362 NOTES AND QUERIES. [i2s.vm.MAY7,i02i. Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1662, and records that " Mr. Betterton, being ilien but 22 years Old [this is a mistake for 27] was highly Applauded for his Acting " in it. Its popularity, however, was short-lived. Its outrageous defiance of the unity of time offended the critics. Dryden, the most eminent of them, chooses it as an example of the inferior plays of " the last age " : Witness the lameness of their plots . made up of some ildiculous, incoherent story, which, in one play, many times took up the business of an age. I suppose I need not name Pericles, Prince of Tyre. ' Defence of the Epilogue,' 1672. At any rate it had the good fortune to escape the abhorred shears and still more abhorred additions of the Restoration adapter. It was not altered for the stage till 1758, when George Lillo, author of the once celebrated play of ' George Barn well,' cut away the first three acts and expanded the last two into a drama which he called ' Marina.' Except for this work, which was acted three times at Co vent Garden, the laborious Genest could not find a single revival of the play between the time of Betterton and the publication of his
- Account of the English Stage ' in 1832.
And it is significant of the oblivion into which ' Pericles ' had fallen that he thinks it necessary to give a full account of its plot, whereas he always assumes that his readers are familiar with Shakespeare's undoubted works. It will be remembered that this play was not printed among them between 1725, when Pope rejected it from his edition, and 1793. Malone, indeed, had appended it and ' Titus Andronicus ' to his edition of 1790 as doubtful plays, but it was left to Steevens in 1793 to restore it to full canonical honours. During the nineteenth century I believe it was only once revived for public perform- ance. In 1854, Phelps produced it at Sadler's Wells, himself playing Pericles. According to Henry Morley, this production " may be said to succeed only because it is a spectacle" (' Journal of a London Play- goer,' p. 84). If I have overlooked any revival perhaps some reader better versed in stage history will supply the deficiency. GORDON CROSSE. P.S. Since writing this I have learned that ' Pericles ' was revived by Sir Frank Benson at one of the Stratford Festivals, but have not been able to discover the year. LEGAY OF SOUTHAMPTON AND LONDON. (See ante, p. 341). III. Peter Legay of Southampton, the eldest son of Isaac (II.), is the most promi- nent member of the family. He was ad- mitted to the Lord's Supper in 1618, and is named later two or three times in the registers of the Huguenot churches at Southampton and London, but appears to have separated from the congregation. Probably he regarded himself as an English- mo n, as belonging to the third generation of his family settled in the country. He became a burgess by 1638 (Hist. MSS. Com., XI. iii. 133) and an alderman of Southamp- ton, and served the town as bailiff in 1640, sheriff 1641, and mayor 1647. In Novem- ber, 1642, he was one of those placed in charge of the town's defence, for Holy Rood Ward (Hist. MSS. Com., XL iii. 29), and appears generally to have been an important townsman. On January 10, 1658/9, Jacob Legay as sheriff summoned a court to choose the Parliament men for Southampton ; Mr. Knolles, Mr. Roger Gollop, and Peter Legay were nominated, the two former being elected (Note-book). On December 29, 1623, he married Martha Delamotte, who, on the evidence of the Note-book, may be regarded as a sister of Joseph and daughter of the Hugue- not pastor, Philip. She was born October 27, 1604, but no baptisms are recorded in the register between August 8, 1604, and May 12, 1605, so that the wife and family had probably been sent away from the town to avoid the plague. Calamy ( ' Noncon- formist's Memorial,' ed. Palmer, iii. 336 ; ed. 1727, ii. 832) has a romantic story of the marriage of " the eminently religious Mr. Peter Legay." He says : This worthy person left France when Lewis XIII. oppressed his Protestant subjects and besieged and took Rochelle, bringing little or nothing with him. After he had been a while in England, he was greatly surprized to meet a young lady in the street at Southampton whom he had courted in France. They renewed their acquaintance and married ; and by an extra- ordinary blessing of God upon his industry and merchandize he in a few years so increased his substance, that he bought the estate of West Stoke, where he lived in great credit to the day of his death. The story cannot be accepted as it stands. It has been shown that both Peter and his wife belonged to Southampton. Yet Peter may have been trading in Rochelle when
