ii. 114, gives it to Munday, as the only known writer for Oxford's, except Oxford himself. But he is thinking of Oxford's boy company of 1580-4, not of the later company of 1601 or earlier, to whose repertory the play probably belonged, and with whom Munday is not known to have had anything to do.
Wily Beguiled. 1596 < > 1606
S. R. 1606, Nov. 12 (Hartwell). 'A booke called Wylie beguilde &c.' Clement Knight (Arber, iii. 333).
1606. A Pleasant Comedie, Called Wily Beguilde. The Chiefe Actors be these: A poore Scholler, a rich Foole, and a Knaue at a shifte. H. L. for Clement Knight. [Induction, Prologue, and Epilogue.]
N.D.; 1623; 1630; 1635; 1638.
Editions by T. Hawkins (1773, O. E. D. iii), in Dodsley^4, ix (1874), and by J. S. Farmer (1912, T. F. T.) and W. W. Greg (1912, M. S. R.).—Dissertations: J. W. Hales, Shakespearian Imitations (1875, Ath. 1875, 17 July, 4 Sept.); F. J. Furnivall, Parallels (1875, 5 N. Q. iv. 144); P. A. Daniel, On W. B. (1875, Brooke's Romeus and Juliet, xxxv, N. S. S.); E. Landsberg, Zur Verfasserfrage des anonymen Lustspiels W. B. (1911, E. S. xliii. 189).
The register of Merton College, Oxford, has for 3 Jan. 1567 the entry, 'Acta est Wylie Beguylie Comoedia Anglica nocte in aedibus Custodis per scolares, praesentibus Vicecustode, magistris, baccalaureis, cum omnibus domesticis et nonnullis extraneis; merito laudandi recte agendo prae se tulerunt summam spem' (Boas, 157). No connexion is traceable between this and the extant play, which Greg and Boas regard as of Cambridge origin. But it does not seem to me markedly academic. The character Lelia does not particularly suggest the Cambridge Latin Laelia of 1595, and the epilogue was spoken in a 'circled rounde'. The description of himself by Churms (l. 68), as 'at Cambridge a scholler, at Cales a souldier, and now in the country a lawyer, and the next degree shal be a connicatcher', does not go far in the way of proof. This same passage fixes the date as not earlier than the Cadiz expedition of 1596; obviously the use of the phrase 'tricke of Wily Beguily' in Nashe's Have With You to Saffron Walden of 1596 (Works, iii. 107) proves nothing one way or other as to date, although Dekker naturally knew the play when he described rogues and their 'knavish comedy of Wily-Beguily' in his Belman of London of 1608 (Works, iii. 125). If the date is 1596, the authorship of Peele, suggested by the description of the prologue-speaker as 'humorous George', although he is clearly distinct from the 'fiery Poet', and urged by Fleay, ii. 158, and Landsberg, becomes just possible, chronologically, before his death in November of that year. But the Shakespearian imitations, although most marked of M. V. and earlier plays, seem also to extend to Hamlet, M. W., and T. N., and the right date may be c. 1602-6. If the production was in the 'circled rounde' of Paul's, the quasi-academic note is explicable. Sykes suggests S. Rowley (q.v.) as part author. Fleay, Shakespeare Manual, 272, makes an amazing attempt to interpret the play as a
