ABSTRACT
Date and publication. Spoken in mid-October 1681 at a revival o f Lee’s play by the King’s Company at the Theatre Royal. D. had contributed an Epilogue for the play’s first run in 1678. The poems were first printed anonymously on a folio half-sheet headed A Prologue spoken at Mithridates King of Pontus, the First Play Acted at the Theatre Royal this year, 1681, printed for J . Sturton (siglum: ‘5’). Narcissus Luttrell wrote the date o f acquisition (13 February 1681/2) and a number o f marginal corrections (‘L ’) on his copy, now in the Huntington Library. Richard Janeway’s Whig paper The Impartial Protestant Mercury liv (28 October 1681) reported that ‘a Revised Play was some days since Acted on an Eminent Publick Theatre, and the Prologue is extreamly talked of, some Verses whereof are’ and then follow ‘Prologue’ 11. 24-41 (‘J ’). On 29 October Nathaniel Thompson’s Tory paper The Loyal Protestant, and True Domestick Intelligence lxx replied: ‘Whereas Mr. Janeway in his Partial Protestant o f yesterday, is pleased to make use o f a Prologue to a reviv’d Play lately acted at the Theatre Royal, with this grave Authors Animadversions upon the same. By his good leave, I’ll incert a part o f the Epilogue to the same Play, and leave it to the chewing o f the Brotherhood’; then follow ‘Epilogue’ 11. 1 - 7 (‘ T ’). J. H. Smith (PMLA lxviii (1953) 251-67) argued that S derives from a shorthand transcription made in the theatre; that J and T derive from a rival broadside printing (now lost) which was itself produced from a shorthand transcription in the theatre, made independently o f the one which formed the basis for S; and that L ’s alterations are corrections derived from some authoritative source, perhaps D .’s MS as revised for publication, which could have been shown to Luttrell by his friend Tonson. However, the hypothesis o f a second, lost broadside seems unnecessarily complicated; there is no reason to suppose that J and T were working from the same source; and a MS provided by the actors is a possible alternative to one produced through shorthand transcription. Nevertheless, Smith’s argument seems correct in outline: S and J do indeed appear to derive from performances, as is sug gested by the occasional colloquial roughness o f their text compared with the refinements in L, and by readings which may be due to mishearings (e.g. ‘Epilogue’ 11. 22, 40). Smith’s suggestion that L ’s revisions derive from some authoritative text is strengthened by the support given to L by T, and also by a MS (not hitherto collated by editors) which also seems to derive from a performance: Chetham’s Library Manchester MS A .4.14. The present edition follows S, but emends wherever the other witnesses agree against it. (Exceptions are ‘Prologue’ 1. 33, where the plural noun seems unnecessary and the verb is properly a subjunctive; and ‘Epilogue’ 1. 28, where M S alone supplies a spelling which is necessary for the rhyme.) All the variants are recorded, since some (particularly in 5, J and MS) may provide evidence o f playhouse usage (e.g. ‘Prologue’ 11. 6, 19, 39; ‘Epilogue’ 11. 7, 10, 17, 30, 32);
others, however, may simply be errors in transmission (e.g. ‘Prologue’ 11. 21, 28, 41; ‘Epilogue’ 11. 23, 40).
