assist him, and the fool proposes to steal the deeds of the estates from Philogonus. Isbel Busby and Madge Caro, who with Alison had been present when the twins were born, are next brought upon the stage. Madge, who stammers, is also troubled with the toothache; and they are encountered by Cacurgus, who pretends to be a great Egyptian, capable of curing all kinds of maladies. He makes a long speech, dilating on his own merits, to which Isbel and Madge listen with wonder, and after he has given the latter a mock prescription for her malady, including a 'dram of Venus-hair infidelity' and 'an ounce of popery', he intrigues with them to deny that Misogonus had an elder brother, persuading them that 'a fairy' had changed the child in the cradle. It does not seem that this project succeeds, for in the next scene Eugonus, the lost brother, arrives, and is recognised by Alison, Isbel, and Madge, Isbel declaring, that 'when her maistresse lay in, they sange lulley by baby'.1 With the assistance of a person named Crito (who is described as peregrinus), they put circumstances together, and ripping open the hose of Eugonus, find that he has a toe too many on one of his feet, which was the case with the twin which had been sent into Apolonia. This proof is incontrovertible, that he is the same child who was born after the rising rection ith' north' twenty-four years before. Eugonus is then brought to Philogonus his father: 'Phi.—O, welcome, my sonne ! Eug.-O, my father! Phi.-O, my sonne ! Eug.-Blesse me, my father. Phi.-God blesse the, my sonne. Eternall god which onely guidst th'imperial pole aloft, 1 See Ritson's Ancient Songs, new edit. i, lv, for the music of this old burden, from a MS. of the reigns of Richard II or Henry IV. And also this terrestriall globe with all humaine affaires, If twenty trumpes and twenty mouthes I had to sound thy praise, They would not serve me at this tyme due thankfulnes to raise, Misogonus, Orgalus, and Oenophilus, enter with weapons, and after some abuse and confusion they are left on the stage, when the servants of Misogonus, finding how the land lies, desert him. Misogonus, struck by their ingratitude, begins to repent his past life; but before we arrive at his complete reformation, we have a singular scene, in which Cacurgus and the audience are concerned. The fool has been turned out of his place for his mal-practices, and after he has given this information to the spectators, he thus appeals to them : 'What were I best to do now, Sirs? which on yow can tell? Is there any good body amonge ye will take me in for god sake ? And there be ere a gentleman here would have a foole with him dwell, Lett him speake: and a my worde a' shall a verye foole take.' He urges them to 'take pity upon a stray fool', and asks if there be any crier among them: finding none, he himself, after an 'O-0-0-yes', makes a proclamation of his want of a service, and of his qualifications as a fool. The MS. is here imperfect; but the greater part of his speech is legible, and he thus recommends himself by stating what he can do: he says he is a fool, And that can bith' fier sitt : That can ring a bell, And that can tales tell : That can whope at noone, And daunce when dinners done : That can washe dishes, And that can make ringes a' rushes: That can houlde a candell, And that can babies dandell : That can thresse maulte, And that can chope saulte : In a hole, and therby linger: That can lay downe maidens bedds, And that can hold ther sickly heds: Blowe poynte and near lin: That can know my right hande, And tell twenty and near stande : For more I will not seke. He that will have me lett him speake.' While he addresses the audience he stands on some elevation, probably a stool, for he says that they would laugh to see him fall. He can find nobody to hire him, on which he observes shrewdly, 'fooles now may go a begging, evry boddye's become so witty'. The last scene remaining in the MS. is Scene iv of Act iv, in which Misogonus, urged by Liturgus, becomes heartily repentant, and is reconciled to his father. It is difficult to imagine how another act could be made out of the story, which in the large fragment before us seems complete. From this sketch it is apparent that there is a good deal of variety of situation and character in the comedy of Misogonus, although the plot is simple and single. Of the elder brother we see nothing until the fourth act; but the younger brother is a very prominent personage, intended to exhibit the evil habits and propensities of a gay gallant in those days. He and his servants contrast well with the two old men, and their faithful attendant Liturgus; while Cacurgus, the fool, who endeavours to keep in with both parties, comes forward in nearly every scene, and must have been a very amusing character, in his double capacity of rustic simpleton and artful mischief-maker. There are few pieces in the whole range of our ancient drama, as has been already observed, which display the important character of the domestic fool in anything like so full and clear a light. Taking the date of the piece to be that which it bears (and which I apprehend to be that of its performance at Kettering, or of the making of the transcript), 1577, it is a production of much value, with reference to the history of our stage; but that value is greatly increased, since we have ascertained that it was written as early as the year 1560. On this point the internal evidence is so strong, as in fact to be conclusive. Certain it is, that in all the plays of Shakespeare, the dates of which are doubtful, there is not any circumstance so decisive to fix the period when any one of them came from his pen, or was acted at the Globe or Blackfriars theatres. Comedy in this country was of elder birth than tragedy: the earliest extant piece that can with any fitness be called a tragedy was written by Thomas Sackville (afterwards Lord Buckhurst and Earl of Dorset) and Thomas Norton; and it was played before the Queen at Whitehall, by the members of the Inner Temple, on the 18th of January 1561. Its correct, though not its most ancient, title is The tragedy of Ferrex and Porrex, but it only bears it in the second edition of 1571, while it is called The tragedy of Gorboduc, in the copies of 1565 and 1590.1 It is reprinted in Dodsley's Old Plays and in Hawkins' Origin of the English Drama, and Warton has given an analysis of it, accompanied by critical 1 The following is the exact title-page of the earliest edition, which has never yet been given quite correctly: 'The Tragedie of Gorboduc, whereof three Actes were written by Thomas Nortone, and the two laste by Thomas Sackuyle. Sett forthe as the same was shewed before the Queene's most excellent Maiestie, in her highnes Court of Whitehall, the xviij day of January, Anno Domini 1561. By the Gentlemen of Thynner Temple in London. Imprynted at London in Fletestrete, at the Sign of the Faucon, by William Griffith. And are to be sold at his Shop in Saincte Dunstone's Churchyarde in the West of London. Anno 1565. Septemb. 22.' This copy was not authorised by either of those who wrote it, and it occasioned the appearance of the second edition, which is without date, excepting that it states that it had been 'shewed on stage before the Queene's Majestie about nine yeares past, viz., the 18th day of Januarie, 1561.' The third edition of 1590, by Edward Allde, was only a re-impression of the spurious copy of 1565. For our quotations we have used the authentic edition, printed by John Day, in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire. [The |
