dialect.”

The Poetaster was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 21st December 1601, and Satiromastix had already been entered on the 11th of the preceding month. The title-page of Satiromastix bears only Dekker’s name, and to Dekker the play is attributed in the Stationers’ Register. It was doubtless with Marston’s approval that Dekker took up the cudgels against the truculent

Ben, but there is no evidence to show that Marston had any share in the authorship of Satiromastix. It is not necessary to deal here with Dekker’s spirited rejoinder, but there is one difficult passage, put into the mouth of Horace, to which passing attention must be called:—

“As for Crispinus, that Crispin-ass and Fannius his play-dresser, who (to make the Muses believe their subjests’ [sic] ears were starved and that there was a dearth of poesy) cut an innocent Moor i’th middle, to serve him in twice, and when he had done made Poules’ work of it; as for these twins, these poet-apes,

Their mimic tricks shall serve
With mirth to feast our muse whilst their own starve.”
(Works, 1873, i. 212.)

The meaning of this obscure passage seems to be that Marston and Dekker wrote in conjunction a play which had a Moor for its leading character; that the writers’ barren invention prompted them to treat the story again in a Second Part; and that the two parts, when they had served their time upon the stage, were published in Paul’s Churchyard. At least that is the only intelligible explanation that I can give to the words; but I am altogether unable to fix on any extant play, in which a Moor figures, that could be attributed to Marston and Dekker. From Henslowe’s Diary we know that Dekker was concerned in the authorship of a play called The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy (which has been doubtfully identified with Lust’s Dominion, printed in 1657 as a work of Marlowe’s); but Dekker’s coadjutors in that play were William Haughton and John Day.

It is curious to note that in the very year (1601) when

the quarrel between Marston and Jonson reached a climax, the two enemies are contributing poems to the Divers Poetical Essays appended to Robert Chester’s tedious and obscure Love’s Martyr. The other contributors were Shakespeare and Chapman; Marston’s verses follow Shakespeare’s Phœnix and Turtle. In 1604, as we have noticed, Marston dedicated his Malcontent to Jonson in very cordial terms; and in 1605 he prefixed some complimentary verses to Sejanus.

In 1605 was published the comedy of The Dutch Courtezan, which had been acted by the Children’s Company at the Blackfriars. There is more of life and movement in this play than in any other of Marston’s productions. The character of the passionate and implacable courtesan, Franceschina, is conceived with masterly ability. Few figures in the Elizabethan drama are more striking than this fair vengeful fiend, who is as playful and pitiless as a tigress; whose caresses are sweet as honey and poisonous as aconite. All the characters are drawn with skill and spirit. Young Freevill is a typical Elizabethan gallant, very frank in his utterances, and not burthened with an excess of modesty. Malheureux, his moody friend, is noted for his strictness of life, but a glance from Franceschina scatters his virtuous resolutions, and he is ready at the temptress’ bidding to kill his friend in order to satisfy his passion. The innocent shamefaced Beatrice, affianced to young Freevill, is drawn with more tenderness than Marston usually shows; and her gay prattling sister Crispinella recalls (longo intervallo) another more famous Beatrice. Cockledemoy, the

droll and nimble trickster, who at every turn dexterously cozens Master Mulligrub, the vintner, affords abundance of amusement; but his plain speaking shocks the sensitively chaste ears of Mary Faugh, the old bawd. Antony Nixon, in The Black Year, 1606, speaks of the play as “corrupting English conditions”;[19] but Nixon’s protest went for little. In December 1613 The Dutch Courtezan was acted at Court (Cunningham’s Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels, p. xliv.). Having received some alterations at the hands of Betterton, it was revived in 1680 under the title of The Revenge, or A Match in Newgate.

A singularly fresh and delightful study of city-life is the comedy of Eastward Ho, published in 1605. Three dramatists combined to produce this genial masterpiece—Chapman, Jonson, and Marston. It seems to have been written shortly after James’ accession, when the hungry Scots were swarming southwards in quest of preferment. Englishmen were justly indignant at the favours bestowed by James on these Scotch adventurers, and a passage in Eastward Ho stated the grievance very

plainly. “You shall live freely there” [i.e., in Virginia], says Seagull, “without sergeants, or courtiers, or lawyers, or intelligencers, only a few industrious Scots, perhaps, who, indeed, are dispersed over the face of the whole earth. But as for them, there are no greater friends to Englishmen and England, when they are out on’t, in the world, than they are. And for my part, I would a hundred thousand of ’hem were there, for we are all one countrymen now, ye know; and we should find ten times more comfort of them there than we do here.” At the instance of Sir James Graham, one of James’ newly-created knights, the playwrights were committed to prison[20] for their abuse of the Scots, and the report went that their ears were to be cut and their noses slit. Ben

Jonson told Drummond that he had not contributed the objectionable matter, and that he voluntarily imprisoned himself with Chapman and Marston, who “had written it amongst them.” After his release from prison Jonson gave a banquet to “all his friends,” Camden and Selden being among the guests. In the middle of the banquet his old mother drank to him and produced a paper containing “lusty strong poison,” which she had intended, if the sentence had been confirmed, to take to the prison and mix in his drink; and she declared—to show “that she was no churl”—that “she minded first to have drunk of it herself.” The passage about the Scots is found only in some copies of the 4tos; in others it was expunged. Scotch pride seems to have been easily wounded. On 15th April, 1598, George Nicolson, the English agent at the Scotch Court, writing from Edinburgh to Lord Burghley, stated that “it is regretted that the Comedians of London should scorn the king and the people of this land in their play; and it is wished that the matter be speedily amended, lest the king and the country be stirred to anger” (Cal. of State Papers, Scotland, ii. 749). Certainly the reflections in Eastward Ho have somewhat more of bitterness than banter; but one would have thought that the favoured Scots about the Court would be content to let the matter pass. Sir James Murray was the person who acted as delator, and it is not improbable that he found in the play some uncomplimentary allusions to himself, in addition to the