164 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
in similar proportion. Those extant of the Henslowian class oc- 
cupy generally the lower ranks of dramatic merit. If the fittest 
work of all dramatists survived, the lost plays perhaps could have 
been of mere historical value to us. . 
That this great category of lost plays most likely was rich in 
topical allusions has been quite generally recognized and in par- — 
tial details worked out. But the field yet awaits scientific re- — 
search, with promise of large literary-historical rewards.2, Among — 
such allusions there could hardly have failed mention of a state — 
of affairs closely affecting both poets and theatres. This and the 
rigid laws against presenting on the stage matters touching the 7 
official state suggest that the sharp attack in Hamlet, spoken on 
the stage with impunity, may not have been the most severe of 4 
its kind. I hesitate to go farther into the alluring field of specu-_ = 
lation, preferring to await results of research. 
The losses through Henslowe, as above noticed, sufficient : 
account for the fact that the evidences of theatrical relations by — 
way of local allusions in dramas that have reached us belong © 
mainly to the non-Henslowian plays,—those of the Globe, Paul’s, — 
and Blackfriars. The foremost of all these is the famous chil- — 4 
dren-passage in Hamlet, reserved for a special chapter.’ Besides 
this there are numerous evidences, direct and indirect, only a part © 
of which are taken up in the following paragraphs, 
The passage in Hamlet (late 1601) showing the drawing away ~ 
of the genteel part of the audience to the more select Blackfriars, — 
represents the condition not only in the Globe but in all the other — 
public theatres. It is well supported by passages in other plays. 
Pitt, Wadeson, Smyth, S. Row- May, 1906) 763-78. This latter ar- 
ley, Bird (Borne), Middleton, 
Webster, Singer. 
Removing from this last list the 
names of Jonson, Chapman, Mars- 
ton, and Middleton, who did their 
chief work for Blackfriars, Globe, 
and Paul’s, it will be seen that the 
Henslowian writers are on the 
whole of a very inferior rank. 
*See Sidney Lee, The Topical 
Side of the Elizabethan Drama 
(New Shakesp. Soc. Trans., Series 
I, 1887), 11sqq. Also cf. eundem, 
The Future of Shakespearean Re- 
search (The Nineteenth Century, 
ticle gives practically the substance 
of the former. 
*Since writing these paragraphs 
my own researches have brought to 
light great bulks of material in this 
field—too extensive to find itself 
in print yet,—but of a value quite 
disproportionate to the bulk. These 
documents include the sources of 
hitherto unknown dramas by Chap- 
man, Dekker, Webster, Ford, and 
others, 
dramas,—all purely local. 
°Infra, 173-85. 
278 
with certain fragments of — 
