himself to the party of Octavius. In 41 he was triumvir, and in 31 commanded a detachment of the army at Actium. He was made first prefect of Egypt: cf. Poetaster 5. 1. 8-10. After four years there, he became estranged from Augustus; his estates were confiscated, and himself banished by the Senate. He then committed suicide, B. C. 27. Gallus wrote four books of elegies, chiefly upon his mistress Lycoris. In Trist. 2. 3. 445–6, Ovid gives us an interesting hint: Non fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, The story goes that the banishment of Gallus and the confiscation of his property were due to his having revealed, when drunk, certain secrets confided to him by Augustus. 'Gallus, a friend of Horace (3. 1), is a warrior and also a poet (5. 1). He may be the Gallus upon whom Davies wrote his Epigram.' Thus Penniman (War of the Theatres 109), referring to Epigram xxiv, In Gallum, by Sir John Davies (ed. Grosart 2. 23). There is absolutely no proof offered, nor at present obtainable, for this pseudo-identification. So far as Jonson's learning and the exigencies of Poetaster have permitted, Gallus is the historical Gallus. Hermogenes. M. Tigellius Hermogenes was a Sardinian musician high in the favor of Julius Caesar and afterward of Augustus. He had a fine voice and courtly and insinuating address. Horace seems at one time to have admired him, as in Sat. 1. 3. 129-130 he says, 'Even though Hermogenes be silent, he is still a fine singer and musician.' Sat. 9 of the first book is not uncomplimentary to the court singer; but Sat. 10 sneers at Hermogenes' ignorance of the ancient poets. Maecenas, Virgil, even Octavius, have approved the satires of Horace, but Hermogenes has carped at them and tried to injure the author. He is advised, in conclusion, to go and lament among his female pupils. Who these discipulae were appears from the second satire of the first book. The singer is by this time dead—we must keep in mind that the Satires are not arranged in chronological order. Cf. Horace, Sat. 1. 2. 1-4; I. 3. 1-8. Jonson had the latter passage in mind when writing Poetaster 2. 2. 107-213. Cicero adds his testimony as to the meanspiritedness of the musician. In Fam. II. 19, B. C. 46, he tells F. Gallus that all of Caesar's friends except the notorious Tigellius treat him with marked respect. It has been conjectured that Pantolabus, the parasite in Horace, Sat. 1. 8. 10 and 2. 1. 22, is also Hermogenes. In Timon, the University play, there is a cowardly fiddler Hermogenes, who masquerades as a gallant on gold bestowed by Timon. Having flouted the latter in his misfortunes, Hermogenes is soundly beaten by a faithful servant of Timon's. Of Hermogenes it is said (ed. Dyce p. 19): "There's not a veryer knaue in all the towne.' The character is probably drawn from Horace. The Hermogenes of Poetaster is thus described: he is subject to the 'melancholy' fashionable in Jonson's time (2. 2. 102); he is 'humourous as a poet' (2. 2. 107–8) and is 'hard-favoured' (2. 2. 105). He is a musician, but not a poet (2. 2. 107-8), and sings excellently (2. 2. 10910); he is a song-writer (2. 2. 165-8), and contends with Crispinus (2. 2. 188 ff.); is called the only master of music in Rome (3. I. 190-2), but envies Crispinus' skill in singing. At the banquet of the gods, he plays Momus, the god of reprehension (4. 5. 5-9); is called minstrel and fiddler (4. 5. 81-3); sings with Crispinus again (4. 5. 190 ff.). Fleay queries (Chr. 1. 368): 'Hermogenes is a musician, but not a poet [is he meant for John Daniel?]' In Chr. 1. 96-7, Fleay identifies Hedon of Cynthia's Revels, Fastidious Brisk of Every Man Out, and Hermogenes of Poetaster, with Samuel Daniel the poet. In its article on Samuel Daniel, D.N.B. tells us: 'A brother, another John Daniel [the father was also John], was a musician of some note; he proceeded bachelor of music at Christ Church, Oxford, 14 July 1604, and published "Songs for the Lute, Viol, and Voice" in 1616. In 1618 he succeeded his brother Samuel as inspector of the queen's revels, and he was a member of the royal company of "the musicians for the lutes and voices" in December 1625.' As Fleay has remarked, the Hermogenes of Poetaster is not a poet; it cannot be unfair therefore to dismiss Samuel Daniel from our list of persons who might possibly have served for the model of this character. Samuel Daniel, in fact, seems to have had no connection with the quarrel between Jonson and the poetasters: cf. Small, Stage-Quarrel 180 ff. As for John Daniel, he can hardly, according to the D.N.B. account, have been sufficiently prominent in the summer of 1601, when Poetaster was written, to figure as the principal court-musician, and the only master of music in Rome (or London). But even granting, for the sake of argument, his eligibility to serve as the original of Jonson's shallow and malignant musician, there is not a shadow of proof obtainable that John Daniel had ever excited the resentment of Jonson, and a wanton satire is quite beyond the range of possibilities with even our irascible poet. The simplest explanation, and undoubtedly the true one, is that Hermogenes as here presented is drawn exclusively from the characterization of him in Horace and the historians. At all events, he is neither Samuel Daniel nor John Daniel. Histrio. As there is much debate concerning the identity of Histrio (Lat., a player), it will be best to consider Jonson's presentation first. He is a player (3. 4. 129 ff., 309-11); he has the Fortune theatre on his side, and is growing rich and purchasing (3. 4. 134-6), though he was once a poor fiddler and barn-stormer (3. 4. 143–8, 179–183). He is now a man of importance in his company, a shareholder, with power to retain a playwright by giving earnestmoney (3. 4. 147-9, 302-5), and to hire boys to act women's parts (3. 4. 289). His theatre seems to be in the suburbs (3. 4. 210), on the side of Thames opposite to that where Jonson's 'humours, reuells, and fatyres' were performed. He does not know Crispinus until Tucca introduces them (3. 4. 168 ff.), but his company have hired Demetrius to abuse Horace (3. 4. 338-342); the past winter, that of 1600-1601, has been a hard one for his company (3. 4. 344-6), and the bringing in of Horace in a play will make them money; he is to commend Tucca to 'feuen fhares and a halfe' (3. 4. 373), who must therefore be a man of more consequence in the company than is Histrio-may be the manager, for instance. In 3. 4. 305-7 he explains that he has business with the tribune Lupus, and in 4. 4 he betrays to Lupus the plan of Ovid and his friends to hold a 'heavenly banquet.' In 4. 4. 2 he is again referred to as a player, and in 4. 4. 8 as a sharer. Fleay asserts (Chr. 1. 369): 'The Histrio in iv. 21 is not he of iii. 1, but the Aesop of v. 1.' This is certainly a misapprehension. Aesop, the politician player, is distinctly referred to (3. 4. 312) in Tucca's talk with Histrio, and cannot be the person addressed. But this very Histrio pleads business with the tribune Lupus (3. 4. 306), and must be the same who appears in 4. 4, telling of the letter sent to himself and his fellow-sharers by the poets who wish to hire properties for their heavenly banquet. On the other hand, 'your ESOPE, your politician,' of 3. 4. 312, must be the same player who in 5. 3. 112-3 is called by Tucca 'an honeft fycophant-like flaue, and a politician, befides.' This Aesop is he who told Lupus (5. 3. 108-111) that Horace's 'libell in picture' was directed against Caesar, and it is he whom Caesar (5. 3. 131) orders out to be whipped. Histrio and Aesop are two persons; the first meets Tucca in 3. 4, leaves him to report to Lupus the proposed banquet, as in 4. 4, and appears again in 4. 7, but says nothing; the second is referred to by Tucca in his talk with Histrio, 3. 4, informs Lupus of Horace's emblem at some interview not included in the play, is several times referred to in 5. 3, and is then brought in, given no lines, and ordered to be flogged for his shameful meddling. 'He refers to the scene divisions as in Gifford's edition. Fleay elsewhere says (Chr. 1. 367): 'The players Histrio and Aesop belonged to Pembroke's company, as we shall see.' And again (Chr. 1. 368): 'The Histrio "Gulch" [3. 4. 146] (cf. Histriomastix) is of a company that has Fortune (the Admiral's men) on its side, and that, if Marston write for it, "shall not need to travel with pumps full of gravel" any more. This is Pembroke's company [cf. Fleay, Stage 138], just settled, after years of strolling in the country, 1600 Nov., at the Rose under Henslow, who was also managing the Fortune.' The 'monopoly of playing' promised by Tucca to Aesop (5. 3. 126) is explained by Fleay (Chr. 1. 369) as the 'patent sought by Pembroke's men; the Chamberlain's and Admiral's had theirs already.' In his article on Jonson in the D.N.B., Herford speaks of the additions to Kyd's "Jeronymo", which Jonson executed for the placable Henslowe (the Histrio of the "Poetaster"). Symonds (Ben Jonson 35) and Brandes (Shakespeare 1. 386-7) make the same identification. Let us turn now to Small's discussion (Stage-Quarrel 57-8): 'Histrio is not Henslowe; nor does he belong to some obscure band of travelling players, as Fleay thinks, but to the Chamberlain's company, which had hired Dekker to satirize Jonson [in Satiromastix, acted by the Chamberlain's servants about September, 1601], and which played at the Globe Theatre in Southwark [1597–1603.—Cf. Poetaster 3. 4. 216]. In 1601, no other playhouse was allowed on the Surrey side; for by an order of June 22, 1600 (quoted by Halliwell-Phillipps, Life of Shakespeare, London, 1886, i, 281), the Privy Council decreed that "the said house (the Globe) and none other shall be there allowed." As for the company's difficulties during the winter, we know from Hamlet that the Chamberlain's men were at this very time suffering from lack of patronage. In its opposition to Jonson, the Chamberlain's company certainly did have the "Fortune", that is, the Admiral's com |