Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama by Walter W. Greg (page 10)

wholly chimerical connexion with the spread of Spanish influence in this country. The translation is preserved in the British Museum, Addit. MS. 18,638, and contains the translator’s name perfectly clearly written, both on the title-page and at the end of the dedicatory epistle to Fulke Greville. This MS. is a copy of the original made by the translator himself about 1617, and bears on the fly-leaf the name ‘Dorothy Grevell.’ The title-page is worth transcribing: ‘Diana de Monte mayor done out of Spanish by Thomas Wilsõ Esquire, In the yeare 1596 & dedicated to the Erle of Southamptõ who was then uppon y’e Spanish voiage w’th my Lord of Essex–Wherein under the names and vailes of Sheppards and theire Lovers are covertly discoursed manie noble actions & affections of the Spanish nation, as is of y’e English of [_sic_] y’t admirable & never enough praised booke of S’r. Phil: Sidneyes Arcadia.’

[140] Arber’s edition, p. 83.

[141] See the useful table of correspondences given by Homer Smith in his paper on the _Pastoral Influence in the English Drama_. All needful apparatus for the study of the story will of course be found in Furness’ ‘Variorum’ edition of the play.

[142] Macaulay once remarked of the _Faery Queen_, that few and weary are the readers who are in at the death of the Blatant Beast. It might with equal or even greater force be contended that most readers are asleep ere the Arcadian princesses in Sidney’s romance are rescued from the power of Cecropia.

[143] Into purely bibliographical questions, such as the history of the Edinburgh edition of 1599, it is of course impossible to enter here.

[144] Letter in the State Papers. See Introduction to Sommer’s facsimile of the first edition, 1891.

[145] Conversations with Drummond, X. Shakespeare Society, 1842, p. 10.

[146] K. Brunhuber, to whose work on the _Arcadia_ (_Sir Philip Sidneys Arcadia und ihre Nachläufer_, 1903) I am in a measure indebted, failing to find many specific borrowings, is inclined to make light of Montemayor’s influence. There can, however, be little question that, in general style and conception, Sidney, while influenced by the Greek romance, yet belonged essentially to the Spanish school.

[147] Analyses of the _Arcadia_ will be fouud in all works upon the novel from Dunlop to J. J. Jusserand and W. Raleigh. Perhaps the fullest, which is also provided with copious extracts, is that in the _Retrospective Review_, 1820, ii. p. 1.

[148] An allegorical interpretation certainly found favour among the critics of the time, and was advanced by Puttenham in his _Art of English Poesy_ (1589), even before the publication of the romance. See also Thomas Wilson’s allusion on the title-page of his translation from the _Diana_, given above (p. 141, note).

[149] A critical edition remains, however, a desideratum.

[150] See Jusserand’s _English Novel in the time of Shakespeare_, 1890, p. 274.

[151] The later fashionable pastoral of French origin, with the _Astrée_ as its type and chief representative, does not concern us, or at most concerns us so indirectly as not to warrant our lingering over it here.

[152] I should at once say that the view of the development of the pastoral drama adopted above is not endorsed by all scholars. To have set forth at length the considerations upon which it is based would have swollen beyond all bounds an introductory section of my work. Since, however, the question is one of considerable interest, I have added what I believe to be a fairly full and impartial discussion in the form of an appendix.

[153] ‘Orfeo cantando giugne all’ Inferno’ is one of the stage directions.

[154] For an elaborate example (1547) of this kind of stage, on which various localities were simultaneously represented, see Petit de Julleville, _Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française_, ii. pp. 416-7.

[155] Concerning the play see the account given by Symonds, together with his admirable translation in _Sketches and Studies in Italy and Greece_, ii. p. 345, also an elaborate essay, ‘L’Orfeo del Poliziano alla corte di Mantova,’ by Isidoro del Lungo, in the _Nuova antologia_ for August, 1881, and A. D’Ancona, _Origini del teatro italiano_, ii. pp. 2 and 106. The standard edition of Poliziano’s Italian works, that by Carducci, is unfortunately not in the British Museum.

[156] A note concerning the use of the term ‘nymph’ may save confusion. Creizenach remarks that the introduction of a nymph as the beloved of a shepherd is a peculiarity of the renaissance pastoral which manifestly owes its origin to Boccaccio’s _Ninfale fiesolano_ (_Geschichte des neueren Dramas_, ii. p. 196). In so far as this view implies that the ‘nymphs’ of pastoral convention are the same order of beings as those either of the _Ninfale_ or of classical myth, it appears to me utterly erroneous. The ‘nymphs’ who love the shepherds in the renaissance pastorals are nothing but shepherdesses. The confusion no doubt began with Boccaccio. The nymph of Diana in the _Ninfale_ is, as we have already seen, nothing but a nun in pagan disguise. The nymphs of the _Ameto_ are represented as of the classical type, but their amorous confessions reveal them as in nowise differing from mortal woman. The gradual change in the connotation of the word is one of the results of the blending of Christian and classical ideas. The original elemental or local spirits even in Greek myth acquired some of the characteristics of votaries (as in the legeud of Calisto), and these Christian tradition tended to accentuate, while popular romance, and in many cases contemporary manners, facilitated the connecting of such characters with tales of secret passion. Gradually, however, the idea of illicit love gave place to one merely of unrestrained natural desire, the religious elements of the character were forgotten as the supernatural had been earlier, and ‘nymph’ came to be no more than the feminine of ‘shepherd’ in an ideal society which by its freedom of intercourse, as by its honesty of dealing, presented a complete contrast to the polished circles of aristocratic Italy.

[157] A small circular picture in _chiaroscuro_ among the arabesques of the _cappella nova_ in the cathedral at Orvieto. It represents the youthful Orpheus crowned with the laureate wreath playing before Pluto and Proserpine upon a fiddle or crowd of antique pattern. At his feet lies Eurydice, while around are spirits of the other world.

[158] In some passages of this speech the resemblance with Ovid is very close:

famaque si ueteris non est mentita rapinae, uos quoque iunxit Amor…
omnia debentur nobis, paulumque morati serius aut citius sedem properamus ad unam… haec quoque, cum iustos matura peregerit annos, iuris erit uestri; pro munere poscimus usum. quod si fata negant ueniam pro coniuge, certum est nolle redire mihi: leto gaudete duorum. (_Met_. x. 28, &c.)

[159] Cf. _Amores_, II. xii, ll. 1, 2, 5, and 16.

[160] This interpretation of the passion of Orpheus, characteristic as it is of renaissance thought, was not original. Though unknown in early times, it is found in Phanocles, a poet probably of the third or fourth century B. C.

[161] So original: revision ‘oè oè.’

[162] The earliest edition I have seen is that contained in the ‘Opere’ of June 10, 1507, where the heading runs: ‘Fabula di Caephalo cõposta dal Signor Nicolo da Correggia a lo Illustrissimo. D. Hercole & da lui repsentata al suo florẽtissimo Populo di Ferrara nel. M. cccc. lxxxvi. adi. xxi. Ianuarii.’ In this edition, printed at Venice by Manfrido Bono de Monteferrato, the works are said to be ‘Stampate nouamente: & ben corrette.’ Bibliographers record no edition previous to 1510. The date in the heading is either a misprint, or refers to the year 1486-7 according to the Venetian reckoning. See D’Ancona, _Origini del teatro_, ii. p. 128-9. Symonds (_Renaissance_, v. p. 120) quotes some Latin lines as from the prologue to this play. This is an error. He has misread D’Ancona, to whom he refers (ed. 1877), and from whom he evidently copied the quotation. The lines actually occur in the prologue to a Latin play on the subject of the taking of Granada.

[163] Rossi, _Battista Guarini ed il Pastor Fido_, 1886, p. 171, note 2.

[164] I do not, of course, mean that no mythological plays were produced between the days of Correggio and those of Beccari, but that they show no signs of consistent development in a pastoral or indeed in any other direction.

[165] _Il Verato secondo_, 1593, p. 206.

[166] _Compendio della poesia tragicomica, tratto dai duo Verati_, 1602, pp. 49-50.

[167] In this and the following section I have used the texts of the exceedingly useful collection of _Drammi de’ boschi_ in the ‘Biblioteca classica economica,’ which comprises the _Aminta, Pastor fido, Filli di Sciro_, and _Alceo_.

[168] Symonds, in dealing with Tasso in the sixth volume of his _Italian Renaissance_, lays, to my mind very justly, considerable stress upon this quality.

[169] Quoted by Serassi, Tasso’s biographer, in his preface to the Bodoni edition of the play (Crisopoli, 1789), p. 8.

[170] See Angelo Solerti, _Vita di T. Tasso_, Torino, Loescher, 1895, i. p. 181, &c. Carducci, ‘Storia dell’ _Aminta_,’ the third of the _Saggi_, 80, 1st edition.

[171] Leigh Hunt pointed out, in some interesting if rather uncritical remarks prefixed to his translation of the _Aminta_ (London, 1820), that some at any rate of the regular choruses cannot have formed part of the original composition. In fact the first edition (Aldus, 1581) contains those to Acts I and V only; that to Act II appeared in the second edition (Ferrara, 1581), and also in the collected _Rime_ (Aldus, 1581); the rest were added in the Aldine quarto of 1590.

[172] Supposing always that this representation, of which Filippo Baldinucci, in his _Notizie dei professori del disegno_ (sec. iv, dec. vii; 1688, p. 102), has left a glowing account, was a representation of the _Aminta_, and not, as some have maintained, of the _Intrichi d’ amore_, another play sometimes ascribed to Tasso.

[173] Amore had already spoken the prologue to Lodovico Dolce’s _Dido_; and a mythological play by Sannazzaro, of which the opening alone is extant, introduces Venus in pursuit of her son, and warning the ladies of the audience against his wiles (Creizenach, ii. p. 209). The prologue to the _Pastor fido_ is put into the mouth of the river-god Alfeo, that of Bonarelli’s _Filli di Sciro_, which begins with another Ovidian reminiscence (_Amores_, I. xiii. 40), and was written by Marino, is spoken by a personification of night, that of Ongaro’s _Alceo_ by Venus, of Castelletti’s _Amarilli_ by ‘Apollo in habito pastorale,’ of Cristoforo Lauro’s _Frutti d’amore_ by Janus in similar garb, of Cesana’s _Prova amoroso_, by Hercules. The list might be extended indefinitely. Contarini, at the beginning of the next century, followed precedent less closely; his _Finta Fiammetta_ has a dramatic prologue introducing Venus, Cupid, Anteros (the avenger of slighted love), and a chorus of _amoretti_; that of his _Fida ninfa_ is spoken by the shade of Petrarch.

[174] Most of the identifications made by Menagio in his edition, Paris, 1650, have generally been accepted since, except by Fontanini, who would identify Pigna with Mopso. There seems, however, to be little doubt possible on the point, though it is not to Tasso’s credit. For an audience conversant with the inner life of the court, the references to Elpino contained whole volumes of contemporary scandal. In Licori we may see Lucrezia Bendidio. This lady, the wife of Count Paolo Machiavelli, and sister-in-law of Guarini, is said to have been the mistress of Cardinal Luigi d’ Este; but Pigna, too, courted her, and brooked no rivalry on the part of fledgling poets. Tasso appears to have paid her imprudent attention in the early days of his residence at Ferrara, and thus incurred the secretary’s wrath. The princess Leonora remonstrated with her poet on his folly, and Tasso, by way of palinode, wrote a fulsome commentary on three of Pigna’s wooden _canzoni_, ranking them with Petrarch’s. Tasso is appareutly allnding to this incident when he puts into Elpino’s mouth the words:

Quivi con Tirsi ragionando andava
Pur di colei che nell’ istessa rete Lui prima e me dappoi ravvolse e strinse; E preponendo alla sua fuga, al suo
Libero stato il mio dolce servigio. (V. i. 61.)

The origin of the name ‘Licori’ may possibly, as Carducci points out (p. 94), be sought in an epigram, _Ad Licorim_, found among Pigna’s Latin _Carmina_ (1553). The whole incident throws a curious light on the pettiness of the Ferrarese Court, a characteristic in which it was, however, not peculiar. (See Rossi, pp. 34, &c.) It is perhaps worth while mentioning that by the _antro dell’ Aurora_ was no doubt intended the room in the castle, said to have formed part of the private apartments of Leonora, still known as the _sala dell’ Aurora_, from a wretched fresco on the ceiling by the local artist Dosso Dossi.

[175] _Aminta_, I. i; _Canace_, IV. ii.

[176] _Lettere del Guarini_, Veneta, Ciotti, 1615, p. 92. See Rossi, 56^{1}

[177] I have already had occasion to point out that, from the time of Boccaccio onwards, a nymph of Diana might represent a nun, but the whole of Silvia’s relations with Dafne make it plain that she is in no way vowed to virginity. Her being represented as a follower of Diana implies no more than that she is fancy-free, and so in a sense under the protection of the virgin goddess. This use of the phrase is as old as Theocritus: ‘Artemis, be not wrathful, thy votary breaks her vow’ (_Idyl_ 27). And it is so used by Silvia herself in her proud and petulant retort to Aminta: ‘Pastor, non mi toccar; son di Diana’ (III. i).

[178] The idea passed from Italian into English verse:

tell me why
This goblin ‘honour,’ by the world enshrined, Should make men atheists, and not women kind–

to improve upon the exceedingly neat bowdlerization which the Rev. J. W. Ebsworth has sought to palm off as the genuine text of Tom Carew.

[179] We have, in the passages quoted, a foretaste of the priggish extravagance of the _Faithful Shepherdess_. That there should have been found critics to combine just but wholly otiose condemnation of Cloe with reverential appreciation of the absurdities of Clorin and Thenot, and to clap applause to the self-conscious virtue, little removed from smugness, in which the ‘moral grandeur’ of the Lady of the Ludlow masque is clothed, is indeed a striking witness to the tyranny of conventional morality. If virginal purity were in fact the hypocritical convention which it is to some extent possible to condone in the _Aminta_, but which becomes wholly loathsome in the work of Fletcher, the sooner it disappeared from the region of practical ethics the better for the moral health of humanity.

[180] Menagio’s edition is said to have appeared in 1650, but I have only seen the edition of 1655, which I also notice is the date given by Weise and Pèrcopo (p. 319). The play is said to have been printed in Italy alone some two hundred times; there are twenty French translations, five German, at least nine English, several in Spanish and other languages. A version in the Slavonic Illyrian dialect appeared in 1598; a Latin one in iambic trimeters by Andrea Hiltebrando, a Pomeranian physician, in 1615; another in modern Greek in 1745. See Carducci, p. 99.

[181] Published, together with Paglia’s reply, by Antonio Bulifon in his _Lettere memorabili_, Naples, 1698, iii. p. 307. The play had already been adversely criticized by Francesco Patrizi and Gian Vincenzo Gravina.

[182] ‘L’Aminta difeso e illustrato da G. Fontanini,’ Roma, 1700. Another edition appeared in 1730 at Venice, with further annotations by Uberto Benvoglienti.

[183] It is, however, perfectly true that the play, together with the writings in its defence and the notes, to be considered later, occupied the attention of the author for a period of fully twenty years, and it is possibly thus that the tradition arose. I may say that throughout this section I am under deep obligations to Rossi’s monograph.

[184] Rossi, p. 183. I shall return to the point.

[185] In later days he was often called Giovanbattista, but the addition is without authority, in spite of its appearance in the British Museum catalogue.

[186] This preliminary history is drawn, as Guarini himself points out in his notes of 1602, from Pausanias (VII. 21), though less closely than he there implies. The rest of the plot he claimed as original, but it is to a large extent merely a rehandling of the same motive.

[187] Carino is said to represent Guarini in the same manner as Tirsi does Tasso.

[188] There is a legend that this scene was placed on the Index. This, anyhow, cannot refer to the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, but only to the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at no time an officiai publication. But the whole story appears to be without foundation.

[189] In comparing the two pieces, it is worth remembering that, whereas the _Aminta_ contains about 2,000 lines, the _Pastor fido_ runs to close upon 7,000.

[190] _Storia della letteratura italiana nel secolo XVI_, Milano, 1880, pp. 244-7. See Rossi, p. 264. His argument is that it anticipated a revolt against the conventional nature of domestic love, reflecting better than any other dramatic work the ideas that towards the end of the _cinquecento_ were, according to him, leading in the direction of a moral regeneration of Italian Society. It is, however, difficult to reconcile his theory with what we know of Italy in the days of the counter-reformation; while it may at the same time be doubted whether a tone of anaemic sentimentality is, in itself, preferable to one of cynical convention. It should be added that there is little regeneration of domestic love to be found in the partly pathetic and partly sordid tragedy of Guarini’s own family.

[191] The quotations are from the opening scene of either play. The parallel is that selected by Symonds for quotation, and is among the most striking examples of Guarini’s method, but similar instances might be collected from almost every scene.

[192] G. B. Manso, _Vita di T. Tasso_, Venezia, Denchino, 1621, p. 329. Carducci, p. 99.

[193] ‘Il Pastor Fido Tragicomedia Pastorale di Battista Guarini, Dedicata al Ser’mo. D. Carlo Emanuele Duca di Sauoia, &c. Nelle Reali Nozze di S. A. con la Ser’ma. Infante D. Caterina d’Austria.’ The tradition of a performance on this occasion dates from early in the seventeenth century, and is endorsed by the poet’s nephew and biographer, Alessandro Guarini. It is in part due to a confusion of words: the play was _presentato_, but not _rappresentato_.

[194] Guarini, _Lettere_, Venetia, Ciotti, 1615, p. 174. Rossi, 228^{7}.

[195] At least one of these, a worthless production by a certain Niccolo Averara, is extant. That of 1598 was probably spoken by Hymen. Rossi, pp. 232-3.

[196] It has sometimes been supposed that the Baldini edition, Ferrara, 1590, was the earlier, but Guarini’s letter is conclusive.

[197] Of this edition the British Museum possesses a magnificent copy on large and thick paper, bearing on the title-page the inscription: ‘Al Ser^{mo}. Principe di Vinegia Marin Grimani,’ showing that it was the presentation copy to the Doge at the time of publication. Another copy on large but not on thick paper is in my own possession, and has on the title-page the remains of a similar inscription beginning apparently ‘All Ill^{mo} et R^{mo}…’ I rather suspect it of being the copy presented to the ecclesiastic, whoever he was, who represented the Congregation of the Index at Venice. Innumerable editions followed; I have notes of no less than fifty during the half-century succeeding publication, i.e. 1590-1639.

[198] The authorship of the notes is placed beyond doubt by a letter of Guarini’s, otherwise it might have been doubted whether even he could have been guilty of the fulsome self-laudation they contain. On the controversy see Rossi, pp. 238-43.

[199] Certain modern writers have shown themselves worthy descendants of the criticaster of Vicenza by insisting that the play should properly be called the _Pastorella fida_. Guarini was weak enough to reply to Malacreta’s carpings in his notes, and thereby exposed himself to similar attacks from posterity.

[200] The absurdity lies of course in the commanding merit ascribed to the piece. As Saintsbury has pointed out in his _History of Criticism_, had Aristotle known the romantic drama of the renaissance, the _Poetics_ would have been largely another work.

[201] Summo evidently thought that Pescetti’s defence at least was the work of Guarini himself. There is no evidence that this was so, but Rossi considers it not improbable that Guarini at least directed the labours of his supporters.

[202] It is unnecessary to enter into any further discussion of these plays. The following titles, however, quoted by Stiefel in his review of Rossi, may be mentioned. Scipione Dionisio, _Amore cortese_, 1570 (?) (not the Alessandro Dionisio whose _ecloga_, entitled _Amorosi sospiri_, with intermezzos of a mythological character, was printed in 1599); Niccolò degli Angeli, _Ligurino_, 1574 (so Allacci, _Drammaturgia_, 1755; the only edition in the British Museum is dated 1594; Venus and Silenus are among the characters, and the prologue is spoken by ‘Tempo’); Cesare della Valle, _Filide_, 1579; Giovanni Fratta, _La Nigella_, 1580; Cristoforo Castelletti, _Amarilli_, 1580 (which edition, though given by Allacci, appears to be now unknown, as is also the date of composition; a second edition appeared in 1582; the prologue was spoken by ‘Apollo in habito pastorale,’ and Ongaro contributed a commendatory sonnet); Giovanni Donato Cuchetti, _La Pazzia_, 1581; Pietro Cresci, _Tirena_, 1584; Alessandro Mirari, _Mauriziano_, 1584; Dionisio Rondinelli, _Galizia_, 1583 (his _Pastor vedovo_ was printed in 1599, with a prologue spoken by ‘Primavera,’ and an echo scene).

[203] Preface to the Bodoni edition of the _Aminta_, p. 12.

[204] This episode of the double love of Celia formed the subject of an attack on the play. The author wrote an elaborate defence which was printed at Ancona in 1612. It runs to 221 quarto pages.

[205] I am aware that attempts have been made to find evidence of Italian influence in Lyly, but of this later.

[206] The piece appeared anonymously, but the authorship is attested by Nashe in his preface to Greene’s _Menaphon_, 1589. Some songs from the play also appear over Peele’s signature in _England’s Helicon_, 1600. I have quoted from A. H. Bullen’s edition of Peele’s works, 2 vols. 1888.

[207] Fraunce’s translation in his _Ivychurch_ (_vide post_), and J. Wolfe’s edition, together with the _Pastor fido_, both 1591.

[208] Like Dove. Cf. p. 98.

[209] i.e. coupled impartially with its reward.

[210] Umpire.

[211] Groves.

[212] The entry of the piece to R. Jones, on July 26, 1591, in the Stationers’ Register, coupled with the fact that _England’s Parnassus_ quotes almost entirely from printed works, puts this practically beyond doubt. It is of course possible that a copy may yet be discovered.

[213] Dr. Henry Jackson, than whom no classical scholar has devoted more study to the Elizabethan drama, draws my attention to the fact that a somewhat indelicate passage in the play, obscurely hinted at in Drummond’s notes (ed. Bullen, ii. p. 366), evidently forms the basis of that poet’s own epigram ‘Of Nisa’ (ed. Turnbull, p. 104).

[214] Two other plays of Lyly’s appear at first sight to present pastoral features. There are five ‘shepherds’ among the dramatis personae of _Mydas_, but they appear in one scene only (IV. ii), and merely represent the common people, introduced to comment on the actions of the king. The names, as is usual with Lyly, except in the case of comic characters, are classical. The other play is _Mother Bombie_, which, however, is nothing but a comedy of low life, combining the tradition of the Latin comedy with the native farce, which goes back through _Gammer Gurton_ to the old interludes. It contains a good deal of honest fun and a notable lack of Euphuism.

[215] For many years, indeed, his romance continued to run through ever-fresh editions, that of 1636 being the twelfth. It is clear, however, that its public had changed.

[216] It is a curious fact that the authorship of these songs, though it has never been seriously questioned, rests on very uncertain evidence. I may refer to an article on the subject in the _Modern Language Review_ for October, 1905, i. p. 43.

[217] A play entitled ‘Iphis and Ianthe, or A marriage without a man,’ was entered on the Stationers’ Register on June 29, 1660, as the work of Shakespeare.

[218] Lyly may very possibly have known the story of Hesione cited by R. W. Bond (ii. 421), but it presents no particular points of similarity, and the outline of the legend was of course common property. A similar sacrifice forms an episode in _Orlando furioso_, VIII. 52, &c.; the sacrifice of a youth to an _orribile serpe_ also forms the central incident in Orazio Serono’s _Fida Armilla_, 1610; while the motive of the annual sacrifice occurs of course in the _Pastor fido_.

[219] There can be little doubt as to the identity of the ‘Commoedie of Titirus and Galathea,’ entered on the Stationers’ Register under date April 1, 1585; and now that, thanks to Bond’s researches, it is evident that the reference to _Octogesimus octavus mirabilis annus_ (see III. iii) was no _ex post facto_ prophecy, but borrowed from Richard Harvey’s _Astrological Discourse_ of 1583, there is no reason to suppose a double date.

[220] Bond argues in favour of the extant text being mutilated, and representing a late revival about 1600. I am not prepared, and in the present place certainly not concerned, to dispute his hypothesis; whatever the cause, the literary result is unsatisfactory, and from his remarks concerning its dramatic merits I must emphatically dissent.

[221] Bond’s emendation, undoubtedly correct, for _nip_ of the quarto.

[222] This story, strangely characterized as ‘extremely attractive’ by Bond, is elaborated from that given by Ovid in the eighth book of the _Metamorphoses_. I have elsewhere alluded to the theory of Italian pastoral influence in Lyly. I had in mind L. L. Schiicking’s monograph on _Die stofflichen Beziehungen der englischen Komodie zur italienischen bis Lilly_, Halle, 1901, but must here state that to my mind he has completely failed to prove his thesis. I need not enter into details in this place, but may refer to Bond’s discussion in his ‘Note on Italian influence in Lyly’s plays’ (ii. p. 473). There is, however, one passage in _Love’s Metamorphosis_ (not mentioned by Schucking) which suggests a reminiscence of the _Aminta_; Cupid, namely, describes himself (V. i.) as ‘such a god that maketh thunder fall out of Joves hand, by throwing thoughts into his heart.’ Compare the lines in Tasso’s Prologue:

un dio…
Che fa spesso cader di mano a Marte La sanguinosa spada…
E le folgori eterne al sommo Giove.

I give the parallel for what it is worth. So far as I am aware it is the only one which can claim the least plausibility, and alone it is clearly insufficient to prove any borrowing on the part of the English playwright.

[223] Bond adduces some fairly strong reasons for supposing it later than 1590. A. W. Ward was evidently unable to make up his mind upon the question, and treats the play at the head of the list of Lyly’s works, in which it seems to me that he hardly does justice to his critical powers.

[224] A very similar reminiscence of Marlowe’s rhythm: /p And think I wear a rich imperial crowne, p/ occurs in the old play of _King Leir_, which must belong to about the same date, _c._ 1592.

[225] It is possible, though of course by no means necessary, that we have a specifie reminiscence of the lines in _Faustus_:

More lovely than the monarch of the sky In wanton Arethusa’s azur’d arms. (Sc. xv.)

[226] I have of course not concerned myself with those mythological plays which offer no pastoral features. Nor is it possible to go into the question of the Latin plays performed at the Universities. I may, however, mention the _Atalanta_ of Philip Parsons, a short piece preserved in the British Museum, MS. Harl. 6924, and dedicated to no less a person than Laud, when President of St. John’s, Oxford, a position he held from 1611 to 1615. The play is founded upon the Boeotian legend of Atalanta, though the laying of the scene in Arcadia would appear to indicate a confusion with the other version. Pastoral characters and scenes are introduced.

[227] See the epistle dedicatory to the Countess of Pembroke, prefixed to the _Ivychurch_, in which the translation appeared, 1591.

[228] The choruses to Acts III and IV are omitted, which proves that Fraunce worked, as we should expect, from some edition previous to the Aldine quarto of 1590. There are also certain unimportant alterations in the translation from Watson. For a more detailed examination of Fraunce’s relation to his Italian original, see an article by E. Koeppel on ‘Die englischen Tasso-Übersetzungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,’ in _Anglia_, vol. xi (1889), p. 11.

[229] ‘Phillis, alas, tho’ thou live, another by this will be dying’ would be a more elegant as well as more correct rendering of ‘Oimè! tu vivi; Altri non già‘: it would, however, not scan according to Fraunce’s rules.

[230] Numerous French translations were, moreover, available for such as happened to be more familiar with that language.

[231] Though not a point of much importance, I may as well take the opportunity of endeavouring to clear up the singular confusion which has surrounded the authorship. The ascription to John Reynolds rests ultimately upon the authority of Edward Phillips, in whose _Theatrum Poetarum_, 1675, we find _s.v._ Torquato Tasso the note (pt. ii, p. 186): ‘Amintas, a Pastoral, elegantly translated into English by John Reynolds.’ Who this John was is open to question. The _Dic. Nat. Biog._ recognizes three John Reynolds in the first half of the seventeenth century: (1) John Reynolds, or Reinolds (1584-1614), epigrammatist, fellow of New College, Oxford; (2) John Reynolds, of Exeter, (_fl._ 1621-50), author of _God’s Revenge against Murder_, and of translations from French and Dutch; and (3) Sir John Reynolds, colonel in the Parliamentary army. The British Museum Catalogue, on the other hand, distinguishes between John Reynolds, of Exeter, author of _God’s Revenge_ and other works, and John Reynolds the translator (to whom the _Aminta_ is tentatively ascribed). I am not aware of any authority for this distinction, though there is nothing in the composition of _God’s Revenge_ to make one suppose the author capable of producing the translation of the _Aminta_. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the incidental verse in some of his other works, notably in the _Flower of Fidelity_, a romance published in 1650, is distinctly on a more respectable level than his prose. The ascription, however, to John Reynolds has not very much to support it. Phillips’ authority is second-rate at best, and is not likely to be at its best in the present case. It is indeed surprising that he should have been acquainted with this early translation rather than with that by John Dancer, which appeared in 1660, and must have been far more generally known at the end of the seventeenth century. The first to identify the translator with Henry Reynolds was, so far as I am aware, Mary A. Scott, in her valuable series of papers on ‘Elizabethan Translations from the Italian,’ in the Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (vol. xi. p. 112); and the same view was taken independently by the writer of a notice in the _Dic. Nat. Biog._ This ascription is based upon the entry in the Stationers’ Register, which runs: ‘7º Novembris 1627. William Lee. Entred for his Copye under the handes of Sir Henry Herbert and both the wardens A booke called Torquato Tassos Aminta Englished by Henry Reynoldes … vj^{d}’ (Arber, iv. p. 188). Several songs of his are extant, and an epistle of Drayton’s is dedicated to him. This appears to me the more reasonable ascription of the two. The writer in the _Dic. Nat. Biog._ further claims that the identity of the translator with Henry Reynolds is proved by internal evidence of style. I may add that Serassi, in his remarks prefixed to the Bodoni edition of the _Aminta_ (Parma, 1789), ascribed the present translation to Oldmixon through a confusion of the dates 1628 and 1698.

[232] Streams or inlets.

[233] The unfortunate cacophony of the opening is the retribution on the translator for not having the courage to begin with a hypermetrical line.

[234] Later translations of the _Aminta_ may be mentioned: John Oldmixon, 1698; P. B. Du Bois, in prose, with Italian, 1726; William Ayre [1737]; Percival Stockdale, 1770; and, lastly, the very graceful rendering by Leigh Hunt, 1820. As lately as 1900 a gentleman who need not be named had the impertinence to publish, in an American series, a mediocre version of the _Aminta_ as being ‘Now first rendered into English.’ I may mention that some confusion has been introduced into the question of the date of Du Bois’ translation by the wholly unwarranted opinion on the part of the B. M. catalogue that the second (undated) edition appeared _c._ 1650. I have compared the two editions at the Bodleian, and have no doubt that the second belongs to _c._ 1730.

[235] The facts are as follow. The entry on the Stationers’ Register is dated September 16, 1601, and does not mention the translator’s name. The first edition, quarto, 1602, contains a sonnet by Daniel, addressed to Sir Edward Dymocke, in which he refers to the translator as the knight’s ‘kinde Countryman.’ This is followed by ‘A Sonnet of the Translator, dedicated to that honourable Knight his kinsman, Syr Edward Dymock.’ After this comes an epistle dedicatory addressed to Sir Edward, and signed by Simon Waterson, the publisher, dated ‘London this last of December. 1601.’ In it the writer speaks of Sir Edward’s ‘nearenesse of kinne to the deceased Translator.’ The play was reprinted in 1633, in 12mo, with an epistle dedicatory by John Waterson to ‘Charles Dymock, Esquire,’ beginning: ‘That it may appeare unto the world, that you are Heire of what ever else was your Fathers, as well as of his vertues, I heere restore what formerly his gracious acceptance made onely his: Which as a testimonie to all, that it received Life from none but him, was content to loose its being with us, since he ceased to bee.’ Through the hyperbolical ambiguity of this passage it clearly appears that Charles was Sir Edward’s son, but not in the least that he was the translator as has been supposed, still less that he was the son of the translator, as has also been suggested. The play is first mentioned in the second edition (1782) of the _Biographia Dramatica_, where the translator is said to be a ‘Mr. Dymock,’ and Charles is identified as his son. This was copied in the 1812 edition, and also by Halliwell, while Mr. Hazlitt has the astonishing statement that the version was by ‘Charles Dymock and a second person unknown.’ The _Dic. Nat. Biog._ does not recognize any of the persons concerned. There is, however, one curious piece of evidence which has been so far overlooked. In the list of plays, namely, appended by the publisher Edward Archer to his edition of the _Old Law_ in 1656, occurs the entry: ‘Faithfull Shepheardesse. C[omedy]. John Dymmocke.’ The compiler has of course confused the translation with Fletcher’s play, but the ascription is nevertheless interesting. If we insist on identifying the translator at all, it must be with this John Dymocke. The entries in Archer’s list, however, are far too untrustworthy for their unsupported evidence to carry much weight. A translation ‘by D. D. Gent. 12mo. 1633,’ recorded by Halliwell and others, is evidently due to a series of blunders on the part of bibliographers, though what the origin of the initials is I have been unable to discover. They are probably due to Coxeter.

[236] MS. Addit. 29,493.

[237] I understand that an edition of Fanshawe’s works is in preparation for Mr. Bullen.

[238] Later translations of the _Pastor fido_ appeared in 1782 [by William Grove], and in 1809 [by William Clapperton?].

[239] MS. Ff. ii. 9.

[240] The allusion, which has hitherto escaped notice, will be found quoted below, p. 252 note.

[241] In this note the _Pastor fido_ is said to have been ‘Translated by some Author before this,’ but the context makes it evident that ‘some’ is a misprint for ‘the same.’

[242] It might be objected that J. S. is called ‘Gent,’ while Sidnam is termed esquire; but it should be remarked that in the MS. the ‘Esq;’ has been added in a later hand.

[243] MS. Sloane 836, folio 76^{v}.

[244] MS. Sloane 857, folio 195^{v}.

[245] MS. Addit. 12,128. Another MS. in the Bodleian.

[246] No doubt the Samuel Brooke who became Master in 1629. He was the brother of the Christopher Brooke who appears in Wither’s eclogues under the pastoral name of Cuddie. Cf. p. 116.

[247] There is something wrong with this date. The princes were at Cambridge 2-4 March, 1612-13. (See Nichols’ _James I_, iii. (iv.) p. 1086-7. The date ‘March 6’ in ii. p. 607 is an error.) Probably ‘Martij 30º,’ which appears in the University Library MS., as well as in several MSS. at Trinity, is a slip of the transcriber for ‘Martij 3º,’ which would set both day and year right. Nichols, indeed, gives the date as ‘Martii 3º,’ but he refers to the Emmanuel MS., which, like the others, reads ’30.’

[248] MS. Ee. 5. 16.

[249] An anonymous writer in B. M. MS. Harl. 7044, quoted by Nichols (_James I_, i. p. 553), has the following description: ‘_Veneris_, 30º _Augusti_ [1605]. There was an English play acted in the same place before the Queen and young Prince, with all the Ladies and Gallants attending the Court. It was penned by Mr. Daniel, and drawn out of Fidus Pastor, which was sometimes acted by King’s College men in Cambridge. I was not there present, but by report it was well acted and greatly applauded. It was named “Arcadia Reformed.”‘ This has led Fleay into a strange error. ‘_The Queen’s Arcadia_’ he says _(Biog. Chron._ i. p. 110), ‘although it is not known to have been acted till 1605, Aug. 30, had been prepared earlier (and perhaps acted at Herbert’s marriage, 1604, Dec. 27), for it is called “_Arcadia, reformed_.”‘ Of course the allusion is to the reformation of Arcadia, not the revision of the play. The play was printed the following year.

[250] For further details concerning the occasion of this piece, as also for information on the state of the text, I may refer to an article of mine in the _Modern Language Quarterly_ for August, 1903, vi. p. 59. The first edition appeared in 1615.

[251] Grosart’s edition, printed, not always very correctly, from the collected works of 1623, offers too unsatisfactory a text for quotation. I have therefore quoted from the edition of 1623 itself, corrected, where necessary, by the separate editions, and, in the case of _Hymen’s Triumph_, by Drummond’s MS.

[252] Dramatic prologues occur in some of the later Italian pastorals (see p. 185, note). That to _Hymen’s Triumph_ recalls the dialogue between Comedy and Envy prefixed to _Mucedorus_.

[253] Alexis is one of those characters whose appearance, while not essential to the plot, lends life to the romantic drama, and whose conspicuous absence in the neo-classic type is ill compensated by the prodigal introduction of superfluous confidants.

[254] It is just possible that Daniel took a hint for this episode from Dickenson’s romance, _Arisbas_ (1594), meutioned above, p. 147.

[255] The similarity between Silvia and Shakespeare’s Viola and Beaumont’s Euphrasia-Bellario is too obvious to need comment. It may, however, be remarked that in Noci’s _Cintia_ (1594) the heroine returns home disguised as a boy, to find her lover courting another nymph. See p. 212.

[256] This narrative has been much admired, notably by Lamb and Coleridge, critics from whom it is not good to differ; but I must nevertheless confess that, to my taste, Daniel’s sentiment, here as elsewhere, is inclined to verge upon the fulsome and the ludicrous.

[257] It is evident that this pompous inflation of style damaged the piece upon the stage, for on Feb. 10, 1613-4, John Chamberlain, writing to Sir Dudley Carleton, described the performance as ‘solemn and dull.’

[258] The corresponding passage in the _Aminta_ (I. ii.) is marred by a series of rather artificial conceits.

[259] Architecture or building. A very rare use not recognized by the New English Dictionary, though it is also found in Browne’s _Britannia’s Pastorals_ (I. iv. 405):

To find an house ybuilt for holy deed, With goodly architect, and cloisters wide.

[260] Guarini had already called dreams (_Pastor fido_, I. iv):

Immagini del dì, guaste e corrotte
Dall’ ombre della notte.

[261] Saintsbury, in his _Elizabethan Literature_, insists, not unnaturally, on Daniel’s lack of strength. Upon this Grosart commented in his edition (iv. p. xliv.): ‘This seems to me exceptionally uncritical…. One special quality of Samuel Daniel is the inevitableness with which he rises when any “strong” appeal is made to … his imagination.’ The partiality of an editor could surely go no further.

[262] The prodigality of _Oh’s_ and _Ah’s_ is an obvious characteristic of his verse, which may possibly have been in Jonson’s mind when, in the prologue to the _Sad Shepherd_, he wrote:

But that no stile for Pastorall should goe Current, but what is stamp’d with _Ah_, and _O_; Who judgeth so, may singularly erre.

[263] This could hardly be maintained as literally true were we to include the Latin plays of the Universities. Of these, however, I propose to take merely incidental notice. In no case do they appear to be of considerable importance, and they are, as a rule, only preserved in MSS. which are often difficult of access. I may here mention one which reached the distinction of print, and is of a more regularly Italian structure than most. The title-page reads: ‘Melanthe Fabula pastoralis acta cum Iacobus Magnae Brit. Franc. & Hiberniæ Rex, Cantabrigiam suam nuper inviseret, ibidemq; Musarum, atque eius animi gratiâ dies quinque Commoraretur. Egerunt alumni Coll. San. et Individuae Trinitatis. Cantabrigiae. Excudebat Cantrellus Legge. Mart. 27. 1615.’ The play was acted, according to the invaluable John Chamberlain, on March 10, 1614-5, and appears to have made a very favourable impression. It belongs to the series of entertainments which included the representation of _Albumazar_, and was to have included that of Phineas Fletcher’s _Sicelides_, had the king remained another night. The author of _Melanthe_ is said to have been ‘Mr. Brookes,’ probably the Dr. Samuel Brooke who had produced the already-mentioned translation of Bonarelli’s _Filli di Sciro_ two years before. See Nichols’ _Progresses of James I_, iii. p. 55.

[264] Fleay considers the _Faithful Shepherdess_ a joint production of Beaumont and Fletcher. The only external evidence in favour of this theory is a remark of Jonson’s reported by Drummond: ‘Flesher and Beaumont, ten yeers since, hath [_sic_] written the Faithfull Shipheardesse, a Tragicomedie, well done.’ Considering that the same authority makes Jonson ascribe the _Inner Temple Masque_ to Fletcher, his statement as to the _Faithful Shepherdess_ cannot be allowed much weight, while I hardly think that the fact of Beaumont having prefixed commendatory verses to Fletcher in the original edition can be set aside as lightly as Fleay appears to think. He relies chiefly upon internal evidence, but in his _Biographical Chronicle_, at any rate, does not venture upon a detailed division. For myself, I can only discover one hand in the play, and that hand Fletcher’s. Fleay places the date of representation before July, 1608, on account of an outbreak of the plague lasting from then to Nov. 1609, but A. H. Thorndike (_The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere_, Worcester, Mass., 1901, p. 14) has shown good reason for believing that dramatic performances were much less interfered with by the plague than Fleay imagined.

[265] Most of these, it may be remarked, as well as the character of Thenot and the unconventional rôle of the satyr, find parallels in the earlier stages of the Italian pastoral. The transformation-well recalls the enchanted lake of the _Sacrifizio_; the introduction of a supernatural agent in the plot reminds us of the same play, as well as of Epicuro’s _Mirzia_; the friendly satyr, of this latter, which may be, in its turn, indebted to the revised version of the _Orfeo_; the character of Thenot is anticipated in the _Sfortunato_. I give the resemblances for what they are worth, which is perhaps not much; it is unlikely that Fletcher should have been acquainted with any of the plays in question, though of course not impossible. The magic taper appears to be a native superstition, a survival of the ordeal by fire.

[266] Certain critics have suggested that the _Pastor fido_ might more appropriately have borne the title of Fletcher’s play. This is absurd, since it would mean giving the title-rôle to the wholly secondary Dorinda. Perhaps they failed to perceive that Mirtillo and not Silvio is the hero. With Fletcher’s play the case stands otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to show whether the title refers to the presiding genius of the piece, Clorin, faithful to the memory of the dead, or to the central character, Amoret, faithful in spite of himself to her beloved Perigot. I incline to believe that it is the latter that is the ‘faithful shepherdess,’ since it might be contended that, in the conventional language of pastoral, Clorin would be more properly described as the ‘constant shepherdess.’ (Cf. II. ii. 130.)

[267] See Homer Smith’s paper on _Pastoral Influence in the English Drama_. His theory concerning the _Faithful Shepherdess_ will be found on p. 407. Whatever plausibility there may be in the general idea, the detailed application there put forward would appear to be a singular instance of misapplied ingenuity in pursuance of a preconceived idea.

[268] ‘Poems’ [1619], p. 433. Compare Boccaccio’s account of pastoral poetry already quoted, p. 18, note.

[269] One fault, which even the beauty of the verse fails to conceal, is the introduction of all sorts of stilted and otiose allusions to sheepcraft, which only serve to render yet more apparent the inherent absurdity of the artificial pastoral. These Tasso and Guarini had had the good taste to avoid, but we have already had occasion to notice them in the case of Bonarelli. Daniel is likewise open to censure on this score.

[270] I quote, of course, from Dyce’s text, but have for convenience added the line numbers from F. W. Moorman’s edition in the ‘Temple Dramatists.’

[271] The officious critic must be forgiven for remarking that the satyr is not, as might be supposed from this speech, suddenly tamed by Clorin’s beauty and virtue, but shows himself throughout as of a naturally gentle disposition. Consequently Clorin’s argument that it is the mysterious power of virginity that has guarded her from attack and subdued his savage nature appears a little fatuous.

[272] Specifically from ‘wanton quick desires’ and ‘lustful heat.’ One is almost tempted to imagine that the author is laughing in his sleeve when we discover of what little avail the solemn ceremony has been.

[273] In 1658 there appeared a Latin translation, under the title of _La Fida pastora,_ by ‘FF. Anglo-Britannus,’ namely, Sir Richard Fanshawe, as appears from an engraved monogram on the title-page.

[274] As Fleay points out, the prologue and epilogue are not suited to court representation.

[275] Randolph’s familiarity with Guarini is evident throughout, and there is at least one distinct reminiscence, namely Thestylis’ humorous expansion of Corisca’s remark about changing her lovers like her clothes:

Other Nymphs
Have their varietie of loves, for every gowne, Nay, every petticote; I have only one,
The poore foole Mopsus! (I. ii.)

[276] A word borrowed by Randolph from the Greek, ὀμφή, a divine voice or prophecy. He may possibly have associated the word with the Delphic ὀμφαλός.

[277] It is possible that Laurinda’s indecision may owe something to the _doppio amore_ of Celia in the _Filli di Sciro_. See especially III. i. of that play.

[278] Homer Smith quotes as Halliwell’s the description of the play as ‘one of the finest specimens of pastoral poetry in our language, partaking of the best properties of Guarini’s and Tasso’s poetry, without being a servile imitation of either.’ He has been misled into supposing that the comments in the _Dictionary of Plays_ are original. The above first appears in the _Biographia Dramatica_ of 1812, and may therefore be ascribed to Stephen Jones. All Halliwell did was to omit the further words, ‘its style is at once simple and elevated, natural and dignified.’ The whole description is of course in the very worst style of critical claptrap. Halliwell reprinted the ‘fairy’ scenes in his _Illustrations of the Fairy Mythology of A Midsummer Night’s Dream_ (Shakespeare Soc., 1845), though how they were supposed to illustrate anything of the kind we are not informed.

[279] 1822, p. 61. This, the only modern edition of Randolph, is one of the worst edited books in the language, and no literary drubbing was ever better deserved than that administered by the _Saturday Review_ on August 21, 1875. As the text is quite useless for purposes of quotation, I have had recourse to the very correct first edition of the _Poems_, 1638, checked by a collation of the numerous subsequent issues.

[280] The sense in the original is defective.

[281] i.e. Tethys, a very common confusion.

[282] The fact that the play was never published as a separate work makes it difficult to estimate its popularity with the reading public. The whole collection was freqnently reprinted, 1638, 1640, 1643, 1652, 1664 and 1668 twice. In 1703 appeared the _Fickle Shepherdess_, ‘As it is Acted in the New Theatre in Lincolns-Inn Fields. By Her Majesties Servants. Play’d all by Women.’ This piece is said in the epistle dedicatory to Lady Gower to be ‘abreviated from an Author famous in his Time.’ It is in fact a prose rendering, much compressed, of the main action of Randolph’s play, the language being for the most part just sufficiently altered to turn good verse into bad prose.

[283] Vide post, p. 382.

[284] For a detailed discussion of the evidence I must refer the reader to the Introduction to my reprint of the play in the _Materialien zur Kunde des älteren Englischen Dramas_ (vol. xi, 1905). The following summary may be quoted. ‘(i) There is no ground for supposing that there ever existed more of the _Sad Shepherd_ than we at present possess. (ii) The theory of the substantial identity of the _Sad Shepherd_ and the _May Lord_ must be rejected, there being no reason to suppose that the latter was dramatic at all. (iii) The two works may, however, have been to some extent connected in subject, and fragments of the one may survive embedded in the other. (iv) The _May Lord_ was most probably written in the autumn of 1613. (v) The date of the _Sad Shepherd_ cannot be fixed with certainty; but there is no definite evidence to oppose to the first line of the prologue and the allusion in Falkland’s elegy [in _Jonsonus Virbius_], which agree in placing it in the few years preceding Jonson’s death.’

[285] The play has no doubt been somewhat lost in the big collected editions of the author’s works, and has also suffered from its fragmentary state. Previous to my own reprint it had only once been issued as a separate publication, namely, by F. G. Waldrou, whose edition, with continuation, appeared in 1783. One of the best passages, however (II. viii), was given in Lamb’s _Specimens_. In quoting from the play I have preferred to follow the original of 1640, as in my own reprint, merely correcting certain obvions errors, rather than Gifford’s edition, in which wholly unwarrantable liberties are taken with the text.

[286] Waldron, in his continuation, matches her with Clarion.

[287] It involves, moreover, the critical fallacy of supposing that poetry is a sort of richly embroidered garment wherewith to clothe the nakedness of the underlying substance. This may be so in certain cases in which the poet is made and not born, or in which he forces himself to work at an uncongenial theme. But in a genuine work of art the substance cannot so be separated from the form without injury to both. The poetry in this case is not an external adornment, but a necessary part of the structure, without which it would be something else than what it is. Verse, when in organic relation with the subject, modifies the character of that subject itself, and the subject can only be rightly apprehended through the medium of the verse. I contend that the _Sad Shepherd_ is a case in point, and Mr. Swinburne’s remarks, I conceive, bear out my view. I shall not, therefore, seek to analyse the types represented by the characters–styling poor little Amie a modification of the type of the ‘forward shepherdess’!–nor count the number of lines assigned respectively to the shepherds, to the huntsmen, or to the witch; but shall endeavonr to ascertain the particular object Jonson had in view in adopting a particular presentation of the subject, the means he employed, and the measure of success he achieved.

[288] The distinction which appears to belong peculiarly to the drama is most likely a survival of the influence of the mythological plays, in which the huntress nymphs of Diana frequently appear. We find, however, a tendency to a similar dualism in Mantuan’s upland and lowland swains.

[289] It has recently been argued with much ingenuity that Marian is originally none other than the familiar figure of French _pastourelles_. However this may be, it is a question with which I am not here concerned. It was the English Robin Hood tradition that formed part of Jonson’s rough material. See E. K. Chambers, _The Mediaeval Stage_, i. p. 175.

[290] The author, however, is at fault in his terms of art. If the quarry to which he likens Aeglamour had a dappled hide, it was a fallow and not a red deer. In this case it should have been called a buck, and not a hart. Again, the female should have been a doe: deer is a generic name including both sexes of red, fallow, and roe alike.

[291] A translation of the _Astrée_ appeared as early as 1620, but the French fashion obtained no hold over the popular taste till the later days of the Commonwealth.

[292] I may say that this section was written as it stands before K. Brunhuber’s essay on _Sidneys Arcadia und ihre Nachlaufer_ came into my hands. He gives a superficial account of several printed plays, but was unaware of the existence of those in MS.

[293] The quotations are from the Gifford-Dyce edition of Shirley’s Works (1833), the only collected edition that has appeared. The text stands badly in need of revision, but I have had to content myself with a few obvious corrections. For instance, in the passage quoted above, the editors have followed the quarto in reducing l. 13 to nonsense, by reading ‘no man,’ and l. 20 by reading ‘And the imagination.’

[294] So at least in the printed play. In the original draft, and probably also in the acting version, as Fleay has pointed out, they were king and queen, and of this traces remain. Thus we twice find Gynetia addressed as ‘Queen,’ while elsewhere ‘Duke’ rimes with ‘spring,’ and ‘Duchess’ with ‘spleen.’ The alteration was no doubt made from motives of prudence. Even so the play was, according to Fleay, published surreptitiously, i.e. it does not appear on the Stationers’ Register.

[295] A. H. Bullen’s reprint of Day’s works was privately printed in 1881. Though the text is not in all respects satisfactory, I have thought myself justified in quoting from it as the only edition available.

[296] Not tennis, as Mr. Bullen states (Introd. p. 17), oblivious for the moment of the impossibility of representing a tennis match on the stage, as well as of the fact that the game was never, in Elizabethan times, played by ladies.

[297] There is one printed play, the relation of which to the _Arcadia_ is not very clear. The title, _Mucedorus_, at once suggests some connexion, but it is difficult to follow it out in detail. Mucedorus, ‘the king’s sonne of Valentia,’ leaves his father’s court and goes disguised as a shepherd to win the love of Amadine, ‘the king’s daughter of Arragon.’ He twice rescues the princess, is sentenced to banishment, and reveals his identity just as his father arrives in search of him. The play was originally printed in 1598, but no doubt originated some years earlier, _c._ 1588 according to Fleay. Most of the resemblances with the _Arcadia_, however, are due to scenes which first appeared in 1610, in which edition the king of Valentia first plays a part. Beyond Mucedorus’ disguise there is absolutely nothing pastoral in the play. With the exception of some of the additional scenes, which are undoubtedly by a different hand from the rest, the play is unrelieved rubbish. Probably the original author utilized in the composition of his piece such elements and incidents of the _Arcadia_ as he had gathered orally while the unfinished work still circulated in MS. Later the reviser, being aware of this source, expanded the play from a knowledge of the completed work. It cannot be said to be a dramatization of the romance, though it is undoubtedly in a manner founded upon it.

[298] Egerton MS. 1994. Not _Love’s Changelings Changed_, as usually quoted.

[299] _Old Plays_, ii. p. 432.

[300] Rawl. Poet, 3.

[301] In the Bodleian MS. Ashmole 788 is a Latin epistle by Philip Kynder, a miscellaneous writer and court agent under Charles I, born in 1600 at latest, which was ‘prefixt before my _Silvia_, a Latin comedie or pastorall, translated from the _Archadia_, written at eighteen years of age.’ (See Halliwell’s _Dic. of Plays_.) The ‘Archadia’ might, of course, refer either to Sannazzaro’s or Lope de Vega’s romances, though this is highly improbable.

[302] So much we learn from the title-page itself. The play had very likely been acted at court some years earlier, but the document mentioning such a performance, printed by Cunningham, is of doubtful authenticity, while Fleay contradicts himself upon the subject. The question is, happily, immaterial to our present purpose.

[303] Here, as in the _Isle of Gulls_, the titles of Duke and Duchess have been imperfectly substituted for King and Queen, probably for court performance.

[304] The story in the romance is very different. Erona, after many adventures, marries her lover. Both episodes are related in Book II, chapters xiii and following (ed. 1590). They are epitomized by Dyce, whose edition I have of course used.

[305] Here, again, the catastrophe of the play bears no resemblance to the romance.

[306] See III. v. According to Chetwood (_British Theatre_, 1752, p. 47), the play was revived in 1671, with a prologue attributing it to Shirley. This is, of course, possible, but it requires more than Chetwood’s unsupported authority to render it probable. Fleay suggests that the author is the same as the J. S. of _Phillis of Scyros_, namely, as I have shown, Jonathan Sidnam. This seems to me highly improbable. The play is printed in Hazlitt’s Dodsley, vol. xiv, whence I quote, with necessary corrections.

[307] Bk. I. chaps. v-viii, Bk. III. chap. xii, in the edition of 1590.

[308] Quotations are taken, with corrections, from Pearson’s reprint of Glapthorne’s works (1874).

[309] K. Deighton’s emendation, undoubtedly correct, for ‘Love’ of the original. (_Conjectural Readings_, second series, Calcutta, 1898, p. 136.)

[310] I have been unable to trace this work beyond a reference to Heber’s sale given in Hazlitt’s _Handbook_. The original story will be found in _Albion’s England_, Book IV, chap. xx, of the first Part, published in 1586. As Dr. Ward points out, it is a variant of the old romance of Havelok. Edel, with a view to disinheriting his niece Argentile, heir to Diria (?Deira), of which he is regent, seeks to marry her to a base scullion. This menial, however, is really Curan, prince of Danske, who has sought the court in disguise, in the hope of obtaining the love of the princess, who is mewed up from intercourse with the world. Of this Argentile is ignorant, and when she hears of her uncle’s purpose, she contrives to escape from court and lives disguised as a shepherdess. After her flight Curan also leaves the court and assumes a shepherd’s garb, and meeting Argentile by chance again falls in love with her without knowing who she is. After a while he reveals his identity, and she hers; they are married, and he conquers back her kingdom from the usurping Edel.

[311] So far as I am aware, A. B. Grosart was the first to point this out. (_Spenser_, iii. p. lxx.)

[312] It is printed in Hazlitt’s _Webster_, vol. iv. Fleay, with characteristic assurance, identifies the _Thracian Wonder_ with a lost play of Heywood’s, known only from Henslowe’s Diary, and there called ‘War without blows and love without suit.’ He argues: ‘in i. 2, “You never shall again renew your suit;” but the love is given at the end without any suit; and in iii. 2, “Here was a happy war finished without blows.”‘ The identification, however, will not bear examination. No battle, it is true, is fought at Sicily’s first appearance, but the title, _War without Blows_ could hardly be applied to a play in which the whole of the last act is occupied with fierce fighting between three different nations. So with the second title, _Love without Suit_. Serena indeed grants her love in the end without any reason whatever, but only after her lover has ‘suited’ himself clean out of his five wits. Moreover, it is not certain that this second title should not be _Love without Strife_. Heywood’s play, I have little doubt, was a mere love-comedy (cf. such titles as _The Amorous War_, and similar expressions in the dramatists _passim_). The identification, moreover, would necessitate the date 1598, though this does not prevent Fleay from stating that the piece is founded on William Webster’s poem published in 1617. So early a date seems to me rather improbable. Since William Webster’s poem has nothing to do with the present piece, the suggestion that Kirkman’s attribution of the play to John Webster was due to a confusion of course falls to the ground.

[313] According to S. L. Lee in the _Dic. Nat. Biog._, who follows the _Biographia Dramatica._

[314] It will be found in Mr. Bullen’s admirable collection, _Lyrics from the Dramatists_, 1889, p. 231.

[315] Reprinted in 1882 by A. H. Bullen in the first volume of his _Old English Plays_, and more recently by R. W. Bond in his edition of Lyly. In quoting, I have generally followed the latter, though I have preferred my own arrangement of certain passages. None of the suggestions that have been put forward as to the authorship of the play appear to me to carry much weight. The ascription of the whole to Lyly, first made by Archer in 1656, and repeated by Halliwell as late as 1860, is now utterly discredited. The view, first advanced by Edmund Gosse, that the author was John Day, has been tentatively endorsed by both editors of the piece; but I agree with Professer Gollancz in thinking it unlikely on the ground of style. Fleay assigns the serious (verse) portion of the play to Daniel, and the comic (prose) scenes to Lyly. It seems to me unlikely, however, that Daniel, who was shortly to appear as the chief exponent of the orthodox Italian tradition, should at this date have been concerned in the production of a typical example of the hybrid pastoral of the English stage. Nor do I believe that Lyly was in any way concerned in the piece, though some scenes are evident imitations of his work. This, however, involves the question of the authorship of the lyrics found in Lyly’s plays, and I must refer for a detailed discussion to my article upon the subject already cited (p. 227).

[316] _Metamorphoses_, ix. 667, &c. Ward is moved to characterize the plot as a theme of ‘Ovidian lubricity.’ I question whether any such censure is merited. That the theme is one which would have become intolerably suggestive in the hands of the Sienese Intronati, for instance, may be admitted, but the author has treated the story with complete _naïveté_. The obscene passages referred to later on (p. 345) occur in the comic action, and are in no way connected with the point in question. Ward further informs us that the play is ‘throughout in rime,’ notwithstanding the fact that something approaching a quarter of the whole is in prose.

[317] I must repeat that I see no advantage to be gained from the method adopted by Homer Smith, who tries to extract and separate the strictly pastoral elements from the medley. A play is not a child’s puzzle that can be taken to pieces and labelled, nor even a chemical compound to be analysed into its component parts. What is of interest is to note the various influences which have affected and modified the growth of the literary organism.

[318] Though the author may very likely have known Spenser’s description of the house of Morpheus _(Faery Queen_, I. i. 348, &c.), he certainly drew his own account straight from Ovid (_Metam._ xi. 592, &c.), to which, of course, Spenser was also indebted. I am rather inclined to think the author drew his material from Golding’s translation (xi. 687, &c.). With the second passage quoted, cf. _Faery Queen_, II. xii. 636, &c.

[319] ‘Trip and go’ was a proverbial expression, and is found, with its obvious rime ‘to and fro,’ in several old dance-songs.

[320] The only composition I can recall which at all anticipates the peculiar effect of this lyric is Thestylis’ song in the _Arraignment of Paris_ (III. ii.), to which, in the old edition, is appended the quaint note, ‘The grace of this song is in the Shepherds’ echo to her verse.’

[321] Fleay gives the date 1601, following Halliwell, but Haslewood has 1603.

[322] According to Fleay, it ‘was intended to be presented to James I on 13th Mar. 1614.’ This date must be a slip, since it was not till 1615 that the king was at Cambridge. It is, moreover, correctly given in his _History of the Stage_. The preparations also appear to have been for the eleventh, not the thirteenth. Fleay further mentions a performance at King’s before Charles I, but gives no authority.

[323] An exception must be made of Ward, whose remarks are almost excessively laudatory, though his treatment of the piece is necessarily slight.

[324] The incidents occur, however, in Book II of Browne’s work (Songs 4 and 5), which was not printed till 1616. Either, therefore, Fletcher had seen Browne’s poem in manuscript, or else the play, as originally performed, differed from the printed version. I think it unlikely that the borrowing should have been the other way.

[325] Fleay confuses the two performances, and, by placing Goffe’s death in 1627, is forced to suppose that the ‘praeludium’ was added by another hand. It may be noticed that, if this introduction is by Goffe, Salisbury Court was probably opened in the spring, a point otherwise unsettled.

[326] The resemblance with the _Sad Shepherd_, I. i, is almost too close to be fortuitous. It is, on the other hand, not easily accounted for. The whole passage quoted above is somewhat markedly superior to the general level of the verse in the play, not merely the two or three lines in which a distinct resemblance to Jonson can be traced. Is it possible that both Goffe and Jonson were following, the one slavishly, the other with more imagination, one common original, now unknown? Or can it be that Goffe is here reproducing a passage from an early unpublished work of Jonson’s own, a passage which Jonson later refashioned into the singularly perfect speech of Aeglamour?

[327] Homer Smith, in making these assertions, overlooks historical evidence. It is, however, only fair to Goffe to say that other critics apparently take a very much more favourable view of the merits of the piece than I am able to do.

[328] Hardly in those of the prologue to _Hymen’s Triumph_, as suggested by Homer Smith.

[329] W. C. Hazlitt (_Manual of Plays_, p. 25) records: ‘Bellessa, the Shepherd’s Queen: The scene, Galicia. An unpublished and incomplete drama in prose and verse. Fol.’ In the absence of further evidence I conclude that this is an imperfect MS. of Montagu’s piece.

[330] The designs for the scene, by Inigo Jones, are preserved in the British Museum, MS. Lansd. 1,171, fols. 15-16. Fols. 5-6 of the same MS. contain the ground-plans ‘for a pasterall in the hall at whitthall w’ch was ackted by the ffrench on St Thomas day the 23th of decemb’r 1635,’ which may refer to the same piece.

[331] It may, however, be founded on some French romance.

[332] The play will be found in Hazlitt’s ‘Dodsley,’ vol. xii, whence I quote. Hazlitt suggests that ‘the episode of Sylvia and Thyrsis’ may have had its foundation in certain intrigues traceable in Digby’s memoirs, and Fleay would see in the characters of Stella and Mirtillus a hint of Dorset’s _liaison_ with Lady Venetia. I suppose that it has been thought necessary to find allusions to actual persons, chiefly because the author explicitly denies their existence. Homer Smith describes the play as a pure Arcadian drama. ‘The court element,’ he writes, ‘is so completely overshadowed by the pastoral’ as to justify the classification, in spite, apparently, of the fact that the heroine never appears on the stage in pastoral guise at all, and that in the greater part of the last three acts the scene is laid at court.

[333] See above, p. 246, for Fanshawe’s version of the passage in question.

[334] Were it not for these points of similarity, I should have supposed Gosse to have been misled by the pastoral-sounding title of Randolph’s Plautine comedy into confusing it with the _Amyntas_. The criticism is from an article in the _Cornhill_ for December, 1876. Homer Smith cites it.

[335] The surname rests on Kirkman’s authority, the addition of the Christian name is apparently due to Chetwood, and is therefore to be accepted with caution. I have been unable to trace any one of the name.

[336] II. ii, sig. C 1^v of the old edition.

[337] Halliwell, _Description of MSS. in the Public Library, Plymouth, to which are added Some Fragments of Early Literature hitherto unpublished_. MS. CII is a copy of the original manuscript in the possession of Sir E. Dering. A manuscript of the play was in Quaritch’s Catalogue for November, 1899; I have been unable to trace it.

[338] I may take the opportanity of mentioning in a note one or two Latin plays. In Emmanuel College (to the courtesy of whose librarian, Mr. E. S. Shuckburgh, I am much indebted) is preserved the manuscript of a play entitled _Parthenia_, which was no doubt acted at Cambridge, but concerning which no record apparently survives. The introduction of ‘Pan Arcadiae deus’ and of a character ‘Cacius Latro’ show that the piece was influenced both by the mythological drama and the romance of adventure. The most interesting point about the play is that the chief male characters bear the names of Philissides and Amyntas, which will be recognized as the pastoral titles of Sidney and Watson respectively. Since, however, the handwriting appears to be after 1600, and there is no correspondeuce in the female parts, it is more than doubtful whether any allusion was intended. Another Cambridge piece is the _Silvanus_, a MS. of which is in the Bodleian (Douce 234). It was performed on January 13, 1596, and may possibly have been written by one Anthony Rollinson–the name is erased.

[339] Bullen’s _Peele_, i.p. 363.

[340] The only recorded copy of the original is in the British Museum, but is imperfect, having the title-page in facsimile from some other copy at present unknown. A reprint from another copy, possibly of a different edition, is found in Nichols’ _Progresses of Elisabeth_, from which a modernized reprint was prepared by the Lee Priory Press in 1815. Finally, it appears in Mr. Bond’s edition of Lyly, i. p. 471, whence I quote.

[341] See the excellent edition by W. Bang, _Materialien zur Kunde des alteren englischen Dramas_, vol. iii, 1903.

[342] All necessary apparatns for the study of this literary curiosity will be fonnd in Miss M. L. Lee’s edition, 1893. The original is a MS. in the Bodleian.

[343] See A. H. Thorndike, _Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspeare_, 1901, p. 32. In _Mucedorus_ (I. i. 51) we find mention of a shepherd’s disguise used ‘in Lord Julio’s masque.’ The passage occurs in the additional scenes of 1610, and there are numerous masques of the period that might claim to be that referred to. Fleay conjectures ‘_The Shepherds’ Mask_ of James I.’s time,’ and elsewhere identifies this title, which he gets from Halliwell’s _Dictionary_, with Jonson’s masque, _Pan’s Anniversary, or the Shepherds’ Holiday_. This, however, was produced at earliest in 1623, and can hardly therefore have been alluded to in 1610. Halliwell took his title from the British Museum MS. Addit. 10,444, in which appears the music for a number of ‘masques,’ or dances taken from masques, and in which this particular _Shepherds’ Masque_ (fol. 34^{v}) is dated 1635.

[344] The date here assigned presents obvions difficultes. It would naturally mean that it was performed after March 24, 1625; but as James died after about a fortnight’s serious illness on March 27, this can hardly be accepted. Nichols placed the performance conjecturally in August, 1624, for reasons which I am inclined to regard as satisfactory. Fleay pronounces in favour of June 19, 1623, with a confidence not altogether calculated to inspire the like feeling in others.

[345] _Lives_, Oxford, 1898, i. p. 251.

[346] ‘The Dramatic Works of John Tatham,’ 1879. In Maidment and Logan’s _Dramatists of the Restoration_.

[347] Another parallel may be found in Shirley’s _Maid’s Revenge_, IV. iv, where the wounded Antonio exclaims:

Where art, Berinthia? let me breathe my last Upon thy lip; make haste, lest I die else.

The situation, however, is different. Shirley’s play was licensed in 1626.

[348] In a small quarto volume, classed as Addit. MS. 14,047. The piece has hitherto been ascribed to George Wilde, on the authority of Halliwell. There appears to be no reason for this ascription, beyond the fact that the same volume also contains two pieces by Wilde. His name, however, does not occur in connexion with the present play, and the volume, which is in a variety of hands, certainly includes work not by him. Wilde was scholar and fellow of St. John’s, chaplain to Laud, and Bishop of Londonderry after the restoration. His plays consist of the two comedies in this volume, viz. the Latin _Euphormus, sive Cupido Adultus_, acted on Feb. 5, 1634/5, and the _Hospital of Lovers_, acted before the king and queen on Aug. 29, 1636, both at St. John’s. He is also said to have written another Latin play, called _Hermophus_, though nothing is known of it beyond the record of its being acted. It was most probably the same as _Euphormus_, the titles being anagrams of each other.

[349] The _Dic. Nat. Biog_. gives the date as 1635.

[350] The stage directions for these entries are interesting: (l) ‘Enter An Antique [i.e. antimasque] of Sheapheards’; (2) ‘enter the Masque’; (3) ‘the masque enters and dances, and after wardes exit.’ The terms ‘masque’ and ‘antimasque’ appear to have been used technically for the dances of the masque proper, and of its burlesque counterpart. In this sense the words occur repeatedly in the British Museum Addit. MS. 10,444, which contains the music only. In the present case the masquers appear to have been distinct from the characters of the play.

[351] R. Brotanek, _Die englischen Maskenspiele_, 1902, p. 201. See also the edition by R. Brotanek and W. Bang, _Materialien zur Kunde des älteren Englischen Dramas,_ vol. ii, 1903; and further in the _Modern Language Quarterly_ for April, 1904, vii. p. 17.

[352] The first issue was printed ‘for the use of the Author,’ without date, but was received by Thomason on Sept. 1, 1656, which would appear to dispose of the fiction that Cox died in 1648.

[353] This letter was prefixed to the masque in the collected edition of the Poems (1645), but was written to the author without view to publication.

[354] Fifty-eight lines in decasyllabic couplets–not eighty-three lines of blank verse, as for some inexplicable reason Masson asserts (i. p. 150).

[355] Specific references will be found scattered through Masson’s notes. To supplement his work I may refer to some interesting remarks on _Comus_ as a masque, and a useful comparison with Peele’s play, by M. W. Samson, of Indiana University, in the introduction to his edition of Milton’s Minor Poems, New York, 1901. Here, as elsewhere in the case of Milton’s Works, I follow H. C. Beeching’s admirable text, Oxford, 1900.

[356] Not wishing to pursue this point further, I may be allowed to refer to certain candid and judicious remaries in Saintsbury’s _Elizabethan Literature_, p. 387.

[357] I am perfectly aware of, and in writing the above have made every allowance for, three considerations which may be urged in explanation of the passages in question. In the first place, it must be remembered that the age was an outspoken one, and used to giving free expression to thoughts and feelings which we are in the habit of passing over in silence. Secondly, the age was unquestionably one of considerable licence, which must be held to have warranted somewhat direct speaking on the part of those who held to a stricter code of morals; and, moreover, it must be conceded that the Puritan failing of self-righteous protestation was as a rule combined with very genuine practice of the professed virtues. Thirdly, there is the fact that the age of thirteen was at that time, by common consent, regarded as already mature womanhood. On one and all of these heads a good deal might be written, but it would only extend yet further a discussion which has already, it may be, exceeded reasonable limits.

[358] I ought, perhaps, to apologize for thus alluding to these poems as subsequent to _Comus_, seeing that criticism usually places them some years earlier. There is, however, no external evidence of any kind, and to me the internal evidence of style points strongly to a later date. Possibly, since they are not fonnd in the Trinity MS., they were composed during Milton’s travels, which would place them after _Lycidas_ even, somewhere about 1638 or 1639. One of the ablest of our living critics, himself a close and original student of Milton, writes in a private letter: ‘I long ago heard a good critic say that _Comus_ seemed to him prentice work beside _L’Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_; and these do seem to me, I must confess, the maturer poems.’ The point was raised by F. Byse in the _Modern Language Quarterly_ for July, 1900, iii. p. 16.

[359] Conversations, IV and III, Shakespeare Society, 1842, pp. 4 and 2.

[360] Those who wish to pursue the subject further will find the necessary references in Sommer’s _Erster Versuch über die Englische Hirtendichtung_, and a full discussion in an elaborate ‘Inquiry into the propriety of the rules prescribed for Pastoral Poetry,’ prefixed to the edition of Ramsay’s _Gentle Shepherd_, published at Edinburgh in 1808. Some judicious remarks will also be found in the Introduction to Chambers’ _English Pastorals_, pp. xliv, &c.

[361] This limitation, it may be observed, does not necessarily apply to all literary forms. It may, I think, reasonably be maintained that the form of the drama, for instance, is essentially conditioned by the psychological relation of author to audience, through the medium of actual representation, and that this relation is equivalent to, or at least capable of forming the basis of, a theory of drama. I am aware that such an abstract view as this finds little favour with the majority of modern critics, but while myself doubtful as to its practical value, I do not see that it involves any critical absurdity.

[362] This impulse can certainly be traced in some of the eclogues, and still more markedly in the purely lyrical verse of a pastoral sort. But the cross influences are too complex to be recapitulated here.

[363] The influence of the Latin eclogue of the renaissance was undoubtedly also direct, but though widespread it was hardly vital, and its importance, as compared with that of the vernacular tradition, may be not inadequately measured by the relative importance of the chief exponents of either, Googe and Spenser.

[364] Especially the allusions to religions controversy. The romance was, of course, highly topical in Spain, but, waiving the rather debatable point of Sidney’s allusive intentions, it never appears to have been generally so regarded in this country.

[365] Possibly I ought to add a fourth, the masques at court; but their influence in large measure duplicated that of the Italian drama, and cannot be distinguished from it.

[366] See Rossi, p. 175, note 1.

[367] Ferrara, Caraffo, 1588, p. 50. Rossi, 175^{1}. Carducci, 59.

[368] _Discorso_, Padova, Meieto, 1587; Rossi, 175^{1}.

[369] _Apologia contro l’autor del Verato_, Padova, Meietti, 1590.

[370] _Il Verato secondo_, Firenze, Giunti, 1593, pp. 206-7; Carducci, 59-60.

[371] I make no pretence at having myself examined all the texts mentioned in the following discussion. Many, indeed, are only to be found in out-of-the-way provincial libraries in Italy, and have, I believe, never been examined by any one but Carducci himself. The references in my notes equally testify my indebtedness to Rossi’s monograph; indeed, my whole treatment of the subject is based on his work.

[372] I shall endeavour to note the various verse-forms employed, as the evidence is often of use in determining the question of development. It may, however, be very easily misleading if unduly pressed, as by Carducci. In general, the _terza rima_ may be taken as pointing to the influence of Sannazzaro’s _Arcadia; ottava rima_, courtly or rustic, to that of Poliziano’s _Orfeo_ and _Giostra_ and Lorenzo de’ Medici’s _Nencia_ respectively; the _endecasillabi sciolti_, or blank verse, to that of the regular drama. Of the free measures, _endecasillabi e settinarî_, of the later plays I shall have to speak more in detail hereafter.

[373] Edited from MS. by Felice Bariola, with other poems of Taccone’s, Firenze, 1884, p. 14. Rossi, 166^{2}; Carducci, 28^{1}.

[374] Printed in the ‘Opere dello elegante poeta Seraphino Aquilano,’ Venetia, Bindoni, 1516, sig. D5. Rossi, 167^{1}. For the date, Carducci, 29^{2}.

[375] Of these authors little or nothing appears to be known. Both pieces have come down to us in MS.; see Adolfo Bartoli, _Mss. italiani della Nazionale di Firenze_, Firenze, 1884, ii. pp. 138 and 163. Concerning the first, see further, _Poesie inedite di G. Del Carretto_, by A. G. Spinelli, Savona, pp. 10-15; concerning the second, R. Renier, in the _Giornale storico della letteratura italiana_, 1885, v. p. 236, note 1. Rossi, 167^{2},^{3}; Carducci, 30^{2}, 28^{3}.

[376] _Opere_, 1516, as cited, sig. E. Rossi, 167^{4}.

[377] In _Rime_, ed. P. Fanfani, 1876-8, ii. p. 225. Rossi, 168^{1}.

[378] Rossi, 169^{2}. Carducci, 26^{3}.

[379] See B. Croce, ‘Napoli dal 1508 al 1512 (da un antico romanzo spagnuolo),’ in _Archivio storico per le provincie napolitane_, anno xix, fasc. i, pp. 141 and 157. Carducci, 29^{1}.

[380] _Opera nova_, Venetia, Rusconi, 1508. In the old edition the pieces are merely termed ‘commedie,’ the designation ‘pastorali’ being due to the ‘Arcadian,’ G. M. Crescimbeni, whose _Istoria delia volgar poesia_ originally appeared in 1698. Carducci, 41^{1}.

[381] See Carducci, p. 35. Stiefel, being only aware of the edition of 1543, hoped to find in the piece a link between Casalio and Beccari. Among several female characters introduced is one ‘la quale volentieri starebbe in mezzo di due amanti o mariti: il che,’ pursues Carducci, ‘è del tutto opposto all’ idealità delia favola pastorale.’ One would have thought that certain traits in the characters of Dafne and Corisca would have occurred to him. Bitter satire on women was indeed one of the most permanent features of pastoral comedy, as it had been of the Latin eclogue.

[382] See D’Ancona, ‘II teatro mantovano nel secolo _XVI_,’ in the _Giornale storico_, v. p. 19. Rossi, 170^{1}.

[383] See G. Campori, _Notizie sulla vita di L. Ariosto_, Modena, 1871, p. 68. Rossi, 172^{1}. No mention of these is made by Carducci, his thesis being that the _ecloga rappresentativa_ did not obtain at Ferrara, the home _par excellence_ of the Arcadian drama. Thus, on p. 54 he writes: ‘Delie parecchie ecloghe pastorali e rusticali passate in rassegna fin qui non una ce n’ è o scritta o rappresentata o stampata in Ferrara, non una d’origine ferrarese. In Ferrara entriamo classicamente e signorilmente con l’_Egle_ [1545].’

[384] Rossi, 173^{1}. Carducci, 37.

[385] See L. Frati, ‘Un’ ecloga msticale del 1508,’ in the _Giornale storico_, xx(1892), p. 186. Carducci, 27^{2}.

[386] See O. Guerrini, _Narrazione di Paolo Palliolo_, Bologna, Romagnoli, 1885, p. 96. Carducci, 31^{1}.

[387] See C. Mazzi, _La congrega dei Rozzi di Siena_, i. p. 139 and ii. p. 100. Carducci, 31^{2}. Also Rossi, 174^{3}; his suggestion of the possible identity of the two last-mentioned pieces has been shown by later research to be inadmissible.

[388] A battle was fought at Tai, near Pieve di Cadore.

[389] The number of such pieces is very large. A list appended to the _Assetta_ in 1756 runs to 109 items. An exhaustive bibliography will be found in Mazzi’s work. See also the useful collection by Giulio Ferrario, forming vol. x of the ‘Teatro antico’ in the ‘Classici italiani,’ Milan, 1812. It is unfortunate that Symonds should have referred to Ferrario’s list as evidence of the fertility of the pastoral drama, even though adding that the list is ‘devoted solely to rural scenes of actual life,’ since he can hardly escape the charge of regarding the rustic compositions as part of the pastoral drama proper–a position to which they certainly have no claim.

[390] Not, of course, to be confused with the _sacra rappresentazione_ so called.

[391] See F. Flamini’s edition of Tansillo’s poems, Napoli, 1893. Rossi, 171^{1}; Carducci, 39^{2}.

[392] Used, for example, by Sannazzaro, in his _Farsa_. See his ‘Opere volgari,’ Padova, 1723, p. 422.

[393] See E. Pèrcopo, ‘M. Ant. Epicuro,’ in the _Giornale storico_, 1888, xii. p. 1. Carducci, 39^{1}. The earliest edition with the later title I have met with is one dated 1533, in my possession. The British Museum has none earlier than 1535.

[394] Siena, Mazochi, 1530. Carducci, 44^{3}.

[395] It continued to be occasionally reprinted till as late as 1612. Carducci, 44.

[396] Venezia, Zoppino, 1538. Carducci, 43^{1}.

[397] It may have been a direct borrowing, for we know that Tasso was acquainted with the plays of Epicuro, whom he imitated in his _Rinaldo_ (V. 25, &c.). The _Mirzia_ is printed in ‘I drammi pastorali di A. Marsi,’ ed. I. Palmerini, Bologna, 1887-8. See also Pèrcopo in the _Giornale_, as cited. Carducci, 62. The authorship is a little doubtful. Creizenach, ii. 365^{1}.

[398] Firenze, 1545. Carducci, 46^{1}.

[399] _Rime_, Venezia, Giolito, 1546. Carducci, 51^{1}.

[400] Vinegia, Bertacagno, 1553. Carducci, 53^{1}.

[401] _Egle_, s.l. et a. Rossi, 176^{1}; Carducci, 54.

[402] This strong feeling concerning the incestuous nature of connexion between cousins, however strange to us, appears to have been very real in Italy in the sixteenth century. _Sorella germana_, a common term for a female cousin, is in itself sufficient evidence of the feeling. Readers of the _novelle_ will remember the discussion on the subject by Pietro Fortini in his _Novelle de’ Novizi_, xxxi. The explanation of the phenomenon is no doubt to be sought in the peculiar conventions of Italian society.

[403] Speaking of the _Favola_, Carducci says: ‘lo stile è quel nobile del Giraldi.’ This is a point on which the opinion of a foreigner can never carry very much weight; but with all deference to Signer Carducci’s judgement, I cannot help expressing my opinion that the verse is characterized by awkward verbal repetitions and a certain stiffness of expression, which impart to it a quality of heaviness similar to that found in the prose of the _Ecatommiti_. It seems to be the result of a conscious endeavour on the part of the Ferrarese to write pure Tuscan, and the reader is constantly reminded of the memorable words in the preface to the _Cortegiano_, in which Castiglione announces his intention ‘di farmi più tosto conoscere per Lombardo, parlando Lombardo, che per non Toscano, parlando troppo Toscano.’

[404] Ferrara, De Rossi, 1555. Rossi, 176^{1}; Carducci, 57. The piece must not, of course, be confused either with the _Sacrifizio pastorale_, paraphrased by Firenzuola from the _Arcadia_, or with the masque called _El Sacrifizio_, performed by the Intronati at Siena in 1531, and printed in 1537.

[405] The remark is Rossi’s, and, though strongly controverted by Carducci, appears to me absolutely true.

[406] ‘Comedia pastorale di nuovo composta per mess. Barth. Brayda di Summariva,’ Torino, Coloni da Saluzzo, 1556. Carducci, 64^{2}. The date is given as 1550 in the note, and correctly, I take it, as 1556 in the text.

[407] Vinezia, Zopini, 1583, B. M. The preface is dated Sept, 1, 1580. Carducci (71^{1}) speaks of the edition of 1586 as the first.

[408] Ferrara, Panizza, 1564. Carducci, 69^{1}.

[409] Edited by A. Solerti in the _Propugnatore_, 1891, new series, iv. p. 199. Carducci, 70^{1}.

[410] Venezia, Giolito, 1568. Carducci, 71^{2}; Klein, v. p. 61.