—­Ritson’s “Robin Hood,” ii. 18.

[239] It is evident that Friar Tuck here gives John a sword.

[240] [Light, active.  See Nares, edit. 1859, in v.]

[241] The origin of amort is French, and sometimes it is written Tout-a-la-mort, as in “The Contention between Liberality and Prodigality,” 1602, sig.  B, as pointed out in a note to “Ram Alley.”

[242] [Query, best hanged?  He refers to the ex-sheriff.]

[243] Defy is here used in the sense of refuse, which was not uncommon:  thus in the “Death of Robert Earl of Huntington,” we have this passage, “Or, as I said, for ever I defy your company.”  In the “Four ’Prentices of London,” act i. sc. 1, the old Earl of Boulogne says—­

    “Vain pleasures I abhor, all things defy,
    That teach not to despair, or how to die.”

Other instances are collected in a note to the words, “I do defy thy conjuration,” from “Romeo and Juliet,” act v. sc. 3.

[244] Their entrance is not marked in the original.

[245] [Old copy, sweet.]

[246] It will be seen from the introduction to this play, that Munday and others, according to Henslowe, wrote a separate play under the title of “The Funeral of Richard Cordelion.” [The latter drama was not written till some months after this and the ensuing piece, and was intended as a sort of sequel to the plays on the history of Robin Hood.]

[247] Misprinted Dumwod in the old copy.

[248] Two lines in the Epilogue might be quoted to show that only one author was concerned in it—­

    “Thus is Matilda’s story shown in act,
    And rough-hewn out by an uncunning hand.”

But probably the assertion is not to be taken strictly; or if it be, it will not prove that Chettle had no hand, earlier or later, in the authorship.  Mr Gifford in his Introduction to Ford’s Works, vol. i. xvi., remarks very truly, that we are not to suppose from the combination of names of authors “that they were always simultaneously employed in the production of the same play;” and Munday, who was perhaps an elder poet than Chettle, may have himself originally written both parts of “The Earl of Huntington,” the connection of Chettle with them being subsequent, in making alterations or adapting them to the prevailing taste.

[249] See “The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington,” Introd. pp. 95, 96, ante.

[250] See “Restituta,” ii. 367 (note).

[251] “Bibl.  Poet.” 159. [But see Hazlitt’s “Handbook,” v.  C. II.]

[252] [Henslowe’s “Diary,” 1845, p. 147.  See also Collier’s “Memoirs of the Actors in Shakespeare’s Plays,” p. 111.]

[253] Introduction to “Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington,” pp. 101, 102.

[254] With the letters R.A. on the title-page. [But surely it is very doubtful whether the play printed in 1615 (and again in 1663) is the same as that mentioned by Henslowe.]