Page:The Review of English Studies Vol 1.djvu/124

110 is defective there is no reason to suppose that two or three are missing. It is true that the date 1596 at the end “has been misread ‘1595’”—and Dr. Chambers does so himself elsewhere (ii. 144)—but it is misleading to say that the manuscript is “dated” either year without explaining that there is no reason to suppose that the date refers to the writing. I may add that the “plot” of Frederick and Basilea was reproduced in the Book of Homage to Shakespeare, to which Dr. Chambers contributed, and that the Robin Hood May Games were printed in the Collections of a society of which he is the honoured President. Something seems to have gone wrong with his notes of the collected editions of Massinger. Coxeter’s (1759) was re-issued with additional matter in 1761; Gifford’s (1805) was reprinted with additions in 1813, and this remains the standard; all these are in four volumes. Cunningham’s, in 1871, was in one volume, not three; that in three volumes was Murray’s “family” edition (1830–1).

But some discrepancies and oversights occur throughout, as could, indeed, hardly be avoided. The identification of “Ro. Go.” in the “plot” of the Seven Deadly Sins with Robert Gough is classed as “rather hazardous” (ii. 125), as “little more than conjecture” (ii. 199), or as “probable” (ii. 216, 319), according to the mood of the moment. The Globe is stated to have been “No doubt … round inside” (ii. 434), but is elsewhere (iii. 85) shown as octagonal. The corrections in Barnevelt are Buck’s, not Herbert’s—at least they are signed “G. B.” (i. 321). The actors who appear in Sir Thomas More are the Cardinal’s, not the King’s men (ii. 81), though it is true that mention is made of “Mason among the King’s players.” The “plot” of The Dead Man’s Fortune is not now at Dulwich if it ever was (ii. 136); “Proctor” in that of Troilus and Cressida is evidently a character, not an actor (ii. 158), and so is “Pisano” in that of Alcazar (ii. 176), as Dr. Chambers may see by referring to the quarto. Is it true that incriminating papers were found at Nashe’s lodgings (i. 298)? or certain that the Chamberlain’s company was not in being on 13 May 1594 (ii. 198)? Commenting on a statement by Chalmers, Dr. Chambers remarks quite correctly (i. 429) that “a line drawn south from the west of Queenhithe would pass west of any possible site for the Globe,” but I think he has forgotten to allow for magnetic variation: Chalmers expressly mentions compass bearings! Lastly, I hope that readers will remember that when they are told, all too often, that “Dr. Greg