~206 NOTES AND QUERIES. [12 s.vm. MARCH 12, 1021. clear to me that Webster collaborated. Field may have been concerned in Act IV. In Montague's first speech "manacle" appears as a verb, as again in ' The Triumph of Love,' and (in sc. ii.) the Duchess of Orleans' exclamation "Art thou there, Basilisk ? " is also used by Dorigen in the second scene of 'The Triumph of Honour.' These points raise some presumption in Field's favoiir. But in any event it is unlikely that this fourth act is wholly from -his pen. Massinger undoubtedly had a hand in the third act, and the allusion to ""Roman deaths " in IV. i. recurs in 'The --.Maid of Honour ' (end of IV. iii.)*. 'Thierry and Theodoret.' Fleay attri- rbutes Acts 111. and IV. to Field. Macaulay gives Acts III. and V. i. to a third author (not Massinger or Fletcher). III. and V. i. = are clearly from the same hand Webster's, in my opinion. I agree with Boyle and Macaulay in attributing Act IV. to Fletcher (sc. i.) and Massinger (sc. ii.). Nowhere is there any suggestion of Field's versification or vocabulary. 'The Bloody Brother.' Macaulay assigns to Field Act IV. sc. iii. and part of III. i. I can find no justification for this attribu- tion. The authorship of this play presents perhaps the most difficult problem of all the plays in the Beaumont and Fletcher folios. At least four hands seem to have been -engaged upon it. To complete the list of the plays in which it has been conjectured that Field was concerned, either as collaborator or reviser, three yet remain to be mentioned. Of these, "two * Cupid's Revenge ' and ' Bonduca '- were published either in one or both of the IBeaumont and Fletcher folios, while the 1;hird "The Faithful Friends ' appears in neither, but was entered in the Register as by Beaumont and Fletcher in 1660. Though most of the critics (including Gayley and Macaulay) regard ' Cupid's Revenge ' as pure Beaumont and Fletcher, Boyle and Fleay both find a third hand in it, and Oliphant a third and fourth, adding Mas- singer as well as Field to Beaumont and Fletcher. Boyle does not identify the third author "whose verse has not the Beaumont ring." Fleay affirms that the play has been revised by Field, who has "condensed and altered every scene," but I can find no trace of him in any part of the play.
- Bonduca ' is usually assigned to Fletcher.
- This too is partly founded on a passage in
'The Arcadia' (Book IV., Routledge's edition J)p. 644-5). Macaulay, however, suggests that Field may have been concerned in II. i. and IV. iv. In both these scenes there are rimed couplets suggestive of a hand other than Fletcher's but, apart from these, I see no reason to suspect Field. As for ' The Faithful Friends,' which Fleay ('Englische Studien,' xiii, (1889) 32) attributes to Field and Daborne, and Oliphant (ibid., xvi. (1892) 198) believes to be an early play by Beaumont and Fletcher revised by Massinger and Field, although no doubt it contains phrases and passages faintly suggestive, sometimes of one, sometimes of another, of these authors, the most reasonable conclusion would seem to be that it is by none of them. It is written in a florid, forcible-feeble style quite unlike that of Field, and is throughout full of peculiar words and trite mythological allusions as little characteristic of him as they are of Beaumont or Fletcher. H. DUGDALE SYKES. Enfield. SIB JOHN WOOD, TREASURER. Perhaps your readers would be interested in the following notes concerning a forgotten Sussex worthy, which have accumulated by degrees in the course of an inquiry into the history of another family, or perhaps another branch of the same family, of the same name and county. He is noticed in the 'D.N.B.,' but the article only covers a small part of his career. In the latter half of the fifteenth century, three brothers of the name of Wood (Wode), John the elder, Thomas, and John the younger, played an active and prominent part in the affairs of Sussex. Their special hunting ground was West Sussex, so the probability is that they descended from the Chichester family, possibly from Adam de Bosco of Felpham (thirteenth century). They were landowners, whereas the Horsham family seem to have been merchants. Thomas was Lord of the Manor of Pul- borough ; John, the younger, who is once described as " of Woodmancote," figures in a number of Feet of Fines, was controller of the customs of the Port of Chichester from 1484, and was on the Commission of the Peace continuously from 1472 till his death (Pat. Rolls) ; but John Wood, the elder, extended the influence of his personality far beyond his native county. He was several times Member for Mid- hurst, and afterwards for Sussex ; and perhaps his father was M.P. for Midhurst before, him, since the entries begin as far
