'Wealth and health' appears among the titles in the list of plays appended to the edition of Goffe's _Careless Shepherdess_, printed for Rogers and Ley in 1656. The entry was repeated with the designation 'C[omedy].' in Archer's list of the same year, and, without the addition, in those of Kirkman in 1661 and 1671. In 1691 Langbaine wrote '_Wealth and Health_, a Play of which I can give no Account.' Gildon has no further information to offer, nor have any of his immediate followers. Chetwood, in 1752, classes it among 'Plays Wrote by Anonymous Authors in the 16th [by which he means the seventeenth] Century,' calls it 'an Interlude' and dates it 1602. This invention was only copied in those lists which depended directly on Chetwood's, such as the _Playhouse Pocket-Companion_ of 1779. Meanwhile, in his _Companion to the Play-House_ of 1764, D.E. Baker, relying upon Coxeter's notes, gave an essentially accurate description of the piece, except that he asserted it to be 'full of Sport and mery Pastyme,' and described it as an octavo. This entry has been copied by subsequent bibliographers, none of whom have seen the original. The play was among those discovered in Ireland in the spring of 1906 and sold at Sotheby's on 30 June, when it was purchased for the British Museum at the price of one hundred and ninety-five pounds. Its press-mark is C. 34. i. 25. The extremely careless typography of the original makes the task of reprinting a difficult one. Ordinary misprints abound, and these have been scrupulously retained, a list of irregularities being added below. It has, however, proved impossible to arrive at any satisfactory method of distinguishing between 'n' and 'u.' In the first hundred lines, which are by no means the worst printed, there are thirty-two cases in which the letter is indistinguishable, eighteen cases of an apparent 'u' which should be 'n,' and seven cases of an apparent 'n' which should be 'u.' When it is further remembered that there are few cases in which it is possible to say for certain that a letter really is what it appears to be, and none in which it may not be turned, some idea of the difficulty in the way of reprinting will be obtained. To have followed the original in this matter would have been to introduce another misprint into at least every fourth line, while even so several hundred cases would have remained which could only have been decided according to the apparent sense of the passage. The only rational course was to treat the letters as indistinguishable throughout, and to print in each instance whichever the sense seemed to require. Again, as the superscript letters 'c,' 'e,' 't,' are seldom distinguishable, the printer has been given the benefit of the doubt. Another difficulty arose in connection with the speakers' names. In the original these have often dropt from their proper places, which can now only be ascertained from the sense and the not very regular indentation.