distinguished individual, perhaps only second to Tarlton as an actor,
and decidedly his superior as an author. Nothing that has come down to
us leads us to suppose, that Tarlton had much beyond his lavish
extemporal wit and broad drollery to recommend him; for although various
productions were attributed to him, such as are extant do not warrant an
opinion that, as a writer, he had much originality.[8] The reverse is
the case with Robert Wilson, whose initials are on the title-pages of
"The three Ladies of London," and of "The three Lords and three Ladies
of London," and who, besides his well-attested talents as a public
performer, was indisputably a dramatist of great ability. He, too, was
famous for his extreme readiness of reply, when suddenly called upon;
but we cannot help suspecting that some confusion has arisen between the
Robert Wilson, the writer of the two dramas above-named (as well as of
"The Cobbler's Prophecy," 1594, a production of a similar character),
and the Robert Wilson who is mentioned in "Henslowe's Diary," and whom
Meres, as late as 1598, calls "our worthy Wilson," adding that he was
"for learning and extemporal wit, without compare or compeer."[9] The
younger Robert Wilson was, perhaps, the son of the elder; but without
here entering into the evidence on the point (with which we were not
formerly so well-acquainted), we may state our persuasion generally,
that the Robert Wilson who was appointed one of the leaders of one of
Queen Elizabeth's two companies of players in 1583,[10] was not the same
Robert Wilson who was a joint-author, with Munday, Drayton, and Hathway,
in the drama on the story of Sir John Oldcastle, imputed to Shakespeare
on the authority of some copies printed in 1600.

There are two old editions of "The three Ladies of London," one of them
printed in 1584, the text of which we have followed, and the other in
1592, the various readings of which we have noted. Both of them have the
initials R.W. on the title-page as those of the writer; but some doubt