as about £10,000. As I cannot allege any second set of payments under this head, that amount must be accepted. I did not know of this account till after I had made my analysis of the Michaelmas Term, or I should have taken out the details of the Great Wardrobe payments for the sake of comparison. Lastly, my table must be rectified by withdrawing the "Private Wardrobe" altogether from the head of personal expenditure: it was an account for arms kept at the Tower, and therefore ought to be allowed as military expenditure. Again, it is unfortunate that I did not take out these items in both terms; but doubling the items given in the Easter Term, we should get £3,100. The payments on account of the Queen's Purse, which are only for half a year, are probably correct, although the amount 'assigned' to her by the King was 10,000 marks (£6,666 13s. 4d.).* The 'Chamber' may be fairly assumed as £4,000, that amount (the same as in Richard's time), having been assigned by Henry by a writ of his third year; the amount may have been more, but certainly not less. If, then, we were to give Henry the benefit of every doubt, and to charge him only with the sums which appear in the detailed accounts, the corrected account might stand as follows :—

Household, per More and Tuttebury, say £27,000
Great Wardrobe
10,000
Chamber.
Queen's Purse .

4,000

1,087

£42,087

But then the receipts for the year would have to be reduced also by some £14,000, or the balance between them and the Issues would be destroyed; the Household expenditure would then stand as £42,000 on L121,000. But I am satisfied that these figures are too low, and that there were numerous payments for arrears or sundries that did not pass either through the Great Wardrobe or 'Wardrobe of Household,' as in this very year a sum of £160, if I remember right, for gilding a chariot for the king's younger daughter, the Lady Philippa. The systematic erasures and interlineations on the Pell Rolls, of which I have not yet

* Devon Issues, 300, and Issue Rolls, passim.

found the interpretation, may account for some inflation of figures, but I fully believe that Henry's household expenditure for this year was over £50,000. Whatever the total, however, we have yet to add the income of the private estates, which were wholly spent on the king and his family.

No wonder that Hotspur felt indignant at the thought of the £20,000 due to him for the pay of soldiers employed against the Welsh and Scots; no wonder that the next Parliament insisted on reductions. It must be stated, however, that the household expenditure of this year exceeded that of any other year of the reign. Thus, the amount drawn for the Great Wardrobe in the previous years had been £7,000 and £8,000; in the fifth year it dropped to £3,469; in the sixth year it was £4,707, &c. So the 'Wardrobe of Household' accounts for the eleventh year, the only other year for which household accounts have been preserved, show drawings to the amount of £19,860, &c., including the Foreign Receipts.' These were certain casual sources of income, from the King's

prisage,' and the like, which were not paid into the Treasury. The £25,000 above given as the amount drawn in the fourth year from the Treasury was exclusive of these. In that year they amounted to 1,936 5s. 5id. a further addition to be made to the household expenditure of the year. In the eleventh year the £19,860 was all spent, and apparently some 1,873 besides.

The various Wardrobe accounts give interesting illustrations of the social life of the time. The Great Wardrobe was primarily a depot of clothing for the use of the king, his family, and household. It was established in buildings of its own, close to Baynard's Castle, near Blackfriars. The rent of some shops and spare tenements connected with these buildings formed part of the Foreign Receipts' of the Great Wardrobe. Besides clothing, this department also provided and took charge of the king's personal armour for war or tilting, saddlery, harness, appliances for hawking, furniture, tents, and pavilions for use on the King's journeys, with the requisite "poles," "stakes," and "pomels;" also the cost of transporting the same from place to place.

Sundry items for the King's marriage

appear in the Great Wardrobe accounts of the fourth year. We have a satin bed provided for the queen, and a canopy, or set of hangings of pink and pale blue satin (aula rubeo de satyn et blodio pallido); also, there is an item of 1,000 ostrich plumes at 8d. each, with a label inscribed "Ma Souveraine."

The 'Wardrobe of Household' accounts give an exact itinerary of the Court for the period covered. The daily expenditure at each place is given under certain regular heads-namely, Dispensary, Butlery, Wardrobe, Kitchen, Poultry, Scullery, Salsery, Hall and Chamber, Stables, Wages, Alms; the grand total of the day being also given.

Beginning with September 30, 1402, the accounts of Thomas More show an expenditure varying from £300 to £500 a week, down to Christmas week, when the total is £683. The totals then sink till we come to the week of the king's marriage (February 4-10, 1403), when the amount springs up to £1,157; then, again, we have £500 till we come to the week of the queen's coronation, when the amount is £1,344; all items rise on that day, except Alms, which remain at a fixed 4s. a day! Wine comes to £111, as against 17 on the corresponding day of the previous week; poultry takes 105 against 38s. before. When the king was moving

Not added, some items doubtful.

Total of receipts, £65,770 5s. 6ď.

about the expenditure ran from £300 to £400 a week. A special account of Alms and Oblations for the whole year comes to less than £500.

An entry in the Foreign Receipts of this account enables us to restore to its proper position an old English word which appears to have lost caste. By most of the readers of THE ANTIQUARY the term "swag" will probably be held slang, and perhaps thieves' slang, as meaning plunder. I have been informed that, among the working classes, the word properly denotes the linen bag, or haversack, in which labourers in search of employment may be seen carrying their goods. The entry to which I refer proves that, in the fifteenth century, the word was current as meaning, seemingly, a bag, or

case.

One of the domestics is charged for the value of a piece of plate lost through him: cum uno swag deaurato”—' with a gilt case.' Perhaps I might call attention to a printer's error in Table VI. of the "Accounts of Richard II.," ANTIQUARY, iv. 207. The "sum of sub-totals given on the Roll" should be £69,529 15. 4d. instead of £52,629 1s. 4d. Again, in Table V., Article 1, the sum of £1,906 135. 4d. for Privy Purse has been misplaced. It should be bracketed as included in the total £8,041 8s. old., and not given as exclusive of it.

£ s. d. 7,555 17 10

Calais.

3,565 0

O

Roxburgh

1,352 O

O

&c., &c.

28,397 7 4

34,345 17 4

146 13 41 929 14 8 2,510

5.

5. Pensions

382 6 2

6. Loans repaid.

261 19 11

II. Tower Lions, &c.

O

6,496 19 7

583 4 0

1,871 10 51 7,659 0 64

37

5.

422 12 £73,418 7 0

6

Not added on Roll.

of France; the sum was paid in by Henry IV. in person on December 10, 1399, in French crownsin coronis de cuneo Francia."

I

T has been shown that the folio titlepage statement of the date of production of the play referred to the quarto form of it, and not to this second or folio version; and that the quarto form was first produced in 1598, and put in print in 1601, not by Henslowe, but, as he then wrote himself, by Ben Johnson himself. If, then, this quarto version was first played in 1598 by the Lord Chamberlain's servants, there can be no ground for the supposition that Jonson took the trouble to alter it, and, thus altered, have it played by the same "servants" in 1598, while in 1601 he

published the unaltered version. We now add that no external evidence as to the date of the folio version has been found, or, except Gifford's less than unsupported assertion, been supposed. It follows that we are at liberty to fix on any date between 1601 and 1616 which may be justified or required by evidence within the play itself. I now proceed to consider such evidence.

1. My first is but an indefinite argument; but it, with my second and third, will prepare the reader for those more definite ones which follow, and then strengthen them by showing that other facts agree with the conclusions that they enforce. The comedy in the quarto ends with a short wind-up speech by Dr. Clement, requiring no notice. But in the folio, besides that the scene is much shortened and altered, this speech is also altered, and concludes thus: "Brayn-worm! . . . whose adventures, this day, when our grandchildren shall hear to be made a fable, I doubt not, but that it shall find both spectators and applause." Such a sentence seems to me very significant of a change of date and circumstances. Jonson is no longer the young and poor author of a first play, but one whose position was assured, and one assured also that his "works" will go down to posterity.

2. This also is indefinite. In act ii. sc. 3 (2 Gifford) we find, "Drake's old ship at Detford may sooner circle the world again." Evidently he implies that it was too crazed and rotten to do so. But Jonson would

hardly be likely to speak thus of it in 1598,

or in Gifford's would-be dates of 1596 or 5, and accordingly the passage is not in the quarto. In 1606, however, the vessel would not only have been laid up for twenty-eight years-Marston, Chapman, or Jonson, in their Eastward Hoe, 1605, spoke of its "bare ribs"-but was also old both as regards its achievements, and that its labours had been undergone in a former reign, since which all other things had become new.

I would add to this the following:-In the quarto we have, "This speech would ha' done decently in a pothecaries mouth!" In the folio (iii. 5) ". . . . in a tobacco-trader's mouth!" What made the change necessary? Must it not have been because a new and rare herb was at first sold by the apothecaries as an item of their stock in trade, but when

its fashion, and therefore its supply had become great, its sale had become a separate business able to maintain its purveyor?

4. Here I would for a moment interrupt the thread of my discourse to notice an omission at the close of Part I. The difficulty in which Gifford found himself as to the date of "The Case is Altered," a difficulty due to his desire to explain away Henslowe's entry of December 3, 1597, and the way in which he would wriggle out of it. As I have said, he would apply the entry to this play, and in his Introduction says: "This comedy, which should have stood at the head of Jonson's works, had chronology been consulted, was first printed in quarto in 1609." Now its known mark of date was its reference to Meres' Palladis Tamia, 1598, "You are in print already for the best plotter." How would Mr. Gifford evade this? "Anthony might have been called 'our best plotter' before Meares . . . . and indeed the words have to me the air of a quotation." To a recorded fact he opposes an unsupported conjecture; and he trusts to his readers' ignorance of Meres. I know not how many sentences and phrases could be culled from this author, each as fully proving itself "by its air" to be a quotation, to any one desirous of so accounting it. But we are saved all trouble of refutation, if so unsupported an assertion require refuting, by an overlooked passage, which settles the date as subsequent to the production of "Every Man in his Humour" in 1598. Antonio, in the first scene, is made to say "I write so plain, and keep the old decorum, that you must of necessity like it : marry, you shall have some now (as, for example, in plays) that will have every day new tricks, and write you nothing but humours: indeed, this pleases the gentlemen, but the common sort, they care not for 't." The italics are mine, for the words are proof positive that they were written after "Every Man in his Humour," and after its success was established, and not improbably after the "Out of his Humour" in 1599: the phrase "that will.... humours" seemingly indicating more than one play. We must, however, confine its date between 1598 and the writing of Nash's "Lenten Stuff" in 1599, for this notices the play. Unfortunately this "Lenten Stuff" was not entered in the "Stationer's Register,"

though that it was early in that year may be guessed from its title. I may add that why "The Case is Altered" was never acknowledged by Jonson, never published in his "workes," is, I think, evident to any student of it and his plays. It is one of his doubleauthored pieces; and at present I incline to allow to Jonson little more than the prose, or comic scenes. Jonson's name having become more popular, it was probably a bookseller's venture to affix the better-selling name only.

To return to the arguments on the date of our second version. In the folio, Well-bred's letter (i. 2) differs from that of the quarto, especially in its remarks drawn from current events. In the quarto it closes thus-" but live in more penurie of wit and invention than either the Hall Beadle or Poet Nuntius." That this poet Nuntius was Anthony Munday was made obvious to the denser among the audience by the suggestive pre-reference to the Guildhall Beadle. In "The Case is Altered" he is again brought in as "Antonio Balladino, pageant poet to the City of Milan;" and that he was brought in merely as a butt for Jonson's angry ridicule is shown by this, that he has nothing to do with the plot, and only appears in the first scene. He is brought in, just as Clove and Orange were brought into "Every Man Out of his Humour," they being, in Jonson's own words, "meere strangers to the whole scope of the play;" that in the person of Clove he might vent his spite on Marston, while not improbably from his notice of the "characters" Orange was in dress and manner, and in his "O Lord, Sir," an attempted facsimile of Dekker. According to the date usually assigned to "The Case is Altered," and which we think we have now confirmed, Jonson for two years or less was at variance with A. Munday, and when he could do so, publicly ridiculed him. On Mr. Gifford's unfounded hypothesis-one seemingly invented to get rid of a fact unfavourable to his other theories-Jonson first ridiculed Munday, then having, it is to be supposed, made up his quarrel, expunged his hit, and then within two years re-vented his spite in an aggravated form. Putting aside Gifford's dates, already shown to be groundless, I leave the reader to decide which belief is the more probable.