—Gallants, men and women. And of all sorts, tag-rag, been seen to flock here, In threaves, these ten weeks, as to a second Hogsden, In days of Pimlico and Eye-bright.
Cf. also Alch., Wks. 4. 151; Bart. Fair, Wks. 4. 357; and this play 4. 4. 164. In Underwoods 62 the same expression is used as in this passage:
What a strong fort old Pimlico had been! How it held out! how, last, ’twas taken in!—
Take in in the sense of ‘capture’ is used again in Every Man in, Wks. 1. 64, and frequently in Shakespeare (see Schmidt). The reference here, as Cunningham suggests, is to the Finsbury sham fights. Hogsden was in the neighborhood of Finsbury, and the battles were doubtless carried into its territory.
3. 3. 173 Some Bristo-stone or Cornish counterfeit. Cf. Heywood, Wks. 5. 317: ‘This jewell, a plaine Bristowe stone, a counterfeit.’ See Gloss.
3. 3. 184, 5 I know your Equiuocks:
You’are growne the better Fathers of ’hem o’ late.
‘Satirically reflecting on the Jesuits, the great patrons of equivocation.’—W.
‘Or rather on the Puritans, I think; who were sufficiently obnoxious to this charge. The Jesuits would be out of place here.’—G.
Why the Puritans are any more appropriate Gifford does not vouchsafe to tell us. So far as I have been able to discover the Puritans were never called ‘Fathers,’ their regular appellation being ‘the brethren’ (cf. Alch. and Bart. Fair). The Puritans were accused of a distortion of Scriptural texts to suit their own purposes, instances of which occur in the dramas mentioned above. On the whole, however, equivocation is more characteristic of the Jesuits. They were completely out of favor at this time. Under the generalship of Claudio Acquaviva, 1581-1615, they first began to have a preponderatingly evil reputation. In 1581 they were banished from England, and in 1601 the decree of banishment was repeated, this time for their suspected share in the Gunpowder Plot.
3. 3. 206, 7 Come, gi’ me Ten pieces more. The transaction with Guilthead is perhaps somewhat confusing. Fitzdottrel has offered to give his bond for two hundred pieces, if necessary. Merecraft’s ‘old debt of forty’ (3. 3. 149), the fifty pieces for the ring, and the hundred for Everill’s new office (3. 3. 60 and 83) ‘all but make two hundred.’ Fitzdottrel furnishes a hundred of this in cash, with the understanding that he receive it again of the gold-smith when he signs the bond (3. 3. 194). He returns, however, without the gold, though he seals the bond (3. 5. 1-3). Of the hundred pieces received in cash, twenty go to Guilthead as commission (3. 3. 155). This leaves forty each for Merecraft and Everill.