published in that year, make it difficult to put it earlier, although Wallace, ii. 75, says that he has evidence, which he does not give, for
production in 1602. On the other hand, C. R. Baskervill (M. L. A. xxiv. 718) argues that the plot influenced that of The Fair Maid of Bristow, which was performed at Court during the winter of 1603-4. The play is referred to with Eastward Ho! (q.v.) as bringing trouble on Marston by A. Nixon, The Black Year (1606). It was revived for the Court by the Lady Elizabeth's on 25 Feb. 1613, under the name of Cockle de Moye from one of the characters, and repeated on 12 Dec. 1613 (cf. App. B).
The Malcontent. 1604
S. R. 1604, July 5 (Pasfield). 'An Enterlude called the Malecontent, Tragicomoedia.' William Aspley and Thomas Thorpe (Arber, iii. 266, 268). [Entry made on the wrong page and re-entered.]
1604. The Malcontent. By Iohn Marston. V. S. for William Aspley. [Two editions. Inscription 'Beniamino Jonsonio, poetae elegantissimo, gravissimo, amico suo, candido et cordato, Iohannes Marston, Musarum alumnus, asperam hanc suam Thaliam D.D.' and Epistle to Reader.]
1604. The Malcontent. Augmented by Marston. With the Additions played by the Kings Maiesties servants. Written by Ihon Webster. V. S. for William Aspley. [A third edition, with the Induction, which is headed 'The Induction to the Malcontent, and the additions acted by the Kings Maiesties servants. Written by Iohn Webster', and the insertions I. i. 146-88, 195-212, 256-303; I. iii; II. ii. 34, 57-71; III. i. 33-156; IV. ii. 123-37; V. i; V. ii. 10-39, 164-94, 212-26; V. iii. 180-202.]
Editions by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. ii) and W. A. Neilson (1911, C. E. D.); and with Works of Webster (q.v.).—Dissertation: E. E. Stoll, John Webster (1905), 55, and Shakspere, Marston, and the Malcontent Type (1906, M. P. iii. 281).
The induction, in which parts are taken by Sly, Sinklo, Burbadge, Condell, and Lowin, explains the genesis of the enlarged edition.
Sly. . . . I would know how you came by this play?
Condell. Faith, sir, the book was lost; and because 'twas pity so good a play should be lost, we found it and play it.
Sly. I wonder you would play it, another company having interest in it.
Condell. Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo in decimosexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we call it One for Another.
Sly. What are your additions?
Burbadge. Sooth, not greatly needful; only as your salad to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not-received custom of music in our theatre.
Stoll, 57, rightly argues that Small, 115, is not justified in ignoring
the evidence of the title-page and assigning the insertions, as well as
the induction, to Webster rather than Marston. On the other hand,
I think he himself ignores the evidence of Burbadge's speech in the
induction, when he takes the undramatic quality of the insertions as
proof that Marston did not write them first in 1604, but revived them
