^{page 502 note 1} Oxford Historical Society, Oxford, 1887.

^{page 502 note 2} The full title reads as follows: “Commentarii sivi Ephemera Actiones Rerum Illustrum Oxonii Gestarum In Adventu Serenissimæ Principis Elizabethan. Ad Amplissimos Viros Dominum Gulielmum Brokum, Dominum de Cobham, et Dominum Gulielmum Petreum, Regium a sanctioribus secretis Consiliarium. Per J. B. Collegii ibidem Exoniensis socium.” For an account of Bereblock's life see Plummer, p. xvi.

^{page 502 note 1} Edition of 1813, vol. 1, col. 353. A slightly different account printed from Wood's manuscript corrected by Mr. Gough is found in Nichols’Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1823, vol. i, pp. 210–211 and pp. 212–213.

^{page 502 note 2} This and other antiquarian papers were published along with his edition of the History of the life and reign of Richard II by the Monk of Evesham, Oxford, 1729. The manuscript had been given Hearne by Thomas Ward, of Warwick, Esq. From Hearne it was reprinted by Nichols in the first edition of the Progresses, but was not retained in the edition of 1823.

^{page 502 note 3} Robinson, then Bishop of Bangor, was a Cambridge man. He was present at the Queen's visit at Cambridge in 1564, and wrote an account of that also. The Oxford account was first printed by Nichols in his Progresses.

^{page 502 note 4} Stephens’“Brief Rehearsall of all such Things as were done In The University Of Oxford During The Queen's Majesty's Abode There,” was an “Extract Drawn Out Of A Longer Treatise Made by Mr. Neale, Reader of Hebrew At Oxford” (quotations from the title-page). Of Neale's original work there seems to be no trace. Mr. Plummer says (p. xvii, note 3), that in his opinion Neale's work must be practically embodied in Wood's account of this visit in the History and Antiquities (Ed. Gutch, ii, pp. 154 ff.), since this account agrees closely and even verbally with that of Stephens; and since the scribe who made the Harleian Copy of the latter omits the report of the Queen's speech to the University, saying it is almost exactly the same as printed in Wood's Hist. et Antiq. Univ. Oxon. The “Brief Rehearsall” was first printed by Nichols in his Progresses, but was not retained in the second edition.

^{page 502 note 1} Hearne, pp. 203–264. Plummer, pp. 123–124.

^{page 502 note 1} Hearne, p. 264. Plummer, pp. 124–125.

^{page 502 note 2} If suum means their, which is the common construction, then this clause anticipates a later part of the action of the play: and the clause “when this scene had been sufficiently acted out,” refers only to the accusation of Geminus and the confidence of his accusers. After this the more honorable freedmen were brought in, the accusers were nonplussed, and then their lamentations, and deplorings, and tears made a laughable contrast to their previous assurance. By giving suum the rarer construction, by which it may be construed to refer, not to the grammatical subject, but to the subject of discourse, i. e. Geminus, we get a quite different and more comic situation. According to this interpretation, Duillius and Cotta are secret accusers of Geminus. They are wrangling over the division of his property, when he appears, and they suddenly change their note to elaborate, hypocritical sympathizing with him for the bad luck of which they are the secret cause. Then the more honorable witnesses give their testimony, and both the villainy and the hypocrisy of Duillius and Cotta are revealed.

^{page 502 note 1} Hearne, pp. 268–270. Plummer, pp. 127–129.

^{page 502 note 1} The text here has plural verbs (prohibentur, curant, incarcerantur, erumpunt, exulant), but there is evidently some rhetorical confusion in the passage, for the action can refer only to Arcyte.

^{page 502 note 1} Hearne, pp. 281–282. Plummer, pp. 138–139. The representation of Palæmon and Arcyte was to have been completed on Tuesday, but was postponed a day. Under Tuesday Bereblock says: “No play was given on this night, because the Queen, delayed by the rather long disputation which preceded it, could not be present at the play without some risk to her health.” (Hearne, p. 277; Plummer, pp. 135, 183, 201.)

^{page 502 note 1} This and the following sentence are imitated from Livy, Bk. i, ch. xxv.

^{page 502 note 1} Regio consilio. I take the regio to refer to the two kings, Emetrius and Lycurgus.

^{page 502 note 2} Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 236. Plummer, pp. 179–180.

^{page 502 note 3} Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 240. Plummer, p. 185.

^{page 502 note 1} Plummer, p. 200.

^{page 502 note 2} Plummer, p. 202.

^{page 502 note 3} Hearne, pp. 290–293. Plummer, pp. 146–148.

^{page 502 note 1} In a second ms. (Bodl. Add. A. 63), which Mr. Plummer used in collation with Hearne's text, this sentence is omitted. Bereblock quotes freely from Ovid, patching together verses and parts of verses to form his quotations. These more or less garbled verses I have reprinted just as they stand in Bereblock.

^{page 502 note 1} This statement is very curious. In none of the many classical versions of the story does any such stoning take place: instead Progne is shut within the stone walls of the stable, as in Ovid, structa rigent solido stabulorum mænia saxo (v. 573). Bereblock's words are Saxis tum facta ejus lapidatio est, which can have no other meaning than that the stones were cast upon her (cf. Forcellini's Lexicon). Lapidatio is probably a slip in Bereblock's latinity, for it seems unlikely that there was a stoning scene in the play.

^{page 502 note 1} Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 244. Plummer, p. 189.

^{page 502 note 2} Hummer, p. 203.

^{page 502 note 1} Littledale, The Two Noble Kinsmen, edited for the New Shakespeare Society, London, 1885, introd., pp. 9–11; Rolfe, The Two Noble Kinsmen, New York, 1883, introd., pp. 24–25; and others.

^{page 502 note 2} Edition of 1813, vol. i, col. 353.

^{page 502 note 1} “James Calfhill of Shropshire. Admitted at Oxford 1545; student of Ch. Ch. 1548; A. M. 1552; second canon of Ch. Ch. 1560; D. D. of Booking and Archdeacon of Colchester, and nominated to Worcester 1570 but died before consecration. Ath. Ox. C. 163.” Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 230.

^{page 502 note 2} Metamorphoses, vi, 412–674 (Teubner text).

^{page 502 note 1} Fontanini's Biblioteca dell’ Eloquenza Italiana, with Zeno's annotations, Parma, 1803. Tome i, p. 513, and Zeno's note (a).

^{page 502 note 2} Ibid., pp. 513–14. Zeno's note (b).

^{page 502 note 3} For a clear statement of the facts of this curious literary incident, v. Lucius Varius et Cassias Parmensis, Aug. Weichert, 1836, pp. 118–120; Operette di Iacopo Morelli, Venezia, 1820, vol. ii, pp. 211–217; Brunei's bibliographical note under Progne. The exposure of Heerkens was made by David Christian Grimm in an essay, Tragædia vetus latino. Tereus deperditarum XV soror, Annabergæ, 1790, and by Morelli in a letter of 1792, the reference for which is given just above.

^{page 502 note 4} Diomedes, King of Thrace, is not elsewhere mentioned as an ancestor of Tereus, but the relationship was naturally assumed, and must have been easily understood by the cultured audience.

^{page 502 note 1} The only suggestion in Ovid for the whole scene of Diomedes and the furies is in the following passage:

^{page 502 note 2} Manly, Pre-Shakespearean Drama, vol. ii, p. 246.

^{page 502 note 1} P. 28.

^{page 502 note 1} Somewhat different arrangements were made for the presentation of the Aulularia at Cambridge, 1564, “For the hearing and playing whereof, was made, by her Highness surveyor and at her own cost, in the body of the [King's College] Church, a great stage containing the breadth of the Church from the one side to the other, that the Chappels might serve for Houses. In the length it ran two of the lower Chappels full, with the pillars on a side. Upon the south wall was hanged a cloth of State, with the appurtenances and half-path for her Majesty.

In the rood-loft another stage for Ladies and Gentlewomen to stand on. And the two lower tables, under the said rood-loft, were greatly enlarged and rayled for the choyce officers of the Court.

There was, before her Majesty's coming, made in the King's College Hall, a great stage. But because it was judged by divers to be too little, and too close for her Highness and her company, and also for her lodging, it was taken down.” Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 166.

In the plan of the Christmas festivities of the Temple in 1561–2 we have the following statement, which describes a theatre more nearly like that described by Bereblock: “The Banquetting Night. It is proper to the Butler's office, to give warning to every House of Court of this banquet; to the end that they, and the Innes of Chancery, be invited thereto, to see a play and mask. The Hall is to be furnished with scaffolds to sit on, for Ladies to behold the sports, on each side.” Nichols, 2d ed., vol. i, p. 141.

^{page 502 note 1} It is sufficient to mention Ferrex and Porrex at the Inner Temple, Apius and Virginia by Westminster scholars, Julius Sesyar (?) at Court, Jocasta at Gray's Inn, Damon and Pythias at Westminster, Palæmon and Arcyte at Oxford, Roister Doister by school boys, Gammer Gurton's Needle at Cambridge, Supposes at Gray's Inn.