SOURCE: Peery, William. “The Noble Soldier and The Parliament of Bees.” Studies in Philology 48 (April 1961): 219-33.

[In this essay, Peery argues that Day's Parliament of Bees predates Thomas Dekker's The Noble Soldier, clearing Day from the charge that he adapted, and in the process debased, Dekker's work.]

Characters 4 and 5 of John Day's The Parliament of Bees contain extended passages significantly parallel to passages in The Noble Soldier, a play attributed to Day's friend and collaborator, Dekker. Day's editor, A. H. Bullen, in 1881 proposed the following explanation of this phenomenon:

With the exception of Characters 1, 11, and 12, which were plainly written for the occasion, the Masque¹ seems to have been made up of scenes, more or less revised, contributed to the Wonder of a Kingdom, the Spanish Souldier, and other plays …²

This view was for long accepted by later writers.³ On it F. G. Fleay rests his claim that Day had a hand with Dekker and Rowley in the authorship of Soldier.⁴ Chambers states that “The precise relation of Day to these plays is indeterminate, but the scenes more obviously ‘belong’ to the Bees than to the plays.”⁵

In 1927, however, S. R. Golding called this explanation one “contrary to all the textual evidence.” According to Golding, Characters 4 and 5 of Bees “seem to have been lifted almost bodily—in some cases with only slight modification—from The Noble Soldier. …” The textual evidence referred to was, presumably, a number of parallels or “phraseological similarities with the works of Dekker and of Day.” It is Golding's opinion that “Where the quarto of the Bees corresponds to passages in these plays, Dekker's craftsmanship is nearly always distinguishable; where it deviates, Day's hand is equally well marked.” Day, according to Golding, “has in some cases transferred whole passages [of Dekker] to the Bees, suppressing and adding at will, and only making those alterations necessary in an adaptation.”⁶

Today the argument from simple parallels, however, is in less good repute than twenty-four years ago. We are careful, now, to make due allowance for the literary commonplace, the proverbial expression, and the expression without distinctiveness. Today few are likely to say that “A Taylor and a true borne gentleman” (I, Bees, 30) is Day's because in The Blind-Beggar of Bednal-Green, by Day and Chettle, we find the line “Let true-born Gentlemen were Gentries robes” (II, Beggar, 39).⁷ That The Whore of Babylon has the line, “They whip, but draw no blood”⁸ hardly justifies the assertion that “A whip to draw blood”⁹ rather than “A corde to draw bloud”¹⁰ “is characteristic of Dekker”¹¹ rather than Day. Objection may reasonably be taken to most of the parallels which Golding cites.¹² If we are to base an argument on parallel passages, moreover, we should consider all such passages the texts afford. Golding cites parallels from Dekker to passages which Bees and Soldier have in common, but parallels from Day to passages in which Bees differs from Soldier. It is possible to reverse this process, to cite parallels from Day to Bees-Soldier passages¹³ and parallels from Dekker to passages in which Soldier differs from Bees—proving I know not what. Golding, furthermore, has supported his charge by words which assume what he is trying to prove. Frequently he writes to the effect that Day “has altered,” “Day has substituted,” “Day omits,” etc.,¹⁴ without regard for the other alternative, that Dekker may be the borrower.

It appears, then, that the parallel-passage method has not solved and is not likely to solve this problem; the connection between Bees and certain seventeenth-century plays requires further study. Though Bees seems to be related to Soldier in a way quite similar to that in which it is related to The Wonder of a Kingdom, to permit full presentation of the case within practicable limits and to tackle the more readily soluble problem first, I shall divide the subject into its two principal parts and herein confine myself to one—the relation between Bees and Soldier.

A few facts about the works in question will prove helpful. Bees exists in two versions, British Museum Lansdowne MS. 725,¹⁵ which I shall call the A text, and the quarto of 1641,¹⁶ which I shall call the B text. There seems to be general agreement that the B text is a revision by Day of the A text.¹⁷ The problem of dating the two versions precisely is so complicated that it would require extended discussion. For our purpose it should suffice to say that the B text was most likely written between 16 January 1633-1634¹⁸ and 15 October 1640.¹⁹

Essentially the same matter as that which companies Characters 4 and 5 of both texts of Bees appears also in Soldier. Such portions of this play as have parallels in Bees I shall call the C text. They are incidental to the main action of Soldier, which relates how the King of Spain is poisoned for breaking a contract with his cast-off mistress, Onaelia, and attempting to kill her and her bastard son. One sequence of passages (Character 4; Soldier, C1^v-C2^v, F1^v-F2^r) deals with the efforts of the title character, Baltazar, to gain admittance to the king. The subject of discussion, appropriately to both Soldier and Bees, is military valor. The other sequence, in Character 5 (Soldier, D3^v-E1^r), presents an interview, quite unnecessary to the story of the play, between Onaelia and a poet, who discourses freely on poets and poetry. Except in length, Soldier as a dramatic work would hardly suffer if these episodic passages were to be omitted. Soldier was entered in the Stationers' Register 16 May 1631 and again 9 December 1633,²⁰ both times being credited to Dekker. It was published by Nicholas Vavasour in 1634 with a title-page ascription to “S. R.,” usually identified as Samuel Rowley. According to F. E. Schelling, Soldier has been dated variously between 1592 and thirty years later.²¹ Evidence as yet available hardly permits exact dating²² of its composition; but neither does it prove that Soldier as we have it (i. e., containing the C passages) existed much before its publication. This review of the chief facts about the three versions, therefore, indicates that like parallel passages, external evidence fails to permit determination of the order in which A, B, and C were composed.

This problem can probably be solved, if at all, only by some method not hitherto employed. One such method is suggested by an obvious difference between the versions, that A and B are written in iambic pentameter couplets but C primarily in blank verse.²³ Can we perhaps determine from this fact whether the rhymed or the unrhymed version is the earlier? In attempting an answer we may, I think, safely ignore differences between A and B since they seem not to have significance to our problem, the relation between B and C.²⁴ I find no reason for believing that the correct solution will be other than one of the following: (1) either Day appropriated these lines from Soldier²⁵ or (2) someone,²⁶ writing or revising Soldier, appropriated them from Day's Bees. Let us test these hypotheses in the light of what we can learn about the writing of rhymed and unrhymed verse and of such peculiarities as the two texts exhibit.

Day possessed much skill as a rhymer.²⁷ If a later master of rhyme could tag Milton's verses, could Day have tagged those of Soldier? In The State of Innocence, it is admitted, Dryden was doing more than converting Paradise Lost to rhyme; yet in many passages Dryden chose to make what amount to rhymed paraphrases of Milton. In such passages one notes, first, that for his rhyme words Dryden almost always chose words which do not appear in the corresponding lines of Milton. Milton's

                                                                                                              nor much expect
A Foe so proud will first the weaker seek;
So bent, the more shall shame him his repulse

(IX, 382-4)²⁸

became Dryden's

Our foe's too proud the weaker to assail;
Or doubles his dishonour if he fail.

(III, 448)²⁹

Sometimes, however, Dryden chose for his rhyme sound a word present in Milton but not in the terminal position. Milton's

                                                                                he knows that in the day
Ye Eate thereof, your Eyes that seem so cleere,
Yet are but dim, shall perfetly be then
Op'nd and cleerd, and ye shall be as Gods,
Knowing both Good and Evil as they know

(IX, 705-9)

became Dryden's

He knows that eating, you shall god-like be;
As wise, as fit to be ador'd, as he.

(III, 451)

These two examples represent Dryden's usual method of rhyming blank verse. Dryden did only what anyone in his position would want to do, for one who tags verses needs freedom of choice in the rhyme words. To paraphrase a previously expressed thought in rhyme words taken principally from the original will very likely prevent the happy marriage of sound and sense which traditional poetry is. Such a method would be so much more difficult than necessary that one can hardly imagine why a poet would choose to impose upon himself any such limitation.

In the B text of Bees, Characters 4 and 5 contain approximately 120 couplets, of which 78 correspond almost line for line with passages in C. Six of these, however, match, even to the rhyme words, rhymed passages in the normally unrhymed C. Three, moreover, match passages that in C are prose. There remain, then, 69 couplets in B of significance to this analysis. Of these, one of the rhyme words of 59 couplets appears in C, in a distribution of possible importance. Of the 59, in 50 the rhyme word which appears in C occurs in the terminal position in C, 38 being first and 12 being second rhyme words in B. Of the 38, 3 are second-line and 35 are first-line terminal words in C. Let me illustrate:

(1) FIRST-LINE RHYME WORD OF B IS FIRST-LINE TERMINAL WORD OF C (35)

B: These pi'd-wing'd Butterflies would know me than,
But they nere landed in the Ile of Man

(p. 29)

C: These pide-wing'd Butterflyes had knowne me then:
Another flye-boat! save thee, Illustrious Don

(Cl^v)

(2) FIRST-LINE RHYME WORD OF B IS SECOND-LINE TERMINAL WORD OF C (3)

B: That such should tickle a commanders eare
With flatterie, when we must not come neare

(p. 29)

C:                                                                                                              that such flyes
Doe buzze about the beames of Majesty!
Like earwigs, tickling a Kings yeelding eare

(C2^r)

(3) SECOND-LINE RHYME WORD OF B IS SECOND-LINE TERMINAL WORD OF C (12)

B: The worst of all.
                                                                                Imagine I were one:
What should I get by't?
                                                                                                    Why, opinion.

(p. 39)

C: Necessity.
                                                  And which the worst?
                                                                                                                                  Selfe-love.
Say I turne Poet, what should I get?
                                                                                                                                            Opinion.

(El^r)³⁰

(4) RHYME WORD OF B USED OTHER THAN TERMINALLY IN C (9)

B: May not a woman be a Poet.
                                                                                                                        Yes;
And learne the art with far more easinesse

(p. 37)

C: Cannot a woman be a Poet, Sir?
Yes, Madam, best of all; for Poesie

(D4^v)

Only the remaining 10 of the 69 couplets of B which have corresponding lines in C have rhyme words of which one is not found in C.

Which of our two hypotheses provides the better explanation of the phenomena so far observed? If we accept the first, Day would have had to use a method of rhyming opposite both from that of Dryden and from that of anyone else who chose a workable method. Day would have introduced only 10 new pairs of rhyme words out of 69. Unless we conclude that he was attempting to exhibit his virtuosity, we would be at a loss for a motive to ascribe to him for so restricting himself. The distribution of the 59 rhyme words he would have taken over from C, moreover, renders his feat most remarkable. We would have to believe that only 12 times out of 59—i. e., when he used as second rhyme word the second-line terminal word of C—did he experience any particular difficulty in rhyming.³¹ We would have to believe that 35 times out of 59 he did what only the most accomplish rhymer could expect sometimes to be able to do—put down, as it were arrogantly, as his first rhyme word the terminal word of the first line of C. We would have to believe that, usually keeping half or more of the second line of C, he nevertheless managed to bring the thought into conformity with that of the context, despite the inconvenience that his words were chosen from a limited range of rhymes afforded by a word previously selected without regard for its ability to afford rhymes. If Day did all this, he is more of a master of rhyme than anyone has yet claimed. Such an achievement, indeed, would be so exceptional as to be hardly credible.

Is the second hypothesis any more satisfactory? Since to avoid rhyme is easier than to rhyme, if the poet of C was untagging the rhymes of B, he would have expected to meet few difficulties in substituting, in half the lines, words which make sense and also blank verse of a sort. His normal procedure, therefore, would probably have been to keep most of the first, and to substitute other words for the second, words of rhyming pairs in the original. Thus we would arrive at the situation presented by the rhyme words of B occurring in C. Ordinarily there would be little reason for varying both words of rhyming pairs in C; thus it may have come about that only ten pairs of rhyme words in B do not have one of their members appearing in C. Of the 59 rhyme words in B found in C, by this hypothesis we would expect most to occur in the first corresponding line of C; we find 35 in this position. Only infrequently would the poet have had occasion to use a first-line rhyme word of B as a second-line terminal word of C; we find three instances. It is to be expected that sometimes, in order to express the thought more freely—and we must remember that B concerns bees and C men, and that C should contribute something to the play in which it is embedded—the poet would likely depart from his norm either by substituting in the first instead of the second corresponding line of C (12 instances) or by embedding a rhyme word of B somewhere within a line of C (9 instances). This hypothesis would seem to offer the simplest explanation why C, unlike Paradise Lost, contains so many of the rhyme words of its rhymed equivalent (59 out of 69). The second hypothesis is thus seen to fit the facts very well indeed. On the evidence drawn from rhyme, C seems to be later than, and essentially a reworking in blank verse of, B.

Since rhyme and rhythm are never used in the abstract, they should be studied also in their effects upon other aspects of writing—sentence structure, word order, diction, and general effectiveness of expression. A satisfactory solution to the problem under discussion requires analysis of some of these effects.

Both rhyme and rhythm exert an influence upon sentence structure. The demands of rhythm alone may cause a poet to use elements of loose syntactical connection, such as words in direct address, appositives, and other parenthetical expressions. The demands of rhyme may lead him to locate such elements at the end of his line, for their very looseness permits him greater freedom in choosing rhymes. Thus in Byron's

But so torpid the power of some speakers, 'tis said,
That they sent even him to his brimstone bed

(“Devil's Drive,” Works, p. 178)³²

the goal “bed” may not only determine the choice of the word “said” but also explain the presence of the parenthetical expression. Very likely the price Byron paid for his rhyme, also, is the inverted word order in both the following clauses:

Cold dews my pallid face o'erspread,
With deadly languor droops my head.

(“Ad Lesbiam,” Works, p. 87)

Are these influences visible in B and C?

In rhyme and metre, B is on the whole excellent. Little liberty is taken with the correspondence of rhyme sounds,³³ and only 7 of the 138 rhyme words occur in parenthetical expressions, direct addresses, or other loosely connected elements—a ratio lower, I think, than that in a number of seventeenth-century dramatic poets. Only 4 of these 7 occur where C has a more closely connected equivalent. The high percentage of run-on lines in B³⁴ no doubt discourages placing such constructions in the rhyme position. In terminal positions where the corresponding lines of B do not use them, C, on the other hand, uses 2[frac12] times as many loosely connected elements as B.³⁵ Of word order, in the 138 lines here studied I find only two inversions in B where C has the normal order.³⁶ Never in C, on the other hand, is order inverted where in B it is normal.³⁷

Which hypothesis, once more, best explains the situation described? The first would lead one to expect frequent use in B of rhyme words in loosely connected elements and fewer loosely connected elements in C than in B. It would require, further, that B would invert more often than C and would suggest that a number of the inversions in B would occur where C uses normal order. None of these expectations is fulfilled. Under the second hypothesis, however, the poet of B would have no reason for employing loosely connected elements more frequently than usual. Those he employed he might find it convenient to place in the rhyme position. The poet of C, on the other hand, making such substitutions as were necessary to avoid rhyming, would be led by metre into writing more loosely than the poet of B. Not rhyming, he would not be motivated to invert what in B is the normal word order. This description of what under the hypothesis we ought to find describes what on examination we do find. On the evidence from loosely connected syntax and from inversion, too, then, C seems to be later than and essentially a reworking in blank verse of B.

With diction and general effectiveness of expression, we must enter territory where it would be possible to get lost in the quicksands of subjectivity. To leave out of account differences in the choice of words and rhetorical effectiveness of B and C, however, would be to stop short of putting our hypotheses to the final test. Let us consider, therefore, the usual influence of rhyme and rhythm on these aspects of writing.

Though rhyme sometimes tightens, it perhaps more often tends to loosen, diction. Even so accomplished a rhymer as Dryden occasionally allows the exigencies of rhyme to lead him into using something other than the mot juste. Milton's

                                                                                                              in one day to have marr'd
What he Almighty-styl'd, six Nights and Days
Continued making

(IX, 136-138)

Dryden renders

Seducing Man, I make his project vain,
And, in one hour, destroy his six days pain.

(III, 437)

Few would deny that the choice of “pain,” though not unfortunate, is something less than a free choice. The necessity of avoiding rhyme, however, might lead a poet to use words which otherwise would hardly occur to him in a given connection. Since the result, rather unexpected diction, would be the same, here we are interested less in statistics about the diction of B and C than in the closeness with which variants are related to their contexts. If in such variants as seem to occur because of the necessity of avoiding rhyme or of rhyming, one text rather consistently uses words more closely related to their context than the other, we may obtain further support for one or the other hypothesis.

In the 138 lines of B here fully studied, only 5 rhyme words, even as clearly as the example from Dryden, seem to have been drafted for the sake of rhyme.³⁸ None is patently a bad word choice. The verse of Day, here and elsewhere, meets Dryden's criterion, “that it is a propriety of Thoughts and Words; or in other terms, Thought and Words elegantly adapted to the Subject.”³⁹ The C version, however, often fails to meet this standard. The evidence is too extensive for full presentation, but four pairs of passages offer sufficient illustration.

1. B: Proud Don with th'oaker face, I'de but desire
To meet thee on a breach midst smoak and fire;
And, for Tobacco, whiffing Gunpowder
Out of a brazen pipe, that should puffe lowder
Then thunder roares. There, though, illiterate Dawe,
Thou nere couldst spell, thou shouldst reade Canon law

(p. 28)

C: You Don with th' oaker face, I wish to ha thee
But on a Breach, stifling with smoke and fire,
And for thy No, but whiffing Gunpowder
Out of an Iron pipe, I woo'd but aske thee
If thou wood'st on, and if thou didst cry No.

(C1^v)

It will be admitted, I think, that in this passage B is superior to C. “I'de,” for example, is consistent in form with “should,” but in C “wish” is not consistent with “woo'd.” In B, “for Tobacco” gives to “whiffing” and “pipe” and “puffe” a wit which enhances the effectiveness of all three words; and “though. … / Thou nere couldst spell” similarly completes “thou shouldst reade Canon law.” But a good figure may be debased as well as a poor figure improved; the critical test, therefore, is not which is per se the better reading but rather which is the more closely related to its context. The word “whiffing” in B is relevant both to logic and to figure; in C, it is relevant only to logic—that is, it contributes only a conventional detail regarding battlefields. “Canon-law” is fully justified by the context of B; compare “illiterate,” “spell,” and “reade.” It is hardly justified by that of C.

2. B: Well, if thou commest to beg a suit at Court,
I shall descend so low as to report
Thy paper businesse

(p. 28)

C: If, Souldier, thou hast suits to begge at Court,
I shall descend so low as to betray
Thy paper to the hand royall

(C2^r)

In both versions, with these lines a courtier agrees to advance the suit of the person addressed. In B, “report” is not only a good rhyme but also a precise expression of the speaker's meaning. Can any appropriateness be claimed for “betray” in this context, where the sense is “present” or “deliver?”

3. B:                                                                                          Yes; each line must be
A corde to draw bloud.
                                                                                          Good.
                                                                                                              A ly to dare
The stab from him it touches.
                                                                                                                        Better, rare.
Such satyres, as you call 'em, must lance wide

(pp. 35 f.)

C:                                                                                          And every line must be
A whip to draw blood.
                                                                                          Better
                                                                                                              And to dare
The stab from him it touches: he that writes
Such Libels (as you call 'em) must lanch wide.

(D4^r)

Both B and C say in effect that satirical verse must administer punishment and also incite to combat. In B, the admiration of the second speaker is progressive: “Good,” “Better.” Then B begins to state another function of satire: “Such satyres … must lance wide.” In C there is a shift from the poetry to the poet: “he that writes / Such libels … must.” What is the relevance of “Better” to the context in C?

4. B: Ile therefore be no Poet, no nor make
Ten muses of your nine. My reason take:
Verses, tho freemen borne, are bought and sold
Like slaves; their makers too, that merit gold,
Are fed with shalls

(p. 40)

C: I'le therefore be no Poet; no, nor make
Ten Muses of your nine; I sweare for this;
Verses, tho freely borne, like slaves are sold,
I Crowne thy lines with Bayes, thy love with gold.

(E1^r)

Out of context, the last line of C makes good sense; in Soldier, however, it does not. Since Onaelia has just torn up the poet's lines and ordered them burned, to say that she crowns them with bays is nonsense. In the light of the contrast with “slaves,” “freemen” of B is probably more closely related to its context than “freely” of C. Line 3 in C and lines 3 and 4 in B have an epigrammatic quality. It is appropriate that they be formally introduced. “I sweare for this” is not a very good introduction; we need to know the antecedent of “this,” which may refer either to the preceding resolve or the following charge against patrons of poetry. “I sweare for this” therefore seems a less effective introduction than “My reason take” for the following sententious period.

From these passages what can we say about the order of B and C? Whether he wrote in rhyme or in blank verse, the author of the original version labored under fewer restraints than the author of the derived version. The former had only to marry sound with sense; he was free to choose whatever materials he could manage. The latter had to marry sound with sense and at the same time largely confine himself to materials previously chosen by his predecessor. As a result, other things begin equal, one would expect the diction of the later version to be inferior.

If we accept the first hypothesis, we must believe that while laboring under the strict limitations regarding rhyme which this view imposes, Day had such skill as not only to avoid exhibiting the expected deterioration in diction but also consistently to improve diction and general effectiveness of expression. We would have to believe that in example 1 above he saw and took the opportunity of making good figures out of “whiffing” and “Canon-Law.” We would have to believe, what is harder, that the poet of C chose voluntarily to employ these words. I can see how he might have used “whiffing” though it seems to be of a piece with “pipe” and “puffe.” But unless he had in mind the word play with “illiterate,” “spell,” and “reade,” that he should have initiated the reference to “Canon-Law” seems most unlikely. We would have to believe, in example 2, that the poet of C voluntarily chose to use the inaccurate word, “betray,” for “present” or “deliver.” We would have to believe, in example 3, that despite the exigencies of rhyme Day was able to improve the division of lines between speakers and make the response of the second speaker progressive by changing “Better” to “Good.” We would have to believe, also, that the poet of C, without having first used the positive “Good,” chose to use the comparative better. We would have to believe, in example 4, that Day improved “freely” to “freemen” and “I sweare for this” to “My reason take.” We would have to believe, further, that the poet of C voluntarily chose to write the ambiguous, ineffective introduction, “I sweare for this.” We would have to ignore, finally, that the poet of C in line 4 contradicts what he himself had written in the same scene of Soldier. All these beliefs, I submit, are most difficult to accept.

If we accept the second hypothesis, on the other hand, the difficulties vanish. We find the expected deterioration of diction at every turn and some readings that can be satisfactorily explained only as substitutes for original readings. Avoiding Day's rhymes, the poet of C debases Day's figures. In example 2, he substitutes for “report” a word that does not accurately express his meaning. In example 3, perhaps by mistake he picks up the second instead of the first response of the second speaker (there is other evidence that he was careless). The two-fold requirement of satirical verse in both B and C, the matching two-fold response in B, and the progression from “Good” to “Better” argue strongly that B is the earlier version. In example 4, tolerating readings he must have recognized to be inferior, the poet of C sacrificed a number of stylistic merits so as to obtain unrhymed lines.

On evidence drawn principally from the relation of certain variants to their contexts, then, the first hypothesis is found to be hardly tenable; the second, satisfactory. The evidence from diction, like all the other evidence, points to the author of Soldier as the borrower. If one needs to ascribe to him a motive, without these episodic and easily transplanted passages Soldier would be rather slender for a full-length play. With a high degree of probability if not with certainty we may reach, then, several conclusions.

Evidence herein presented places strictures upon the view of Golding as to the relation between Soldier and Bees. The hitherto undemonstrated view of Chambers stands confirmed. Evidence from rhyme, metre, sentence structure, word order, and diction suggests that the version in Bees is earlier than that in Soldier, which is a free rendition of it in blank verse. Since Soldier was published in 1634, we may confidently assign the composition of the B text of Bees to the period between 16 January 1633-1634 and the end of 1634. This paper removes the principal basis for Fleay's claim that Day had a hand with Dekker and Rowley in the authorship of Soldier. If these findings should be confirmed by a similar study of The Wonder of a Kingdom and Bees, finally, Day in his best known work may be acquitted of the charge of having beautified himself with another's feathers.

Notes

1. Bees is no masque but a series of twelve short verse dialogues. Initiated by Charles Lamb, this error has been perpetuated by Bullen and nearly all later writers except E. K. Chambers (The Elizabethan Stage [Oxford, 1923], III, 287) and the late Murray Eugene Borish; see the latter's Harvard ms. dissertation, John Day, 1931, p. 408. I am grateful to Elizabeth P. Borish for placing at my disposal a number of her husband's Day materials, which should strengthen the edition of Day I am now preparing. They include a monograph-length, unfinished draft of a general study of the Bees which has proved valuable as a check on my independent treatment of the subject of this paper.

2. The Works of John Day (2 vols.; London, 1881), I, Intro., 26. I cite Day in this edition, which has separate pagination for the Introduction and for each work by Day.

3. Cf. Arthur Symons, ed., The Parliament of Bees, in Nero and Other Plays (London, 1888), p. 206; F. G. Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama (London, 1891), I, 113 f.; A. W. Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature (2d ed.; London, 1899), II, 593 f.; Chambers, op. cit., III, 288, 300; and Borish, diss., p. 416.

4. Op. cit., I, 114 f., 128.

5. Op. cit., III, 288.

6. “The Parliament of Bees,” RES, III (1927), 282; 304; 287; 304; 286.

7. Since hereafter my Day quotations are from Bees, I shall no longer give volume number.

8. Dekker's Dramatic Works (Pearson Reprints; London, 1873), p. 215.

9. D4^r, The Noble Sovldier, or. A Contract Broken, justly reveng'd, London, 1634. The running-titles have the alternate title, The Noble Spanish Soldier. I use the copy in the Wrenn Library of the University of Texas. The quarto appeared as a Tudor Facsimile Text in 1913.

10. Bees, p. 35.

11. Golding, op. cit., p. 291.

12. Borish gives cogent reasons for rejecting a number of them; see diss., pp. 446-455.

13. As Borish has done; see diss., pp. 455-459.

14. E. g., op. cit., pp. 287, 288.

15. Of this I used a photostat, checking my readings against transcriptions by both Professor and Mrs. Borish. This version calls the twelve divisions of Bees Colloquies; the published version, Characters. To avoid needless complication I do not preserve this distinction.

16. Belief in the existence of a quarto of 1607 is not warranted; see Bullen, op. cit., I, Intro., 25 f.; Golding, op. cit., p. 280; and Borish, diss., pp. 407 f.

17. Cf. Bullen, Bees, i; Symons, op. cit., pp. 206, 210 f.; Golding, op. cit., p. 280; and Borish, diss., p. 415. Golding (p. 280) and Borish (p. 408) agree that the emendations of the B text do not always provide superior readings; cf. A. C. Swinburne, Contemporaries of Shakespeare (ed. E. Gosse and T. J. Wise; London, 1919), p. 230.

18. The death on this date of William Austin (Augustine), to whom the A text had been dedicated, left the needy Day free to dedicate the later version to George Butler, a living patron from whom Day could expect “the commodity.” See Borish, diss., p. 468.

19. On this date was registered John Tatum's Fancies Theatre, which contains an elegy on Day; E. Arber, A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers (London, 1875-1890), IV, 523.

20. Arber, Transcript, IV, 253, 310.

21. English Drama, 1558-1642 (Boston), 1908), I, 421.

22. Chambers offers no more precise date than “>1631” (op. cit., III, 300). Soldier may, as W. W. Greg says (Henslowe's Diary [London, 1904-1908], II, 220), have been based upon an older play though little evidence has been offered in support of this view. Under 1602 Harbage lists Soldier with the query, “Same as Spanish Fig., below?” and gives limits, “1602-1623” (Annals of English Drama [Philadelphia, 1940], p. 70). Bertram Lloyd has shown between Soldier and The Welsh Ambassador a relation which in his opinion provides “a fairly safe downward limit for” Soldier “at least ten years earlier than its published date of 1634” (“The Noble Soldier and The Welsh Ambassador,” RES, III [1927], 304-307). Since none of the C passages has a counterpart in Ambassador, this limit does not help date the C text.

23. Soldier itself is in blank verse except for some prose passages, a rhymed song (B2^r), and 38 couplets.

24. All but 7 of the 78 couplets of B which appear in C employ the same rhyme words in A and B. A study of all three texts yields no conclusive evidence that C is more closely related to one than the other of A and B.

25. Or a hypothetical Ur-Soldier though no evidence requires that we look for a common original.

26. Possibly even Day himself though we have no other indication that he was connected with the publication of Soldier.

27. Bullen speaks of the “easy fluency of the rhymed lines” even of the otherwise crude Blind-Beggar of Bednal-Green as “characteristic of Day” and writes that in Humour out of Breath “we are whirled along in a round of rhymes, until we find ourselves at last wellnigh breathless with mirth” (I, Intro., 9, 25).

28. I cite by book and line in F. A. Patterson, gen. ed., The Works of John Milton, New York, 1931.

29. I cite Dryden by volume and page in Montague Summers, ed., Dryden: The Dramatic Works, London, 1932.

30. Note that all 12 are second-line terminal words of C. No second-line rhyme word of B agrees with a first-line terminal word of C.

31. One who accepts the first hypothesis should be able to explain, also—what I am not able to explain—why in this process Day never used a second-line terminal word of C as a first rhyme word.

32. The Complete Poetical Works of Lord Byron, Student's Cambridge ed., Boston, 1905.

33. The only doubtful rhymes I find in B are “barbour” with “eare-picker” but also with “harbour” (pp. 28, 29), “swan” with “gentleman” and also with “man” (pp. 30, 31), and “Character” with “doth deter” (p. 36).

34. Fifty-five of the first 100 lines of Character 5 in B that do not fall at the end of a speech are run-on lines. Only 12 of the first 100 lines of Act II, Scene 1, of The State of Innocence are run-on.

35. I find 10: “Sir?” and “I pray” (C2^r), “Illustrious Don” (C1^v), “Estridge-like” (F1^v), “[even through the jawes of danger]” and “[I shall print it ever]” (F2^r), “welcome Sir” and “Onaelia” (D3^v), “Sir?” and “Lady”: (D4^v).

36. “What to doe?” (p. 28) and “The small ones call the shrimps of Poesie” (p. 39).

37. C, however, tends to agree with B in the first lines of couplets and to differ from it so freely in second lines that the conclusion that C inverts the order of its equivalent lines less often than B would have less significance than at first it seems to have, even if it were based upon a sufficiently large sample.

38. “Halfe” after “calfe” and “clownes” after “townes” (p. 29), “charme” after “arme” (pp. 29 f.), “liking” after “striking” and “easinesse” after “Yes” (p. 37).

39. “Apology for Heroique Poetry,” Dramatic Works, III, 424.