EDITIONS.
English-Men for my Money: Or, A Woman will have her Will. Imprinted at London by W. White, dwelling in Cow-Lane. 1616. 4o. Woodcut on title.
English-Men for my Money: Or, A Pleasant Comedy Called, A Woman will have her Will. As it hath beene divers times Acted with great Applause. London. Printed by I. N. and are to be sold by Hugh Perry ... 1626. 4o.
A Pleasant Comedie Called, A Woman will have her Will. London, Printed by A. M. and are to be sold by Richard Thrale ... 1631. 4o.
[PREFACE TO THE FORMER EDITION.][476]
This old comedy appears to have been extremely popular, and it was three times printed; in 1616, 1626, and 1631; the oldest copy is, as usual, the most correct, but in the following reprint all three have been collated.
It is ascertained from Henslowe's Diary to have been the production of a dramatic poet of the name of William Haughton, who generally wrote in conjunction with Thomas Dekker, Henry Chettle, John Day, and others, but in this instance he was alone concerned. It is entered by Henslowe under the date of February 1597-8, and he calls it (as the performance was no doubt named when it was then first acted), "A Woman will have her Will." When it was printed in 1616, it seems to have been thought that "Englishmen for my Money" would be more attractive, and "A Woman will have her Will" was sunk into the second title; it therefore runs thus: "Englishmen for my Money, or a pleasant comedy called A Woman will have her Will." [But in the third edition the first part of the title was withdrawn.]
No biographical particulars of William Haughton are known, but that in 1599 he was confined in the Clink in Southwark for debt; and on the 10th March of that year Henslowe advanced ten shillings to enable him to obtain his liberty.
This play is full of comic characters and situations, and the dialogue is generally well sustained. Haughton was probably young, when he produced it, and in Henslowe's Diary he is not unfrequently termed "Young Haughton." His versification was neither very free nor very flowing, and it partakes in some degree of the monotony that distinguished most of the old dramatists who preceded Shakespeare. The old copies are not divided into acts and scenes.