141 f. and III, ii. 71. A. M, was written probably late in 
 1599, and shows the influence of Much Ado and As You Like It, both 
 new plays. Here Rossaline is Marston's coarsened but still whole- 
 some version of Beatrice. 
 
 13 Ind. 7f. ; I, i, 76f; III. ii ; IV, i. 43f. 
 "IV, i. 70f. 
 
 14 Ind. 87; IV, i, 214. 
 
 15 These references to Shakespeare may be noted: I, i, 247: Rich. 
 
 II, I. iv, 5 (Globe ed.)\ III, i, 1-3: /. C. II, i; 7:5: Rich. HI, V, iv, 
 2: 90: Rich. Ill, V, iii, 175; 102: Rich. Ill, V, iii. 277; III, ii, 48: 
 Sonnet LXVI; IV. i, 79; /. C. I, ii, 228 (ist Fol.); V, i. 62: A. Y. L. I. 
 
 III, ii, 93; V. i, 141f.: M. A. A. N. II, i, 30. Most of these are not 
 close; Marston generally is not imitative of details. 
 
 16 See Appendix D. 
 ,T V, i, 228. 
 
 131 
 
The satire of this play, while abundant, is light, as befits 
 a romantic comedy. Moreover, it is emphatically a humour 
 play, and as such treats of the minor forms of vice, tending 
 more towards those of foolishness. So we get attacks on 
 pride and flattery instead of assaults upon lust. Otherwise, 
 the satire takes much the same trend as in the Scourge of 
 Villainy. 
 
 ANTONIO'S REVENGE 18 
 
 This sequel to Antonio and Mcllida, as its name indicates, 
 is a play quite different from that satiric tragi-comedy. 
 Antonio and Mcllida burlesques in one passage an addition 
 of Jonson to the Spanish Tragedy, and draws some lines from 
 Seneca ; 19 aside from these and some echoes of other drama, 
 Marston depended on himself for the play, so far as is known. 
 Antonio's Revenge, on the other hand, is a frank working 
 over of Kyd's plays of the Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet ; it 
 follows them closely in feeling, incident, and even details. I 
 have noted some score of similarities to Hamlet, and some 
 dozen to the Spanish Tragedy. 20 Seneca is used to a much 
 greater extent than in the first play ; his influence appears in 
 at least a dozen passages. In this part Marston's attention 
 
 18 Written 1599. 
 
 19 See Cunliffe, Influence of Seneca on Eliz. Trag. 
 
 39 1, ii, 314f: Hamlet, II, ii, 528f., also Sp. Trag.; II, ii, stage di- 
 rection: H. II, ii, 168, s. d.; II, ii, 56; H. II, ii, 575 f ; II, ii, 139f : 
 H. Ill, iv, 9i. ; III, i, 32f . : Ghost, at midnight prob. from old Hamlet; 
 84: H. I, v, 95f.; 95-6: H. II, ii, 291, etc.; Ill, i, 135, s. d. : H. Ill, 
 iv, 73; 158: H. Ill, iv, 56; 170f . : H. III. iv, 105f.; Cry of "Revenge!" 
 prob. from old H. ; III, ii, 65, s. d. : Ghosts second appearance to 
 mother and son prob. from old H. ; III, ii, 88: H. I, v, 85; IV, i, 
 s. d. : "Antonio in a fools habit" : IV, i, 31-2 : H. II, ii, 256 ; 52 : 
 H. II, ii, 612, etc.; 67: H. I, iii, 63; IV, ii, 76-80: H. V, i, 278f . ; V, 
 Dumbshow, 10: H. V, i, 211: V, i, 22: H. I, iv, 8; V, ii, 92: H. I, 
 ii, 137. Doubtless there are many others. Has A. R. been used in 
 determining elements of Kyd's Hamlet? 
 
 I, ii, 305: Span. Trag. Ill, (ix), 740 {Everyman cd., lines num- 
 bered by acts); 314f: ST. II, (v), 395, etc.; II, i. 21: ST. IV, (iv), 
 246; II, ii, 217: ST. Ill, (ii), 223 f. ; III, i, 59: ST. II, (v), 358, and 
 III, (xiiA), 915; IV, i, 198: ST. Ill, (vi), 478, etc.; 248: ST. Ill, 
 (xi), 749-50; IV, ii, 23, s. d. : ST. IV, (iv), 344, s. d. ; V, i, Dumb- 
 show, ghost-chorus, as in ST.; V, i, Dumbshow, 19-21 : ST. Ill, 
 (vii), 508f.; V, ii, 53-4: ST. I, 90-1, and last lines of play; 62; s. d. : 
 ST. IV, (iv), 463, s. d.; 82f. : ST. Ill, (xiii), 1139f. 
 
 132 
 
was focused on the atmosphere and the plot of revenge. 
 Therefore, as would he expected, much less satire is to he 
 found in it; indeed, it is one of the least satiric of all Mar- 
 ston's plays. 
 
 Feliche, who was the mouthpiece of most of the satire of 
 the first part, is killed in the second scene. His place as 
 author's representative is partly taken by Antonio, who thus 
 becomes a somewhat more real character than the Antonio of 
 the first part. Occasionally Feliche's father, Pandulpho, 
 speaks for the author. When Antonio is advised to pretend 
 to he a ''spitting critic, whose mouth voids nothing but genteel 
 and unvulgar rheum of censure", he answer-, "Why, then I 
 should put on the very flesh of solid folly." This ridicule 
 of satire is new for Marston, and may indicate that just at 
 this time he was uncertain as to its value. 
 
 There are only a few examples of the abundant MORAL 
 satire found in the first part. 21 Moreover, Marston has aban- 
 doned the idea of the HUMOUR play. The humour char- 
 acters of the first part all reappear in name, but they are 
 practically shorn of their humours, and are kept inconspicu- 
 ous. 22 For example, Castilio appears often, but does not speak 
 a single word ; moreover, he acts far out of his original char- 
 acter as an effeminate courtier. He even aids the duke in 
 strangling Strotzo. In the matter of CLASSES, even that 
 continual butt, the courtier, is scarcely attacked.-" Actors 
 are mentioned with disfavor a couple of times; probably 
 Marston's attention had been turned to them by the produc- 
 tion of Antonio and Mellida. 24 There is no LITERARY 
 satire. 
 
 Tins play, then, is not satiric, save that the hero, Antonio. 
 approaches more closely to the type of malcontent which was 
 to become Marston's especial method of satirizing. 
 
 21 Flattery, II, i, I24f.; parasitism, IV, i, 244; vanity, I, ii, 47f. 
 
 '- Except Balurdo, who furnishes most of the comedy, as the some- 
 times witty, sometimes stupid clown. Forobosco in only one line 
 keeps his character of parasite and flatterer, I, ii, 223f. Matzagente 
 scarcely speaks. 
 
 "II, i, 117. 
 
 24 II, ii, 109. and I. ii. 315 (where Bullen's aspish should read 
 apish). 
 
 133 
 
HISTRIOMASTIX* 
 
 The original Histriomastix was fundamentally satirical. 
 It had been written to oppose the new luxury, and 
 showed a state progressing from Peace, through the stages of 
 Wealth, Pride, Envy, War and Poverty, back to Peace again. 
 It did not seem to contain any personal satire, which Marston 
 added in his additions to the figures of Chrisoganus and 
 Posthaste, discussed elsewhere. 20 This, with a little other 
 LITERARY satire, is all the satiric material which can be 
 credited to Marston. 
 
 We find here, I think, one of the last of the attacks of the 
 "University Wits" upon non-university playwrights. The long 
 soliloquy of Chrisoganus 27 which was derived from a speech 
 of Macilente, 28 is made a part of the general assertion of the 
 necessity of university training. Marston speaks for himself 
 through Chrisoganus when the latter exclaims: 
 
 "O, I could curse 
 This idiot world . . . 
 
 That crusheth down the sprouting stems of Art . . . 
 Crowning dull clods of earth with honor's wreath." 28 
 
 JACK DRUM'S ENTERTAINMENT 30 
 
 This play, produced about 1600, shows another change of 
 method. Antonio and Mellida was a humour play ; Antonio's 
 Revenge had no humour characters. Jack Drum attacks some 
 of the methods of Jonson's humour plays, but at the same time 
 goes back to typical humour characters. As such, these are 
 in their essence satiric ; therefore we find an increase of satire 
 in this play. 
 
 Planet is the author's representative, keeping before the 
 audience the norm from which their humours drive the other 
 
 2 " Revised by Marston about the time of the Antonio plays, 1599. 
 * Cf. supra, pp. 26f. 
 
 27 III, 189f. 
 
 28 Every Man Out, opening of Act I. 
 
 29 Cf. Ill, l!)7f. 
 
 30 An example of the careless naming of plays. It was intended 
 to recall the popular phrase, Jack or John Drum's entertainment, i. e., 
 hard fare. Jack Drum is Sir Edward Fortune's servant, possessing 
 some wit and more brag, but with no such part in the plot as to 
 justify the title. 
 
 134 
 
characters. Planet has much in common with Feliche, and 
 has even something of Chrisoganus. He stands aloof from the 
 rest of the characters, bringing to light their faults, laughing 
 at them, and helping his friends back to sanity. He regards 
 himself as a satirist and the dispenser of justice." 1 It is 
 Planet who concludes the play by forcing the horned cap 
 upon Brabant Senior, the representative of Jonson's dramatic 
 method. 32 
 
 This play frequently shows how satire is really the prevail- 
 ing mood with Marston, for it intrudes into speeches where 
 it has no business. For example Pasquil, mad for love, says 
 as part of his demented ravings: 
 
 "Let's whip the Senate, else they will not leave 
 To have their justice blasted with abuse 
 Of flattering sycophants." 33 
 
 And when Camelia says of her foolish lover Ellis, "He is 
 good because he knows not how to be bad," Marston has her 
 maid remark philosophically, "I know not; methinks, not to 
 be bad, is good enough in these days." In these days has the 
 true satiric ring. 
 
 Satire concerning MORALS is comprised in the treatment 
 of Mammon and John fo de King. "Mammon the usurer, 
 with a great nose" (as he is given in the list of characters) is 
 the villain of the play. Probably his characterisation is 
 influenced by that of Shylock, 34 otherwise we might have 
 expected a closer approximation to the puritan usurer which 
 drew such plaints out of Marston in the satires.''"' 
 
 John fo de King is really a HUMOUR character. That is, 
 he was continually upon one subject, had only one aim in life. 
 That this prepossession is lust, would not prevent Marston 
 from considering it a humour, as he had already done in the 
 satires. 36 In John we have an example of how Marston's 
 humour characters are often more individualized and real than 
 Jonson's. Aside from his unquenchable lust. John's figure is 
 
 31 IV, 293. 
 
 B Supra, p. 35. 
 
 B TV, 200. 
 
 ** Simpson. School of Shakespeare. I, 208. 
 "' Supra, p. 101. 
 "Supra, p. 103. 
 
 135 
 
not altogether without attractive traits ; it seems fitting that his 
 simple, jolly character, evil though it is, should have been the 
 unwitting means of catching the lofty Brabant Senior in his 
 own trap. 
 
 The numerous other humour characters show delight in 
 gulling, optimism, fickleness, infatuation, etc. 
 
 When we begin to examine Marston's treatment of 
 CLASSES we note a new development — there is scarcely an 
 unfavorable reference to any in authority ; even courtiers are 
 only slurred once, out of habit as it were. 37 On the other hand 
 the populace is thus treated : Sir Edward, asked for news 
 of court, answers that it is a 
 
 "Reprobate fashion, when each ragged clout, 
 
 Each cobbler's spawn, and yeasty, boozing bench. 
 
 Reeks in the face of sacred majesty 
 
 His stinking breath of censure ! Out upon 't ! . . . 
 
 The council chamber is the Phoenix nest 
 
 Who wastes itself, to give us peace and rest." 38 
 
 This attitude is explained by the references to the company 
 which was acting the play, the Children of Paul's. About 
 1590 both the boys' companies, the Children of the Chapel and 
 the Children of Paul's, seem to have been dissolved. In 1597 
 there was an attempt made to re-establish the Children of 
 the Chapel, but they did not have their regular theatre in 
 Blackfriars till 1600. However, they may well have gotten 
 the start of the Children of Paul's, whose first recorded play 
 is this Jack Drum's Entertainment ; certainly they obtained 
 Elizabeth's favour, and it was for a share in this that the 
 Paul's Children were struggling. After having been sup- 
 pressed ten years, their plays at first seem to have been out 
 of fashion, with an archaic suggestion about them. 39 Marston 
 wrote Jack Drum for them in order to refute this charge. 
 
 37 1, 5. 
 
 38 1, 21, 48. 
 
 39 For example, it is known that they produced in this season The 
 Maid's Metamorphosis, a Lylian pastoral. Wisdom of Dr. Doddipoll, 
 and Histriomastix. It was evidently some of these old-fashioned plays 
 which had preceded Jack Drum. 
 
 136 
 
•SIR ED. I saw the Children of Paul's last night, 
 
 And troth they pleased me pretty, pretty well : 
 
 The apes in time will do it handsomely. 
 
 PLANET. P faith, I like the audience that frequenteth there, 
 
 With much applause; a man shall not be choked 
 
 With the stench of garlic, nor be pasted 
 
 To the barmie jacket of a beer-brewer. 
 
 BRA. JR. 'Tis a good, gentle audience, and I hope the boys 
 
 Will come one day into the Court of requests. 
 
 BRA. SR. Aye, and they had good plays, but they produce 
 
 Such musty fopperies of antiquity." "' 
 
 This is an open bid for court favor, and the play evidently 
 marks a change in the policy of the management of the Chil- 
 dren of Paul's. This activity of the children's companies was 
 what led to the quarrel with the adult companies, which in 
 turn permitted, probably fostered, a stage display of the quar- 
 rels of playwrights. 
 
 On the whole, Jack Drum's Entertainment contains little 
 satire, since it was written solely to amuse, promote the 
 interests of the Children of Paul's, and especially to win the 
 favor of the upper classes and if possible the queen. In such 
 a play satire would have been out of place. 
 
 WHAT YOU WILL " 
 
 Here for the first time since the Satires Marston's pessimism 
 is fully exposed. Notwithstanding that it is written in a 
 careless, 4 - lively and jocular manner, many parts of it are 
 singularly unpleasant even for a play of Marston, 43 and for 
 the first time in his plays there are long passages devoted to 
 misanthropy. The play begins with the subversive doctrine 
 that "all that exists takes value from opinion", 44 and Marston's 
 opinion is that things are pretty bad. Some lines later he 
 states that "Pity and Piety are long since dead", and Fortune 
 
 " V, I02f. Cf. Introd. 
 
 '' Written 1601, just about the time of Poetaster. Title taken from 
 that of Twelfth Night, or What You Will. 
 
 *'Ci. the artless fashion of I, i. 200; II, i. 265-6; II. ii, 235,; HI, 
 iii, 139; V, i, 375: "So ends our slight-writ play". 
 
 "£. g., Ill, ii. 
 
 "I, i, 19; cf. A. R. IV, i, 30; Hamlet, II, ii, 256. 
 
 137 
 
is not blind, else how could she so unerringly "starve rich 
 worth and glut iniquity"? 4 "' 
 
 Quadratus, who makes these statements, is the author's 
 representative in this play, and is a curious mixture of stoicism 
 and epicureanism. Most characters put forward as the 
 author's own mouthpiece are made likeable, that his state- 
 ments may have credence ; but Quadratus only pleases in 
 that he is somewhat less of a fool than his companions. As 
 his name signifies, he is intended to be the Senecan "four- 
 square" man, and he possesses the stoic philosophy in its bit- 
 terest form, but nullified by a simultaneous hedonism. In 
 this same first scene he goes on, excited by the mention of 
 love, to rail at life : 
 
 "Hang love ! . . . 
 
 Hate all things; hate the world, thyself, all men . . . 
 
 All things are error, dirt and nothing ; 
 
 Or pant with want, or gorged to loathing. 
 
 Love only hate, affect no higher 
 
 Than praise of Heaven, wine, a fire. 
 
 Suck up thy days in silent breath. 
 
 When their snuff's out, come Signior Death." 
 
 So he advises the hatred of honor, virtue, riches, beauty, knowl- 
 edge ; all uttered with a grin, to be sure, but at the same time 
 he seems to live up fairly well to what he says. He defies the 
 "sour-browed Zoilist" or critic, and rhymes in what he calls 
 no gleaned poetry, but his known fashion : 
 
 "Music, tobacco 4 ", sack, and sleep. 
 The tide of sorrow backward keep . . . 
 While quickest sense doth freshly last, 
 Clip time about, hug pleasure fast." 47 
 
 There is more satire of MORALS than in previous plays. 
 A very formal example is the exposure of the condition of 
 London pages. 48 Here Marston seems to have been attacking 
 a very real abuse of the time. 4 " 
 
 40 Cf. IV, i, 65f, 
 
 ** Marston's only complimentary reference to tobacco. 
 
 "II, i, 272. Cf. Quadratus at the end of the play. 
 
 48 III, Hi. 
 
 ** For satire on flattery, see II, ii, 220f . ; on money, II, i, 305. 
 
 138 
 
The list of characters alone would show thai What You 
 Will is not a [TUMOUR p'ay, as was Jack Drum's Entertain- 
 ment. The only characters who could be considered in this 
 light are the foolish lover Jacomo, a type Marston could never 
 let alone, but who here only serves to start the plot, and then 
 disappears ; and the satellite Simplicius Faber. He is evi- 
 dently a satire on one of the early 'sons of Ben', a foolish 
 'burr on the nap of greatness'. The youth is nought but 
 admiration and applause for Lampatho : 
 
 "Doth he but speak, — 'O tones of heaven itself!' 
 Doth he once write, — 'O Jesu admirable!' 
 Cries out Simplicius. Then Lampatho spits. 
 And says, 'Faith, 'tis good.'" 00 
 
 Marston is especially apt in such vivid characterizations as 
 this last touch. 
 
 Under FASHIONS, Marston has much to say about dress. 
 There is an interesting stage-direction and ensuing scene of 
 foppishness at the beginning of the second act: "One knocks; 
 Laverdure draws the curtains, sitting on his bed, apparelling 
 himself, his trunk of apparel standing by him." Later Mar- 
 ston says "Apparel's grown a god." 51 
 
 Among CLASSES, the ordinary Elizabethan gallant is 
 well described by his page 52 : he eats much and slovenly ; 
 he depends on gambling for his money, and only when he has 
 none is his page allowed to carry his purse, "lie cheats well, 
 swears better, but swaggers in a wanton's chamber admirably ; 
 . . . as contemptuous as Lucifer, as arrogant as ignorance 
 can make him, as libidinous as Priapus." 5S 
 
 Albano, a kind of Enoch Arden, abuses woman in an 
 elaborate well-constructed satire in III, ii ; it consists of two 
 contrasts between the ideal theory of marriage and the actual 
 practice. 
 
 In this slightly written play, designed for the especial pur- 
 pose of attacking Cynthia's Revels, Marston seems to relax 
 his interest in dramatic effect, and slides back into his naturally 
 
 50 II, i, 46. 
 
 61 III, i, 11 and fir. The same thought in V. i, 20-41. Beards, save 
 red ones, are envied: ITT, i, 2*5; [IT. ii, 127: IV, i. 31 : V, i, 240. 
 "Ill, iii, 43f. 
 63 Other satire on classes 111. ii, 18; teachers. II, ii ; clergy II, ii, 195. 
 
 139 
 
satiric mood. This is evident from the nature of Quadratus, 
 which approximates to Marston's mood ; and it appears in the 
 very wording. "Apparel's grown a god" ; love's "grown a 
 figment" : here we can discern the usual satiric feeling that 
 the world is degenerating. A new development enters with 
 this play : the world is so evil that the wise man despises it, 
 but with the result that he snatches at the alleviations of 
 pleasure, and decides that "Naught's known but by exterior 
 sense"/' 4 Here is evidence that the satirist is abandoning 
 his earlier hopes of bettering the world, together with any 
 ascetic ideals he may have had, and now berates simply be- 
 cause it is his accustomed manner of speaking. 
 
 THE DUTCH COURTEZAN rr> 
 
 In this play some of the changes evident in What You 
 Will have proceeded further ; humour characters diminish in 
 number and importance, and the proportion of satire increases. 
 Here are brought out Marston's dominant traits ; the play 
 treats of lust in the most realistic way ; furthermore, the au- 
 thor never surpassed in vividness and reality the varied char- 
 acters of Franceschina, Crispenella and Cocledemoy. Marston 
 uses for almost the first time contrasted characters; and in 
 certain instances contrives to show character alteration : The 
 loose Freevil and the strict Malheureux of the beginning of the 
 play change places as it progresses ; we have the conventional 
 heroine Beatrice™ and her more lively and free-spoken sister 
 Crispinella, opposed to the world, the flesh and the devil incar- 
 nate in Franceschina. In construction the play is the best 
 that Marston had done. The main plot is simple, and derives 
 most of its interest from character-study ; it has a steady 
 progression to a climax in the decision of Freevil, and an 
 effective denouement. The sub-plot, on the other hand, is 
 one of incidents, but they steadily increase in importance. The 
 principal constructive fault is the almost complete separation 
 of the main and sub-plots, though they both end in eleventh- 
 
 M II, i, 279. 
 
 M Written late in 1602. 
 
 08 Redeemed into reality by one of Marston's most effective 
 speeches, IV, iv, 63 f. 
 
 140 
 
hour escape? from hanging. A renewed interest in drama 
 instead of dramatized satire may be indicated in the Prologue: 
 
 "The only end 
 Of our now study is, not to offend. 
 Yet think not but, like others, rail we could : 
 Best art presents not what it can, but should." 
 
 It is hard to believe that Marston was ever troubled by accusa- 
 tions of not being able to rail. 57 
 
 The author expresses himself somewhat through Freevil 5 * 
 and Crispenella. In their speeches they quote, without very 
 much alteration, considerable passages from Montaigne/' 11 and 
 his influence is discernible in Marston's new puzzled interest 
 in Nature, by which he means something like natural inclina- 
 tion. Thus Freevil, thinking of the chastity of Malheureux, 
 says that the worst fool is he that would seem wise against 
 Nature, 60 and Malheureux later expresses nearly the same 
 thing : 
 
 "Sure Nature against virtue cross doth fall. 
 
 Or virtue's self is oft unnatural."* 1 
 
 This new thought finds fullest application in Marston's 
 MORAL satire against his favorite adversary, lust, to which 
 the scope of the play gives wide allowance. The Fabulae 
 Argiimentum is "The difference betwixt the love of a courtezan 
 and a wife." In the first scene Malheureux talks very virtu- 
 ously, while Freevil half seriously defends lust ; the next scene 
 well shows, in the necessarily shortened form of a drama, the 
 rise of passion in Malheureux: 
 
 "O, that to love should be or shame, or sin ! . . . 
 
 No love's without some lust, no life without some love." 
 
 67 Cf. like passages in Malcontent, infra, p. 147. 
 
 68 As when he strikes the old satiric note : "What old times held 
 as crimes, are now but fashions", III, i. 281. 
 
 ^Sainmont, Influence dc Montaigne sur Marston et Webster, 
 Louvain, 1914. He cites the ff. parallels: D. C. I. i, 126f : Mont. 
 (Florio) III, v, 130; II, i, 66-84: M. Ill, v. 128-9; II. i. 91-2, 98-9, 
 108-11, 120-145, all from M. III. v, 130 and 96-100; III, i, 4-47: M. 
 Ill, v: III. i, 83-5; M. II. xii: V. i. 33-7; M. IN. v; V. ii. 69, 81-90; 
 M. II, xii, xxxv. 
 
 "I, ii, 172. (In Bullen mistakenly numbered 272). 
 
 61 II, i, 84. 
 
 141 
 
Toward the end of the play Freevil expresses again the wonder 
 
 "That things of beauty, created for sweet use, 
 
 Soft comfort, as the very music of life, 
 
 Custom should make so unutterably hellish . . . 
 
 How vile 
 To love a creature made of blood and hell."'" 
 
 In spite of Marston's doubts concerning the reality of virtue, 
 the ultimate aim of the play is to deter from vice ; but his 
 methods are more than questionable. The general conception 
 of the play shows a standard of morality which is never quite 
 forgotten, and which the play as a whole is made to serve, 
 thus showing that it is not really decadent. Franceschina is 
 one of the wickedest little persons in Elizabethan drama. She 
 is perfectly alive, and no abstract type ; though her evil is 
 made clear, and few readers could wish to know too much of 
 her, yet the sudden passion of Malheureux is quite under- 
 standable. It is in details and diction that the play is bad. 
 It has more than the coarseness of the age ; it is lecherous and 
 filthy. This is criticism that must be applied to all of Mar- 
 ston's work, and more especially to that which contains the 
 most satire. There can be no doubt that Marston was power- 
 fully attracted by vice — Franceschina must have been drawn 
 from the life; and there can be no doubt that he was even 
 more powerfully repelled. His satire is not hypocrisy, yet it 
 never succeeds in being quite whole-hearted. He dallies too 
 long with vice, and protests too much when he is punishing it. 
 Indeed, he is like the figure he imagines somewhere, of the 
 beadle who itches to possess the whore he is whipping. In 
 this respect, of being the battle-ground of contending passions, 
 he is a characteristic dramatist of his age ; he is the antithesis 
 of such a man as Sterne, who was neither good nor bad, but 
 sentimentally suggestive. Marston was both good and bad, 
 and his writings, like Swift's, show the conflict. 
 
 The play contains a considerable amount of scattered satire. fia 
 
 82 V, t, 64f. 
 
 ""For humours, cf. V, ii, 22; under manners: III, i, 7f. ; III, i, 
 64. For classes: III, iii, 10; see also II, ii, 35; III, i, 139, for citi- 
 zens. Courtiers: IV, iii, 3; V, iii, 140. Poets and parsons: III, ii, 
 38. Sleeping constables (after Dogberry) : IV, v, 65. Puritans: III, 
 iii. 55; 170. Women: 11, ii, 2.J2; V. i. 16; V, ii, 137. Husbands: 
 HI, i, 7,".; IV, i, 30'. 
 
 14-2 
 
To a modern reader this is the most interesting of Marston's 
 play;, in spite of its obvious faults. This is principally because 
 of the play's characterization, and because Marston subordi- 
 nated satire to drama. What he has to say is expressed 
 through the actions of the characters, and not through shrill 
 words. He was, that is, a satiric dramatist in this play, 
 instead of being, as was more usual, a dramatic satirist. 
 
 THE MALCONTENT" 4 
 
 The next two plays, the Malcontent and the Fawn, both 
 contain a very large amount of satire, which it will be neces- 
 sary to give only in summary. 
 
 A deeply melancholy vein runs through the high romance of 
 Elizabethan times; and sometimes to this romantic melancholy 
 satire is added. World-famous literary examples of this 
 mixture are Hamlet, and later Byron; it is to this type thai 
 Marston belongs. It was especially prevalent in his day, and 
 was not mere affectation, though so this W eltschmcrz is often 
 regarded. Shakespeare found "the melancholy Jaques" in the 
 society around him ; it is this same quality that permeates 
 Hamlet, while Timon is an exaggeration of the type. In real 
 life Montaigne and later Sir Thomas Browne are examples. 
 They both lived soberly in real retirement; Marston while 
 still a young man deserted the reputation he had made for 
 himself, and lived the rest of his life in a country parish. It 
 
 ** The satire of The Malcontent shows that it was not written in 
 1600, as Stoll (John Webster, 1905, pp. 55-60) on insufficient grounds 
 has endeavoured to prove. Wallace is more nearly right when he 
 names the spring of 1603, for the Malcontent's satire is similar in 
 amount and kind to that in the Fawn and Dutch Courtezan, both 
 usually dated c. 1604. Wallace (Children of the Chapel, p. 101, etc.) 
 dates the earlier plays of Marston: Hist., 1598; A. M., first half 1599; 
 A. R„ Nov. 1599; /. D. E., May, 1600; W . Y. W., April, 1601; D. C, 
 fall-winter, 1602; Malcontent, spring, 1603. His early dating of D. C. 
 places Mai. between that and the Fawn, which agrees with the satiric 
 elements of these plays: and I have in this paper followed his order. 
 
 Wallace states that these dates are for the most part definitely 
 proved, though his evidence is not yet published. In that case, it 
 throws out of consideration the bases for Stoll's conclusions concern- 
 ing the relations of Feliche, the Malcontent, Jaques and Hamlet, in 
 his paper Shakespeare, Marston and the Malcontent Type, Mod. Philoi, 
 Jan. 1906. Cf. supra, p. 77, n., 78, n. 
 
 143 
 
was not 'maukish affectation' which made him be buried 
 "under the stone which hath written on it Oblhnoni Sacrum". 
 Byron's Manfred, another example of the same type, 
 demands from destiny 
 
 "Oblivion, self-oblivion — 
 Can ye not wring from out the hidden realms 
 Ye offer so profusely, what I ask?" 
 
 This melancholy of the age was frequently described by the 
 common Elizabethan word malcontent.''"' It might be called 
 the humour of discontent. The duke's description of Male- 
 vole, near the beginning of the Malecontcnt, sums up the type: 
 
 "This Malevole is one of the most prodigious affections that ever 
 conversed with nature: a man, or rather a monster: more discontent 
 than Lucifer when he was thrust out of the presence. His appetite 
 is unsatiable as the grave ; as far from any content as from heaven. 
 His highest delight is to procure others' vexation, and therein he 
 thinks he truly serves heaven : for 'tis his position, whosoever in this 
 earth can be contented is a slave and damned; therefore does he 
 afflict all in that to which they are most affected. The elements strug- 
 gle within him; his own soul is at variance with herself; his speech 
 is halter-worthy at all hours . . . See. he comes. Now you shall 
 hear the extremity of a malcontent; he is as free as air; he blows 
 over every man." 
 
 It is obvious how much this is in accord with the character^ 
 of Quadratus and Feliche. though here, as befitted a deposed 
 prince, the character is more bitter. The hero of Antonio 
 and Mcllida was Marston's first approximation to this type, 
 and his last was in the Fawn. Shakespeare began from the 
 comic rather than tragic side, with Jaques. Hamlet can by 
 no means be properly understood without a knowledge of the 
 Malcontent type ; and in Measure for Measure. Shakespeare's 
 most Marstonian play, it is interesting to compare the duke 
 with Hercules in the Fawn. 
 
 " Later it came to have a political significance. Xashe's Pierce 
 Penniless, 1592. was an early portrayal of this type. Cf. Gull's Horn- 
 book. Dekker. 1609 (Huth Lib., ed. Grosart. II, 223): "As for thy 
 stockings and shoes, so wear them, that all men may point at thee, 
 and make thee famous by that glorious name of a malcontent." Cf. 
 Hall's analysis of the malcontent in his Characters. 1608. The word 
 was most commonly spelled male-content. 
 
 144 
 
The stage malcontent represented a real trait in Elizabethan 
 character. The current stoic philosophy considered malcon- 
 tentism pathological, as it did love and humours. The text- 
 book of malcontentism is Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, 
 which attempts analysis at great length. It was a symptom 
 of the age, a mentally infectious state which certainlj governed 
 Marston himself. 66 This in part explains the tone of his 
 satire. Xo doubt this tone was partly conventional; but when 
 the convention was added to .Marston's temperament, the 
 result was. in Alden's words'' 7 : "To say that Marston's atti- 
 tude is pessimistic is to put the facts mildly." 
 
 The malcontent type is in essence a humour, partly melan- 
 choly, partly cynical, with its natural expression in satire. 
 Marston noticed it in the satires, but did not realize its attrac- 
 tion for him. He savagely attacked exactly what was to be 
 the hero of several of his plays. A man seems to be truly 
 humble and courteous, serving obsequiously without apparent 
 hope of reward : 
 
 "O, is not this a courteous minded man? 
 
 No, fool, no ; a damned Machiavellian ; 
 
 Holds candle to the devil for a while, 
 
 That he the better may the world beguile, 
 
 That's fed with shows. He hopes, though some repine. 
 
 When sun is set, the lesser stars will shine ; 
 
 He is within a haughty malcontent, 
 
 Though he do use such humble blandishment." * 
 
 When the malcontent became the principal character in a play, 
 a motive had to be provided to explain his frame of mind, 
 and this was done by making him a high-born, noble char- 
 acter temporarily soured by misfortune. To enable him to 
 utter his satire freely and effectively, disguise was almost 
 inevitable — and here we have the outlines of the protagonist 
 of the Antonio plays, of the Malcontent, and the Fawn. 
 
 It is to be noted that satire can best be expressed in drama 
 in a comedy, otherwise the combination of satiric and tragic 
 elements is too heavy. This is true even in Hamlet ; in the 
 
 •* Prof. Croll suggests that it arose, in Marston at least, from the 
 blending of libertinism (or skepticism) with stoicism. 
 97 Formal Satire, p. 135. 
 " S. ii. 87-106. 
 
 145 
 
acting' versions much of the satiric element included in the 
 text is invariably omitted. It is for this reason that the 
 Malcontent ends as a comedy, as do all of Marston's plays 
 of this type save Antonio's Revenge, where the comparative 
 absence of satire is noticeable. Thus in spite of the obvious 
 fitness of the malcontent for a tragic role, he almost invariably 
 plays a comic one. 
 
 There is a steady development of the malcontent character 
 in Marston's plays, until in Malevole, in the play of the 
 Malcontent, two originally dissimilar elements have become 
 fused. These are, first, the character in the play representing 
 the author himself, standing aside from the action, but express- 
 ing Marston's sentiments and with whom Marston sympathises ; 
 second, the romantic, melancholy unfortunate who is the 
 protagonist. Chrisoganus contains the undeveloped germs of 
 both types. In Antonio and Mcllida we find them clearly 
 divided, in the parts of Feliche and Antonio. In Antonio's 
 Revenge, Pandulpho partly takes Feliche's place, but to some 
 extent Antonio unites the types. This play is in a sense a 
 preliminary study for the Malcontent. Planet in Jack Drum, 
 though he takes a part in the plot, is clearly of the first type, 
 the author's representative, and so is Quadratus in What You 
 Will. Important as Quadratus is in the play, he does noth- 
 ing; his name does not appear in Bullen's summary of the 
 plot. Albano is something of the malcontent, though he is 
 deceived, instead of playing the customary malcontent role 
 of the deceiver. In the Dutch Courtezan Freevil generally 
 expresses the author, having many resemblances to Planet. 
 
 Malevole plays the part of both Antonio and Feliche ; he is 
 the cynic satirist who most nearly of the characters expresses 
 the author's true opinion, and has the author's sympathy ; at 
 the same time he is the disguised exile, who deceives the 
 tyrant and who is the hero of the play. This condensation 
 of interest in one character naturally weakens our interest in 
 other virtuous characters, such as the shadowy Celso, but it 
 permits the presence of two villains as counterweights. 
 
 Like other representatives of the author, Malevole has no 
 relations with women in the story: Maria, his wife, has 
 merely a conventional role. Freevil indeed is the only char- 
 acter of this type who is shown in love, and so far as he is. 
 
 1 4 ft 
 
Marston seems to externalize him, treating him as a figure in 
 a play, not as an expression of himself. 
 
 Finally, in the Fawn, the malcontent character is worn out, 
 and appears for the last time. 
 
 The Malcontent contains a considerable amount of GEN- 
 ERAL satire, which the preface To the Header shows to have 
 been expected of Marston. Again. Webster in his Induction 
 to the play, has Sly insist that it is to be a bitter play. He 
 is answered that it is neither satire nor moral, but history ; but 
 that it does not protest to ladies that their painting makes 
 them angels. In the play itself the world is called a prison 
 whose fee for freedom is a man's life. Stultorum plena sunt 
 omnia, and the fools go in satin.'" 
 
 The MORAL satire of the play covers practically the entire 
 ground treated in the satires, and again lust is most prominent. 
 Very few of the characters even pretend to morality. In such 
 a world the Machiavellian only goes to the logical extreme. 70 
 '1 here is more satire on religion than usual, especially on the 
 puritans. Malevole in an outburst against the ''deformed 
 church", perhaps lets us catch a glimpse of why Marston was 
 to take orders : 
 
 "I mean to turn pure Rochelle Protestant churchman, I . . . 
 Because I'll live lazily, rail upon authority, deny the king's supremacy 
 in things indifferent, and be a pope in mine own parish ... I have 
 seen oxen plough up altars; et nunc seges ubi Sion fuit ... I ha' 
 seen a sumptuous steeple turned to a stinking privy ; more beastly, the 
 sacredest place made a dog's kennel ; nay, most inhuman, the stone 
 coffins of long-dead Christians burst up, and made hogs' troughs: hie 
 finis Priami."'' 
 
 w For general satire, see: To the Reader; Induction, 5t> ; l ? ijj f 57 ; 
 II, ii, 80; III, i, 65; ii, 76; IV, ii. '25; V, ii. 42; 141; Ode. IV, ii, 141 
 is a typical passage of Malevole: "Think this: this earth is the 
 only grave and Golgotha wherein all things that live must rot ; 'tis 
 but the draught wherein the heavenly bodies discharge their corrup- 
 tion ; the very muckhill whereon the sublunary orbs cast their excre- 
 ments : man is the slime of this dungpit, and princes are the governors 
 of these men." 
 
 10 II, i, Mendoza's soliloquy; III, i, 313; IV, i, 233; V, ii, 268. 
 
 71 II, iii, 185f. Cf. esp. IV, i, 180, for evident reality of feeling un- 
 usual in Marston; and I, i, 50. Churchmen: I, i, 179; IV, i, 225; IV, 
 ii. 125. 
 
 147 
 
Among CLASSES, princes' favorites and courtiers come 
 in for much attention. 7 - Marston was no believer in divine 
 right, 73 but he held the common people to be even more 
 despicable than the aristocracy. 74 Woman as a class has her 
 full share of abuse, principally for being foolish and blind, 
 harming both the good and bad. 7 "' There are a number of 
 foreign vices mentioned, and an especially interesting passage 
 which seems to refer to the Scotch incursion at court under 
 fames I, perhaps even to James himself: "Bianca: And 
 is not Signior St. Andrew a gallant fellow now? Maqucr- 
 elle: By my maidenhood, la, honor and he agree together 
 as well as a satin suit and woolen stockings." Mr. Bullen 
 notes that some copies of the first edition read "St. Andrew 
 Jaques"; the inference from St. Andrew. Scotland's patron 
 saint, and Jaques. the French form of James, is unmistakeable, 
 especially as the daring reference only appears in a few 
 copies. 76 
 
 The lack of HUMOUR characters indicate a late date for 
 the play. Among the references to FASHIONS there is a 
 Sartor Resartus idea of equality : All men's souls "are as 
 free as emperors, all of one piece; there goes but a pair of 
 shears betwixt an emperor and the son of a bagpiper ; only 
 the dying, pressing, glossing, makes the difference." TT 
 
 The Malcontent is perhaps the most characteristic of all 
 Marston's plays. It is satiric in conception, and crammed 
 with details of pure satire. It shows all of Marston's unpleas- 
 antness, and exhibits also much that makes his work remem- 
 bered, just at it ranges over the whole of his satiric field. But 
 in it he does not forget that he is writing a drama ; the 
 dramatic and satiric are still fairly well balanced. 
 
 J2 I, i, 289; 325; II. iii. 205; III, i, 181 f. ; IV, i, 52; V, ii, 141. Cour- 
 tier is named Castilio, I, i, 302. 
 
 73 V, iii, 190. 
 
 u Mob: III, i, 217; V, iii, 189. Citizens: I, iii, 27; III, i, 61; 107; 
 V, ii, G9; iii, 144. 
 
 "■ I. ii, 36; 85; II, ii, 41; iii, 48; 83; III, i. 124; ii, 37; V. ii, 133. 
 
 T "V, iii, 24. Foreign vices: I, iii, 24: III, i, 96; V, ii, 1. Conven- 
 tional satire of lawyers: I, iii, 49; V, ii, 12; iii, 108. Repeated joke 
 on city official: III, i, 256, V, ii, 212. Poverty of poets, tenants and play- 
 ers: III, i, 259; 37; IV, ii, 4. Money: V, i, 54; ii, 183. 
 
 "IV, ii, 147; Dress: III, i, 58; V, iii, 13. Cosmetics: Ind., 70; II, 
 iii, 29; III, i, 143. Complication of dances, IV, i, 73. Tobacco: Ind. 
 136, and note, Bullen; I, iii, 28. Legs and beard: I, iii, 28; V, iii, 36. 
 
 148 
 
PARASITASTER, OR THE FAWN 78 
 
 This play is written in the same vein as the Malcontent, 
 and in many ways is a companion-piece. Both are thoroughly 
 satiric. The chief character, the Fawn, is essentially a mal- 
 content, and has the same traits as Malevole, though without 
 the latter's extreme depression. His specialty is to lead 
 foolish men on to make fools of themselves to the top of 
 their bent ; then he expatiates to them on their follv. being 
 an adept at 'rubbing it in'. Thus, he encourages the jealousy 
 of Zuccone. and inflames him against his calumniated wife ; 
 then, when the truth is revealed, he tells Zuccone to go hang 
 himself. 79 The disheartened Zuccone retorts: 
 
 "Fawn, thou art a scurvy, bitter knave, and deist flout Dons to their 
 face? ; 'twas thou flattered'st me to this, and now thou laugh'st at 
 me, dost? Though indeed I had a certain proclivity, — but thou madest 
 me more resolute : dost grin and gern ? . . . O, I am an ass, true . . 
 
 More pity, comfort, and more help we have 
 
 In foes professed, than in a flattering knave." w 
 
 In this interesting passage we see Marston coming to the 
 end of his use for the Malcontent type. It had begun in two 
 distinct types, that of the critical satiric friend, and that of 
 the melancholy unfortunate. These combined in Malevole, 
 who is in the main repeated in the Fawn. But by this time 
 the character had grown too bitter to be regarded in the light 
 of hero. In its exposure of folly it much resembles the 
 gull-baiters of the Jonsonian humour-comedies ; and Marston 
 himself had earlier satirized these in the person of Brabant 
 Senior in Jack Drum. Between the two unpleasant person-, 
 our sympathies are forced to go to the side of Zuccone, though 
 he had erred so much. For Marston. in endeavoring to show 
 the Fawn a parasite not for his own advantage, but simply 
 
 78 Published twice in 1606; probably produced 16u5. The suffix 
 -aster of the word Parasitaster was probably suggested by Jonson's title 
 Poetaster; but Jonson's suffix had the modern meaning of little, or in- 
 ferior; Marston's title means that his character had a surface resem- 
 blance to a parasite. Fawn, in the sense of one who fawns, seems to 
 have been original with Marston ; A r . E. D. gives it as a word used 
 only once, citing however not Marston but a passage dated 1635. 
 
 79 As in A. M., V. i. 55 
 " IV, i. 
 
 149 
 
to expose to others their faults, has made him lead them into 
 error farther than they would have gone, and so be himself 
 partly responsible. Moreover, the Fawn does this not from 
 weakness or passion, but deliberately and in cold blood, which 
 still more forfeits our sympathy. Zuccone in the play is made 
 to live and suffer; Marston himself must have felt that 
 the character which he had started to draw as simply a fool 
 had turned into a wronged man. He makes the victim answer 
 in just reproach the Fawn, whose supposed place in the play 
 was to be that of revealing justice, or nemesis. With this 
 natural development, the malcontent character is really used 
 up, Marston himself begins to half-dislike him, and we are 
 not surprized when the type does not reappear in the plays, 
 in spite of the fact that it was Marston's most characteristic 
 contribution to the drama. His satiric spirit had again, in 
 another direction, overleaped its mark. 
 
 In the prologue, Epilogue and Address to the Reader, Mar- 
 ston shows that he was intending to write a SATIRE. Its 
 scope is that of Juvenal's satires, he says ; he quotes Persius ; he 
 defies detraction, in all three. The odd satiric flavor of Mar- 
 ston is shown at the end of the Prologue, where after much 
 praise of his audience he shows he has been ironical, by ending: 
 
 "Now that if any wonder why he's [the author] drawn 
 To such base soothings, know his play's — The Fawn." 
 
 This turning upon his own work and half-satirizing it, half- 
 satirizing the audience, is characteristic of Marston ; it gives 
 the whole an air of insincerity, when he meant only irony. 
 
 Here he speaks of "my bosom friend, good Epictetus". and 
 traces of Stoic philosophy are as numerous as in the Malcon- 
 tent. It is easy to see how this vein of thinking would tend 
 toward satire, though in its origin so opposite. The malcon- 
 tent is a preacher of stoicism, engaged in demonstrating how 
 unstable is good-fortune, how uncertain the future, how weak 
 man's endeavors ; as examples he uses the lives of those around 
 him. So the Fawn begins with the stoic (and Christian) 
 doctrine. "He that doth strive to please the world's a fool ;" 
 because, he goes on to say, chance is more powerful than 
 knowledge or virtue. In that case the world is a bad place. 
 When the idea of degeneracy is added, the present is an iron 
 
 150 
 
age descended from the former golden age ; and the stoic has 
 turned typical satirist. The philosophy which began by decry- 
 ing passion has changed until it swells with satiric wrath, the 
 least stoic of passions. 81 
 
 In the satire of MORALS, flattery would be expected to be 
 most important, emphasised as it is by the title. The dis- 
 guised middle-aged duke wins favor by continual flattery, the 
 "grateful poison, sleek mischief, dreamful slumber, that doth 
 fall on kings as soft and soon as their first holy oil." 82 But 
 nevertheless lust, as usual, has the most important place, not- 
 withstanding a surprising passage in the Prologue decrying: 
 
 "that most common sin 
 Of vulgar pens, rank bawdry, that smells 
 Even through your masques, usque ad nauseam." 83 
 
 There are no true HUMOUR characters in this play, at 
 least in the original sense — characters who are continually 
 referring to one petty thing which in reality is not a real part 
 of their nature, but can be sloughed off. Here we tend to 
 return to the simple type play, where characters have only 
 one side, and any rounding of individuality is not attempted. 
 Thus, the old Duke Gonzago is the senile type, with one espe- 
 cial trait, belief in his own diplomacy ; doubtless he is drawn 
 from Polonius. Bullen 84 is with cause inclined to suspect that 
 in this character Marston was glancing at the 'wise fool' King 
 James; at any rate, there is similar satire in the Malcontent 
 and Eastward Ho. 
 
 Throughout Marston's literary work he displays scorn of 
 foolish lovers ; in this play the satire culminates, with a cluster 
 
 81 Cf. such passages as I. i. 56; I, ii, 350; II, i, 21 ; 33; V, i, 23. 
 
 * 2 1, ii, 329; 334; II, i, 50f.; 592; beginning of III. i. 
 
 88 Apparently this passage prompted Wm. Sheares. who published 
 Marston's plays, 1633, to say that the author "is free from all obscene 
 speeches: . . he abhors such writers, and their works." Langbaine 
 read the play, but quotes this statement with approbation, and holds 
 Marston up to admiration. Langbaine had wide influence on early 
 uncritical writers on the drama, as in early biographical dictionaries and 
 dramatic cyclopedias and prefaces. It is curious that such a legend 
 should have started in regard to Marston of all dramatists. 
 
 For references to lust, see I, ii. 70f . ; IV, i. 2f . ; Aphrodisiacs: II, 
 i. 150: :>$] ; V. i, 3(15. 
 
 84 Vol. I. p. xliii. 
 
 151 
 
of types. Nymphadoro loves every lady extreme!}' well, and 
 is not inconstant, he says, to anyone in particular. 8 "' Herod 
 Frappatore is the boaster. 8 ' 1 Zuccone is the needlessly but 
 desperately jealous husband. 87 Sir Amoroso Debile-Dosso is 
 an older Nymphadoro. All this satire on foolish love is 
 summed up in the last act, in a Masque of Cupid, when all 
 foolish offenders against love are consigned to the Ship of 
 Fools. 
 
 Under CLASSES may be included general satire on woman ; 
 and Marston's harshest railing against woman is here in 
 abundance. "Women are the most giddy motions under 
 heaven. . . Only mere chanceful appetite sways them". 
 
 "Why did not heaven make us a nobler creature than woman, to 
 sue unto? . . . But that we must court, sonnet, flatter, bribe, kneel, 
 sue to so feeble and imperfect, inconstant, idle, vain, hollow bubble as 
 woman is ! Oh, my Fawn !" 88 
 
 Marston had written thus, though not at so great length, 
 again and again ; but here there is a difference. The above 
 quotation is spoken by jealous Zuccone, half mad at believing 
 himself cuckolded. His mistake revealed, the Fawn in derision 
 repeats some of these his words to him, to emphasize his 
 errors. Moreover, in the play there is another new feature, 
 several passages in praise of woman. 89 
 
 There are a considerable number of references to LITERA- 
 TURE, of which the most important are those to the Ship of 
 Fools, The idea of Barclay's 1509 translation of Brandt's 
 
 85 1, ii, 52; III, i. 
 
 86 After recounting his exploits, he sighs, "Fie on this satiety ! — 'tis 
 a dull, blunt, weary and drowsy passion." IV, i, lOOf. This is directly 
 from Florio's Montaigne, II, xv, which is again copied in Webster's 
 White Devil, II, i. Cf. / Henry IV, II, iv, 117. 
 
 87 Characterized II, i, 205. 
 
 88 IV, i, 401f. Similarly, I, i, 62; II, i, 92; III, i, 470; IV, i, 118. 
 
 89 III, i, 521; IV, i, 568; 598f. The only approach to this had been 
 some of the contrasts between wife and prostitute, in D. C, and be- 
 tween the flightly and constant sisters in /. D. E., (IV, 301.) 
 
 For other satire, see (courtiers) I, ii, 22; II, i, 82; IV, i, 182; 208; 
 289. (Foreign vices) II, i, 106; 330; IV, i, 61; 333. (Informers) I, ii. 
 255. (Politicians), IV, i, 202; (Priests) IV, i, 210. (Philosophers), IV, 
 i, 235. (Drink) V, i, 168; cf. D. C. I, i, 106. (Tobacco) IV. i. 5; V, i, 
 361. (Beards and legs) I, ii, 90; 297; V, i, 320. 
 
 152 
 
Narrenschiff furnished a kind of rallying point for Marston's 
 satire in this play — the collection of all kinds of folly for 
 exile. The Ship of Fools is mentioned by name no less than 
 eleven times in the play, 00 while V, i is devoted to a court 
 in which classes of foolish lovers are successively sentenced to 
 the ship. Marston borrowed little or nothing from this book 
 except the name. 
 
 He attempts to give the impression that his inspiration was 
 classical, by quoting the satirists Martial, Persius and Juvenal, 
 the last twice. 91 He calls Epictetus his bosom friend, 9 - though 
 there is less open stoic philosophising than in the Malcontent. 
 But Marston owes much more to Florio's Montaigne, which he 
 does not mention — almost a hundred lines, philosophical or 
 sententious. 93 
 
 As in most of Marston's plays, it is easy to find Shakes- 
 peare's influence. Gonzago seems to be copied from Polonius. 
 Hamlet's satire on old men is partly repeated by the Fawn 04 ; 
 Marston's favorite passage in Richard III is again parodied. 95 
 
 In this play are to be found clear indications of another 
 quarrel with playwrights.'"'' 
 
 In this play the satire definitely overbalances the drama. 
 Marston's satire here passes the indifferent, stoic stage, and 
 becomes a positive thing of evil, watering the roots of folly 
 and crime in order that the fruits may be the more abhorrent, 
 — until the plot is submerged in a black sea of suspicion and 
 misanthropy. 
 
 80 1, ii. 33; III. i, 139; IV, i. 89; 1921; 5i60; V, i, 17: 245; 285; 310; 
 384, 401 ; 437. 
 
 91 Equal Reader; opposite Act I. 
 
 92 Equal Reader. Cicero mentioned, IV. i. 633; cf. 689. 
 
 83 Sainmont, Influence de Montaigne sur Marston et Webster; Mon- 
 taigne, III, v: Fawn, III,, i. 212-3; 221-37; 251-2; 270-8; IV, i. 112-16; 
 119-40; 359-74; 377-81; 385-89; 392-3; 396-400; 587-91 ; V. i, 29. M. II, 
 iii: F.III, i, 214-18. M. II, xii : F. IV. i. 237-41. M. II, xv : F. Ill, i, 
 243-4; IV, i, 107-8. 
 
 91 V, i, 80. Given in Bullen to Herod, a mistake for Here., i. e. the 
 Fawn.' Hamlet, II, ii, 1!>8. These similarities help to date the Fawn 
 after Hamlet. 
 
 ■"V, i, 43. Bullen notes II, i. 212 is from Rich. HI. 
 
 99 Cf. supra, p. 78. 
 
 153 
 
EASTWARD HO " T 
 
 In this play, the work of Chapman, Marston and jonson, 
 the satiric element of Marston's share alone will be traced. 08 
 Though he wrote two-fifths of the play, 09 there is little satire 
 to be found ; evidently his bent was altered by the company 
 in which he worked. This influence must have been due to 
 Chapman ; Jonson's influence would not have diminished the 
 satiric element. 
 
 So, under MORALS, the absence of almost any satire on 
 lust is most noticeable. 100 
 
 In this city play, it is natural that there should be consider- 
 able comment on CLASSES. It is a bourgeois drama, and 
 no favor is given to 'gentlemen'. The sparking Quicksilver 
 says that though he is an apprentice he can give arms. "I am 
 a gentleman, and may swear by my pedigree. . . Do noth- 
 ing, be like a gentleman, be idle." 101 Marston was writing 
 this only four years after Jonson had ridiculed his gentility in 
 the Poetaster. 
 
 Marston's famous satire against the Scots is the best-known 
 fact concerning the play. According to the French ambas- 
 sador's gossip, players had gone scandalous lengths in repre- 
 senting and ridiculing James I, showing the new alien monarch 
 as drunk and cursing. 102 His Scotch thrift in putting up 
 knighthood for sale aroused contemptuous indignation, which 
 is expressed in a passage in the first quarto of Eastward 
 Ho, wishing the Scots out of England into Virginia. 103 Later 
 Chapman wrote from prison that the chief offences were but 
 two clauses; the other seems to be the passage where Sir 
 Petronal Flash asks aid of two gentlemen, one of whom says 
 of him: "I ken the man weel ; hee's one of my thirty pound 
 
 91 Composed probably less than a year before its entry in S. R., 
 Sept. 4, 1605. 
 
 98 See Appendix F for division. 
 
 "" 2979 lines in Bullen's ed. of play; Marston wrote about 1154. 
 
 "° V, v, 188; this, compared to the similar passage in the Fault, 
 shows the end of the play is by Marston. 
 
 The treatment of Quicksilver and his 'punk' is scarcely satiric. 
 
 " ,1 1, i, 194f ; cf. IV, ii, 220f. 
 
 1,12 Thorndike, Shakespeare's Theatre, p. 216. Day's Isle of Gulls in 
 the same year may have satirized royalty (Fleay, Chr. of Eng. Dra., I, 
 108-9.) 
 
 108 III, iii, 42-50; the only passage omitted in later quartos. 
 
 154 
 
knights," the player presumably imitating James' well-known 
 accents. 104 Years later Ben Jonson in a famous passage 
 told to Drummond of Hawthornden the result of these indis- 
 cretions : 
 
 "He was delated by Sir James Murray to the King, for writing 
 something against the Scots, in a play Eastzmrd Hoe, and voluntarily 
 imprisoned himself with Chapman and Marston, who had written it 
 amongst them. The report was, that they should then had their ears 
 cut, and their noses. After their delivery, he banqueted all his friends; 
 there was Camden, Selden, and others; at the midst of the feast his 
 old mother drank to him, and shew him a paper which she had (if the 
 sentence had taken execution) to have mixed in the prison among 
 his drink, which was full of lustie strong poison, and that she was 
 no churle, she told, she minded first to have drunk of it herself." 
 
 Three undated letters of Chapman and four of Jonson have 
 been preserved, to the King, the Lord Chamberlain, the Earl 
 of Salisbury, etc., imploring the authors' release. No mention 
 is made of Marston, and some modern authorities assume that 
 he was not imprisoned. 10 "' But in Antony Nixon's The Black 
 Year, 1606, Marston is referred to as 
 
 "bringing in the Dutch Courtezan to corrupt English conditions, and 
 sent away westward |i. e., imprisoned] for carping both at court, city 
 and country. For they [satirists] are so sudden witted that a flea can 
 no sooner frisk forth but they must needs comment on her." 
 
 It has been argued that the letters refer to another joint 
 imprisonment of Jonson and Marston. but this is improb- 
 able. 106 The solution may be that Marston. the youngest of 
 the three, aged 28, an Oxford graduate and married to the 
 daughter of the King's Chaplain, was of higher rank than his 
 associates, and was consequently soon released ; we know that 
 the prisoners were dealt with individually from one of Chap- 
 man's letters to the Lord Chamberlain. This would explain 
 the fact that Marston's name was not mentioned in the poets' 
 letters, were they written subsequent to his release. 
 
 104 IV, i. This presumably would have been the passage to arouse 
 Murray's wrath, but it was not deleted; possibly the English censor, 
 while against any slight to the king himself, did not object to injured 
 Scotch feelings, otherwise. 
 
 105 Schelling, Elis, Drama. I. 507; Thorndike, Shak. Theatre. 217. 
 
 ™ Schelling, introd. to Belles Lcttres ed. of Eastward Ho. 
 
 155 
 
Whatever LITERARY satire there is, comes from Quick- 
 silver's penchant for quoting tags from plays. 107 The reading 
 of romances is satirized in Gertrude, and Marston contrives 
 to turn this into satire on contemporary knighthood. When 
 her husband has taken her money and run away, Gertrude 
 complains : 
 
 "Would the Knight o' the Sun, or Palmerin of England, have used 
 their ladies so, Sin? or Sir Launcelot? or Sir Tristram? . . . They 
 were knights of the Round Table at Winchester, that sought adven- 
 tures : but these, of the square table at ordinaries, that sit at hazard." I0 * 
 
 It is a few such passages as this, with their emphasis on 
 now-chdays, that show the old satirist was still present, though 
 restrained by collaboration. 
 
 THE WONDER OF WOMEN: OR SOPHONISBA 
 
 Sophonisba, produced about 1606, 109 seems to have been the 
 last play written entirely by Marston. It contains compara- 
 tively little satire, though it starts out in the old fashion with 
 attacks on "reputation, thou awe of fools and great men", and 
 on envy. MORALS are scarcely mentioned, unless it be in the 
 portrayal of Syphax's lust. 110 
 
 What satire there is, is upon CLASSES, and principally 
 woman. The very title shows Marston's apparent surprise 
 
 107 As Bullen notes, this is probably derived from Shakespeare's Pis- 
 tol. Quicksilver quotes the Spanish Tragedy thrice : I, i, 129 : II, i, 
 118; 138f. Hiren, II, i, 115; Tamburlaine, II, i, 91; Rich. Ill, III, iv, v.. 
 "Via the curtain that shadowed Borgia", II, iii, 25, is referred by Bullen 
 to Mason's Muleasses the Turk, but the parallel is far from close, and 
 Mason's play does not date earlier than 1607 (Schelling, I, 447.) 
 
 108 V, i, 35. 
 
 '""In Preface to the Reader, Fawn, 2nd Qto., 1606: "I will present a 
 tragedy to you" ; Bullen notes : " 'Sophonisba'. — Marginal note in the 
 second Qto." He does not state whether printed or written, but pre- 
 sumably the former, else he would have been more explicit. Without 
 this note the 'tragedy' might have referred to Insatiate Countess. 
 Schelling {Eliz. Drama, II, 26-7) dates Soph. 1603, because of its 
 preface slurring Scjanus, played 1603. But this preface, with its "re- 
 lating things as a historian", and "transcribe authors, quote authorities", 
 obviously relates to the publication of Sejanus in 1605. 
 
 10 There are one or two general satiric lines, such as II, i, 172; iii, 
 102. 
 
 156 
 
that a woman could be constant and virtuous. This astonish- 
 ment at the phenomenon of a fine woman was expressed in 
 several other plays, notably in the Fawn, 111 where there is what 
 might be an advance sketch of Sophonisba : 
 
 "A prodigy ! let Nature run cross-legged, . . 
 Cold Saturn crack with heat, for now the world 
 Hath seen a woman !" "" 
 
 The satirist shows what he thought of women in general 
 by putting abuse of her sex into the mouth of the shining 
 exception. Sophonisba speaks of the "low appetite of my sex' 
 weakness", and repeats, among other things, what Crispinella 
 had said in the Dutch Courtezan, that women have to pre- 
 tend to be modest. 113 
 
 In several passages the crowd is satirized ; lli and the Mach- 
 iavellianism of princes is set forth at some length. 11 "' 
 
 The only LITERARY satire is the reference to Sejanus. 116 
 
 This lustful melodrama shows a breaking down of Mar- 
 ston's powers for satire as well as for drama. His obscurity 
 of style is increasing, and as he before had observed in the 
 case of Hall, obscurity is fatal for satiric effect. The play 
 is seemingly written simply to startle, and contains little merit 
 of any kind. 
 
 THE INSATIATE COUNTESS 
 
 was a. late play of Marston's, perhaps his last. Prob- 
 ably it was left unfinished by him, and was completed by 
 Barksted. 117 Rarksted's reworking of the play was so 
 thorough that it seems impossible to separate Marston's share, 
 save from the style of passages here and there. There is 
 little satire in the play save on lust and woman ; but much of 
 this seems in Marston's vein. The Countess herself is a 
 
 '" Fazcti, IV, i, 598. 
 
 U2 Soph. II, i, 156. 
 
 " S I, ii. 20. See also I, i, 75; I, ii, 177; 181; II, i, 138. 
 
 1.4 Prologue; II. i, 130; II, ii, 17. 
 
 1.5 II, i. r>: K 
 
 "" Cf. supra, p. 78. 
 
 '"About 1610-13; he probably added all the subplot and revised 
 what Marston had done. See Small, Harvard Studies in Phil, and Lit., 
 
 v, 227. 
 
 157 
 
Dutch Courtezan transplanted to high life ; and is in addition 
 a nymphomaniac. Marston may have intended Mizaldus to 
 be the author's representative, but he soon drops out of the 
 play as we now have it. There are a number of passages 
 on woman which sound Marstonian, such as "Man were on 
 earth an angel but for woman. . . . Women are made of 
 blood, without souls ;" someone "has compiled an ungodly 
 volume of satires against women, and calls his book The 
 Snarl." 11 * The following sounds Marstonian in its concise- 
 ness: 
 
 "He turns religious upon his wife's turning courtezan. This is just 
 iike some of our gallant prodigals, — when they have consumed their 
 patrimonies wrongfully, they turn Capuchins for devotion." 119 
 
 There are a few uncomplimentary references to foreign- 
 ers. 1 "" Finally we have the familiar mentions of small leg and 
 red beard. 121 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 Eleven plays have been attributed to Marston ; of these he 
 wrote eight alone, two tragedies and six comedies, while he 
 revised or collaborated in a kind of morality play, Histri- 
 omastix ; a comedy, Eastward Ho; and a tragedy, the Insati- 
 ate Countess. His two tragedies, Antonio's Revenge and 
 Sophonisba, show little satire; the same is true of the plays 
 of joint authorship. 
 
 His six comedies, then, contain his dramatic satire. The 
 writing of these plays extended over only six or seven years, 
 but in that time it is possible to observe a definite development 
 of their satire, considered apart from any personal quarrels. 
 
 Antonio and Mellida is not much more than a long satire 
 on pride and flattery, provided with a highly romantic plot. It 
 is clearly by a satirist trying his hand at drama, and with 
 rather more regard for the satire than the play. Helped by 
 its romance, Antonio and Mellida seems to have proved a. 
 
 m I, i, 58; II, iii, 96; III, iii, B6; III, iv, 17of., IV, ii, 86; 106; iii, 38; 
 iv. 17; V, i, 87. 
 119 h iv, 60. 
 '•I, i, 470; III, i, 135; IV, i, 27. 
 
 I. i, 224; II. ii, 37. 
 
 158 
 
success. When Marston wrote its sequel, Antonio's Revenge, 
 he was clearly under the fascination of his new attempt at 
 the dramatic form, and satire temporarily was neglected for 
 a thrilling play of revenge. In these two plays appear the 
 elements of his main satiric type, the malcontent. 
 
 Jack Drum's Entertainment was a carelessly composed 
 humour comedy, written for the purpose of puffing the Chil- 
 dren of Paul's. Satire glances through it, here and there., 
 hut. as tragedy is too heavy in itself to make a good vehicle 
 for bitter satire, so light comedy is too gay-hearted to carry it 
 in any bulk. The next play. IVhat You Will, is even more 
 carelessly written as a play, and we find Marston continually 
 slipping away from his business as a dramatist to his old 
 occupation of satirist. Quadratus in this play carries to a 
 height Marston's favorite device of making a certain character 
 the author's mouthpiece. This is essentially a device for 
 escaping from the demand of drama, — that the author's 
 thought be given to the audience primarily in the form of 
 action. The loose, oratorical style of much of Elizabethan 
 drama made easy such a misuse as Marston employed in 
 these representatives of his, who commonly have little part 
 in the plot. 
 
 Another development of this play is the increased misan- 
 thropy of the satire. Previously Marston had possessed the 
 younger, more hopeful mood where satire is administered to 
 reform vice. Now it sours into something very close to 
 hatred for the world as a whole. He certainly despises man- 
 kind. Moreover, he begins to doubt the validity of moral laws. 
 He seeks a refuge for his discontent in opposite directions, in 
 enjoyment of the fleeting moment, and in stoic egotism and 
 impassive self-containment. He seeks both because neither 
 alone satisfies his character compounded both of strong pas- 
 sion and an eager intellectual force which disdains passion. 
 One mark of this increasing bitterness is his attack on woman, 
 which begins in this play. Previously he has merely alluded 
 to them as incidental factors in man's degeneracy. From now 
 on he assails them as foolish creatures strong in nothing but 
 libidinous desires. None of his women essay to be wise, and 
 virtue in them is either a miracle or the result of lack of oppor- 
 tunity. 
 
 159 
 
The Dutch Courtezan personifies this new hatred for woman. 
 With a definite object of attack instead of mere disdain for 
 society in general, he regains the power of writing strong 
 drama. To make his realistic picture of the pretty, deadly 
 Franceschina effective, he contrasts with her a woman of 
 normal virtue, one of the very few in his work who are not 
 mere puppets. Thus ' he makes stronger both drama and 
 satire. 
 
 The Malcontent brings to a height in the title-role the prin- 
 cipal satiric type which Marston developed. This development 
 necessarily progressed as it did. To be effective the protag- 
 onist must have some elements of nobility. If he is to rail at 
 the world and disclose its follies and vices, he must have 
 been deeply injured; if he is to rail in safety, he must be dis- 
 guised. Hence the dispossessed ruler in disguise at his own 
 court. Moreover, here Marston can combine into one satiric 
 figure the mouth-piece of his own snarling philosophy, and the 
 hero of the plot, before, separate figures. This character is 
 then draped in the melancholic gloom which was familiar to 
 the age, and the result is the best possible figure to utter satire 
 dramatically. 
 
 In his next play, the Fawn, Marston attempts to repeat this 
 character, and does express a vast amount of satire ; but his 
 malcontent type-figure is alive enough to refuse to stay at 
 the fullness of his power ; he decays, through exaggeration, 
 and loses the modicum of nobility which Malevole had pos- 
 sessed. Since he does not have our sympathy, his utterances 
 lose their effect. Malevole managed to retain for himself the 
 belief of the audience that he represented the norm of truth 
 and right conduct from which the other characters of the play 
 departed ; the Fawn on the other hand is a member of the 
 ignoble crowd, only slightly cleverer than the mass of knaves 
 and fools which surround him ; he loses, that is. any moral 
 authority in the drama. 
 
 Moreover, the satire under which the play staggers is lower 
 in quality than previously. His treatment of lust is more 
 disgusting, and yet weaker ; here occurs his harshest railing 
 against woman, but it is stultified by being for the most part 
 uttered against one of his ladies of miraculous virtue; his 
 vituperations against flattery and hypocrisy are uttered in a 
 more strident voice, but are not for that the more effective. 
 
 160 
 
Marston's last important play was a failure, both as drama 
 and satire. 
 
 For a little the influence of his dramatic superiors, Jonson 
 and Chapman, lifted him up to the point where he could 
 write intelligently and well, in his share of Eastward Ho. 
 A year later he attempted to repeat the early success of An- 
 tonio's Revenge by writing Sophonisba, an ultra-romantic mel- 
 odrama, this time motivated by crude lust. Before he withdrew 
 from the stage in disgust, he seems to have attempted (pos- 
 sibly under the influence of Chapman's Byron) a revival in 
 high life of an historic Dutch Courtezan, but either he never 
 completed it, or it was of such quality that it alone- of his 
 plays had to be worked into shape by another man. 
 
 Marston's satire began in wrangling, and ended in failure. 
 In all probability he would never have been a great writer; 
 his genius had too many faults for that. But it is interesting 
 to speculate what might have been his measure of success had 
 he lived in an age when novels instead of poetic dramas were 
 the literary fashion. He could never submit himself for any 
 length of time to the rigid restrictions of dramaturgy ; he 
 was next to nothing as a poet. Had his gifts for satire, de- 
 piction of real life, and vivid characterization been employed 
 in the looser form of the novel, it is possible that his name 
 would bulk much larger than it does in literary history. 
 
 
APPENDIX A 
 I— REFERENCES TO HALL IN THE SATIRES 
 
 Auth. in Praise 11. 35-40. Grosart asserts (p. 35) Mastig- 
 ophorus is Hall. Elsewhere he says the name must be general 
 for satirist. The passage calls Mastigophoros an. epigram- 
 matist, however; he is not Hall. 
 
 S. ii, 14-36. Marston has said he wrote amorous poetry, 
 so was not immaculate ( a confession Pygmalion was not a 
 satire). Then he says modern satire is so obscure no one 
 can understand it, without the help of a mythological diction- 
 ary and Delphic Apollo. On the lines 
 
 "W'ho could imagine that such squint-eyed sight 
 Could strike the world's deformities so right?" 
 
 Grosart has an odd note: "Query. Was Hall squint-eyed?" 
 He might have made this an assertion had he also noted SV. 
 IX, 25. Of course the passages referred to Hall's style, though 
 he at least twice declares that he writes too plainly (Lib. Ill, 
 Prol; beginning of Biting Satires.) But Marston is clearly 
 right in his criticism — cf. Hall, Lib. II, i; IV, i, for obscurities. 
 In his Postscript he says IV, i was intentionally vague, the 
 rest clear ; but they are not. 
 
 S. iv. Reactio. All written directly against Hall, because 
 of the way he detracts from others. Lines 3-8 are a short 
 preliminary parody of Hall's Defiance to Envy. Lines 0-32 
 are a satire on satire, which could be applied to Marston as 
 well as to Hall. The name Grillus comes from the Faerie 
 Queene (Il.xii, 87) through Hall (II, ii, 66). Lines 33-108 
 defend poetry against the attacks of Hall. Each of the sacred 
 poems attacked in Virg. T, viii are praised: Robert South- 
 well's St. Peter's Complaint, 1595, and, The Virgin Mary to 
 Christ on the Cross. (Cf. Southwell's Mary Magdalen's 
 Funeral Tears, 1591 ; Markham's Mary Magdalen's Lamen- 
 tations for Cue Loss of her Master Jesus, 1601.) The "sacred 
 sonnets" are Markham's Poem of Poems, or Sion's Muse. 
 containing the Divine Song of Solomon in Eight Eclogues, 
 
 162 
 
1595- Ha U later, doubtless converted by Marston, made some 
 poor versifications of the Psalms. Next Marston defends 
 translation, which Virg. had not attacked, and defends the 
 Mirror for Magistrates, which Hall had parodied (V, i). 
 Then Marston says : 
 
 "What, shall not Rosamund or Gaveston 
 Ope their sweet lips without detraction?" 
 
 Daniel had written a Complaint of Rosamund; Drayton, a 
 Legend of Pierce Gaveston, but they are not mentioned by 
 Hall, altho Alden (p. 142) attempts to connect the latter with 
 Hall's satire on the Mirror for Magistrates, because of distant 
 similarities. Marston seems to have used these two poems 
 simply as examples of the romantic poetry which he thought 
 Hall attacked in I, v. Lines 100-130 defend adventurers (prob- 
 ably both had Raleigh's expedition of 1596-6 in mind) as ex- 
 travagantly as Hall had condemned them (Virg. IV, iii, 28; 
 
 III, i, 54; IV, vi, 36). Lines 101-2 on the "prudent pedant" 
 Bullen refers to Hall, who had interrupted his Cambridge 
 course by teaching. Lines 130-154, 163-6, are a parody on 
 Hall's Defiance to Envy (quoted with references supra, p. 14). 
 At the end, 167-70, he advises Hall to cease satirizing poetry, 
 and to laugh with him at "strangers' follies." 
 
 SV. In Lee, 77. "Some spruce pedant. . . striving to 
 vilify my dark reproofs." Hall had been called pedant (SV. 
 
 IV, 102) ; Marston mav be referring to the verses pasted in 
 Pyg. 
 
 SV. Ill, if if. In this obscure passage Hall is the "aca- 
 demic starved satirist" who "would gnaw reezed bacon." (Cf. 
 Virg. IV, ii. 36, attacked SV. III. 165). The meaning seems 
 to be that Hall lashed trivial crimes, while greater ones were 
 unpunished. He asks (1. r6o) if the world is to he left 
 infected, while Hall attacks spendthrift Villius, because he 
 keeps a man, a hood, and silver handled fan. with only forty 
 pounds a year. These words are taken from Virg. V, iv. 
 Hall (IV, ii) ridiculed a farmer who starves himself to 
 send to the university a son who is ashamed of the father, 
 learns law, and finally climbs into a good marriage and wealth. 
 So Marston writes (1. 165), in contempt of Hall's poverty 
 at Cambridge (Athens): 
 
 163 
 
"Or snarl at Lollius' son 
 That with industrious pains hath harder won 
 His true-got worship and his gentry's name 
 Than any swineherd's brat that lousy came 
 To luskish Athens and, with farming pots. 
 Compiling beds, and scouring greasy spots, 
 By chance (when he can, like taught parrot, cry 
 'Dearly beloved', with simpering gravity) 
 Hath got the farm of some gelt vicary, 
 And now, on cockhorse, gallops jollily; 
 Tickling, with some stol'n stuff, his senseless cure, 
 Belching lewd terms 'gainst all sound literature." 
 
 Marston goes on (1. 177) to ask if he too, like Hall, shall 
 fight against shadows, trivial things ; or "task bitterly Rome's 
 filth", which both Marston and Hall did (Virg. IV, in). Rome 
 here, however, might possibly stand for London. 
 
 Proemium in Lib. II. Marston says in a passage referring 
 to Hall, "I cannot quote a mott Italianate or brand my satires 
 with some Spanish term." Cf. Virg. V, ii, 47 and its ridicule 
 of Maevio "with his big title and Italian mot," which Grosart 
 suggests refers to Lodge's Fig for Momus. This has an 
 Italian motto on its title-page, but the title is not "big". Hall 
 had before the first satire of his second volume an Italian 
 motto, and Marston is probably turning Hall's own words 
 back on himself. Hall mentions Spanish subjects frequently 
 (I, iii, 29; III, vii, 27; IV, i, 27; iv, 45 ; V, iii, 48) but never 
 justifies Marston's line. 
 
 SV. VI, 36. An author does not dare publish till he has 
 tremblingly invoked Colin Clout. Cf. Virg., Defiance to Envy, 
 1. 107; stanzas 9 and 10 are devoted to Spenser. 
 
 SV. IX, 21-37. The lines preceding this refer to another 
 critic of poetry, whose suit is satin and who is bearded. Hall 
 is the "Athens' ape," i.e., the Cambridge plagiarist ; he patches 
 an oration and squints at good poetry, unthankful for its 
 merits. This ill-tutored pedant beslimes "Mortimer's num- 
 bers," probably Drayton's Mortimeriados, 1596, though Virg. 
 does not refer to Drayton at all. The "spruce Athenian pen" 
 of the lines following is not Hall, but "sage Mutius" who 
 writes in a "tricksy, learned modern vein." The passage is 
 obscure ; it seems to be Marston who is praising Mutius in the 
 lines in quotation, 48-53. "Silent" may mean 'not here 
 named by Marston' ; "whose silent name one letter bounds," — 
 
 164 
 
I can only think of Bzmz.be Barnes and Nicholas Breton whose 
 names are in a sense bounded by one letter. Both were Ox- 
 ford men ; but Barnes had been harshly dealt with by Marston 
 (cf. supra, p. in) ; and "true judicial style" well fits Breton's 
 work. Lines 54-ji are criticism of yet another author 
 who wrote obscurely, not Hall, since the author links sense- 
 less prose with clear poetry (as Sidney's Arcadia was written 
 in both prose and verse). This whole passage has been care- 
 lessly supposed by Schulze and others to apply to Hall. 
 
 SV. X (Satira Nova added in ed. of 1599). 27-76. Marston 
 asks of Ned (Edward Guilpin), who is the gallant who cuck- 
 olded his own elder brother, and thereby lost his expected 
 inheritance by getting his brother an heir? Alden suspects 
 Marston meant to infer that he was the older satirist, and that 
 Hall had assumed the name ; but the allusion would be little 
 apposite, and Marston would have been clearer if claiming 
 such a point. The "elder brother" may mean poetry, which 
 Hall had satirized, so attacking his own work. Cf. end of 
 S. iv. Marston goes on to say. very truly, that he had been 
 too subtle, and addresses Hall more openly (thus proving 
 that the previous paragraph concerned him). Hall, he says, 
 had been praised ; this made the "Master's hood" so proud 
 that he wrote "An Epigram which the Author Virgidemiarum 
 caused to be pasted to the latter page of every Pygmalion that 
 came to the Stationers of Cambridge". Its point seems to be 
 the application of Marston's pseudonym, Kinsayder, to him- 
 self. Marston then complains that the world has fallen in 
 love with Hall's satires, while he himself, on a sickbed and 
 soured by the misapplied praise of Hall, scorns the honor 
 of being a poet and says he will write no more. Thus Marston 
 confesses that the antagonist he had apparently wantonly 
 chosen, had triumphed in popular estimation, and that he him- 
 self was giving up the struggle in disgust. 
 
 II — MARSTON'S BORROWINGS FROM HALL 
 
 S. i, 114. Steaming stew. As in Virg. IV, i. 132. 
 S. ii. i6f. Obscurity of satire. Cf. Pro. Ill, and IV. i. 
 S, iii. 51 f. Inamorato Lucio. Cf. I, vii. 
 66-70. From IV. ii, 85-9. 
 
 n;r, 
 
SV. In Lect., 2; and IV. 17. Dunghill peasant. As in III, i, 
 78; IV, v, 97. 
 
 SV. To Detraction. To Oblivion. Cf. Hall's Dcd. to Obliv- 
 ion, and Prol. Lib. IV. 
 
 SV. I. 15. Simpering Lesbia. Cf. IV. i, 156. 
 
 SV. Ill, 75. Snout-fair. Cf. IV, i, in. 
 
 68. Camphire and lettuce, etc. Cf. IV, iv, 109!. and VIII, 
 
 56. 
 139. Streak his limbs.. Cf. VI, i. 206. 
 162, and VIII, 133. Silver-handled fan, etc. Cf. V. iv. 
 
 11-12, 22. 
 
 165. Snarl at LolUus' son. Cf. IV, ii. 
 
 173. Gelded vicaries, etc. Cf. IV. ii, 102, 106, etc. 
 SV. IV 20. Botching up balladry. Cf. I, i, esp. 1. 9. Proh, 
 both from classical sources. 
 
 58. Aquinian (i.e., Juvenal). Cf. IV, i. 2. 
 SV. Prol. Lib. II. Same stanza form as Hall, Prel. Lib. IV 
 
 and Pyg) 1. Italian matt. Cf. I, iii, 25 ; V, ii, 47. 
 SV. IX, 34. Esculine. Cf. IV, i, 58. 
 
 There are several other similarities of subjects satirized, 
 but without evidence of imitation. 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 MARSTON'S SHARE IN HISTRIOMASTIX 
 
 This play as we have it seems almost such a mixture of fea- 
 tures as our comic opera or revue presents today. This is 
 largely due to the mutilated and mixed form of the play which 
 we have. That it is not a deliberate hodge-podge is shown 
 by the total difference in style and character-portrayal of the 
 middle and the two ends of the play. This was not the result 
 of simple collaboration, because the play has two endings. 
 both preserved; first, a logical return to the conditions at 
 the beginning of the story ; second, a court ending roughly 
 tacked on. Moreover, there are two plays within the play, 
 neither as we have it given at its necessary original length ; 
 and there is much confusion among the names of minor char- 
 acters. 
 
 That the adaptor was Marston has been proven (Simpson. 
 School of Shakespeare, II ; Small, Stage-Quarrel, 69L) ; whole 
 
 166 
 
scenes are in his unmistakeable style — forceful, coarse, crabbed 
 lines with a tang all their own. The style of the original 
 play is almost featureless in comparison, save that it is some- 
 times stilted and academic. Cf., for example, III, 189-209 
 with I, 84-90. In the main the Marstonian pasages are in a 
 single section and stand out clearly, i.e., 111. iv ( t8o) through 
 V, i, (60). 
 
 Before this section, however, there are four passages which 
 are Marston's. The first is II, i (63-7), quoted supra, p. 26. 
 Compare the wording with the opening of SV. Proem, in Lib. 
 I: 
 
 "I bear the scourge of just Rhamnusia 
 Lashing the lewdness of Britannia." 
 
 It seems to be an attack upon Jonson's words in the Induc- 
 tion to Every Man Out: 
 
 "I'll strip the ragged follies of the time 
 Naked as at their birth — and with a whip of steel 
 Print wounding lashes on their iron ribs." 
 
 The second Marstonian passage is an interpolation for the 
 sake of attacking Monday, II, ii (126-131) ; Posthaste speaks 
 after giving some extempore verse : 
 
 "I never pleased myself better, it comes off with such suavity. 
 GULCH. Well, fellows, I never heard happier stuff. 
 Here's no new luxury or blandishment, 
 But plenty of old England's mother's words. 
 
 CLOUT. I'st not a pity this fellow's not employed in matters of 
 state?" 
 
 This passage contains the only two consecutive lines of 
 blank verse in the non-Marstonian player scenes. "Luxury 
 and blandishment" sounds like Marston, who uses the word 
 luxury frequently, while I have noted blandishment in S. ii. 
 104; SV. Ill, 124; SV. VIII, 90; and Jonson makes Marston- 
 Crispinus use it in his first speech, Poet. II, i. Marston uses 
 the introductory well much oftener than any other like word 
 in Htstriomastix, while it is scarce in the non-Marstonian 
 portion. 
 
 There is too little evidence to make a decision possible 
 concerning the players' song, II, iv (247-54). It includes the 
 
 167 
 
statement that the players singing it are the fourth company 
 in town. In 1596, the date of the old play, there are records 
 of only two men's companies (though there may have been 
 stray performances by others), and no children's companies 
 were performing. In 1599 the two children's companies seem 
 to have been playing, also. But this, though it indicates Mar- 
 ston's authorship, does not prove it. The position of the song 
 does not help, as it follows work of the old play, and is suc- 
 ceeded by a Marstonian portion. 
 
 There follows the prologue and interlude of Troilus and 
 Crcssida II, iv (255-80), by Marston. In the surviving ver- 
 sion there are the remains of two interludes here, only one of 
 which is required by the play. The Troilus and Cressida one 
 sounds much more like Marston than does the archaic Prodi- 
 gal Son. The lines 260-1 are echoed in the undoubtedly Mars- 
 tonian IV, 193-7. 
 
 The first ten lines of Act III sound more alive and rich 
 than the old play, and can be identified as Marston's by com- 
 parison with a speech of Mammon's in Jack Drum's Enter- 
 tainment, III, iii, beginning: "My ship shall kemb the ocean's 
 curled back." 
 
 When we approach the end of the bulk of Marston's un- 
 doubted work, III, iv through V, i (60), there is much un- 
 certainty. V, ii (the conscription of the players) is left doubt- 
 ful by Simpson, given to Marston by Small, and to the old 
 play by Hoppe. It has little of the Marstonian style, and 
 resembles in some ways the arrest of the players, VI, v (187), 
 so perhaps it too should be assigned to the old play. It does 
 nobody any credit. V, iii (103) is Marston's at least till the 
 entrance of, the mob (147) ; the concluding speech of Chris- 
 ogonus is also obviously Marston's (181-191). The inter- 
 vening mob scene can be safely given to him also, because 
 of its context and superior force. When we reach V, iv ( 192 ) 
 we are safely in the old play again. The evidence is mostly 
 negative, but the absence of Marston's distinctive style is 
 noticeable. 
 
 Act VI is almost all the old author's. In scene v Marston 
 may have added some touches to the character of Posthaste, 
 such as line 235 : "I'll boldly fall to ballading again." The 
 old play had originally closed with a paean of Peace, as it had 
 begun. Marston inserted before the song, "With Laurel", 
 
 168 
 
( 2 57" 8 ) the stage direction "They begin to sing, and presently 
 cease", and he added the court ending which follows the song. 
 For an evidence of Marston's style, cf. lines 278-9: "the 
 world's Empress, Religion's Guardian, Peace's Patroness", 
 with the Ded. to Nobody of A. M. : "honor's redeemer, . . . 
 virtue's advancer, religion's shelter, and piety's fosterer." 
 
 In summary, Marston wrote II, i, 63-7; ii, [26-131 ; iv, 247- 
 254 possibly; 255-280; III. i. 1-10; III. iv (180) through V, 
 i (60) ; V, iii ; in VI, v, probably some touches to character of 
 Posthaste; VI, vi, 259-end (295). Thus Marston wrote 487 
 lines in the middle of the play, and some [68 lines scattered 
 through other portions Altogether he would have to his 
 credit about 655 lines, a quarter of the play's total of 2601 
 lines. 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 THE ORIGINAL OF LAMPATHO 
 
 Some traits of Lampatho do not fit into our conception of 
 Jonson. Pie wears satin; he says repeatedly "I protest"; 
 he is a pessimist ; he has studied philosophy for "seven 
 springs". The one passage, however, which has misled most 
 critics, is that in II. i in which Quadratus addresses Lampatho 
 with the words, "Why, you Don Kinsayder!" (Passage 
 quoted supra, p. 46-7). Marston had used Kinsayder, or Kin- 
 ser (dog-gelder) as a pseudonym and play on his own name, 
 before S\\, and it was applied to him in the II Return from 
 Parnassus, I, ii. Therefore Marston and Lampatho have been 
 identified, by Penniman and several others. ( Schelling, 
 Elis. Drama, I, 488, seems from his footnote to follow Penni- 
 man, but his statement is somewhat ambiguous: "Marston 
 seems to have retaliated on Jonson with his own hand in the 
 character Quadratus.") 
 
 It is certainly odd that Marston should have applied his 
 own pseudonym to the man he was attacking, and it practically 
 all the other evidence were not against it, it would warrant 
 taking Marston as Lampatho's original. As it is. Lam] 
 is essentially Jonson ; the character of Marston seems to afford 
 the only explanation of the contradiction. He was a complex 
 character, and was in the habit of looking at himself as a 
 separate person. Thus he sneers repeatedly at his own poem 
 
 169 
 
Pygmalion, which yet had been written with evident zest ; 
 almost every one of his plays contains jests at red hair and 
 little legs, which it seems from the Poetaster were character- 
 istics of Marston. This attitude of double personality may 
 explain how he could use his own recognized nom-de-plume 
 as a term of abuse for an antagonist. He seems to give it the 
 meaning of 'malicious satirist.' 
 
 There are a few other traits of Lampatho which do not 
 fit Jonson, but it must be remembered that no character in 
 any of these plays is identical with the person it satirized. 
 
 Penniman endeavors to prove that Quadratus was meant 
 for Jonson, by a number of very weak arguments, such as 
 the fact that a speech of Quadratus (II, i: "No, sir, should 
 discreet Mastigophoros, etc.") imitates a speech of Crites in 
 Cynthia's Revels, III, ii. But obviously Marston was turn- 
 ing J orison's own thunder back upon him. Again, Quadratus 
 says that he beats Lampatho. Jonson claimed to have beaten 
 Marston ; but Marston would scarcely have boasted of it in a 
 play. Again, Penniman deduces from the words, "He and 
 I are of two faiths" that Jonson's Romanism was indicated — 
 an idea which a glance at the phrase's context would dissolve. 
 Other minor suppositions of Penniman it is scarcely neces- 
 sary to disprove. 
 
 In this quarrel we have the two most satiric of Elizabethan 
 dramatists satirizing each other because the other is. satiric. 
 Each uses in his satire much the same terms as does the other. 
 Hence between Quadratus and Lampatho there is not such a 
 vast deal of difference, save for the light in which they are 
 presented. When a strong false scent, like the "Don Kin- 
 savder" passage, is drawn across the true trail, it is not entirely 
 the fault of the critical hounds if they be thrown off the scent. 
 
 APPENDIX D 
 
 PARODY OF THE SPANISH TRAGEDY IN ANTONIO AND 
 
 MELLIDA 
 
 This has been the cause of some curious critical misappre- 
 hensions. Henslowe paid Jonson £2 on September 25, 1601. 
 for additions to Kyd's Spanish Tragedy (called by Henslowe 
 Geronymo). He paid £2 more on June 24, 1602, part of 
 which was for additions. These additions were first printed, 
 
 170 
 
according to the title-page, in [602, after being popular on 
 the stage. Antonio and Mcllida, entered October -'4. 
 printed 1602, contains a comic passage (beginning of Act V) 
 which is parallel in many ways with a passage in Jonson's 
 additions, concerning Hieronimo's distracted request to the 
 painter to paint impossibilities, (end of Act 111, scene xiii, or 
 xiiA, Everyman cd.) 
 
 Penniman and Small, noting that Antonio and Mcllida was 
 produced as early as 1599 (it was ridiculed in Every Man Out, 
 February or March, 1599/1600), state that Jonson must have 
 imitated Marston. All internal evidence points the other way. 
 Jonson's bizarre conception of a speaking picture would lend 
 itself to parody, and the scene Marston wrote would be a 
 natural kind of parody. Again, the wording is enough alike 
 so that audiences would be reminded inevitably of the other 
 play; is it conceivable that Jonson would try to produce effeel 
 from material which must remind his audience of pure farce? 
 Moreover, the Antonio and Mcllida- passage has no connec- 
 tion with the rest of the play, and very little meaning in itself 
 unless it be supposed a parody. 
 
 It is possible, and under the circumstances almost certain, 
 that in the interval between Jonson's addition, which may have 
 been produced as early as the autumn of 1601, and the pub- 
 lishing of Antonio sometime in 1602, Marston inserted his 
 lines burlesqueing Jonson's passage. Penniman notes this 
 possibility (p. 100) but discards it because he says the "War" 
 was then finished. But Satiromastix appeared in the autumn 
 of 1601. and the Apologetical Dialogue even later. The "War" 
 was not definitely at an end before the dedication of the Mal- 
 content, T604. so far as we can tell. 
 
 There have been several additional suppositions concerning 
 this passage of Antonio and Mcllida. It has been supposed 
 to parody Cynthia's Revels, the painter being "undoubtedly 
 Jonson' 1 ; or, Marston was alluding to Jonson's attacks upon 
 him, since he mentioned his. own age, 24. (See Fleay. Chr. 
 II. 75; followed by Penniman, War, 98. and partially by 
 Small.) These are all without ascertainable bases of fact, 
 and are improbable. 
 
 171 
 
APPENDIX E 
 I — CLASSICAL SOURCES OF SATIRES 
 
 A list of allusions and quotations, which in no case are of 
 any special importance. Doubtless many other details of simi- 
 larity could be discovered, for Marston was well acquainted 
 with his classics; but I have satisfied myself that from no 
 literary source did Marston draw any considerable amount of 
 material for his satires. 
 
 Juvenal 
 
 S. i, 51. Democritus laughing. Cf. Juv. Sat. X, 33. 
 
 124. Can bear with sinners, not hypocrites. Cf. II, 15. 
 SV. I, Title. Quoted from II, 8. 
 
 5. Adapted from X, 221. 
 19. Glassy Priapus. From II, 95. 
 II, Title. Quoted from I, 30. 
 
 Score of opening lines. Cf. first part of I. 
 115. Son doth fear his stepdame. From VI, 628. 
 118. To be huge, is to be deadly sick. Cf. VI, 629. 
 
 III, 90. No lust satiates Messaline. Cf. VI, 130. 
 
 195. Gloomy Juvenal, though to thy fortunes I disastrous 
 fall, 
 
 IV, 58. There is a crew which I too filain could name 
 
 If so I might without th' Aquinian's blame. 
 V, Motto and subject. Somewhat like I, 73. 
 
 Persius 
 
 S. i, 124. Break my spleen zvith laughter (occurs several times). 
 
 Cf. Per. Sat. I, 12. 
 SV. Title-page, motto. Quoted from I, 44. Cf. Juv. XIII, 16; 
 Martial, III, 2. 
 VI, 7f. Poetry inflames readers. Cf. I, 20f. 
 
 9. Glavers with his fawning snout. From I, 34. 
 Martial 
 
 SV. II, 124. Silver pissfrots. Cf. Mart. Epig. I, 37. 
 199. Lesbia shameless. Cf. I, 34. 
 
 III, 151 ; Rich Crispus. Cf . X, 14. 
 
 IV, Title, Cras. Cf. V, 58 (but prob. from Persius.) 
 V, 95. Poor Irus. From VI, 77. 
 
 Ovid 
 
 SV. VIII, 72. Soldiers in love. Somewhat like Amoves, I, 9; Odes, 
 I, 10. 
 Catullus 
 
 SV. To Perusers, 37; XI, 178. Suffenus. Foolish poet often rid- 
 iculed by Catullus. 
 Cicero 
 
 SV. X, Motto. Stultorum plena sunt omnia. From ad Fam. 9. 22. 4. 
 
 172 
 
II — PERSONAL NAMES 
 
 Marston makes use of about 90 names of classic origin, of 
 which only 16 had been used by Hall, and only 37 by classical 
 satirists. Four (Crispus, Laclius, Rufus and Tulltis) had 
 been used by Horace, Juvenal and also Martial ; Publius by 
 Persius instead of Juvenal. Other sources were Tibullus 
 (Albius); Terence and Plautus (Chremes, Gnatho, Saturio); 
 and Ovid (Corinna, Julia). Juvenal gives him 16 not in other 
 sources, Persius only 3. Hall seems to have furnished him 
 with 4, which do not appear in the other usual name-sources 
 (Furious, Lynceus, Martins, Villius). 
 
 Six names have Italian forms (Bruto, Brownetta, Castilio, 
 Cornuto, Luxurio, Roscio) ; one is Spanish (Hiadalgo). He 
 uses only two plain English names (Harry, Ned). Tcgeran 
 and Tubered appear to be either invented or anagrammatic 
 names. (SV. Ill, 95; Pro. Lib. II, ad Rhy., 23.) 
 
 There is a partial list of these names in Grosart's edition 
 of Marston's poems. 
 
 APPENDIX F 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF EASTWARD HO 
 
 This problem has attracted workers on Jonson and Chapman, 
 but has not before been treated from the standpoint of Mar- 
 ston. The first attempts to assign the respective shares of 
 authorship were made by Dodsley (Old Plays. 1744. Vol. IV, 
 Pref. to E. H.) and "J. C." an author in Blackwoods 
 (Sept., 1821 ; X, 136). Others who have attempted partial 
 analyses are Swinburne (George Chapman, 1875. pp. 551"). 
 Bullen (Works of Marston, 1887. I. xxxvii), Ward, V G. 
 (Hist. Eng. Drama, 1899. II. 441) and Schelling (Jonson's 
 E. H. etc., Belles Lettrcs Series, xiif). Complete assign- 
 ments of authorship have been made by Fleav (Biog. Chron., 
 1891, I, 60-1; II. 81-2) and thoroughly by Cunliffe (Gayley's 
 Rep. Eng. Comedy, II. 401-4) and Parrott (Comedies of Chap- 
 man, 1914. pp. 841-8 and notes). With the two last critic- I 
 for the most part agree, save that 1 venture to assign some 
 parts rather more definitely to Marston than even Parrott has 
 done. There follows evidence on contested scenes. 
 
 Cunliffe's comparison of the Prologue to that of Bussy 
 D'Amboise is not weighty, as that prologue is improbably 
 
 173 
 
Chapman's from its date; only one of Chapman's comedies has 
 a prologue (All Fools) and that in quite a different vein. The 
 Prologue of Eastzvard Ho is Jonson's. It has been agreed 
 that the first act is Marston's. 
 
 The middle of II, i is indubitably Marston's; there are play- 
 tags, abundant echoing of phrases, a typical passage (1. 149) 
 which can be paralleled in Dutch Courtesan, IV, v, 14; finally 
 the Cocledemoy of that play resembles the drunken Quick- 
 silver. 
 
 The short II, ii (Bullen's division; the opening speech of 
 the long second scene in Parrott's ed.) is Marston's because of 
 the artless introduction of Security by himself (cf. Touch- 
 stone in I, i) ; and a phrase from this scene is repeated in 
 II, iii, 24, which is in a Marstonian portion. 
 
 II, iii for the most part shows little of Marston, seems 
 too light to be Jonson's, and may be Chapman's. But there 
 are two Marstonian passages; lines 1-60 have such lines as: 
 
 "O witty age ! where age is young in wit, 
 And all youth's words have greybeards full of it." 
 
 "And in thy lap, my lovely Dalila, 
 I'll lie, and snore out my enfranchised wit." 
 
 The rude imitation of a ballad which follows is quite in Mar- 
 ston's vein. The second Marston passage is in lines 198-238. 
 It is Cocledemoy Quicksilver who 
 
 "Hopes to live to see dog's meat made of the old usurer's flesh, 
 dice of his bones, and indentures of his skin; and yet his skin is too 
 thick to make parchment . . . Your only smooth skin to make 
 vellum is your Puritan's skin ; they be the smoothest and slickest knaves 
 in the country." 
 
 Another reason for believing that Marston and Chapman 
 may have interwoven their work here is that this scene marks 
 the division between Marston's and Chapman's work. As 
 Fleay doubtless observed when making his unexplained divi- 
 sion (in the main correct^. Eastward Ho scarcely pretends 
 to interweave the main and sub-plots. The main plot engrosses 
 the first three scenes (which Fleay assigned to Marston) and 
 the last six (which he gives to Jonson) ; the sub-plot is scarcely 
 interrupted during the middle seven scenes (which he gives to 
 
 171 
 
Chapman). The scene in question (II, iii) contains the transi- 
 tion from main to sub-plot. 
 
 Bullen noted on III, i, 20, that Marston also used 'wedlock' 
 in the sense of 'wife' in the Fawn; but so do Middleton, and 
 Chapman ( All Fools). The scene is Chapman's. 
 
 The satire on the Scots in III, iii, 44-60, has always been 
 attributed to Marston on the strength of Jonson's assertion; 
 it is however possible, though not characteristic, that Jonson 
 might have laid the offending passages to Marston's charge 
 after Marston alone had been freed from imprisonment (cf. 
 supra, p. 154). At any rate, the rest of the scene is plainly 
 Chapman's, as attested by the stage-directions "surgit" and 
 "ambo". 
 
 The little fourth scene continues the subplot; but its style 
 is different and sounds Marstonian ; moreover it ridicules a 
 line of Richard III which Marston has parodied frequently 
 elsewhere ; I believe it to be by Marston. 
 
 The subplot is wound up in IV, i, a scene in the main by 
 Chapman. The mimicking of James I has always been 
 ascribed to Marston, again because of Jonson's statement in 
 his letter of appeal to the King: "Your two most humble 
 and most prostrated subjects . . . : Geo. Chapman and Ben 
 Jhonson, whose chief offences are but two clawses, and both 
 of them not our own." He naturally does not mention Mar- 
 ston's name, even if he were thinking of him; it might be 
 that the passages in queston were mere actors' interpolations. 
 The Scot satire in III, iii is in the middle of a passage drawn 
 from the Utopia. This satire was omitted in later editions, 
 but the satire in IV, i remained. It is possible that the "two 
 clawses" referred to the two sentences of the first passage, 
 that were excised. This passage may be Marston's ; it is in 
 his satiric spirit. But the attribution is not certain. The 
 scene does contain a passage obviously Jonsonian, swarming 
 with technical terms of alchemy. The end of the scene, with 
 its apostrophe to the horn, is certainly Chapman's. 
 
 The main plot is recommenced with IV, ii. and though Mar- 
 ston's style is not very well marked, I believe it to be by 
 him, especially after the entrance of the women and up to 
 about line 264. In this portion there are many echoings of 
 phrases, and Marstonian expressions are used such as "cul- 
 lion", "marry, first o' your kindness", "hunger drops out at his 
 
 175 
 
nose", "gold-ends", and "head fastened under my girdle." At 
 about line 264 the style changes, and may be Jonson's. The 
 last speech is by Marston. 
 
 It is agreed that Marston wrote V, i. At line 81 there 
 comes an abrupt change in the current of thought, and possibly 
 the fairy speech, to line 102, is Jonson's. 
 
 No one but Jonson could have written the list of denomina- 
 tions (lines 33f.) in V, ii, and the scene is his, as is the rest 
 of the play until near the end. Marston wrote the close of the 
 play, after V, v, 156 and the entrance of the women. The 
 mother and Girtred are his particular property, and there are 
 several other indications, separately slight, such as the mention 
 of "Bow-bell" (used twice before in Marston's part, — Bullen, 
 pp. 15, 19) ; the suddenly frequent use of the introductory 
 "why" ; the citizen's cap, etc. The six rhyming lines at the 
 end may be compared to other scene endings of his in I, ii and 
 II, ii. 
 
 The Epilogus, like the Prologus, was, I believe, written by 
 lonson. 
 
 ATTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP OF EASTWARD HO 
 
 Division Plot Fleay Cunliffc 
 
 Par rot t 
 
 Mine 
 
 (Bullen) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prologue 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 I, i 
 
 Main 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 
 M 
 
 11 
 
 ii 
 
 Main 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 II, i 
 
 Main 
 
 M 
 
 C 
 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 ii 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 
 M (J?) 
 
 M 
 
 iii 
 
 Main 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 M 
 
 C, M at end 
 
 C (M, 1-60, 198-23 
 
 III, i 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 ii 
 
 Main 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 iii 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 M 
 
 C 
 
 (M, Scots) 
 
 C (M, 44-60,?) 
 
 iv 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 C or M 
 
 M 
 
 IV, i 
 
 Sub 
 
 C 
 
 C(M,J) 
 
 
 C (M, J) 
 
 C (M?, J) 
 
 ii 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 C 
 
 M 
 
 prevised by J) 
 
 M (J, c. 264-837) 
 
 V, i 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 M 
 
 (revised bv J) 
 
 M (J, 81-102.?) 
 
 ii 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 iii 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 iv 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 V 
 
 Main 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 
 J 
 
 J (M after 156) 
 
 Epilogue 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 176 
 
As will be seen, 1 have for the most part (independently) 
 agreed with Parrott as against Cunlif fe. I rather doubt, how- 
 ever, the current ascription of the Scotch satires to Marston, 
 as they are both embedded in the work of Chapman, and Jon- 
 son's statement does not mention Marston. I have also as- 
 signed the ending of the play to Marston. 
 
 177 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Alden, R. M. Rise of Formal Satire in England under Classical Influ- 
 ences; U. of P., Philadelphia, 1899. 
 Baskerville, C. R. English Elements in Jonson's Early Comedies; U. 
 
 of Texas, 1911. 
 Boas, F. S., Works of Thomas Kyd; Oxford, 1901. 
 Bullen, A. H. Works of John Marston; Houghton, Mifflin; Boston, 
 
 1887. 
 Burton, Robert. Anatomy of Melancholy. 
 Cambridge History of English Literature ; Putnam, 1907-11. 
 Collier, J. P., ed. Shakespeare (works), London, 1858. 
 
 A Bibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in 
 the English Language . . . Joseph Lilly, London, 1865. 
 Cunliffe, J. W. Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy; Stechert, 
 
 New York, 1907. 
 Dekker, Thomas. Plays; ed. R. H. Shepherd, 1873. 
 
 (See Penniman) 
 
 Gulls' Hornbook, 1609; Huth Library, ed. Grosart, II, p. 223. 
 Dictionary of National Biography ; Macmillan. 
 
 Dodsley, Robert, ed. Select Collection of Old Plays ; London, 1744. 
 Fleay, F. G. A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559- 
 
 1642; Reeves & Turner, London, 1891. 
 
 Chronicle History of the English Stage; Stechert. 1890. 
 
 Shakespeare manual; Macmillan, London, 1876. 
 
 Chronicle History of the Life and Work of Shakespeare, 1886. 
 Gayley, C. M., ed. Representative English Comedy; Macmillan, 1912- 
 
 1914. 
 Gifford, W., ed. Works of Ben Jonson; W. Bulmer & Co., London, 
 
 1816. 
 Grosart, A. B., ed. Occasional Issues (privately printed). 
 
 Bishop Hall's Complete Poems, 1879. 
 
 Marston's Poems; Blackburn, 1879. 
 Hake, Edward. News out of Powles; Isham Reprints, 1872. 
 Halliwell-Phillips, J. O. Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare ; 6th ed. 
 
 Longmans. 
 Harington, Sir John. Metamorphosis of Ajax . . . ; Whittingham, 
 
 Chiswick, 1814 (reprint). 
 Hart, H. C, ed. Works of Ben Jonson; Methuen, London (1906). 
 Henslowe, Philip. Henslowe's Diary, ed. by W. W. Greg ; Buellen, 
 
 London, 1904. 
 Hoppe, (Felix) Fritz. Histriomastix-stxidicn ; Diss. Fleischmann, 
 
 Breslau, 1906. 
 
 17* 
 
Jonson, Ben. (See under Gifford, Hart, Judson, Mallory, Penniman, 
 
 Schelling.) 
 Judson, A. C, ed. Cynthia's Revels; Yale Studies in English, Holt, 
 
 1912. 
 Kerr, M. Influence of Ben Jonson on English Comedy; Appleton, 
 
 1912. 
 Kyd, Thomas. Spanish Tragedy; Everyman ed., Minor Elizabethan 
 
 Drama, v. ii. n. d. Dutton. 
 
 (See under Boas) 
 Lee, Sir Sidney L. Life of William Shakespeare; Macmillan, 1899. 
 
 Revised edition, 1916. 
 Magnus, Laurie, ed. Documents Illustrating Elizabethan Poetry, by 
 
 Sir Philip Sidney, G. Puttenham, and W. IVebbe. Dutton, 1906. 
 Mallory, H. S., ed. Poetaster; Yale Studies, Holt, 1905. 
 Marston, John. (See under Bullen, Grosart.) 
 Massey, Gerald. Secret Drama of Shakespeare's Sonnets Unfolded; 
 
 1872. 
 Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia; Arber's English Garner, reprint. 
 Nash, Thomas. Pierce Penilcsse his supplication to the diuell; ed. 
 
 J. P. Collier, Busbie, London, 1870 (1592). 
 Nason, A. H. Heralds and Heraldry in Ben Jonson's plays; Nason, 
 
 New York. 
 No Whipping nor Snipping . . . (Nicholas Breton) ; Isham Reprints. 
 Ordish, T. F. Early London Theatres; London, 1899. 
 Parrott, T. M., ed. Comedies of Chapman. Dutton, 1914. 
 Penniman, J. H. War of the Theatres; U. of P., 1887. 
 
 ed. Poetaster and Satiroinastix ; Belles Lettres Series, Heath, 
 
 1913. 
 Puttenham, George. (See under Magnus). Art of Pocsie. 
 Sainmont, J. Influence dc Montaigne sur Marston et Webster; Lou- 
 vain, 1914. 
 Schelling, F. E. Elizabethan Drama, Houghton Mifflin, 1908. 
 
 ed. Complete plays of Ben Jonson, Everyman ed., Dutton, 1910. 
 
 ed. Jonson's etc.. Eastward Ho, etc.; Belles Lettres Series, 
 
 Heath, 1903. 
 Schulze, Konrad. Die Satiren Halls . . . ; Palaestra cvi ; M. J. Midler, 
 
 Berlin, 1910. 
 Shakespeare, William. Globe text; Cambridge ed., Houghton. 1914. 
 Shakespeare's England, ed. Onions, C. T. ; Oxford, 1916. 
 Sidney, Sir Philip. Defense of Poesie; ed. A. C. Cook, Girn. 
 Simpson, Richard. School of Shakespeare . . . ; Boston, New 
 
 York, 1878. 
 Small, R. A. Stage-quarrel between Ben Jonson and the so-called 
 
 Poetasters; Forschungen zur Englischen Sprache u. Literatur 
 Pt. 1. Breslau, 189!). 
 
 Authorship of Insatiate Countess, Harvard Studies in Philol. 
 
 and Lit.. V, 227. 
 Stevens, H. Life of Thomas Harriot; priv. print., Portland, Me., 1900. 
 
 179 
 
Stoll, E. E. Shakespeare, Marston and the Malcontent Type; Mod. 
 
 Phil., Jan. 1906. 
 
 John Webster; Harvard, 1905. 
 Swinburne, A. C. George Chapman; London, 1875. 
 
 Age of Shakespeare, Harpers, 1908. 
 Thorndike, A. H. Shakespeare's Theatre; Macmillan, 1916. 
 Wallace, C. VV. Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars; Priv. Printed, 
 
 1908. 
 Ward, A. W. History of English Dramatic Literature ; Macmillan, 
 
 IS! I! I. 
 Winchester, C. T. Some Principles of Literary Criticism; Macmillan, 
 
 1899. 
 Winckler, Carl \V. John Marston's litterarische Anfdnge; Diss. Bres- 
 
 lau, 1903. 
 
 Marston's Erstlingszverke u, ihre Beziehung zu Shakespeare ; 
 Eng. Stud., xxxiii, 1904. 
 Wood, Anthony a. Athenae O.vonienses and Fasti; ed. P. Bliss, 1820. 
 Wyndham, G. Poems of Shakespeare; 1898. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Most titles, except of dramas, are referred to under author's 
 name onlv. 
 
 Alamanni, 85 
 
 Albano, 139, 146 
 
 Alden, R. M., 12, 84, 92. 102-3, 
 
 117, 123, 145, 163, 165 
 Alleyn, 39, 103 
 All Fools, 174-5 
 All's Well that Ends Well. 77 
 Anacreon, 104 
 Anaides. 40, 42-5, 65 
 Andrugio, 76, 128 
 Antonio, 129-30, 132-3, 146 
 Antonia and Mellida, 8, 2.".. 30, 35, 
 
 38. 56-7, 59, 75-6, 82, 88. 107. 
 
 125-6, 128-34, 113-6. 149, 158, 
 
 169-71 
 Antonio Balladino, 28 
 Antonio's Revenge, 8, 30, 3."), 
 
 .-.0-60, 126. 132-4, 137, 143. 145-6, 
 
 158-9, 161 
 Apologetical Dialogue {Poe- 
 taster), 22, 52, 65-6, 74. 82, 171 
 
 Arher. 87 
 Ariosto. 12 
 Aristotle, 36 
 Armin. 51 
 
 Arnold, Matthew. 120 
 Ascham, 11. 105 
 \ Minus Bubo. •".! 
 A sot us. 50 
 Asper. 10] 
 As You Like It. 10, 88, 99, 104, 
 
 130-1 
 Athens 98. 163-4 
 Aubrey. 32 
 
 Augustus Caesar, 53, 56 
 Austin. 121 
 author's representative. 129, 134, 
 
 137, Nil. 158-9 
 
 Bacon. 77, 11"« 
 Balbus, 12 
 Balurdo, 130, 133 
 Barclay, 152 
 Barford S. Martin, 8 
 Barksted, 121, L57 
 Barleybreak, etc.. SI. 121 
 Barnes, 104, 111, 165 
 Barnfield. Richard. 89 
 Baskerville, 11, 21. 28-9, Ml, 40, 
 13-4, 53, 59, !>"). 99. 1(12. His, L28, 
 L96 
 Bastard, K., 107 
 beards, 37, 79, 131, 13!'. 148, 158 
 Beatrice, 131, 140 
 
 Beeston ; 39 
 
 Blind Beggar of Alexandria. 23-4 
 
 Blirt, 51 
 
 Blurt, Master Constable, 51 
 . 24 
 
 Bobadill, If-'. 
 
 Brabant, Jr., 37. LIT 
 
 Hrabant Sr., 35-8, 50. til, 81-2, 
 135-7, 149 
 
 Brandt, 152 
 
 P.razenose College. 6 
 
 Breton. 17-9, 39, 16:. 
 
 Briscus, 108 
 
 Brisk, see Fastidious Brisk 
 
 Brown, Sir Thomas, 115, 143 
 
 Browning, 126 
 
 Bruto, 99 
 
 Bullen, 8-9, 14. 16-7. 22, 31. 34, 
 51, 55, 78, 88, 92, 96-7, 105, 107, 
 lio-i, 117, 133. 141. 146, 148, L51, 
 153-4, 156, 163. 173-6 
 
 Burton. Robe-t. 6, 94, 12o. 145 
 
 Bnssy D'Amboise, 17:'. 
 
 181 
 
Butler. Samuel. 116, 118 
 Byron, 143-4, 161 
 
 Caelestine, 68 
 
 Calamy, Rev. E., 9 
 
 Cambridge 6, 11, 15, 79-80, 98, 
 
 163-4 
 Camden. 155 
 
 Carlo Buffone, 31-2, 44-5, 65, 111 
 Carmen de Pitlicc, 110 
 Case is Altered, 26, 28 
 Castiglione, 108, 111 
 Castilio, 43, 90, 108, 111, 130, 133, 
 
 148, 173 
 Castilio Balthazar, 108, 130 
 Catullus, 172 
 Chapman, 8. 23-4, 38, 89, 95, 154-5, 
 
 161, 173-7 
 'Characters", 11, 18, 116, 144 
 Chaucer, 85, 123 
 Chester, Charles, 31-2, 111 
 Chesterton, 74 
 Chettle, 30 
 Children of Paul's, 26, 35, 136-7, 
 
 159 
 Children of 1 he Chapel, 20, 26, 64, 
 
 71, 136 
 Chloe, 53-4 
 Chrisoganus, 24-9, 31, 34, 50, 81, 
 
 L34-5, 146, 168 
 Christ Church, Hants., 8 
 Christopher Flawn, 39 
 Cicero, 153, 172 
 Classes, 93, 108-9, 131, 133, 136, 
 
 139, 142, 148, 152, 154, 156 
 Clove. 31, 33-4, 38, 59, 80 
 Cockledemoy, 140, 174 
 Colin Clout, 164 
 Collier, J. P., 6. 16-7, 111 
 Cook. 36 
 
 Constable, Henry, 89 
 Corpus Christi College, 6 
 courtiers, 107-8, 131, 13:!, 136, 142, 
 
 1!S 
 Coventry, 5-6 
 Crisptnus, 29, 32. 40-6. 53-61, 63, 
 
 69, 71-3, 7!), 140-1, 157, 167, 
 
 172-3 
 Crites, tl-5. SI. 170 
 
 Croll, M. W., 115 
 Cunliffe, 132, 173, 176-7 
 Curio, 103-4, 110 
 
 Cynthia's Revels, 40-:,, 48-50, 52, 
 59-82 passim, 104, 108, 139, 170-1 
 
 ! iametus, 111 
 
 Daniel, 21, 38, 13. 51, 89, 16:; 
 Davies, John, 38, 84, L03, 115 
 Pay, 154 
 Decius, 38 
 
 Dekker (see also Demetrius Fan- 
 nin, ). 8, 2(i-2, 24, 30-1, 34, 40-84 
 
 passim, 144 
 Deloney, 111 
 1 ianetrius Fannius, 40-2, 53, 55-6, 
 
 61. «3-4, 70, 72-M 
 Democritus, 94, 172 
 Dickenson, John, 112 
 Diogenes, 98 
 D'Oddi, 46 
 Dodsley, 173 
 Donne. 84-7, 92, 94, 107, 110, 113, 
 
 115, 117-8, 123 
 Douai, OS 
 
 Drayton. 38, 89, .112, 163-4 
 Drummond of Hawthornden, 8, 
 
 21, 20, 38, 72. 71, 155 
 Drusus, 103 
 Dryden, 84 
 Du Bartas, L26 
 Dugdale, 5 
 Dutch Courtezan, 8, 77, 88, 99, 107, 
 
 117. 125, 140-3, 146, 155, 158, 
 
 160-1, 171 
 
 I isn.ard Ho. 8, 16, 78, 151-161 
 
 passim, 173-7 
 eclogues, 87 
 Edwards, Th., SO. 112 
 effeminacy. 99, 103-4, 108, 111, 125, 
 
 130, 139, 151-2 
 Elizabeth, On., 20, 07. 136 
 Ellis, 135 
 
 Emmanuel College, 11, 37 
 Enoch Arden, 139 
 
 tainment, 1 ( >7, 1 12 
 Epictetus, 06, 150, 153 
 epigrams, 14. 17, SI, 116 
 
 182 
 
Epigrams, 74-5 
 
 epistles, 11, 87 
 
 Every Man in his Humour, 28, '■'.} 
 
 Every Man out of his Humour, 
 
 22, 25, 28, 31-9, 42, 59, 65-6, 80-2, 
 
 95, 101, 103, 105, 108, 130, L34, 
 
 167, 171 
 
 Falstaff. 100, 130 
 
 Fannius, see Demetrius Fanr.ius 
 
 fashion. 93, 104-7, 131, 139, 1 i2, 
 
 148 
 Fastidious Brisk, 21, 43, 15, 108. 
 
 130 
 Faustus, Dr., 110 
 Fazvn, 8, 39, 78, 82, 96, 98, 100, 107 
 
 119, 143-157, 160, 175 
 Fawn (Hercules), 143, 149-50, 152- 
 
 3 
 Feliche. 39, 129-33, 13.5, 143-6 
 Fitzgeffrey, 85 
 flea-conceit, 11 ( > 
 Fleay. 31, 37-9, 51, 56-9, 88, 154, 
 
 171. 173-4, 176 
 Fletcher. 107 
 Fletchers, the. 11") 
 Florio. 88. 153 
 Forobosco, 129-30, 133 
 Fortune. Sir Edward, 39, 13.1. 130- 
 
 7 
 Fortune Theatre. 3!' 
 Franceschina. 117. 140, 142, 160 
 Freevil. 140-2, 146 
 Fuscus, 1 1 1 
 Furor Poeticus, 79-81 
 
 gallants, 78. 108, 139 
 Gammer Gurton's Needle. 24 
 Gascoigne, George, 86, 92, 94, LOO, 
 
 115 
 Gaveston, 163 
 Gelaia. 44 
 Gertrude. V,C. 176 
 Gifford. 22, ".1 2 
 Gonzago. 151-3 
 Green, '21. 84, !»1 
 Gre<ham. 121 
 Grillus. 162 
 
 Grosart, 6-8, 11-2, 14, 10-7, 22, .YT. 
 
 84, 88, 90, 92, 103, 110, 112 3. 
 
 117, 111, 162, L73 
 Grove. Matt, 88, 110 
 Guarsi, Andrew, •"> 
 — , Balthazar, 5 
 — , Mary, •"> 
 Guilpin, Ed., 1 !. 87-8, 108, 110-1, 
 
 115, 165 
 
 hair, red, In, 56, 170 
 
 Hales. John, ij 
 
 Hall, Bp. Jos., 9-19, 31, 37, 84- 
 
 118 passim, 12:?, lit. 157, 162-5, 
 
 175 
 Hake. 11. 85-6, 91-2, 94, 100 
 Halliwell-Phillipps, 22. 55 
 Hamlet. 21. t6, 58, CI. 120, L26, 
 
 132, 137. 1 13-5, L53 
 Hammon, Richard, 55 
 i [ampshire, 8 
 Hannam, Capt., 55 
 Hariott, Thomas. 24-5 
 Harrington, 32 
 Harte II. C., 22. 32 
 Harvey. Gabriel, 21. 22. 115 
 Hedon, 21. 10-5, 65 
 Heinsius, 8 1 
 Henry VIII, ■> 
 I lenrv. Prince. 1 1 
 Henslowe, 30, 39, 55, 63, 170 
 Hercules, see Fawn 
 Herford, 31 
 Herrick, 122 
 Hieronimo, 170-1 
 Hire'!. 156 
 Histriomastix, 8, 2:;-:!". 33-:,. 50, 
 
 52, 71. si. 131. 136, 143, 158, 
 
 166-9 
 1 [olofernes, 51 
 Holt. 78 
 Homer. 112 
 
 !■-.. 2!. 30, 168 
 Horace (Q. H. F.) 13, 53 1. 56, 61, 
 
 67, 70. 84-6, 173 
 Horace-Jonson, 28, H, 13, 50, 55-6, 
 
 60 9, 73, 79, 82 
 Howell. 11 
 
 183 
 
humours, 17, 30, 32, 36, 59, 04, 
 81, 93, 102-4, 126, 12!), 132-5, 
 139-40, 142, 144, 148-9, 151 
 
 Ingenioso-Nash, 79-80 
 
 Ingram, Win,, 15-19 
 
 irony, 95 
 
 Insatiate Countess, 99, 103, 126, 
 
 156-8, 161 
 Isle of Dogs, 29, 71, 80 
 
 Jack Drum's Entertainment, 8, 14, 
 26, 34-40, 50, 60, 62, 71, 81-2, 
 125, 134-9, L43, 146, 149, 159, 168 
 
 Jack of Paris Garden, 22 
 
 Jacomo, 46. 49, 139 
 
 James I, 8, 77. 86, 148, 151, 154-5, 
 175 
 
 Jaques. 10, 99. 104. 143-4 
 
 John Ellis. 39 
 
 John fo de King, 35, 38, 135 
 
 Jonson, Ben, 5-83 passim, 103-18 
 />., 126-139 p., 149, 154-5, 161, 
 167-77 p. 
 
 Jndson, 40-1 
 
 Julius Casar, 33, 131 
 
 Juvenal, 12, 84-7, 94, 98, 102, 113, 
 118, 12:3. 150. 153, 166, 172-3 
 
 Kemp, 65 
 
 Kinsader. 47, 49, 79, 165, 169-70 
 
 Kyd, 21, 132. 171 
 
 Labeo. 12-:!, 90 
 
 Lais, 115, 122 
 
 Lamb, 126 
 
 Lampatho, 46-9. 61, 71, 81-2, 139, 
 
 169-70 
 Langbaine. 6, 151 
 Langland, 85-7 
 Laura, 111. 125 
 Laverdure, 35, 49, 13!) 
 lawyers. 7, 109-10, 148 
 Lee. Sir Sidney. 64, 76 
 legs, small, 10, 37, 43-4, 56, 79, 
 
 143, 15S, 170 
 Lesbia, 166, 172 
 Lily, 51 
 Lily. John, 39, 14, 80. 131, 136 
 
 literary satire. !>:(, 109-13, 131, 133- 
 
 4, 152, 157 
 Lodge. 11. 21. 84-7, 89, 91-2, 94, 
 
 100, 101, 111. 11::. 115, 164 
 Lollius, 164, 166 
 London, 5, 8, :>, 36, 56. 91, 99, 107, 
 
 120, 138, 163 
 loose structure of plays, 130, 137 
 lower classes, 108, 131, 148, 157, 
 
 166 
 Lucian, 59, 104 
 Luscus, 103. 110 
 lust, 92-3, 96-9, 122, 126, 135, 1 10-2, 
 
 147. 151, 154, 157, 160-1 
 Lynceus, 90, 173 
 
 Machiavellian, 16, 100. 145, 117, 
 
 157 
 Macilente, 28, 81, 37, 130, 134 
 Maid's Metamorphosis, 136 
 Malcontent, 8-9, 18, 56, 60, 67. 
 
 76-8. 81-2, 99, 119, 125-6, 129, 
 
 141-50, 153, 160, 171 
 malcontent type, 10, 18, 37, 95, 99, 
 
 10!'. 120. 126, 130, 133, 143-7, 
 
 149-50, 159-60 
 Malevole, 77, 144, 146-7, 149, 160 
 Malheureux, 39, 140-2 
 Mai lory, 57, 5!) 
 Malvolio, 77 
 Mammon, 39, 135, 168 
 Manfred. 144 
 Markham. G., 89, 162 
 Marlowe, 24, 38, 89, 131 
 Marston, John, Sr., 5-7, 9, 56, 109 
 — , Mary Wilkes, 8-10 
 — . Ralph, 5 
 — , Robertus de, 5 
 — , Thomas. 6 
 Martial, 68, 81-5, 105, 11:1, 153, 
 
 172-3 
 Martius, 110, 17:*, 
 Martyrs, 9 
 Mason. 156 
 Massey, G., 103 
 
 Mastigophorus, IS, 50, 162, 170 
 Matzagente. 130-3 
 "Maxton, Mr.", 30 
 Measure for Measure, 144 
 
 184 
 
Mellidus, 38 
 
 Meres, 87 
 
 Midas, 44 
 
 Middle Temple, 5-7, 9 
 
 Middleton, 51, 55, 88, 175 
 
 Midsummer Night's Dream, 24 
 
 Milton, 102 
 
 Mirror for Magistrates, 112, 163 
 
 Monday. Anthony, 21, 25, 28, 30, 
 
 39, 81, 167 
 money, 96, 100-1, 129, 138, 148 
 Montaigne, 88, 120, 111, 143, 153 
 Moore, T., 101 
 morals, 96-102, 129, 133, 135, 138, 
 
 1-11. 147, 151, 154, 156 
 Much Ado About Nothing, 131 
 Muleases the Turk, 156 
 Murray, Sir James. 155 
 Museaus, 38 
 Musus. 38 
 Mutius. 164 
 Mycro cynic on, 87-8 
 
 names, satiric. 115, 173 
 
 Nash. 12-3, 21. 21. 39, 84, 121, 144. 
 
 (see Ingenioso) 
 New English Dictionary, 21, 109. 
 
 149 
 Newton, 24 
 Nicholson, 57 
 Nixon, Antony. 155 
 No Whippinge nor Tripp.inge, 18 
 
 Old Fortunatus, 24, 111 
 
 Oldys, (i 
 
 Orange, 33-4, 38 
 
 Ordish, 55 
 
 Osric, 58 
 
 Ovid, 7. 69. 88, 99, 110. 172-3 
 
 Oxford, (i. 98, 155. 165 
 
 Page of Plymouth, 30 
 Pandulpho. 133, 146 
 Parke. 84, 107 
 Parolle-. 77 
 Parrott, Henry, 118 
 Parrott, T. M.. 17:!-!. 17(1-7 
 Pasquil. 39, SI. 135 
 Pasquil's Nightcap. 110 
 Peele. 23 
 
 Peend. 88 
 
 Pell, Dr., 32 
 
 Penniman, J. H.. 20-2, 28, 31-2, 
 
 37-8. 43-5, 55. 59-60, 63, 76, L69- 
 
 71 
 Persius. SI, 86, 94, 109, 11:!, 118, 
 
 123, 150. 15:!, 172-3 
 Petronal Flash, Sir. 15! 
 Philomuse, 51 
 Philomusus, 80 
 Pistol, 77. 103, 15(1 
 Planet. 35, 37-8, 16, 134-5, L37, 
 
 1 16 
 Plautus. 16. 17:5 
 Poetaster. 7-8. 10, 20-2, 28-9, 34-5, 
 
 45-6, 50-86 passim, 137, 149, 151 
 Polonius, 151, 153 
 Pope. 74. US. 121 
 Posthaste, 25. 30, SI. 134, 167-9 
 Prodigal Sou, 168 
 Psalms. 163 
 Publius, 104, 17:! 
 Puntarvolo, 31-2, LOS 
 Puttenham, 84 
 Pygmalion and Certaine Satyres, 
 
 7, 13, 15, 87-92, 95-6, 104, 111, 
 
 113, 117. 121-2. 162-6, 17<i 
 
 Quadratus, 16-50, 125. 138, 140, 
 
 1 11. 1 [6, 159, 169-70 
 Quicksilver, 151. 156, 171 
 
 Raleigh. 24, 32, 163 
 
 religion, 27. 93, 101-2, 106, 116-7, 
 
 120, 122-:!. 1 12. 147, 174 
 Return from Parnassus. II. 37, 05, 
 
 79-81, 97, 110. ion 
 Richard IP 131 
 
 Richard HI. 10. 131, 153, 150, 175 
 Roaring Girl, 55 
 Robert IP 22, 30 
 Roberts. 70 
 Romeo and Juliet. 103 
 Ronsard, 104 
 Rosamund. 163 
 Roscius, 103 
 Rosencrantz, 64 
 Rome. 53, 5:,. .17. 85, 98, 1!:!. 12:!. 
 
 163 
 
 185 
 
Rossaline, 130 
 Routh, H. V., 11-2 
 Ruscus, 22, 99, 100 
 
 Sainmont, 141, 153 
 
 Salisbury, 8 
 
 — , Earl of. 155 
 
 Sarrazin, 77 
 
 Sartor Resarlus, 148 
 
 satire, 11, 17, 74 
 
 — , cause of, 115 
 
 — , early, 85, 87 
 
 — , defined, 84 
 
 — , general, 92-6, 128, 135, 187, 
 
 140, 147, 150, 153, 156 
 — , obscurity, 123, 162, 165 
 — , personal, 54 
 — , ridicule of, 133 
 — , sincerity in, 117 
 — , sources, 113-5, 172-3 
 Saliromastix, 8, 20-1, 29, 40, 43, 
 
 45, 49-51, 56, 58, 62-74, 79, 82-3, 
 
 171 
 Satires, 34-5, 64, 92-127, 145, 162-6 
 Schelling, 31, 80, 155-6, 169. 173 
 Scotch, 77, 154-5, 175, 177 
 Schulze, K„ 12-3, 87, 107, 165 
 Scourge of Villainy, 7, 9. 13-5. 19, 
 
 22, 31-5, - r ,8, 60, 87, 90-128 passim, 
 
 132. 162-6, 169 
 Seneca, 48, 94. 114, 132, 138 
 Scjanus, 8, 55, 74, 77-8. 156-7 
 Selden, 155 
 Shakespeare, 6, 29-30, 33, 65, 76-7, 
 
 85, 88-9, 91, 103-4, 131, 153, 156 
 Shakespeare's England, 105 
 Sheares. Wm., 9, 151 
 Ship of Fools, 152-3 
 Shropshire. 5 
 Shylock, 135 
 
 Sidney. Ph., 36, 111, 115, 165 
 Simplicius Faher, 46-51, 139 
 Simpson. 23-4, 28-9, 34-5, 37, 135, 
 
 166, 168 
 Skelton, 85 
 Small. R. A., 20-5, 30-2. 34-5, 
 
 39-41, 45-6, 51, 57. 59, 76, 157, 
 
 166, 168, 171 
 Si. crates, 98 
 
 Sogliardo, •">" 
 
 Sophonisba, 8, 78, 82, 125-6, 156-8, 
 
 n;i 
 
 Sordido, 39 
 
 Southwell, 162 
 
 Spanish Tragedy, 69, 71, 75-6, 82, 
 
 131-2, 156, 170-1 
 Spenser. 13, Lll-2, 1.15, 162, 164 
 Staunton. 6 
 Sterne, 122, 112 
 Stevens, H., 21 
 Stoll, 77-8, 1 13 
 Surrey, Earl of, 85 
 Swift. 91, 97, 103, 118, 121-2. 142 
 Swinburne, 119, 17:: 
 Sylvester, 115, 126 
 Symonds. 22, 31 
 
 Tamburlaine, 22. 24. 131. 156 
 Terence, 173 
 Terril, 67-8 
 Thersites, 76 
 
 Thorndike, A. H., 31, 154-5 
 Tibullus, 173 
 Timon. 1 13 
 Timothy Tweedle, 39 
 tobacco, 107, 131, 138, 148 
 Toby Belch, Sir, 77 
 Torquatus, 22 
 Touchstone. 174 
 
 Troilus and Cressida. 29-30, 76, 
 168 
 
 Tubrio, 22. 98-9, 106, 111 
 
 Tucca. 44-5, 53, 55, 58, 63-4, 66-7, 
 
 69-70, 73 
 Twelfth Night, 77. 137 
 
 ('topia, 175 
 
 Valladolid, 98 
 
 Villius. 163, 17:; 
 
 Virgidemiarum, 11-."). 1!), 31, 91, 
 
 93-4, 98-9, 104, 107-8, 110, 117, 
 
 162-6 
 Virgil, 5-'!, ■"•">. 62 
 Virginia, 154 
 I'olpone, 32, 78 
 vocabulary, 57-60, 80, 121 
 
 186 
 
Wallace, C. W., 20-1, 26, 30-1, 40, 
 
 51, 64, 77, 143 
 Walley, Henry, i) 
 Ward. A. G., 173 
 Warning for Fair Women, 60 
 Wartori, 117 
 Warwickshire. 5-6 
 Watson, 104 
 Weever, 14, 84 
 Webster, 147. 153 
 What You Will. 8, 16, 35, 15-51, 
 
 53, 56, 58-62, 71, 78, 125-6, 137- 
 
 40, 143. 146, 159 
 Whipper of the Satyre, 17-8, 111 
 Whipping of the Satire, 15-18, 97 
 Wilkes, Wm, 8, 9 
 
 William Rufus, 67-8 
 Winchester, C. T., 97 
 Winckler, C. 77, 90, 92, L12 
 Wisdom of Dr. Doddipoll, 136 
 Wither. 85, 11") 
 woman. 93, 98, L06, 109, L26, L31, 
 
 139, 1 12, lis. 152, 156-60 
 Wonder of Women, see Soph- 
 
 onisba 
 Wood, Anthony a, 6, '■' 
 Wood. M., 29 
 Wyatt. 85 
 Wyndham, 76 
 
 Zepheria, 112 
 Zuccone, 11!). 150, 152 
 Zulziman, 70 
 
 LS7 
 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724) 779-2111 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 067 021 2