APPENDIX

Some Alleged Irregularities in the Versification of Friar Bacon

If we take the first quarto ofFriar Baconas we find it, we shall see that some of the peculiarities in verse structure are mannerisms with which every student of contemporary drama is familiar, and that others may be justified as intended for rhythmical and dramatic expressiveness. These considerations convince me that it is best to leave the versification—and consequently most of the text—as it was in 1594.

A. Accent.—1. Greene makes frequent use of thestress-syllable opening.—Sometimes for emphasis as in

ii. 49. Bów to the fórce of his pentágerón; and in vi. 28, 35, 45, 58.

Sometimes for the tripping effect, as in many of the lines assigned to Margaret,e.g.iii. 10, 13, 15, 21, 30, 31; and in lines expressive of the blithe, or the beautiful, such as i. 14, 15, 56, 60, 75, 81. Such stress-syllable openings are frequently counterbalanced by an anapæstic second or third foot; occasionally by two anapæsts, as in

vi. 58. Lácie, love mákes no excéption of a friend;xii. 56. Híe thee to Frésingfield and bring hóme the lásse.

vi. 58. Lácie, love mákes no excéption of a friend;

xii. 56. Híe thee to Frésingfield and bring hóme the lásse.

2. The stress syllable is used also to open the verse-section after the pause,e.g.:—

i. 78. She túrned her smócke | óver her lilly ármes; and in iii. 7.

But 'over,' 'safely,' might be read with the hovering accent. So xvi. 21 ('prìncès'). Methods (1) and (2) appear to be combined in

iii. 79. Máke but a stép | ínto the keépers lódge; and in iii. 81, iv. 5, vi. 138.

3. The extra syllable is adroitly used before the verse-section (theepic cæsura) as a compensation for the stress-syllable opening:—

ii. 156. Maíster Búrden| whèn shàll we sée you at Hénley?xiv. 47. (Péggie| thy daúghter, etc.), and vi. 58 as above (Lácie| lòve màkes).

ii. 156. Maíster Búrden| whèn shàll we sée you at Hénley?

xiv. 47. (Péggie| thy daúghter, etc.), and vi. 58 as above (Lácie| lòve màkes).

4. Thehovering accentis evident in such lines as

viii. 149. I práy | Gòd Ì | like hèr | as I lóv|ed theé.

It emphasizes the reluctant utterance. Ignoring this, Dy. and G. change text and rhythm to:—

'Pray Gód | I like | her ás | I lóv|ed thee.

B. Quantity.—1. A syllable is broken into a dissyllable, or prolonged by way of emphasis, in such cases as i. 168 (your̈ heart's), ii. 18 (of āll ⋀ this), ii. 170 (Ā-men), ix. 116 (haile, or hāile), vi. 17, xii. 43 (fair̈e), xiii. 38 (hour̈e). In names like Marg(a)ret, Erm(e)sbie, diæresis or dialysis often occurs. For Elizabethan usage, see Schipper,Neuengl. Metrik, 1: § 53, and Knaut,Metrik R. Greene's(Halle, 1890).

2. In vi. 4, 171, vii. 25, etc., such words asdevil,spirit, are contracted by synæresis or slurring. In x. 55, xiii. 3, xiii. 38 (while I've; he'd; thou'st), we find elision or apocope, as, also, in xiv. 79, vi. 162, xiii. 37 ('n if she bé; 'n if your hónour; there'll bé). Invig'r, El'nor, fri'r, pow'r, fi'ry, syncope. In vi. 135, ix 129 (To⌒avoid; no⌒unlesse), synalœpha. Evidently the dramatist has in mind the spoken sentence, in which slurring and rapid pronunciation are more likely to occur than omission of syllables.

C. Lacking Syllables.—1.Compensation for one syllableis made by a rhetorical pause, or by lengthening or emphasizing the next syllable,e.g.,

(a) In the first foot, for an absent thesis:—

vi. 17. ⋀ Thát this fai-r coúrteous coúntrie swaíne;vi. 130. ⋀ Made me thinke the shádows súbstàncès;

vi. 17. ⋀ Thát this fai-r coúrteous coúntrie swaíne;

vi. 130. ⋀ Made me thinke the shádows súbstàncès;

unless we read with hovering accent,sc."Màde mè ⋀ thínke," which wouýld accumulate the emphasis upon 'thinke.' Do., Dy., W., gratuitously insert 'to' before 'thinke.'

vi. 161. ⋀ Whý stànds frìer Búngay só amázed?

Another acephalous line. The suppression of the light syllable accentuates the arsis 'Why.' For similar suppression in questions see i. 20, ii. 156.

xiv. 77. ⋀ Whý,—then Màrgret wíll be shórne a nún?

Accumulated emphasis of surprise. So, in iii. 4: (⋀ Thómas, maids when they cóme), etc.; and in

xiv. 34. ⋀ Lóve ... oh, Lóve!—and wíth fond Lóve, farewéll.

Dy., G., W., "Farewell, oh Love" for first two feet. But why should Margaret repeat a verb which she has used twice already in this speech? As forGreene, he was not writing a primer of prosody for school recitations. Margaret has said farewell to world, friends, father, and dainty robes, then with a sigh or sob, for which Greene allows by the lacuna, she bids adieu to the dearest—"⋀ Lóve ... oh Lóve." The pause beforeLoveheightens the explosion. A similar effect is produced by the suppression at the beginning of

Dy. says this line is mutilated, and G. inserts 'vanitie' after 'Pride.' But the line is all right. See alsoC, 2b, below.

ix. 171. ⋀ Grátious ás the mórning stárre of heáven.

I prefer this to Ward's emendation (approved by Wagner) 'Gratious asis,' because the Q is less sibilant and, owing to the pause, more deliberate and forcible. Greene may have written 'As gracious'; for compareLooking-Glasse, l. 14, 'As glorious,' etc.

ix. 257. ⋀ Pérsia, dówneherVòlga bý canóws.

The rhetorical emphasis on 'her' compensates (with the hovering accent) for the aposiopesis before 'Persia.' Greene's metrical effects don't always count upon the fingers, but they are often rhythmically delightful.

(b) For a lacking thesis in the second foot, a similar rhetorical pause, sometimes also an anapæstic third foot, may compensate, as in

i. 11. And nów ⋀ chángde to a mélanchólie dúmpe.

The 'a' is in Q 1. Wagner's emendation (Anglia, p. 523; 1879), "he'schang'd to melancholy dump," is futile.

ii. 62. Carved oút ⋀ like to the pórtall óf the súnne.

Pause for reflection. The ear is satisfied by the spondaic first foot and the anapæstic third. (With i. 11 and ii. 62 cf.A2 above.)

vii. 3. For hé ⋀ troópt with áll the wésterne kíngs.

The rhythmical aposiopesis represents a rhetorical pause for which the strongly accented 'troopt' and 'all' compensate. Do., Dy., G., W., read 'troopèd,'—but I don't think Greene did.

x. 27. Contént ⋀ keéper; sénd her únto ús.

I have inserted a dash for the pause of decision after 'content': Lambert accepts the proposition and acts. No metrical stop-gap is necessary.

Sometimes the arsis is lacking, and is supplied by a pause or gesture:—

xiii. 4. Ah, Búngay, ⊼ my Brazen-head is spoíled.

A second 'ah' suggests itself, and Dy. and W. print it. But I have no doubt Greene intended the speaker to draw breath for a sigh indicative of despair.

xiv. 111. Come, Sússex, ⊼ let's ín we sháll have móre.

The missing arsis is supplied by the pause that succeeds a command. With different punctuation we have '⋀ Cóme! | Sússex, let's ín,' which is as good. The editors keep Lacie talking.

ix. 229. And gíve us cátes ⋀ fit for coúntrey swáines.

If the emperor did not pause for language suitable to the emergency, it was because he pronounced 'cates' as a dissyllable. Cf. Marlowe'sFaustus(Dyce ed. 1850, p. 211), "Pardon mesweet, ⋀ Í forgot myself."

ix. 144. How nów, ⋀ Vándermást! have you mét with your mátch?

Pause for surprise. If the pause should fall before 'have' it would indicate the transition to inquiry. In this and the next instance anapæstic compensation is prominent.

ix. 148. Why Vándermast, ⋀ árt thou óvercóme?

But it is rhetorically more natural to read: '⋀ Whý ⋀ Vándermást, art thou óvercóme?'

(d) In the fourth foot, lacking thesis:—

v. 62-64.Edw.To whóm speakest thóu?Bacon.To thée.Edw.⋀ Whó art thóu?

Pause justified by change of speaker, and the indignant inquiry.

2.Two or more syllables lacking.To assume that omissions of this kind are due to carelessness on the part of author, scribe, or printer, is to beg the question. It is more reasonable to premise the genuineness of the lines and consider whether each in turn is not to be justified by its dramatic conditions. The following sixteen exhaust, I think, the more flagrant instances of lacuna in this play. In none would I alter the text of the first quarto.

(a) Edward's lines:—

vi. 47. Gogs wóunds ⋀ Bácon hére comes Lácie ⊼.

Abrupt outcry, in which the less and the more forcible exclamatory pauses are metrically provided for by the lacking thesis and arsis respectively. Thelacking thesis allows also for the transition from surprise to affirmation. This line is paralleled by

vi. 127. Gogs wóunds ⋀ Bácon they kísse! Ile stáb them ⊼.

The former pause for breathless amazement; the latter for decision and a gesture. He raises his hand to deal the blow.

vi. 146. Helpe, Bácon ⊼! ⋀ stóp the márriage nów!

Dyce, "some word or words wanting." Others would supply "Helpe! and" and so reduce the line to mediocrity. The omission is intentional. The exclamatory pause after 'Bacon' is metrically equivalent to an accented syllable. The pause before 'stop' is for Edward's quandary—as if he should for a moment cast about for an appropriate request. The line might of course be interpreted so as to require one lacking thesis before 'Helpe' and one before 'Bacon.'

vi. 108. ⋀ Hów familiar they bé, Bacòn, ⋀ ⊼.

First pause, the gasp before an interrogatory exclamation. Second pause for Bacon's 'Sit still,' which as a convertible foot is the last of this line and the first of the next.

vi. 176. The foot pause before 'Flees' may allow for a burst of laughter. Wagner suggests 'veryfear,' which no compatriot of Greene, if he read the line aloud, can tolerate. Until English is a dead language it will hardly be judicious to encourage foreign emendations of our masterpieces.

(b) Margaret's lines.

iii. 46. Suppression of the first two feet in rapid dialogue. The words 'sent this rich purse' might have been set down before 'To me?' but with what advantage save to fill the pentameter? For the clause has occurred once and the verb twice already in the last six lines. The suppression intensifies the dialogue, and accentuates the mingled surprise and impatience of the speaker.

viii. 132. A rhetorical pause occupies the first foot or the last. Like the preceding instance in so far as the aposiopesis indicates question and surprise. Dy., G., insert 'indeed' before 'mean': easy but needless.

x. 156. Dy. queries 'shall be' after 'wealth.' But the words 'shall be' are implied from the preceding line, and so intentionally omitted. An additional rhetorical emphasis falls upontrash:—

Wealth, ⊼ ⋀ träsh; love, háte; pleàsùre, dispaíre.

xiv. 20. Impassioned soliloquy within an address, like x. 158. The light syllables of the first and second feet are suppressed to increase the effect of the accented syllables: ⋀ Príde ⋀ flätterie and—.

ii. 157. The infuriate Burden occupies the first foot with a stifled 'Henly!' or something unreverend.

ix. 120. An interrogatory pause for the first foot or an exclamatory for the last; unless we combine the lines thus:—

Van.What art thóu that quéstionst thús?Bacon.Men cáll me Bácon.

ix. 162. Whý, ⋀ Bacon, whíther dost thóu send him.

As in vi. 161, and ix. 148, the lacunæ correspond with moments of breathless surprise; and emphasis is accumulated upon the syllables respectively succeeding. If we scan without pauses, the lacunæ will occupy the fifth foot which might naturally be reserved for Bacon's echo-question [send him?]. 'Whither,' probably contracted 'whe'r.'

x. 150. What ánswere shall Í retúrne to my lórd? [Marg. Retúrne?]

Another echo-foot. Unless we pronounce 'réturne' for which there is authority, as in iv. 56, 'prógress,' ix. 242, 'éxceed.' See Schipper,Neuengl. Metr., p. 153.

xiii. 72. My father slaine! ⋀⊼ Sèrlbỳ, ward thát.

The thesis of the third foot allows for the recoil of horror; the arsis for the transition to revenge—the drawing of the rapier.

xiv. 99. Echo of the previous idea, unuttered because dramatically understood; ['As⋀glád⊼] as if,' etc. Dy. suggests insertion 'Asglad asif,' and G. adopts. No.

xvi. 69. Let's márch: ⋀ ⩡ the tábles áll are spréad.

The silent foot allows for the rhetorical pause between command and affirmation. Cf. vi. 146. Dy.'s 'Letusmarchhence,' and G.'s 'Letusmarchon,' will do well enough if we must keep somebody talking all the time.

D. Additional Syllables.—Like the foregoing apparently deficient lines it will be found that, properly read, most of the so-called hypermetric lines conform to the pentameter. The dozen or so that do not are warranted by historic, if not by rhetorical, conditions. At any rate they are much more likely to be the lines that Greene wrote than are the 'procrustitutes' which we might suggest.

1. Readers should allow forfeminine endings, as

ix. 111. To thém of Síen, Flórence ánd Belógna;

orBolónia, gliding ending.

ii. 156. ⋀ Maíster Búrden whèn shàll we sée you at Hénly?

Of feminine endings Knaut counts ten, and about four gliding.

2. They should allow also for the anapæst in itself (as ix. 231) or by way of compensation for a missing syllable in an adjoining foot. Two such give the appearance of a senarius. Occasionally, as in vi. 163 ('gay straightwáy,' or 'way from Frés—'), the foot is awkward. Even so, I do not think that the emendation 'straight' (Dy., W.) for this 'straightway' is necessary.

3.Senarii.(a) The following are such in appearance only. They should be read as pentameters in which the anapæst, slurring, or elision, is employed. In

i. 156. Send létters speéd'ly | to Óxford óf the néwes,

we have the epic cæsura. So also vi. 94, cæsura after 'Beckles'; and so

x. 77. Give mè ... but tén days' réspite | and Íle replý,andxvi. 30. Atténds on Él'nor | gramércies, lórd, for hér.

x. 77. Give mè ... but tén days' réspite | and Íle replý,

and

xvi. 30. Atténds on Él'nor | gramércies, lórd, for hér.

In ix. 191. ⋀ Mártiall Plantágenet | Hénries highmínded sónne, we have the lyric cæsura; so also in

xiii. 67. Then this for her | Áh, well thrúst. But márke, the wárd.

Cf. SchipperNeuengl. Metr., p. 25n.

In iii. 51. For we've líttle leísure tó debáte of thát,vi. 131-132. 'Twere a lóng poinárd, my lórd, to reách betweéne ⋀ Óxford and Frésingfiéld, but sit stíll and see móre,vi. 162. I've stroók him dúm my lórd | 'n if your hónor pleáse,ix. 31. Of éleméntal éssence, térra's but thóught,ix. 45. Ànd òf the víg'r of the géomantic fiends,xiv. 79. We cánnot stáy my lórd | 'n if she bé so stríct,—

In iii. 51. For we've líttle leísure tó debáte of thát,

vi. 131-132. 'Twere a lóng poinárd, my lórd, to reách betweéne ⋀ Óxford and Frésingfiéld, but sit stíll and see móre,

vi. 162. I've stroók him dúm my lórd | 'n if your hónor pleáse,

ix. 31. Of éleméntal éssence, térra's but thóught,

ix. 45. Ànd òf the víg'r of the géomantic fiends,

xiv. 79. We cánnot stáy my lórd | 'n if she bé so stríct,—

anapaestic readings with natural apocope or syncope preserve the pentameter. Dy's 'you' for 'your honor' in vi. 162, and omission of 'my lord' in xiv. 79, are therefore unnecessary.

xvi. 64 appears to have six feet; but if it is taken in sequence with the preceding line the effect is of two five-foot lines.

(b) The following senarii of Q 1 are real, and should be preserved, though Dyce and Ward generally place the first foot in a line by itself. The Marlowan reform had not yet completed the rout of the Alexandrine,—and even if it had Greene would have remained unrouted. He uses the Alexandrine, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes for variety. Perhaps a few of these senarii, i. 10, 83; ii. 112, 148; iii. 26; vi. 77; ix. 185; x. 149; xi. 7, 92; xii. 18; xiv. 78; xvi. 40, are accidental, but most of them areintended to be impressive, and the additional foot generally indicates the person most concerned.

E. Other Debated Lines.

iv. 11. Ward retains the senarius. Dyce thinks 'corrupted,' and queries, 'As Agenor's damsel did,' for 'through the deep' is almost a repetition of 'through the seas.'—Wagner: 'like Europa through the deep.'—Perhaps (says Palgrave acc. to Ward) the dramatist pronounced the nameÁgenor. We might then scan:—

And vénture as Ágenor's dámsel thróugh the deép.

But it is quite as likely that Greene intended, or let slip, a senarius. ix. 112. The quartos are right, and we should scan thus:—

Reìmès, Lovaín, and faí-r Rótherdam.

For 'fayer,' etc., seeB1, above. By altering to 'Rheims,' Do., Dy., G., and W. miss the metre. G., for instance, reads 'Rheims [and]'; Elze (Notes on Elizab. Dramatists, Halle, 1886, cxcix): 'Of Rheíms, of Loúvain ánd fair Rótterdám'; Knaut: 'Rheims, Loúvain, Páris ánd.' But if we preserve the spelling of the quartos the scansion is simple.

A Few Conclusions.—Greene was sensitive to dramatic niceties of utterance. Hence most of the metrical idiosyncrasies which are improperly called irregularities. An induction from the instances cited underCabove shows that the following were the conditions of utterance to which he accorded special elocutionary recognition: the pause before a question or a response and the increase of emphasis upon the syllable succeeding the silence; the pause for reflection, and the pause before deliberate utterance; decision attending a command; the pause of speechless anger; the stoppage due to sighing, sobbing, horror, or any recoil of emotion; the period of, or after, a gesture, an inarticulate cry, a burst of laughter, an exclamatory remark; the pause during the suppression of the self-explanatory. The examination of his practice inFriar Baconshows that in order to represent these conditions in dramatic blank verse Greene availed himself of silent beats with a uniformity that might be called system, were it the outcome of anything less spontaneous than the rhetorical instinct and the feeling for rhythm. Subordinating these to his knowledge of stage 'business,' Greene seems, then, to have developed a metrical use of the lacuna somewhat like this:—

These conclusions are confirmed by an examination of the other plays in which the text is fairly authentic. The dramatist naturally and, in that sense, intentionally suited his 'lines' to the histrionic emergency: an achievement not difficult for one of his rhetorical quality, who was also familiar with the practice of the stage. On similar grounds and with a regard likewise for the conditions of verse at the time, his senarii are to be retained and defended.

Most of the attempts to reduce his dramatic blank verse to anything like measured uniformity are, therefore, in my opinion academic and superfluous. They are indeed worse, for not only do they ignore the personal equation, they tend to pervert the data from which the history of English metres must be derived. There may, of course, be lines, like vi. 17 and ix. 47 of this play, where dramatist or intermediary has unwittingly omitted something, or actor wantonly added, but they are few; and unless the sense calls out for orthopædic assistance, no literary, historical, or philological interest is subserved by doctoring the text.

Henry PorterTHE PLEASANT HISTORY OFTHE TWO ANGRY WOMEN OF ABINGTONEdited with Critical Essay andNotes by Charles Mills Gayley,LL. D., Professor in the Universityof California.

Edited with Critical Essay andNotes by Charles Mills Gayley,LL. D., Professor in the Universityof California.

The Facts of Porter's Life.—The Two Angry Women of Abingtonis the only extant production of Henry Porter. In 1841 Mr. Collier, who was then editing Henslowe'sDiary, supplied Mr. Dyce with what purported to be all the materials in that journal relative to this dramatist; and these, with the exception of one of August 23, 1597, connecting him with Nashe, which has been shown to be a forgery, are copied from Dyce's Percy Society edition of theTwo Angrie Womenby Mr. H. Ellis for the preface to the Mermaid edition of the play. The statement is there made that "the foregoing extracts—extending over the brief period of a single year ... contain all the definite information which has reached us concerning Henry Porter." An examination of Collier's Henslowe'sDiarywill show, however, that Mr. Ellis omits about a dozen entries[1580]affecting our poet which, though inaccessible to Dyce in 1841, have been available since 1845. A complete list of such notices in their chronological order has not been set before the public. I, therefore, subjoin the following, inserting an additional memorandum (No. 8) of January 17, 1598-9, from another source, and eliminating the suspicious Henslowe entries which Mr. George F. Warner[1581]has branded as Collier forgeries. The references are to the first volume of theDiary.

An acknowledgment of the transaction (No. 7) in the Bodleian. See note prefixed to Malone's copy (Malone, 184): as follows,

"An acknowledgement of a debt of 20s. owing to Philip Henslowe, dated Jan. 17th, 1598[-9], and bearing the autograph signature of Henry Porter, formerly lying loose in this volume is now to be found in MS. Eng. Hist. C. 4, fol. 15. (Signed) W. H. A., June 8, 1885."

[This entry which seems to refer to No. 21, would naturally be made on the 18th of April, 1599, but in theDiaryit occurs at the end of a confused sequence running March 25, 1598, November 16, 1599, August 9, 1598, September 18, 1602, September 19, 1602. Between it and the next entry, undated but probably of February, 1601-2, leaves are missing or mutilated. According to Dyce, whose information came from Collier, the entry on p. 94 "is struck through, the money having been repaid." But Collier does not record the payment of the xijdin his edition of theDiary; nor, according to p. 261, was Porter released from the "deate of xxvs" or the "forfette of xli."]

Other Early Notices.—Meres, in thePalladis Tamia, 1598, names our dramatist as one of the best for comedy among us, and places him in good company: Lyly, Lodge, Gascoigne, Greene, Shakespeare, Nashe, Thomas Heywood, Munday, Chapman, Wilson, Hathaway, and Chettle. It is perhaps worthy of remark that, beginning with Nashe, all these playwrights were at the time Porter's associates in the employ of Henslowe and the Admiral's company, and that in this list our poet rubs shoulders with Chapman and Wilson. Much less flattering are the references in Richard West'sCourt of Conscience or Dick Whipper's Sessions, 1607,[1587]to "ruffianly Dick Coomes" (Poem toProphane Swearers) and "Nimble-tongued Nicholas as the Proverbe saith" (Address toLiers), which are undoubtedly allusions to our play[1588]: for although Porter's Nicholas is not a liar, his Coomes is, in the extreme, ruffianly and profane. The context ofThe Court of Consciencewould indicate, however, that West was availing himself, to some extent, of nicknames proverbial among the vulgar, such as Suckblood, TomTaylor, Money Monger, and Nicholas Newfangle. That Porter's play was still in circulation as late as 1661 is shown by its inclusion in Kirkman's Catalogue of that date.

Conjectural Identity.—Malone, Collier, and Dyce give no clue; in fact they do not exhaust the materials in Henslowe. Langbaine mentions only the printed play. Hunter, in hisChorus Vatum Anglicanorum[1589]says "it can hardly be doubted that this is the same Henry Porter of Christ Church who was made Bachelor of Music in July, 1600 (Alumn. Oxon.III. 1182). Wood says that he had seen some of his compositions, but thinks none were extant when he wrote. This Henry Porter was father of Walter Porter, Master of the Choristers at Westminster, who had friends in Sir Edward Spencer and Edward Laurence. He was related to Dr. John Wilson." Foster in theAlumni Oxonienses, tells us, in addition, that Walter became gentleman of the Chapel Royal of Charles I. This information is all traceable to Wood'sFasti,[1590]but Wood does not attempt to identify Henry Porter the dramatist with Henry Porter the musical composer. Of the latter we learn, from theRegister of the University of Oxford,[1591]that he had studied music for twelve years and had "composed" before he took his degree, July 4, 1600. There is no record of a degree in arts, nor of matriculation, at Christ Church; this musical activity would seem, however, to have occupied the career of the future bachelor of music from a date eight years before Porter the dramatist appeared in Henslowe's employ to a date after our poet had borrowed his last half-crown from that employer. "The statutable conditions for the degree of Mus. Bac." at that time, say Boase and Clark,[1592]"were that the candidate should have been seven yearsin re musica, and that he should compose and cause to be sung in the university acanticum quinque partium, giving three days' notice of the performance of this exercise." That a student like Porter of Christ Church, who had proceeded leisurely through his course in music, taking twelve years instead of the seven prescribed, and who, meanwhile, was composing canticles on elevated and, probably, sacred themes, should be a man of maturity and acknowledged worth is only natural to suppose. And such was the esteem in which Porter of Christ Church was held by an Oxford undergraduate of that day, who addresses him in the following verses, published in 1599:[1593]—

"AD HENRICUM PORTER

Porter I durst not mell with sacred writ,Nor woe the mistris fore I win the maide;For my yong yeres are taskt; its yet unfitte,For youth as eld is never halfe so staid.Thy selfe which hath the summe of Art and WitThus much I know unto me would have said;Thy silver bell could not so sweetly singIf that too soone thou hadst begun her ring."

Porter I durst not mell with sacred writ,

Nor woe the mistris fore I win the maide;

For my yong yeres are taskt; its yet unfitte,

For youth as eld is never halfe so staid.

Thy selfe which hath the summe of Art and Wit

Thus much I know unto me would have said;

Thy silver bell could not so sweetly sing

If that too soone thou hadst begun her ring."

The Porter thus apostrophized by John Weever has set sacred writ to music, but only after careful discipline leading to the musical art; and his wisdom has been proved by the result: "Thy silver bell" of music, says his admirer, "could not so sweetly sing, If that too soon thou hadst begun her ring." Mr. Havelock Ellis,[1594]to whom these verses were communicated by Mr. Bullen, understands them to refer to Porter the dramatist, and concludes therefrom, that he was "at the period of hisdramatic activitya man of mature age."

But there is nothing in Weever's verses applicable to the dramatist as we know that personage: his extant play is anything but sacred, it presents no particular evidence of mature authorship, betrays no interest in musical affairs, yields no bell-tones of style or verse. While Weever was writing hisEpigrams, 1596 to 1599, the dramatist was pursuing anything but a staid and silvern course at the Rose Theatre on the Bankside. The slowly matured composer of canticles, on the other hand, was completing a leisurely discipline at Christ Church, and to such a student Weever's eulogy admirably applies.[1595]In all probability the composer stuck to hismetier. He was of a musical family: his son obtained recognition from Court for his musical attainments; and a kinsman, Dr. John Wilson, "a very eminent musician of whom there is a long notice in Wood," was professor of music at Oxford in 1656.[1596]

The familiarity with Oxford and its surroundings displayed in the drama of the two angry women who meet in the neighboring village of Abington is, however, indicative of Oxonian authorship, and we are again driven to the registers of the university in search of some available Henry Porter. There is, I find, but one capable, in point of chronology, of fulfilling the conditions:

"Matriculations: 19 June, 1589, Brazenose, Porter, Henry; Lond.,gen. f.16."[1597]

Concerning the academic career of this Henry Porter there is no information to be gathered from the records of university or college—why he was not admitted B.A., or why or when he left his college. I am apprised, however, by Mr. C. B. Heberden, the Principal of Brasenose, who at my request kindly instituted the requisite search, that such absence of information is not unusual, for the College Register was very imperfectly kept in the sixteenth century. If this was our Henry Porter, the author of thePleasant History of the Two Angry Women, he was born in 1573, the son of a gentleman of London, he kept an uneventful term or so at Brasenose, and was perhaps still there in 1592 when his future associate in Henslowe's employ, John Marston, was matriculated. After his return to London he must have taken speedily to play-writing, for he was not more than twenty-three years of age when we find him selling his dramas to the Admiral's company for distinctly reputable sums. A modest straw in favour of the supposition that this was our dramatist is the explicit statement in both editions of our play to the effect that its author was Henry Porter,Gent. We have no proof that the Porter of Christ Church, who took his only degree after our play was printed, had any right in 1599 to sign himself Gentleman.

Dramatic Career.—Although, as I have said, only one of Porter's plays is extant, the entries in Henslowe, and their context, enable us to form some conception of his relation to the contemporary drama. They indicate that between December 16, 1596, and May 26, 1599, he was associated as a writer of plays with the Admiral, the Earl of Nottingham's company of actors, and that after February 28, 1599, his services were pledged to that company alone. It is possible that he had also acquaintance among the Earl of Pembroke's men, who were acting at The Rose for a short time during October and November, 1597, in partnership with the Admiral's company; but of this we cannot be certain, for we have no record of Porter's actions between March 7, 1597, and May 30 of the ensuing year.

The payment of December 16, 1596, is not in loan nor "in earnest of a boocke," butdeliveredas for a play then completed; and the sum, even if it were not a final instalment, would in itself indicate a play of some promise, for £6 or £7 was as much as Henslowe usually gave for a production even by an author already distinguished. If the payment was for a completed "boocke," the play would, according to the procedure of the Admiral's men, havebeen ready for presentation within a period of ten days to six weeks after the date of purchase. The following were the new plays presented by this company during that period:That Will Be Shall Be, December 30, 1596;Alexander and Lodowick, January 14, andWoman Hard to Please, January 27, 1597. Of theseAlexanderwas the most successful, andThat Will Benext.[1598]It is possible that the third play was the work of Heywood who had been recently paid 30s.—for a "boocke."[1599]As toAlexander, it is mentioned two years later as the property of Martin Slater,[1600]and there is reason to conjecture that it was written by him. But, even if these attributions were conclusive, we should notbejustified in assuming—that the book remaining unassigned,That Will Be Shall Be, was the property for which Porter was paid on December 16, 1596. It is not, however, impossible that his first production was one of the three most popular plays put upon the boards at The Rose that season. That Henslowe's loan to Porter on the following March 7 had any connection with a play of December 16, 1596, is most unlikely. Henslowe was not by way of disbursing £9 for one "boocke." The date is also too remote from May 30, 1598, to permit of our connecting this loan with the payment forLove Prevented, there mentioned, let alone the objection that if the entries of March 7, 1597, and May 30, 1598, refer to the same play, the author was paid the unusually high sum of £8. But though we cannot prove that Porter made much out of Henslowe and the Admiral's men, it would seem that they made a good deal out of him. For after certain purchases from Porter and during the period within which the first performances of his plays must naturally have occurred, the theatre receipts increased appreciably. The play of May 30, 1598, for instance, would, according to custom, have been presented some time between June 10 and June 30. The only other new play that could during those weeks have assisted to swell the profits of the theatre was the First Part ofBlacke Battman of the North, by distinguished authors, to be sure, but not extant.Henslowe's weekly receipts from "my Lord Admerall's mean" during the month before June 10 had averaged £3 16s.3d.; during the period between June 10 and June 30 they rose to an average of £5 4s.4d.; the week after June 30 they fell again to £2 11s.6d.[1601]That Porter was at that time held in respect by Henslowe is shown by the transaction of June 26, when the crafty manager took his surety for the performance of a literary and pecuniary obligation by Chettle, than whom no one could have been habitually more in arrears. And that Porter's plays were worth having is proved by Henslowe's engaging, in February of the next year, everything that he might write, whether in partnership or alone. That this appreciation of his plays was shared also by the company appears from the unusual sums which they expended for the apparel and properties necessary to their presentation.[1602]

Of the playwrights at that time attached to the Admiral's company, the most intimately associated with Porter would appear to have been Chettle; and, through him, our poet must have been brought into close relations with Robert Wilson, who was Chettle's colleague in thatSecond Part of Blacke Battman, for the completion of which Porter went surety,—also with Dekker and Drayton, who had assisted in the writing of the First Part, and were, maybe, interested in the Second. In fact, Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, Wilson were boon companions in productivity and the 'marshallsey': to go bail for one of them was presumably to pay for all. With Ben Jonson, who was just then coming into notice as a dramatist, Henry Porter must have drained many a flagon. In August, 1598, these two have just finished writing a play in company with Chettle,Hot Anger Soon Cold, and are paid a fair price for it by Henslowe, who seems to regard Porter, however, as the principal author, for he enters his name first in the record. But if the returns from this play are included in Henslowe's receipts of the next two months, it cannot have been more than an ordinarily successful production.[1603]

During the latter part of 1598 our dramatist is engaged upon a play called by Henslowe the2 Pte of the 2 angrey women of abengton.This was rehearsed during January and February, 1599, and by February 12, the day on which final payment was made to Porter, £11[1604]had been expended on properties for the performance. It was probably ready for presentation at that time, and its success may have assisted the sudden leap in Henslowe's share of the receipts from £7 10s., for the week ending February 18, to £15 3s., for the ten days ending February 29,[1605]1599. This play paid Porter £7, a higher figure thanHot Angerhad brought. Some two weeks later he is under contract to produce a sequel, theij mery wemen of abenton, and only four days later still, March 11, he is engaged in a new partnership with Chettle to produce a play entitledThe Spencers, orDespencers, a magnificent and tragic subject perhaps suggested by the reprinting of Marlowe'sEdward II.during the preceding year.[1606]The Spencerswas finished by the 22d of the same month. That it was looked upon as a play of great promise appears from the large amounts which, as already stated, were expended in its preparation for the stage. It was first acted some time after April 14. On the 16th Henslowe enters a final small disbursement for properties, of which perhaps the need was perceived during the first performance. His receipts for the week ending April 15 rise to £13 7s., four times as much as for the week before; while the entry, £13 16s., for the week next ensuing, during which the play was surely on the stage, is, with the exception of those of February 29, already mentioned, and of June 3,[1607]the largest that year. Perhaps by April 22 the novelty ofThe Spencershad begun to wear off, for there is again a drop in Henslowe's receipts, to £11 5s., the week ending April 29.[1608]This partnership with Chettle existed, by the way, in the year whenEvery Man in his Humourwas in course of composition, and it ended just about a month before 'Bengemen' passed a rapier through Gabriel Spenser in Hoxton Fields.

Beside the playwrights already mentioned, Porter must have known in varying degrees of intimacy Heywood, Haughton, Day, Munday, Chapman, Hathaway, and, perhaps, Rankins, who were then writing for the company; also Samuel Rowley and Martin Slater, who appear to have been serving as actor-dramatists. With the players Downton, Richard Alleyn, Robert Shaw, and the polyonymous William Bird, Porter was associated in various business negotiations. Of course he knew the above-mentioned Gabriel Spenser, and Henslowe's son-in-law, Edward Alleyn, and the two Jeffes, and Towne and Singer, and the other active members of the company.

Most of the playwrights in Henslowe's pay lived in hand-to-mouth style; but in art of cozening groats from the manager who in turn squeezed angels from the dramatist, none excelled 'Harey' Chettle. It is instructive to note that, from the period of close intimacy with Chettle, Porter sinks ever deeper in Henslowe's debt. On January 17, 1599, he had borrowed a pound of Henslowe. He was then, still, in the heyday of his success; but only six weeks later, February 28, we find Henslowe, under cover of a further beggarly advance, acquiring a lien on all his productivity. A few days after that the two 'Hareys,' doubtless with a hope of release from the moneylender's grip, are sweating outThe Spencersfor him; and Chettle, with or without Porter's knowledge, is borrowing another half-sovereign in earnest of its completion. When, on March 22, the joint production is finished, the dramatists are paid less for it thanThe Second Part of the Two Angry Womenhad brought to Porter alone; and before it is acted Porter has given his note of hand to Henslowe for another pound; and so proceeds the declension of 'Harey' Porter. Between December 16, 1596, and June 26, 1598, he had been Henslowe's 'Mr. Porter'; as soon as he begins to borrow, January 17, 1599, he is 'Harey' with a rare reversion to the ancient style; after April 7 there is no reversion. The loans, too, which at first were of a dignified amount, suddenly fall to 2s.6d.Familiarity has bred as usual; and, by April 16,'Harey,' who at this time owes the manager 25s., is compelled in consideration of 1s.to clear his debt on the morrow or forfeit £10. Next day Shylock has him, but for some reason continues to dribble out the sixpences until May 26. Then 'Harey' signs the last I. O. U. of which we have record, and drops out of history and Henslowe with as little warning as he had entered.

Date of the Extant Play.—Porter wrote two plays and engaged to write a third on theWomen of Abington. Of a First Part of theTwo Angry Women, there is no record in Henslowe, at least under that name. But of the Second Part the entries of December 22, 1598, and February 12, 1599, make explicit mention; and an intervening note of January 31, 1599, which records an outlay for the play without specification of the part is by date and position evidently a reference to this same Second Part. According to the entries of February 12, the sum of £2 was on that day expended in a concluding purchase of properties for the performance, and an equal amount was given to Porter in final payment for the "boocke" entitledthe 2 pte. of the angry wemen of abington. So closes all record of that second part. The payment of £2, two weeks later, February 28, is the usual advance "in earneste of" a "boocke" not yet finished; but the title of it wasthe ij mery women of abenton, and it was undoubtedly intended to be a continuation of the general theme. There is, however, no record of final payment (of £4 or £5) as in other cases, and no proof that the play was completed. I have no doubt that the play of which the text is here given,The Pleasant History of the Two Angry Women of Abington, is the unrecorded First Part, above mentioned. Our drama was twice printed in 1599 "as it was lately playde by ... the ... Admirall his servants," and it had, in all probability, been in the possession of the company for some time before publication; whereas the Second Part was only first acted in that year, and would not, with the consent of the company, have been turned over to printers. For it was to the player's interest to restrict his dramatic stock-in-trade, while it was novel, to the play-house. That the non-extant play of December 22, 1598-February 12, 1599, which is explicitly called the Second Part, was preceded byThe Pleasant Historyis, moreover, confirmed by the title-page ofThe Pleasant History, whichis unconscious of predecessor and sequel alike. By how long a period, then, did our play precede the missing Second Part? The words "as it was lately playde" on the title-pages of both editions may or may not be advertisement. But there is, at any rate, no likelihood that the first performance antedated May 14, 1594, when the Admiral's men began their long engagement with Henslowe; nor that it fell between that date and December 16, 1596, for it does not appear (nor any name that suggests it) in Henslowe's consecutive list of plays performed by the Admiral's men during that period. And since Henslowe observed his method of entry by days and plays until November 5, 1597, thePleasant Historywould have been specified in that part of the diary[1609]if the first payment to Porter, December 16, 1596, or the loan of the succeeding March 7, had been for a play bearing that name. Since there is no mention of aPleasant History of the Two Angry Women of Abingtonbefore the close of Henslowe's daily register, nor of aFirst Part of the Two Angry Womenbetween that date and December 22, 1598, when negotiations are in progress for a Second Part, it would seem that, whether our play came into existence before or after November 5, 1597, it must have first passed under some other name.

In the former alternative not even the wildest conjecture can identify it with any title recorded by Henslowe before March 7, 1597, exceptWoman Hard to Please, and that is more suitable to the subject of Heywood'sChallenge for Beautythan of ourPleasant History. It is not until two months after the loan of March 7—four pounds to Porter—that one comes upon the first performance of the only play of that period that can at all correspond with thePleasant History.This is the successful but as yet unidentifiedComodey of Umers, for the writing of which Henslowe records no payment, although he marks it "new" and makes entries which show that it was acted no less than twelve times at his "howsse" between May 11 and October 11 of that year, and that it supplantedAlexanderandThat Will Bein the favour of the public. It has been held, to be sure, that this anonymousComodeywasEvery Man in his Humour; but that is impossible, for Ben Jonson himself states thatEvery Manwas brought out during the next year, 1598, and not by theAdmiral's, but by the Lord Chamberlain's servants,[1610]while Henslowe includesThe (Comodey of) Umerseven the year after it had been acted by the Admiral's company in his "Note of all such bookes as belong to the Stocke [of that same company], and such as I have bought since the 3d of Marche, 1598."[1611]Mr. Fleay thinks that theComodeywas Chapman'sHumerous Dayes Mirth, and Dr. Ward inclines to accept the conjecture; but I think that Mr. Fleay's plea in favour of Chapman's play will apply as well to Porter'sPleasant History, the subtitle of which advertises "the humorous mirth of Dick Coomes and Nicholas Proverbes," while the scenes develop "humours," which are much more natural than those of Chapman's play, and fall but little short, indeed, of the quality that characterizes B. J.'sEvery Man in his Humour. As far as plot goes I cannot for a moment believe that the ineptitudes of theHumerous Dayes Mirthcan have commanded the popularity which was achieved by theComodey of Umers.

If, however, according to the latter alternative, thePleasant Historycame into existence between November 5, 1597, and December 22, 1598, the attempt to identify it with theComodey of Umersfalls to the ground. But another possibility at once presents itself: for the only mention by Henslowe of a play produced in the interim by Porter alone is of "a boocke calledLove Prevented."[1612]For this a payment of £4 is made on May 30, 1598; and untilLove Preventedturns up, and turns out to be other than our play, it will be open to conjecture whether under this title we have not the earliest record of thePleasant History of the Two Angry Women. For not only is this the sole title assigned to Porter alone during the period under consideration, it is also a title fairly descriptive of the central movement of thePleasant History.[1613]The date of payment, moreover, would accord with the assertion of recent performance which appears upon the title-page of our play as printed; it would also allow for a reasonable lapse of time before the publication, which was not by license and was probably of a printed copy. If this conjecture becorrect, the date of our play is May 30, 1598; and we have an explanation, in part, of Henslowe's increased receipts during the month following. If, on the other hand, our play be theComodey of Umers, the date of its first presentation is May 11, 1597. Whether these identifications be correct or not, the play may be dated between December 16, 1596, and December 22, 1598, and it was probably known to Meres when during the latter year he included Porter among the writers of comedy.[1614]

Dramatic Qualities: Construction.—Of the plot we may cry with Goursey, "Here's adoe about a thing of nothing." Not this, but occasional situations and the subconscious qualities of humour and verisimilitude lend distinction to the play. ThePleasant Historyhas atmosphere and therefore entity. It is a creation. Its characters stand out. Porter knew their ways and words before he knew their history. He had met them out Cumnor way or Hinksey, by Bagley, Abington, and Milton on many a cross-country stroll. What basis there was for Mrs. Barnes's jealousy, whether Master Barnes had too often gone to Milton "a-hunting or such ordinary sports," and, once too often, "chatted with" Mrs. Goursey "all day till night," we are not explicitly informed. Nor is the dramatist. That Mrs. Goursey has given no cause for offence goes without saying. But there is trouble in the air. The wives are angered: after a dissension sufficiently prolonged to afford us an insight into them and their surroundings, their wrath shall be appeased. How, we know not; nor does the dramatist, but it seems to him natural, if not novel, that the son and daughter of these foes should with their marriage "bury their parents' strife." That end he pursues, carrying all with him except those whom he most would carry. When the hour is nigh and we are expectant, and the star-crossed lovers have made for Carfax to be wed, they lose each other and everybody else in a midsummer night's "cunny greene," where, whence, and whither, darkling, the dramatic persons play blindman's buff with the plot till, frustrate of discovery, they despair. Then in steps Sir Raph Smith,ex tenebris et machina, to find the heroine, and prophesy solution and "the lanthorne of the day" andlend our hopes a fillip, but straight to lose us worse than ever in the devious night. Beholders and beheld all now despair. And Porter might still be spasmodically rounding his rabbits into the "cunny greene" and out again, had not the quarrelsome wives happened each on other, and on them in turn their husbands happened, who simulating mortal combat succeed at last in terrifying their women into peace. Only after the characters most concerned have thus by chance taken the solution into their own hands and effected the reconciliation, does the peacemaker intended by the dramatist drop in with the lost sweetheart on his arm; and the union of the young lovers, which had been designed to promote the union of their mothers, proceeds on its own merits, superfluous, like the second tail on the proverbial toad. The plot, therefore, is not the "thing." Not only does it pursue half a dozen possibilities, each of which it drops halfway; it starts another half-dozen, which it never pursues. But the auditor, unforewarned, pricks to each wild-goose chase in turn. The complication of the angry women and the subplot of the lovers, with its pretence of a solution, move rapidly through the first, third, sixth, and eighth scenes; but in the second and fourth the farcical element retards the pace; in the seventh a new and futile start is made, and in the ninth theplattitself slides into a kind ofcommedia all' improviso. From this it is rescued at the beginning of Scene xii. by Master Barnes's "pollicie." But although his "drift device" is of the utmost importance to the audience, I have my doubts whether any hearer has caught the hint, and I am sure that to most readers the sham combat between the husbands in Scene xiv. comes as something impromptu and secondary. Consequently a luxury of anticipation has been forfeited. The "pollicie" is in itself a capital ruse for curing shrewishness, and it has been frequently used of later years, as, for instance, in Gillette'sBecause She Loved Him So; but in 1597 it had the additional charm of novelty, and deserved a better handling. The situation in Scene vi., where Mrs. Goursey snatches and restores her husband's letter, is, conversely, well prepared, but lacks all consequent. The marksman draws his bow to the top of its bent, then gradually relaxes the tension—because he has forgot his arrow. But, though Porter isguilty of imperfect devices, few English comedies before his time can boast of scenes more realistic and humorous than the game at tables, the burlesque wooing of Mall at her window, and the comic irony of the climax between the disputatious mothers under whose beaks the debated chickens are eloping. In fact, with all crudities, the plot develops an interesting individuality, for which the author does not seem to be at all responsible; none the less interesting if "a German from the waist downward, all slops, and a Spaniard from the hip upward, no doublet."

Portrayal of Character.—When we turn to the "persons" and their "humours" we realize the architectonics of the play. There is something at once natural and masterly in the ease with which Porter introduces the condition of "neighbour amitie," wherewith the masters delude themselves, while their spouses blow upon the coals of hatred: the hostess, teeming with innuendo,—"malice embowelled in her tongue,"—the lady of Milton read in Æsop's fables, quick to conjecture, and "every day as good as Barnes's wife," whether to divert a moral or direct a curse. And as the women promise they develop: Mrs. Barnes, a "jealous, slandering, spiteful queane"; Mrs. Goursey, subtler and fairer spoken, but incapable of backgammon "if slanders by doe talke,"—patently obedient, but impatient of rebuke, soothing her husband with soft words, but, inward, fuming at his "Peace, be quiet, wife"; easily his better, bidding him "grow to the housetop with your anger, Sir," and then humouring his pleasure, not because of his "incensement," but his "health." The opprobrious epithets of Barnes's wife Mistress Goursey returns into her teeth; damns her as "mankind"; takes up the quarrel last and is last to lay it down. In fact, as Mistress Goursey is the more independent of the twain, she is also historically the more original. Mrs. Barnes, on the other hand, is an amalgam of stock shrews, gossips, and jealous wives: a descendant of Tom Tyler's more strenuous half, a kinswoman of Dame Chat, a Kitely in petticoats, the remote grandmother of Colman's Mrs. Oakly.

Barnes and Goursey are henpecked husbands of the remordent variety. Barnes, the more experienced in domestic infelicity, is correspondingly the more given to moral tags and pregnant sentences. He sometimes rises almost to poetry, as when he tells his wife:—

Back to Index Next