4 Aug. and thereafter decline, dropping below 100 from 24 Nov. and ending with 71 on 15 Dec. and 39 on 22 Dec. These figures cannot apply to 1592, when plague only made its appearance about August. On the other hand, the figures for 4 Aug. (1,503 and 983) and 29 Sept. (450 and 330) do not tally exactly, although they do in general effect, with the 1,603 and 1,135 given as 'the greatest that came yet' in Henslowe's letter of Aug. 1593, or the 1,100 to 1,200 from plague, representing an abatement in two weeks of 435, in his letter of 28 Sept. (H. P. 37, 40). On the whole, however, I think that all the figures before us relate to 1593 and not 1592, and that the ascription of the detailed tables to 1592 is due to the fact that they begin with 17 March 159-2/3. Graunt similarly (Hull, ii. 378) quotes 1593 and 1594, where he clearly means 1594 and 1595. The discrepancies between Stowe and the tables are probably due to the different number of parishes covered by different computations. If the larger figures relate to an area wider than that of City and liberties (cf. the P. C. order of 4 Aug. 1593 cited in the Bibl. Note), we perhaps get also an answer to the view of Creighton, i. 354, and Hull, ii. 427, that they are neither of 1592 nor 1593, but altogether spurious as representing an impossibly high rate of general mortality for sixteenth-century London, even when allowance is made for the unscientific nature of the 'plague-tokens' as a diagnosis and the consequent increase in plague-time of deaths ascribed to other causes.
1594. As in 1592-3, the diminution of plague in December allowed of a short winter play season. Henslowe, i. 16, records plays from 26 Dec. to 6 Feb. A restraint was ordered on 3 Feb. It was still thought necessary to inhibit access to court on 21 April (Hatfield MSS. iv. 514), but the plague deaths for the year were only 421 (Graunt in Hull, ii. 378; Bell, London's Remembrancer). Plays began tentatively in April and May and regularly in June (Henslowe, i. 17). The systematization of City precautions was under consideration in the autumn.
1595. There were only 29 plague deaths (Graunt, in Hull, ii. 378; Bell, London's Remembrancer).
1596. Plays were restrained for fear of infection on 22 July, but there is no other evidence of plague.
1597-1600. The tables show no plague deaths above 4 in any week.
1601-2. There is no evidence of plague.
1603. Plague broke out during April (V. P. x. 33). Precautions were already being taken on 18 April (Remembrancia, 337). Plays had been restrained during the illness of Elizabeth on 19 March and probably not resumed. The terms of the patent to the King's men on 19 May imply an existing restraint. The epidemic was a bad one; for an account of it, cf. Creighton, i. 474, and Dekker, The Wonderful Year (1603, Works, i. 100). The coronation was shorn of its entry and other splendours, and speedy resort to the country enjoined (Procl. 961, 964, 967). Bartholomew and other fairs were suppressed or put off (Procl. 964, 968). Trinity term was deferred on 23 June
