Greg, in his "notes" to _Early Play Lists_ (App. II. lxxix), says: "Neither Langbaine nor any of his followers had seen the piece. The _Biographica_ _Dramatica_ gives the date 1566, which, however, appears to be an invention of Chetwood's." The colophon indicates that it was printed by John Waley (or Walley), who was in business in Foster Lane from 1546 to 1586. This, of course, decides nothing as to the date of the play. Moreover, there is, as far as I am at present aware, only one allusion in the play itself that serves the purpose; even allowing more weight to such evidence than I am inclined to consider safe in the circumstances--Eugenio appoints Actio (359,_a_) "hangman of Calais." It is hardly likely such an allusion to what was at the time regarded as a national "disaster" would have been made after the loss of Calais in 1558. On the other hand, the absence of the concluding prayer for the sovereign--its presence being a pretty certain indication of an Elizabethan play--seems to confirm the downward limit of date. One other allusion may be pertinent--"the sweetest life, Sovereign ... is to have meditation of our Lord Jesus." A Marian date is, from the tone of the play, unlikely; to suppose the reference is to Henry VIII. is equally incongruous. Both considerations are, moreover, emphasised by the fact that had the "Sovereign" been a queen, regnant or dowager, some qualification indicative of sex would in such courtly times most assuredly have been given. We are thus reduced, by the process of exhaustion, to the days of Edward VI.: _i.e._ between 1547 and 1553. Beyond that point I do not think we can safely go at present. The play, as now bound by the British Museum authorities, shows no signs of mutilation, and the numbering of the sheets is consecutive. The type is, for the most part, clear and good; nothing obliterated, very little blurred, and only occasionally is there exhibited a wrong letter (_e.g._ "laue" for "lane"); but as a whole very correct. The construction of the play is of the slightest, turning at its most serious point on the incident of "The Pharisee and the Publican going up to the Temple to pray." Indeed, the whole piece seems curiously incomplete and disconnected. Yet there are no signs whatever, in the original, of mutilation or of lines omitted. The text goes straight on, though the relation of one part to another is by no means obvious. Is it possible that the play as it has reached us is only a draft, or an imperfect, or a "pirated" copy? I am inclined on first glance to think this interlude one of the same class as those that Bishop Bale speaks of as being played at market crosses on Sunday afternoons by way of religious instruction--"thin," slight moral plays. Indications are not wanting which point to this conclusion.