THE SECOND MAIDEN'S TRAGEDY.
PREFACE TO THE FORMER EDITION[446].
This is one of the MSS. plays which escaped the fatal hands of Warburton's cook, and is printed from a manuscript book of that gentleman in the Lansdowne Collection. No title page is prefixed to the manuscript, nor is the name of "The Second Maiden's Tragedy" in the same handwriting as the play. From the tenor of the licence to act, indeed, it is probable that this name was given to it by the Master of the Revels; that licence is in the following words: "This Second Maiden's Tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may, with the reformations, bee acted publickly. 31 October, 1611, G. Buc." Why it is called "The Second Maiden's Tragedy" does not appear; there is no trace of any drama having the title of "The First Maiden's Tragedy," and it does not bear any resemblance to the "Maid's Tragedy" of Beaumont and Fletcher. There is reason therefore to believe that the name, by which it is now known, was adopted merely for the purpose of distinguishing it from other plays licensed to be acted, as the words, "for it hath no name inscribed," can hardly be supposed to refer to the want of the author's name, which is as difficult to be ascertained as that of his play. At the back of the manuscript, it is said to be by a person whose name, on a close inspection, appears to have been William (afterwards altered to Thomas) Goughe. This name has been nearly obliterated, and that of "George Chapman" substituted, which in its turn has been scored through, for the purpose of making room for "Will. Shakspear." That it does not belong to Thomas Goff,[447] the author of the "Raging Turk," is abundantly obvious. He was at the time it was licensed not more than nineteen years of age, and besides was totally incapable of producing anything of the kind; nor has Chapman, in our opinion, a better title to it. Many of the scenes are distinguished by a tenderness and pathos which are not to be found in the productions of either of those authors; but although it possesses merits of no ordinary kind, it cannot be pretended that it approaches the character of the dramas of Shakespeare, whose name indeed is written in a much more modern hand. The subordinate plot is founded upon the story of the Curious Impertinent in "Don Quixote," from which it differs very little, except in the catastrophe. Various parts of the play have been struck out, some for the purpose of being omitted in the representation, and others, which were probably considered dangerous or offensive to royalty, apparently by Sir George Buc; for example, in the second scene of the last act, the exclamation of the Tyrant, "Your King's poisoned!" is altered to "I am poisoned;" the propriety of which reformation is manifest from the answer of Memphonius, viz., "The King of Heaven be praised for it!" In both cases the original text has been restored in the present publication.