almost forgotten. Still another fifteen were
older or early Renaissance poets whose names probably meant nothing to
Winstanley. On the other hand, he omits the following late Renaissance
or contemporary poets whose period is plainly indicated in the
_Theatrum Poetarum_ and who, we might suppose, would be known to anyone
attempting literary history in the year 1687: Richard Barnfield, Thomas
Campion, Francis Davison, John Hall of Durham, William Herbert, William
Leighton, Thomas Sackville, Henry Vaughan the Silurist, and Samuel
Woodford.

That most of Winstanley's omissions were deliberate, and were prompted
by some awareness of literary reputation, is suggested not only by his
request for help on a revised edition (which never materialized) but
also by the fact that he was able to add to the _Theatrum Poetarum_
thirty-four poets, almost all of whom could have been noted by
Phillips. Among these were such recent poets as Thomas Tusser, Giles
Fletcher the elder, Sir John Beaumont, Jasper Heywood, Philemon
Holland, Sir Thomas Overbury, John Taylor the Water Poet, and the Earl
of Rochester. The reader of this volume may want to have the additional
names before him; they are: Sir John Birkenhead, Henry Bradshaw,
William Chamberlayne, Hugh Crompton, John Dauncey, John Davies (d.
1618), Robert Fabyan, John Gower (fl. 1640), Lewys Griffin, "Havillan,"
Richard Head, Matthew Heywood, John Higgins, Thomas Jordan, Sir William
Killigrew, Sir Roger L'Estrange, Matthew of Paris, John Oldham, Edward
Phillips himself, John Quarles, Richard the Hermit, John Studley, John
Tatham, Christopher Tye, Sir George Wharton, and William of Ramsey.
Mentioned incidentally are John Owen, Laurence Whitaker, and Gawin
Douglas.

Among the accounts that are utterly independent of Phillips are those
of Churchyard, Chapman, Daniel, Ford, Cower, Lydgate, Lyly, Massinger,
Nashe, Quarles, Suckling, Surrey, and Sylvester. Among those that add
more than they borrow are the notices of Beaumont and Fletcher,
Chaucer, Cleveland, Corbet, Donne, Drayton, Phineas Fletcher, Greene,
Greville, Jonson, Lodge, Lovelace, Middleton, More, Randolph,
Shakespeare, Sidney, Spenser, Warner, and Withers.

To a modern critic Winstanley may seem devoid of taste, but his
acquaintance with English poetry is impressive. Indeed, Winstanley,
unlike Phillips, strikes us as a man who really read and enjoyed
poetry. Phillips is more the slipshod bibliographer and cataloguer,
collectin