THIS play, which for want of a ready-made title I have called Narcissus, dates from a period of peculiar interest in the history of that class of dramatic composition to which it belongs.

So vast a phenomenon as the rise and fall of the complete English drama could not but be attended by widely-spread symptoms of the popular love for stage representation; a tendency which, though it would never have produced a Shaksperian tragedy, yet alone rendered possible the work of a Shakspere. These lesser manifestations of the feeling that pervaded Elizabethan England may be compared to the small fissures on the side of a volcano, through which the same lava as fills the molten crater emanates in slender and perhaps hardly perceptible channels. It may chance that the activity of these side-streams presages the final eruption at the summit; yet afterwards they are scarcely noticed, and their effects are too puny to attract attention. So it is with the abortive forms of drama, heralding, accompanying, and in some cases outliving, the culmination of English dramatic art under Shakspere. They are not, as a rule, the product of those great intellects which helped in the rearing of the main structure; but rather of such lesser writers as were either possessed by the dramatic spirit while ignorant of the formative and restraining rules of art, or else imbued with a desire to follow those rules, as they had been drawn up by Aristotle and Horace and exemplified in French and Italian literature, whilst themselves wanting in originality, and oblivious of the superiority of a native growth over the best of importations. The latter class of would-be English dramatists, in especial, found a natural field for action amongst the scholarly societies which constituted a mediÆval university. Though as early as 1584 and 1593 statutes are found enacting that no players shall perform within five miles of Oxford, it must be remembered that these refer to professional, not to academical actors, and that the regulations controlling the former were of much greater stringency than those which concerned the latter.

Nor were plays imitated from Greek and Latin writers the only ones to be performed by undergraduates and others before select audiences in the college halls. Youthful players would probably demand the introduction of something more or less witty; and the fact that theatrical representations generally took place on the occasion of a royal visit, or at times of special rejoicing, accounts in some degree for the casting aside of the strictly classical models, and the employment of masques, or of such looser forms of comedy as were the outcome of Heywood's Interludes, into either of which contemporary allusions and jests could be readily introduced. Nevertheless, the majority of such pieces continued to deal with subjects taken from Roman and Greek mythology, the various anachronisms and absurdities which arose from this method of treatment only contributing to heighten the amusement of the spectators. I have already implied that Narcissus belongs to the class of University plays, inasmuch as it was acted at S. John's College, Oxford, on Twelfth Night, 1602. It does not, however, approximate in any way to the classical form of comedy; it is rather to be regarded as a Christmas piece, an imitation of the Yule-tide mummeries acted by disguised villagers or townsfolk at the houses of such wealthier persons as would afford them hospitality.

The following list of Oxford plays—compiled, with additions, from W. L. Courtney's article in Notes and Queries for December 11th, 1886, and W. Carew Hazlitt's Manual of English Plays—may be of interest, as showing the frequency of dramatic entertainments at the various colleges between 1547 and the Restoration. The dates appended are in most cases those of presentation; but when these are either unknown, or impossible to distinguish from dates of entry at Stationers' Hall, I have substituted the latter.

1547.	Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista, by Nicholas Grimald, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1566.	Marcus Geminus, by (?) in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1566.	PalÆmon and Arcyte, by Richard Edwards, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1566.	Ariosto, by Geo. Gascoigne, at Trin. Coll.
1566.	Progne, by Dr. James Calfhill, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
? 1580.	Ulysses Redux, by William Gager, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1581.	Meleager, by William Gager, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1582.	Supposes, translated from Ariosto, by Geo. Gascoigne, at Trin. Coll.
1582.	Julius CÆsar, by Dr. Geddes, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1583.	Rivales, by William Gager, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1583.	Dido, by William Gager, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
?	Tancred, by H. Wotton, at Queen's Coll.
?	Kermophus, by George Wild (?) at (?)
1591.	Kynes Redux, by William Gager, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1592.	Bellum Grammaticale, sive Nominum Verborumque Discordia Civilis, by (?) at Ch. Ch.
? 1602.	Hamlet, by W. Shakspere, at (?).
1602.	Narcissus, by (?) at S. John's College.
1605.	Ajax Flagellifer, by (?) at (?).
1605.	Alba, by (?) in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1605.	Vertumnus, sive, Annus Recurrens Oxonii, by Dr. Matthew Gwinne, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1606.	The Queen's Arcadia, by Samuel Daniel, in Ch. Ch. Hall.
1607.	CÆsar and Pompey, by (?) at Trin. Coll.
1607.	The Christmas Prince, by divers hands, at S. John's Coll.
1608.	Yule-tide, by (?) at Ch. Ch.
1614.	Spurius, by Peter Heylin, at Hart Hall.
1617.	Technogamia, by Barten Holiday, at Ch. Ch.
1617-8.	Philosophaster, by R. Burton, at Ch. Ch.
1631.	The Raging Turk, by Thomas Goffe, at Ch. Ch.
1632.	The Courageous Turk, by Thomas Goffe, at Ch. Ch.
1633.	Fuimus Troes, by Dr. Jasper Fisher, at Magd. Coll.
1633.	Orestes, by Thomas Goffe, at Ch. Ch.
? 1634.	The Sophister, by R. Zouch, at (?).
1634-5.	Euphormus, sive, Cupido Adultus, by Geo. Wilde, at S. John's Coll.
1636.	Stonehenge, by John Speed, at S. John's Coll.
1636.	The floating Island, by William Strode, at Ch. Ch.
1636.	Love's Hospital (or, The Hospital of Lovers), by Geo. Wilde, at S. John's Coll.
1636.	The Royal Slave, by William Cartwright, at Ch. Ch.
1637.	The Converted Robber, by Geo. Wilde, at S. John's College.
? 1640.	Pharamus, sive, Libido Vindex (also published under the title of Thibaldus, sive VindictÆ Ingenium), by Thomas Snelling, at (?).
1648.	Stoicus Vapulans, by (?) at S. John's Coll.
1648.	Amorous War, by Jasper Maine, D.D., at (?).
?	The Scholar, by Richard Lovelace, at Gloucester Hall. (Prologue and Epilogue appear in Lucasta, 1649.)
1651.	The Lady Errant, by William Cartwright, at (?).
1653.	The Inconstant Lady, by Arthur Wilson, at Trin. Coll. (?)
1654.	The Combat of Love and Friendship, by Robt. Mead, at Ch. Ch.
1660.	The Christmas Ordinary, by W. R., M.A., at Trin. Coll.
1660.	The Guardian, by (?) at "new dancing-school against S. Michael's Church." (Wood, iii. 705.)
1663.	Flora's Vagaries, by Richard Rhodes, at Ch. Ch.

This catalogue does not, of course, pretend to be exhaustive. An examination of the various college archives would doubtless afford further material. There exists, for instance, the record of performances at Merton; cf. G. C. Brodrick's Memorials of Merton College (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1885), p. 67: "In January and February, 1566-7, two dramatic performances were given in the Warden's lodgings by members of the foundation ... the one being an English comedy, and the other Terence's Eunuchus.... Again, in 1568, a play of Plautus was acted in the hall."

It will be seen that of the above-mentioned plays six, besides Narcissus, were performed at the College of S. John the Baptist, the first recorded being the Christmas Prince in 1607, the succeeding ones taking place after an interval of twenty-six years; and to these we should very probably add Pharamus, the writer of which, Thomas Snelling, "became Scholar of S. John's in 1633, aged 19, and afterwards fellow ... and was esteemed an excellent Latin poet." (Wood, Ath. Ox., vol. iii., p. 275.)

A passage from Wake's Rex Platonicus (ed. 1, p. 18) is also worthy of note in this connection: "Quorum primos jam ordines dum principes contemplantur, primisque congratulantium acclamationibus delectantur, Collegium Diui Iohannis, nobile literarum domicilium (quod Dominus Thomas Whitus PrÆtor olim Londinensis, opimis reditibus locupletÂrat) faciles eorum oculos speciosÆ structurÆ adblanditione invitat; moxque et oculos & aures detinet ingenios nec injucund lusiuncul qu clarissimus prÆses cum quinquaginta, quos alit Collegium studiosis, magnaque studentium conuiventium cateru prodeuns, principes in transitu salutandos censuit. "FabulÆ ansam dedit antiqua de Regia prosapia historiola apud Scoto-Britannos celebrata, quÆ narrat tres olim Sibyllas occurrisse duobus ScotiÆ proceribus Macbetho & Banchoni, & illum prÆdixisse Regem futurum, sed Regem nullum geniturum, hunc Regem non futurum, sed Reges geniturum multos. Vaticinii veritatem rerum eventus comprobavit: Banchonis enim È stirpe Potentissimus Iacobus oriundus. Tres adolescentes concinno Sibyllarum habitu induti, È Collegio prodeuntes, & carmina lepida alternatim canentes, Regi se tres esse illas Sibyllas profitentur, quÆ Banchoni olim Sobolis imperia prÆdixerant, jamque iterum comparere, vt eÂdem vaticinij veritate prÆdicerent Iacobo, se iam, & diu regem futurum BritanniÆ felicissimum & multorum Regum parentem, vt ex Banchonis stirpe nunquam sit hÆres Britannico diademati defuturus. Deinde tribus Principibus suaves felicitatum triplicitates triplicatis carminum vicibus succinentes veniamque precantes, quÒd alumni Ædium Divi Iohannis (qui prÆcursor Christi) alumnos Ædis Christi (quo tum Rex tendebat) prÆcursori hÂc salutatione antevertissent, Principes ingenios fictiuncul delectatos dimittunt; quos inde vniversa astantium multitudo, felici prÆdictionum successui suffragans, votis precibusque ad portam vsque civitatis Borealem prosequitur."

---

The Christmas Prince is, properly speaking, not a single play, but a collection of performances consequent on the revival of the old custom, left in abeyance since 1577, of choosing a prince, or master of the revels, who should exercise undisputed authority during the festive season, and in whose honour the company at large should indulge freely in various sorts of pastimes. The account given of this revival, in 1607, seems to imply that there had been of late years no Christmas festivities at S. John's. In 1602 the college porter, pleading for the admission of players on Twelfth Night, could say:

Without laying too much stress upon a single allusion, it is safe to assert that the discovery of the comedy of Narcissus, played five years earlier than the performances of which an account is given in the Christmas Prince, must be of considerable interest in the history of S. John's, and indeed in that of Oxford play-acting generally.

The MS. containing this comedy is one of the Rawlinson collection, now in the possession of the Bodleian Library. The volume, which is 5½ × 4 inches in size, with 156 leaves, appears to have been the commonplace book of an Oxford man. It contains a variety of English poems and prose pieces, written at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century; amongst them several pages of extracts from the essays of Bacon and of his less-known contemporary Robert Johnson. Sir H. Wotton's poem, "How happy is he borne or taught," also finds a place in the collection. But the majority of the contents are of small literary value, and, so far as I am aware, have never been published. Perhaps the most interesting pieces in the volume are certain "English Epigrammes much like Buckminster's Almanacke ... calculated by John Davis of Grayes Inne ... 1594" of the character of which the following lines, occurring early in the series, may give some idea.

That the play now under consideration is the work of some member or members of the college of S. John's there can be no doubt. It is, as the Prologue affirms, "Ovid's owne Narcissus," i.e., the story of Narcissus as told in the third book of the Metamorphoses, which forms the basis of the plot; and the resemblance to the Latin is in parts so close as necessarily to imply a knowledge of that language on the part of the writer. There is, indeed, one passage of literal and yet graceful translation (see ll. 494-505) which especially betokens a scholarly hand.

But it has been already hinted that the chief interest of the comedy lies in another direction. The arrangement and methods are those of the rough-and-ready English stage of the period; and as in the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude of the Midsummer Night's Dream, and the Nine Worthies of Love's Labour's Lost, the writer imitates and ridicules that naÏve realism which appertained to native comedy in its rude embryonic forms. The absurdities with which the Narcissus abounds are obviously intentional; it is, in fact, a burlesque, not skilful nor humorous enough to take its place beside the immortal parodies of Shakspere, which in aim and scope it resembles, but a good average specimen of its class, doubtless provocative of intense delight in the minds of a contemporary audience. It is, of course, with a view to heightening the reality of the effect that the Porter is made to plead on behalf of certain "youths of the parish," who are waiting, armed with their wassail-bowl, for admittance into the hall, and who, besides a song, have "some other sporte too out of dowbt" for the delectation of the assembled guests. Then follows, first the song, and afterwards an altercation in prose between the Porter and the Players, who assume an air of bashfulness when called upon to exercise their dramatic talent. Finally, the Prologue enters, and the play is begun; the general smoothness of the versification standing out in contrast to the intentional doggerel of the Porter's introductory speech and epilogue.

The mention of "youths of the parish" is probably not serious; but as an allusion to a real play of the kind here imitated, the following extract from the Christmas Prince (ed. 1816, p. 25) may be of interest: "S. Steevens day was past over in silence, and so had S. John's day also; butt that some of the princes honest neighbours of S. Giles presented him with a maske or morris, which though it were but rudely performed, yet itt being so freely & lovingly profered it could not but bee as lovingly received."

---

I shall now pass on to the consideration of the play itself, and, first, of the characters which make up the list of dramatis personÆ. Five of these, namely, Tiresias, Cephisus, Narcissus, Echo, and Liriope, appear in the story of Narcissus as told by Ovid. Cephisus, son of Pontus and Thalassa, and divinity of the river whence he derives his name, is the father of the hero; the nymph Liriope is his mother. Tiresias, the blind prophet of Thebes, and Echo, the unhappy victim of the anger of Juno and the contempt of Narcissus, are well-known figures in classical mythology. Neither Dorastus and Clinias, who attend Narcissus as youthful friends, nor Florida and Clois, nymphs enamoured of his beauty, have any actual counterparts in the Metamorphoses.

Most curious and interesting is the inclusion of "The Well" in the list of characters. We have here no mere stage property, or piece of scenery, but an actual personification of an inanimate object, closely resembling that of Wall and Moonshine in Peter Quince's company. Just as Moonshine carries a lantern to represent more vividly the actual moon, so the personage called The Well aids the imagination of his audience by the visible sign of a water-bucket. The fact of his being enumerated amongst the dramatis personÆ shows that the part was played by a separate artist, and not doubled with that of any other character. Of the Porter, Francis, more will be said in Section II.

---

The play of Narcissus, though it can boast of no artificial divisions, falls naturally into twelve different portions, which for want of a better term I will call scenes. Whilst using this word it is necessary to bear in mind that no change of scenery is implied, and probably none was intended.

Scene I. reveals Cephisus, Liriope, and Narcissus, awaiting the prophet Tiresias. It consists of 132 lines, amplified from Met. iii. 341, 346-348:

The introduction of Cephisus, the conversation between Narcissus and his parents, the telling of the youth's fate by the aid of chiromancy, and Liriope's scornful comment on the prophecy, are the materials used by the English writer to form an effective scene.

Scene II. is wholly an interpolation. Dorastus and Clinias also try their fate with Tiresias; he prophesies their early death, and they jest upon the subject.

Scene III., in which Dorastus and Clinias flatter Narcissus for his beauty, has no counterpart in Ovid. Probably, however, it was suggested by Met. iii. 353-355:

Scene IV. pursues a like theme; the nymphs Florida and Clois are in their turn repulsed by the scornful youth, and relate their woes to Dorastus and Clinias.

The hint for this is given in Met. iii. 402:

And likewise the suggestion of Florida's revengeful wish:

Scene V. Echo enters, and gives an account of herself, amplified—with a very free use of the English vernacular—from Met. iii. 356-368.

Scene VI., which has no counterpart in Ovid, consists of a spirited hunting-song in five stanzas, sung (presumably) while Narcissus, Dorastus, and Clinias chase a supposed hare over the stage.

Scene VII. introduces the "one with a bucket," i.e., The Well. The first twelve lines of his speech are a literal and smoothly-versified translation of Met. iii. 407-412. In Ovid, however, this description of the well comes after the conversation between Echo and Narcissus, and the account proceeds at once (l. 413) with:

It is doubtful why the English writer should have preferred to introduce the Well thus early. With Ovid's lines may be compared those in the translation of the Romaunt of the Rose attributed to Chaucer:

Scene VIII. consists of a dialogue between Dorastus and Echo.

Scene IX. continues the same theme, Clinias being substituted for Dorastus. Both these scenes are interpolations, introduced evidently for the amusement of the audience rather than for any bearing on the main plot.

Scene X. Here Narcissus delivers himself of a soliloquy, suggested by Met. iii. 479:

He is answered by Echo, who wishes to proffer him her affection. The conversation, gathered from Ovid, runs as follows:

This, with various amplifications, is followed in ll. 602-630 of the Narcissus.

Here, however, there is no reproduction of Ovid's account:

which leads on to and explains the next speech of Narcissus:

rendered in the English by:

This terminates the interview; Echo does not seem to make any appearance on the stage. The few lines which, in Ovid, describe the effect of her hopeless love, are partly followed in ll. 740-747 of the English play.

Scene XI. Dorastus and Clinias abuse, fight with, and finally kill each other.

Scene XII. Narcissus enters, fleeing from Echo (a connecting touch not found in Ovid). His speech, on discovering the well, is a mixture of the description of his transports in the Metamorphoses, and of the soliloquy there attributed to him. ll. 697-707 of the Narcissus correspond word for word to Met. iii. 442-450.

It is remarkable that the use of the name of the goddess of corn instead of bread itself ("Cereris," l. 437) should have suggested to the English writer a similar metaphorical use of the names of Morpheus and Bacchus. Another small point worthy of note is the introduction of a jest into the midst of this mournful scene; Ovid's:

being irreverently rendered by:

Ovid's Narcissus discovers his own identity with the vision (Met. iii. 463), which the English version ignores; while, on the other hand, the prophecy of ll. 730-731:

finds no counterpart in Ovid. Many of the reflections and entreaties ascribed to Narcissus in the Latin version are omitted in the English; neither is there any mention of the beating of the breast (Met. iii. 480-485). The final conversation with Echo is given thus by Ovid:

The English writer somewhat amplifies this, Echo being always a favourite stage-character. The rising up of Narcissus after death is an English expedient; so is Echo's return to give a final account of herself, the matter of which is suggested, as has been said, by Met. iii. 393-401.

So much for the classical basis of the play; it remains to notice briefly the points in which it resembles an English comedy, or shows traces of the influence of other English writers. Most remarkable in the latter connection is the frequent coincidence of expressions between the Narcissus and Shakspere's Henry IV. (Part 1.). Amongst these are the following:

L. 78.	Ladds of metall.	Cf. 1 Henry IV.,	ii. 4, 13.
80.	No vertue extant	"	ii. 4, 132.
111.	I tickle (them) for	"	ii. 4, 489.
422.	Never ioyd (it) since	"	ii. 1, 13.
575.	Kee (= quoth) pickpurse	"	ii. 1, 53.
734.	(My) grandam earth	"	iii. 1, 34.

See also the notes on ll. 282, 396, and 683.

As Henry IV. was entered at Stationers' Hall February 25th, 1597, and the first quarto appeared in 1598, it is quite possible that these may be direct borrowings on the part of the writer of the Narcissus. A common trick of English burlesque at this time (cf. Midsummer Night's Dream, v. 1, 337, etc.) was the inversion of epithets, producing nonsensical combinations; an expedient which, if we condemn it as poor wit, we must at least allow to fall under the definition of humour as "the unexpected." A good example of this occurs in ll. 360, 361:

And another in ll. 677, 678:

Sarcastic allusions are also not wanting; see, for instance, the cheerful inducement held out to Narcissus:

And cf. the notes on ll. 337, 342.

There are several facetious mistakes in the forms of words, such as spoone for moon (l. 350), Late-mouse for Latmus (l. 279), and Davis for Davus (l. 400); of which the first recalls Ancient Pistol's "Cannibals" (2 Henry IV. ii. 4, 180), or the contrary slip in Every Man in his Humour, iii. 4, 53, and the two latter, Bottom's "Shafalus" and "Procrus," and the blunders of Costard.

The naÏve devices by which the players seem to have made up for some paucity of accoutrements and stage appliances, and their direct appeals to the intelligence of the audience to excuse all defects, are highly edifying. There is, as I have before remarked, no indication of any scenery; and the only characters whom we know to have worn a special dress are Tiresias and Liriope. The prophets of classical history were often converted into bishops by English writers; so, for example, Helenus, son of Priam, in the fourteenth century alliterative Gest Hystoriale of Troy. This is why Tiresias wears a bishop's rochet. It is unfortunate that the collection of robes now in the possession of St. John's College does not include a garment of this description.

Liriope has a symbolical costume, which she very carefully interprets to Narcissus:

Cephisus is content to carry the emblems of his origin, which he emphasizes at the same time by representative action:

In the same way Narcissus, rising up after his supposed death, bears a daffodil as a sign of his metamorphosis, addressing the audience after a manner more brusque than polite:

Echo gives her reasons somewhat confidentially:

And at the conclusion of the play she kindly directs the imagination of the spectators into the right channel:

and craves their applause by a skilful ruse.

Tiresias makes his exit at an early stage in the play, addressing congratulations to himself:

As a last instance of this naÏve custom, Florida's words at the end of the short part assigned to herself and Clois may be cited:

Both the songs contained in the play have a considerable amount of vivacity and vigour, though they fall short of actual lyrical beauty. The first and longer of the two is a drinking-song with a refrain of eight lines, written in a lively and irregular, but not ill-handled metre; the second, a hunting-song of five stanzas, with the chorus "Yolp" in imitation of the cry of the dogs. Besides these, which may very possibly have been in existence before the play was written, the effusion of Dorastus on meeting Narcissus ("Cracke eye strings cracke," l. 305) is lyrical in character.

Taken as a whole, it will be seen that the comedy of Narcissus is rather interesting for its quaintness, its humour, and its apparent borrowings from, and undoubted resemblances to, Shakspere, than for any intrinsic literary value. In spite of this, I cannot but hope that those who now study it for the first time, though they may have "seene a farre better play at the theater," will not find reason to condemn it as wholly dull and unprofitable.

Section II.

It only remains to say a few words with regard to the four pieces which I have included in the present volume.

These occur in the same MS. as the Narcissus, and taken with it appear to form a united group, by virtue of their common connection with S. John's College. It is true that the Porter who acts so prominent a part in the admission of the supposed players reveals to us only his Christian name, Frances (see last line of Epilogue), but it is hardly possible to doubt his identity with the Francke (or Francis) Clarke, the porter of S. John's, to whom the remarkable productions above-mentioned are attributed. After several vain attempts to discover the record of this man's tenure of office, I have chanced upon his name in Mr. A. Clark's Register of the University of Oxford, vol. ii. (1571-1622), pt. 1, p. 398, where it occurs in the list of "personÆ privilegiatÆ," a term including, in its widest sense, all persons who enjoyed the immunities conferred by charter on the corporation of the University, but technically used to describe certain classes to whom these immunities were granted by special favour; as, for example, the college servants, of whom the manciple, cook, and porter or janitor, were amongst the chief.

The entry is as follows:

"8 May 1601, S. Jo., Clark, Francis; Worc., pleb. f., 24; 'janitor.'"

From this we gather that Francis Clark had not been long appointed to his office; that he was twenty-four years of age, a Worcestershire man, and of humble birth.

Judging by the internal evidence of the MS. now under consideration, we may very naturally suppose that the porter, a worthy possessed of a shrewd wit and somewhat combative temperament, enjoyed high favour amongst the undergraduates, though often in disgrace with their superiors; and that for his benefit (in the case of the first and fourth pieces), and for their own (in the case of the third), the wags of the college composed certain apologies, which Francis Clarke was clever enough to commit to memory, and confident enough to pronounce before the Head in the character of a privileged humourist. The last of the pieces seems to have been written down and delivered as a letter; and some or all may be the products of the same pen as wrote the Narcissus. That they were not written by the porter himself is evident; for over and above the mere improbability that a college servant would be capable of such frequent reference to Lilly, we have the testimony of the headings, two of which bear mention of "a speech made for the foresaid porter," and "a letter composed for Francke Clarke." It is very possible that the porter's part in the Narcissus may have been specially designed for, and entrusted to, the worthy Francis.

---

Of these four pieces, the apology addressed to "Master President, that had sconc't him 10 groates for lettinge the fidlers into the hall at Christmas," occurs next to the play in the MS., and was probably the result of some mock trial and sentence forming a part of the Christmas festivities. If we could suppose the "fidlers" to have been the same as the players, a still closer connection would be established between this speech and the comedy; but there is no mention of any dramatic entertainment in the circumstantial account of their entrance and exit given by the porter.

The other pieces have no apparent connection with Christmas time, and the last, being addressed to Laud during the year of his proctorship, fixes its own date as 1603-4. The speech To the Ladie Keneda is the most puzzling of the group, inasmuch as it bears no reference to collegiate life, and deals with a subject of some obscurity. Kennedy was the family name of the earls of Cassilis; and the fifth earl, then living, had married in 1597 Jean, daughter of James, fourth Lord Fleming, and widow of Lord Chancellor Maitland. But whether she is the "Ladie Keneda" to whom Francis Clarke pleads on behalf of her cook Piers, it is impossible to say. Neither have I found out anything concerning the annual holiday for cooks, to which allusion seems to be made. Here, however, as in the other speeches, a wide margin must be allowed for euphuism, and bare facts are difficult to deduce.

I have refrained from supplying references to the numerous classical quotations with which the speeches are embellished, for the simple reason that a contemporary edition of Lilly's Grammar will be found to include them all. Doubtless the youthful composers derived a special delight from the process of making "Lilly leape out of his skinne," with a "muster of sentences" of which the porter's supposed use and interpretation is, if not always scholarly, at least decidedly ingenious.

---