Children were temporarily suppressed and August of that year when the Burbadges, Shakespeare, Hemings, and others took over Evans's unexpired lease of Blackfriars with a view to occupying it themselves. But the deposition of Cuthbert Burbadge was not made till twenty-seven years after the occurrence described; and is not to be trusted as a statement of the sequence of events. The Boys may have acted temporarily with, or under the supervision of, the King's Company at Blackfriars between December 7, 1609 and January 4, 1610; but one of them, Field, is at the head of the new Queen's Revels at Whitefriars by March 25, 1610, and does not appear in the lists of the King's Men till 1616; and there is no record of Underwood and Ostler as members of the latter company before the end of 1610, when they acted in Jonson's _Alchemist_ (after October 3). Since Underwood and Ostler were not with the new Queen's Revels after January of that year, it is probable that Davies's epigram to the latter as "the Roscius of these times" in the _Scourge of Folly_, entered for publication on October 8, 1610, was written after Ostler had attained distinction in Shakespeare's company, the company of the leading actors of the day, and that the grouping of the epigram to Ostler with that of the epigram to Fletcher on _Philaster_ presented by that company indicates contemporaneity in the composition of the epigrams,--that is to say, between January 4 and October, 1610. Since, however, the epigrams in _The Scourge of Folly_, though frequently arranged by groups, sometimes of mental association, sometimes of contemporaneous composition, do not follow a continuous chronological order, the juxtaposition of these two epigrams cannot be regarded as more than a feather's evidence to the direction of the wind. Of much greater weight as confirming the date of _Philaster_, as conjectured above, is its resemblance to Shakespeare's _Cymbeline_ not only in general features of background and atmosphere, plot, typical characters, romantic motive, situations, and style, but also in specific detail. I shall presently attempt to show at greater length that there is nothing in the _Philaster_ or the _Cymbeline_ to indicate the priority of the former. But I must at the risk of anticipating indicate in this place though briefly the argument of a later chapter.[230] For the _Cymbeline_, I accept the date assigned by the majority of critics, 1609. Shakespeare had had the character of Imogen (or Innogen) in mind since he first introduced her, years before, as a silent personage in _Much Ado About Nothing_ (the quarto of 1600). In execution the play is, with _The Winter's Tale_ and the _Tempest_, the dramatic sequel of that first of his "dramatic romances,"--of which the leading conception is the loss and recovery of a wife or child,--the _Pericles_ written in 1607 or 1608. And since already in _Pericles_, Shakespeare had blazed this new path, I cannot for a moment accept the hypothesis that he is