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

pany, on its side.

Histrio belongs to the Chamberlain's company; I do not, however, believe that he represents any particular actor; he is a composite portrait, embodying the pride, vice, and possession of newly acquired wealth then so frequently charged against actors.'

With this conclusion that Histrio represents the Chamberlain's company, I shall give below some reasons for agreeing; but Small seems to be wrong in implying the existence and operation of only two public playhouses in 1601. On December 31, 1601, the Privy Councillors wrote a letter (reprinted by Halliwell-Phillipps, Shakespeare 1. 282) to the Lord Mayor in answer to his complaint that the number of playhouses and the resort thereto had not been controlled or abated. The letter says: '. wee must lett yow know that wee did muche rather expect to understand that our order sett downe and prescribed about a yeare and a half since [i. e. the order of June 22, 1600], for reformation of the said disorders upon the like complaint at that tyme, had bin duelie executed, then to finde the same disorders and abuses so muche encreased as they are.' The letter then enjoins 'the expresse and streight prohibition of any more playhowses then those two [the Globe in Surrey, and the Fortune in Middlesex] that are mentioned and allowed in the said Order.' There follows immediately (ibid. I. 283), under date also of December 31, 1601, a sharp letter from the Lords of the Council to the magistrates of Surrey and Middlesex censuring their failure to enforce the order of June 22, 1600. These expressions in particular should be noted: . . . Wee do now understande that our said order hath bin so farr from taking dew effect, as, insteede of restrainte and redresse of the former disorders, the multitude of playhowses is much encreased, and that no daie passeth over without many stage-plaies in one place or other within and about the Cittie publiquelie made;' &c. It appears that even the order of December 31, 1601, was not carried out.

We cannot, then, eliminate with Small the other theatres; but there is in Poetaster a speech by Histrio (3. 4. 339–341) which seems decisive against the theory that he is either Henslowe or a member of one of Henslowe's companies:

he is evidently not Another piece of 168 ff., where it is

We haue hir'd him [Demetrius-Dekker] to abuse HORACE, and bring him in, in a play, with all his gallants.' Now it was by the Chamberlain's men, not by any company acting for Henslowe, that Dekker had been retained; for Satiromastix was first acted, about September 1601, at the Globe. Jonson cannot have been misinformed as to where Dekker's play was to be produced, and therefore when he makes Histrio say 'We haue hir'd him,' representing Henslowe by this actor. evidence is offered by Poetaster 3. 4. made clear that Histrio and Crispinus have been unacquainted hitherto. This is flatly against the identification of Histrio with Henslowe, for the latter had had dealings with Crispinus-Marston as early as 1599 (cf. Henslowe's Diary 156), and the two would need no introduction. It should be said against the Henslowe theory in general that we have no evidence whatever that Henslowe was ever an actor, and this would be clearly in the way of our identifying him with Histrio, who is nothing else. Another theory concerning Histrio was advanced by Prof. Henry Wood, in the Amer. Jour. of Phil. 16. 273-299, 'Shakespeare, Burlesqued by Two Fellow-dramatists.' 'The Histrio of both plays, Histriomastix and Poetaster, is a poet-actor. In the former play, Histrio has been shown to be a burlesque of Shakespeare, and the connection between the corresponding scenes in both plays is now seen to be remarkably close. The natural and unforced conclusion points to the Histrio of the Poetaster as a companion caricature of the great dramatist' (p. 289 n.). Professor Wood's identification of Posthast with Shakespeare (in which he follows Simpson, School of Shakespeare 2. 8-9) is quite unconvincing. Posthast apparently, and Histrio certainly, was not a 'poet