NOTE 1 In Renaissance eyes the addition of such scenes was not quite as radical an innovation (or disfigurement) as we might expect in view of the widespread practice of doctoring the contents of ancient plays. Cf. Bruce R. Smith, Ancient Scripts & Modern Experience on the English Stage 1500 - 1700 (Princeton, 1988) Chapter V. Smith gives plenty of evidence for tragedy, and discusses Panniculus at pp. 211 - 15. It is possible that Gager, as an alumnus of that school, was familiar with Alexander Nowell’s equally (but quite differently) altered version of the Hippolytus acted at Westminster in the mid-1540’s, also discussed by Smith in the course of this chapter.

NOTE 2 J. W. Binns and J. Wills, “William Gager’s Additions to Seneca’s Hippolytus,” Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970) 156.

NOTE 3 Cf. Evelyn Mary Spearing, The Elizabethan Translations of Seneca’s Tragedies (Cambridge, 1912) 16, 27f, and 39.

NOTE 4 Note withdrawn from service

NOTE 5 For the purpose of this discussion I am accepting the traditional division of Senecan tragedy into five acts apiece, such as Gager would have accepted uncritically. Some modern authorities challenge the validity of this organizational scheme.

NOTE 6 Léon Émile Kastner and Henry Buckner Charlton, The Poetical Works of Sir Walter Alexander, Earl of Stirling (Scottish Text Society, 2nd ser., 11, London - Edinburgh, 1921) I.clxxii.

NOTE 7 Cf. also the discussion by Smith previously cited.

NOTE 8 Boas (p. 189f.)

NOTE 9 Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (London - New York, 1966) VI.97; cf. Hyder E. Rollins, “The Troilus-Cressida Story from Chaucer to Shakespeare,” Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 32 (n.s. XXV) (1917) 383 - 429.

NOTE 10 Gager names this character for the benefit of the reader, but not the spectator, since Pandarus is never named in the spoken text.

NOTE 11 Besides the Lucian passages described in the on note on 391 and the note on 516, Gager may have known of Momus by means of Natalis Comes, Mythologiae IX.xx in the expanded version of 1581.

NOTE 12  Sophocles wrote a lost satyr play entitled Momus, but there is no reason for thinking Gager would have know this: the sole source of evidence for this play is a late Greek grammarian.

NOTE 13 Included with this material is a second prologue (sig. F 2^r), written to introduce the September revival performance of the Rivales.

NOTE 14 Cf. also E. F. Healey, Panniculus Hippolyto Senecae Tragoediae Assutus (diss. Florida State Univ., 1962).

NOTE 15 Karl Young, “William Gager’s Defence of the Academic Stage,” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 18:2 (Madison, 1916) 596 - 601.