ntment felt by the Puritans
against the tyrannical acts of Whitgift and the Bishops. The actual
controversy has been traced back to a defence of the establishment of
the Church, by the Dean of Sarum, on the one hand, and a treatise by
John Penry the Puritan, on the other, both published in 1587. In 1588
followed the violent Puritan libel, called "Martin Marprelate," secretly
printed, and written, perhaps, by a lawyer named Barrow. Towards the
close of the dispute several of the literary wits dashed in upon the
prelatical side, and denounced the Martinists with exuberant high
spirits. Among these Nash was long thought to have held a very prominent
place, for the two most brilliant tracts of the entire controversy,
"Pap with an Hatchet," 1589, and "An Almond for a Parrot," 1590, were
confidently attributed to him. These are now, however, clearly perceived
to be the work of a much riper pen, that, namely, of Lyly.

It is probable that the four anonymous and privately printed tracts,
which Dr. Grosart has finally selected, do represent Nash's share in
the Marprelate Controversy, although in one of them, "Martin's Month's
Mind," I cannot say that I recognize his manner. The "Countercuff,"
published in August, 1589, from Gravesend, shows a great advance in
power. The academic Euphuism has been laid aside; images and trains of
thought are taken from life and experience instead of from books. In
"Pasquils Return," which belongs to October of the same year, the author
invents the happy word "Pruritans" to annoy his enemy, and speaks,
probably in his own name, but perhaps in that of Pasquil, of a visit
to Antwerp. "Martin's Month's Mind," which is a crazy piece of fustian,
belongs to December, 1589, while the fourth tract, "Pasquil's Apology,"
appeared so late as July, 1590. The smart and active pen which
skirmishes in these pamphlets adds nothing serious to the consideration
of the tragical controversy in which it so lightly took part. It amused
and trained Nash to write these satires, but they left Udall none the
worse and the Bishops none the better. The author repeatedly promises to
rehearse the arguments on both sides and sum up the entire controversy
in a "May-Game of Martinism," of which we hear no more.

During the first twelve months of Nash's residence in London he
was pretty busily employed. It is just conceivable that six small
publications may have brought in money enough to support him. But after
this we perceive n