Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:02:08.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XVIII. Thomas Randolph's Part in the Authorship of Hey for Honesty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Cyrus L. Day
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hey for honesty, the lively seventeenth century adaptation of the Plutus of Aristophanes, was long attributed without question to the joint authorhip of Thomas Randolph and a certain F. J. whose identity has never been ascertained. The title-page of the first edition reads: “. A Pleasant Comedie, Entituled Hey for Honesty, Down with Knavery. Translated out of Aristophanes his Plutus, by Tho: Randolph. Augmented and Published by F. J.” This unambiguous statement of dual authorship went unchallenged until 1875. Several attempts were then made to prove that Randolph had no part whatever in the translation, and that the whole play was written by F. J. It is the purpose of this article to present new evidence, first, that the play is in truth the result of dual authorship, and second, that Thomas Randolph was the original translator and adapter.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1926 , pp. 325 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hazlitt found an “unpublished” play in the British Museum called The Queen of Corsica, 1642, by Francis Jaques. (Works of Thomas Randolph, ed. Hazlitt, 1875, II, 375.) Greg (Handlist of English Plays, 1900, p. 88) identifies this Francis Jaques with the F. J. who augmented Hey for Honesty. Without an investigation and comparison of the two plays, such an identification is, of course, conjectural.

2 London, 1651, 4°, A-G in fours. Printed in two columns.

3 Works of Thomas Randolph, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt, London, 1875.

4 August 21, 1875.

5 F. G. Fleay, Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1891, II, 167.

6 Dict. of Nat. Biog., art. on Randolph, by Sidney Lee.

7 A. W. Ward, Hist. English Dramatic Lit., 1899, III, 163.

8 Randolph's Works, ed. Hazlitt, II, 374.

9 Hazlitt was well aware, in printing Hey for Honesty, that it contained allusions to events that took place after Randolph's death. But he attributes them to F. J. In foot-notes he calls attention to five of these allusions (ibid., pp. 412, 418, 423, 440, and 447). In two of these, however, Hazlitt is mistaken. Concerning a reference to “dippers” and “anabaptists” (ibid., p. 440), he says: “This passage reads like an addition by the editor and augmenter. The anabaptist controversy made no great stir till after the poet's death.” As The Saturday Review points out, Jonson mentions “dippers” and “doppers” in 1620, and 1625, and it could be added that the anabaptists had been mentioned repeatedly in literature before 1635. Again, Hazlitt calls an allusion to Gregory-Brandon (ibid., p. 412) an interpolation by F. J., because “Brandon was not the executioner so early as 1635.” As a matter of fact, Brandon was the common hangman as early as 1616. He was succeeded by his son Richard Brandon (see D. N. B.) in 1640. Hazlitt must have been confusing Gregory with Richard when he wrote this note.

10 Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1908, II, 87.

11 Kottas, Thomas Randolph, Sein Leben und Seine Werke, Wien und Leipzig, 1909, p. 81 ff.

12 Poems and Amyntas of Thomas Randolph, ed. Parry, 1917, p. 42.

13 Moore Smith, “The Canon of Randolph's Dramatic Works” The Review of English Studies, July, 1925, p. 310.

14 Kottas goes somewhat more deeply into the question, but his evidence is rendered doubtful by the inaccuracy of his statements. In comparing Hey for Honesty with Randolph's undisputed plays, he finds similarities which simply do not exist. It hardly seems possible that Kottas can have read some of the plays which he undertakes to discuss.

15 Most of the allusions to events after 1635 refer to the Civil War.

16 Of these Hazlitt notes three (Randolph's Works, II, 418, 423, and 447); Kottas two (op. cit., p. 81 ff.); and The Saturday Review ten.

17 Several references in the Introduction become clear when it is realized that the Ghost of Cleon is almost certainly intended to represent the ghost of Pym, who died in 1643.

18 The Plutus of Aristophanes, trans. by W. R. Kennedy, 1912, p. 17.

19 Kennedy's trans., p. 2.

20 Randolph's Works, ed. Hazlitt, II, 387.

21 Kennedy's trans., p. 36.

22 Randolph's Works, ed. Hazlitt, II, 440.

23 Hazlitt incorrectly calls this passage an interpolation by F. J.

24 All page numbers refer to Randolph's Works, ed. Hazlitt, 1875.

25 Hazlitt notes the similarity of these two passages (ibid., p. 457).

26 Noted by Moore Smith, op. cit., p. 310. Cf. Sir John Oldcastle, Act I, Sc 1, l. 80: Her coozin ap Ries, ap Evan, ap Morrice, ap Morgan, ap Lleuellyn, ap Madoc, ap Meredith, ap Griffen, ap Davy, ap Owen, ap Shinken Shones. The Shakspere Apocrypha, ed. Brooke, 1908, p. 130.

27 Noted by Moore Smith, loc. cit.

28 “Honest Cavaliers are known by their threadbare clothes.” (Introd.).

29 The Ghost of Cleon represents the ghost of Pym. In Cleon's long speech (Introduction) many of Pym's deeds are indirecty mentioned, such as the heavy taxation of 1642 and 1643, the Covenant (1643), and the impeachment of Manwaring (1628). This latter is referred to as having occurred “some twenty years now since,” which, if the figure were exact, would place F. J.'s additions in 1648.

30 Hazlitt (Works of Randolph, II, 490) is in doubt whether the parliament of 1628 or of 1640 is intended. The reference to the “plunderers” in the next line indicates that it is the Long Parliament that is referred to.