12 S. II. DEC. 9, 1916.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
465
associated with Chapman's name affords a
striking illustration of the tendency of critics
to cling to the most dubious scrap of external
evidence as to the authorship of an Eliza-
bethan play, notwithstanding that the
internal evidence is altogether against it.
The attribution of a late publisher alone
ought never to be accepted in the absence of
corroborative internal evidence. And there
is particular reason that Moseley's testimony
should be regarded with suspicion, for, if
not deliberately dishonest, he was at any
rate utterly reckless in his attributions. It
was he who ascribed Massinger's ' Parliament
of Love ' to Rowley, and ' The Merry Devil
of Edmonton ' (to say nothing of the non-
extant ' History of King Stephen,' ' Duke
Humphrey,' and ' Iphis and lanthe ' ) to
Shakespeare.
Xow nothing can be more certain, if internal evidence counts for anything at all, than that Chapman could not possibly have been the author of ' Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany.' In no respect does the play bear the slightest resemblance to any authentic work of his. Just as ' Revenge for Honour ' betrays its late date in the abundance of its feminine endings and its clear traces of the influence of the " Beaumont and Fletcher " plays, so the end-stopped lines and archaic phrasing and vocabulary of ' Alphonsus ' clearly show that it belongs to a date within a few years of 1590. The construction " for to " with the infinitive, which is to be found four times in this play, and the use of the words " the same " in place of a pro- noun
Julio Lentulus
. . . .Gave me this box of poison, . . . .And what's the special virtue of the same ?
Act I. (Pearson's ' Chapman,' vol. iii. p. 204)* Come, Princes, let us bear the body hence, I'll spend a million to embalm the same.
Act IV. p. 260.
are sure marks of an early date. Then, again, we have a sequence of lines ending on the word " revenge " (Act V. p. 273), as in ' The Spanish Tragedy ' and ' Locrine,' and speeches of which the first line echoes the last of the preceding speaker :
Alphonaits. Thou wilt not scorn my counsel in revenge.
Alexander. My rage admits no counsel but revenge ? Act II. p. 222.
Empress. Doubt not the Princes may be reconcil'd.
Alexander. 'Tmay be the Princes will be recon- cil'd. Act V. p. -7.-..
- A11 subsequent references to ' Alphonsus,
Emperor of Germany,' are by the pages of this edition.
These features are characteristic of the
pre-Shakespearian drama of Kyd, Marlowe,
Greene, and Peele, and are deserving of notice*
inasmuch as those who accept Chapman's
authorship of ' Alphonsus ' invariably assume
it to be one of the latest of his works.
' Alphonsus ' is a Machiavellian revenge- play clearly showing the influence both of Marlowe and Kyd. The style is neither that of Marlowe nor of Kyd, but the author is obviously one who followed close in their steps. All the internal evidence, as ha& already been indicated, and will presently appear more fully, points to 1590 or there- abouts as the date at which it was originally composed. And, as it happens, there actually is external evidence, certainly not less trust- worthy than Moseley's, that it was written by a dramatist of this very period. Kirkman. (1661), Winstanfey (1687), and Wood (1691), all state that its author was Peele. The- diversity of opinion amongst the early biographers of the English dramatists with, regard to the authorship of this play has not received the attention it deserves. Peele' s modern editors do not even trouble to record that it has been ascribed to him. It must be- admitted that Kirkman is no more trust- worthy than Moseley, but his statement is at least valuable as showing that ' Al- phonsus ' was reputed Peele' s, although it had been published as Chapman's only seven, years previously. When we turn to Win- stanley (' Lives of the Most Famous English Poets ' ) we find that he mentions ' Alphon- sus ' as one of the " three plays " that Peele " contributed to the Stage," the two others being ' Edward I.' and ' David and Bethsabe.' Next comes Langbaine (' Account of the English Dramatick Poets,' 1691), who, like Winstanley, only mentions ' Edward I.' and ' David and Bethsabe ' of the dramas now assigned to Peele, but adds :
" I am not ignorant that another tragedy, t wit, ' Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany,' is as- cribed to him in former Catalogues, which haa occasioned Mr. Winstanley's mistake, but 1 can. assure my Readers that that Play_ was writ by Chapman, for I have it by me with his Name affizt to it."
That Langbaine had a copy of the play with Chapman's name affixed to it is no proof that Chapman wrote it. His copy was doubtless one of Moseley's edition of 1654. However, the editors of the ' Bio- graphia Dramatica ' seem to have con- sidered Langbaine's statement conclusive, for they assert that both Winstanley and Wood were "misled by former catalogues." Even supposing the conjecture as to the source of their information to be correct, the
