it would be something else than what it is.  Verse, when in organic relation with the subject, modifies the character of that subject itself, and the subject can only be rightly apprehended through the medium of the verse.  I contend that the Sad Shepherd is a case in point, and Mr. Swinburne’s remarks, I conceive, bear out my view.  I shall not, therefore, seek to analyse the types represented by the characters—­styling poor little Amie a modification of the type of the ’forward shepherdess’!—­nor count the number of lines assigned respectively to the shepherds, to the huntsmen, or to the witch; but shall endeavonr to ascertain the particular object Jonson had in view in adopting a particular presentation of the subject, the means he employed, and the measure of success he achieved.

[288] The distinction which appears to belong peculiarly to the drama is most likely a survival of the influence of the mythological plays, in which the huntress nymphs of Diana frequently appear.  We find, however, a tendency to a similar dualism in Mantuan’s upland and lowland swains.

[289] It has recently been argued with much ingenuity that Marian is originally none other than the familiar figure of French pastourelles.  However this may be, it is a question with which I am not here concerned.  It was the English Robin Hood tradition that formed part of Jonson’s rough material.  See E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage, i. p. 175.

[290] The author, however, is at fault in his terms of art.  If the quarry to which he likens Aeglamour had a dappled hide, it was a fallow and not a red deer.  In this case it should have been called a buck, and not a hart.  Again, the female should have been a doe:  deer is a generic name including both sexes of red, fallow, and roe alike.

[291] A translation of the Astree appeared as early as 1620, but the French fashion obtained no hold over the popular taste till the later days of the Commonwealth.

[292] I may say that this section was written as it stands before K. Brunhuber’s essay on Sidneys Arcadia und ihre Nachlaufer came into my hands.  He gives a superficial account of several printed plays, but was unaware of the existence of those in MS.

[293] The quotations are from the Gifford-Dyce edition of Shirley’s Works (1833), the only collected edition that has appeared.  The text stands badly in need of revision, but I have had to content myself with a few obvious corrections.  For instance, in the passage quoted above, the editors have followed the quarto in reducing l. 13 to nonsense, by reading ‘no man,’ and l. 20 by reading ‘And the imagination.’

[294] So at least in the printed play.  In the original draft, and probably also in the acting version, as Fleay has pointed out, they were king and queen, and of this traces remain.  Thus we twice find Gynetia addressed as ‘Queen,’ while elsewhere ‘Duke’ rimes with ‘spring,’ and ‘Duchess’ with ‘spleen.’  The alteration was no doubt made from motives of prudence.  Even so the play was, according to Fleay, published surreptitiously, i.e. it does not appear on the Stationers’ Register.