He has also “the haught Northumberland” and “the haught Protector.”

Kyd in “Cornelia,” act iv., also has this line—­

    “Pompey, the second Mars, whose haught renown.”

[185] [Old copy, Ah, my good Lord, for, etc.]

[186] i.e., Shall not separate us till we die.  See Gifford’s note to “The Renegado.”—­Massinger’s Works, ii. 136.

[187] Palliard is to be found in Dryden’s “Hind and Panther:”  palliardize is not in very common use among our old writers.  Dekker, in his “Bellman of London,” 1616, sig.  D 2, gives a description of a Palliard.  Tuck’s exclamation looks as if it were quoted.

[188] In the old copy, Scarlet and Scathlock are also mentioned as entering at this juncture, but they were on the stage before.

[189] The mistake to which Warman alludes is, that Friar Tuck takes part with Robin Hood, instead of assisting the Sheriff against him.

[190] This incident, with some variations, is related in the old ballad of “Robin Hood rescuing the Widow’s three sons from the Sheriff, when going to be executed.”  See Ritson’s “Robin Hood,” ii. 151.

[191] The old copy has a blank here; but whether it was so in the original MS., whether a line has dropped out by accident, or whether it was meant that Much should be suddenly interrupted by Robin Hood, must be matter of conjecture.

[192] So printed in the old copy, as if part of some poetical narrative.

[193] i.e., Gang.  So written by Milton, Jonson, and many of our best authors.

[194] [Old copy, all your.]

[195] [Old copy, never wife.]

[196] [Old copy, in a loath’d.]

[197] [Own, from the Latin proprius.]

[198] To lie at the ward was, and is still, a term in fencing; thus Fairfax, translating the fight between Tancred and Argantes in the 6th book of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” says—­

    “Close at his surest ward each champion lieth.”

—­“Godfrey of Bulloigne,” 1600.

[199] The exit of Salisbury is not marked, but it of course takes place here.

[200] It seems singular that the author of this play should confound two such persons as the Shoemaker of Bradford, who made all comers “vail their staves,” and George-a-Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield; yet such is the case in the text.  The exploits of both are celebrated in the play of “The Pinner of Wakefield” (in Dyce’s editions of Greene’s Works), which seems to have been popular.  Nevertheless Henslowe in his MSS. speaks of George-a-Greene as one dramatic piece, and of “The Pinner of Wakefield” as another, as if they were two distinct heroes.  See “Malone’s Shakespeare,” by Boswell, iii. 300.  Munday also makes Scathlock and Scarlet two separate persons. [Munday does not confound the Pinder of Wakefield with the Bradford hero, for he expressly distinguishes between them; but he errs in giving the latter the name of George-a-Greene.]