Chapter XXIX: Introduction: The Public Theatres (11)

[343] Dasent, xxiv. 212.

[344] Cf. W. W. Greg in Henslowe, ii. 70.

[345] _Dulwich MSS._ i. 9–15 (_Henslowe Papers_, 34); cf. Henslowe, i. 3.

[346] Their patron was Edward Parker, Lord Morley (Murray, ii. 54). I suspect the Morden of the York entry and the Norris of the Bath entry of being both transcriber’s errors for Morley. No players of Lord Norris are on record, and those of Lord Mordaunt (Murray, ii. 90) only recur in 1585–6 and 1602.

[347] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 130; on the nature of a ‘plott’, cf. App. N.

[348] The following rather hazardous identifications have been attempted by Greg (_loc. cit._) and Fleay, 84: ‘Harry’ = Henry Condell (Fleay, Greg); ‘Kit’ = Christopher Beeston (Fleay, Greg); ‘Saunder’ = Alexander Cooke (Fleay, Greg); ‘Nick’ = Nicholas Tooley (Fleay, Greg); ‘Ro.’ or ‘R. Go.’ = Robert Gough (Fleay, Greg); ‘Ned’ = Edward Alleyn or Edmund Shakespeare (Fleay); ‘Will’ = William Tawyer (Fleay), William Tawler (Greg). The object is, of course, to establish the connexion between Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s men. Both writers assign two of the unallocated parts to Heminges and Shakespeare.

[349] For speculation as to Shakespeare’s early career, cf. s.v. Pembroke’s.

[350] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 155.

[351] George Fanner to H. Galdelli and G. Tusinga in _S. P. Dom. Eliz._ cclxxi. 34, 35. I do not accept Mr. James Greenstreet’s theory that W. Stanley was the real W. Shakespeare.

[352] _Hatfield MSS._ xiii. 609.

[353] Murray, i. 295.

[354] Taylor, _Penniless Pilgrimage_ (ed. Hindley), 67.

[355] _Dulwich MS._ i. 14, in _Henslowe Papers_, 40.

[356] _Outlines_, i. 122; ii. 329.

[357] Fleay, 136, ‘Pembroke’s men continued to act at the Curtain from 1589 to 1597’ is guesswork.

[358] Henslowe, i. 131; cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Fulwell.

[359] Cf. _infra_ (Chamberlain’s). Shank (cf. ch. xv) was once in Pembroke’s.

[360] The Council Register assigns this performance to the Chamberlain’s; cf. App. B.

[361] Fleay, _Sh._ 286, supposed Howard to be both Admiral and Chamberlain at this date, but this view was refuted by Halliwell-Phillipps in the _Athenaeum_ for 24 April 1886, and resigned by Fleay, 31; cf. Greg, ii. 81.

[362] I. H. Jeayes, _Letters of Philip Gawdy_ (Roxburghe Club), 23.

[363] Stopes, _Hunnis_, 322, names payees in error.

[364] Henslowe, ii. 83.

[365] _Henslowe Papers_, 31.

[366] _Alleyn Papers_, 11, 12; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 32.

[367] _Alleyn Papers_, 1, 5.

[368] Ibid. 54.

[369] Henslowe, ii. 127.

[370] Henslowe, i. 17.

[371] Ibid. 198.

[372] Ibid. 17.

[373] Cf. the petitions assigned to 1592 (App. D, No. xcii).

[374] They may represent n[ew] e[nterlude], or merely ne[w].

[375] Fleay, 140; Henslowe, ii. 84.

[376] Henslowe, ii. 324.

[377] Ibid. ii. 133.

[378] Ibid. i. 126.

[379] Ibid. i. 44.

[380] Henslowe, i. 51; cf. Dr. Greg’s explanation in ii. 129 and my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 409. Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 361) has a third explanation, that the figures represent the sharers’ takings. But (_a_) these would not all pass through Henslowe’s hands, (_b_) the amounts are often less than half the galleries, and (_c_) the columns are blank for some days of playing.

[381] I include _Belin Dun_, produced just before the separation of the Admiral’s and the Chamberlain’s, in the fifty-five; but I do not follow Dr. Greg in taking the sign ‘j’, which Henslowe attaches to _Tamburlaine_ (30 Aug. 1594) and _Long Meg of Westminster_ (14 Feb. 1595) as equivalent to ‘ne’. Were it so, these would furnish two, and the only two, examples of a second new production in a single week. Probably ‘j’ indicates in both instances the _First Part_ of a two-part play. This view is confirmed by Henslowe’s note on 10 March 1595, ‘17 p[laies] frome hence lycensed’; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 408.

[382] Variously entered as ‘olimpo’, ‘seleo & olempo’, ‘olempeo & hengenyo’, &c.; but apparently only one play is meant.

[383] _Alexander and Lodowick_ is actually entered for a second time as ‘ne’ on 11 Feb. 1597, but I have assumed this to be a mistake.

[384] It has been chiefly played by Fleay and Dr. Greg. The relations suggested are between _1 Caesar and Pompey_ and Chapman’s play of the same name, _Disguises_ and Chapman’s _May-day_, _Godfrey of Bulloigne_ and Heywood’s _Four Prentices of London_, _Olympo_, _1, 2 Hercules_, and _Troy_ and Heywood’s _Golden_, _Silver_, _Brazen_, and _Iron Ages_ respectively. _Five Plays in One_ and some of Heywood’s _Dialogues and Dramas_, _The Wonder of a Woman_ and a supposed early version by Heywood of W. Rowley’s _A New Wonder, or, A Woman Never Vexed_, _The Venetian Comedy_ and both the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_ and Dekker’s lost _Jew of Venice_, _Diocletian_ and Dekker’s _The Virgin Martyr_, _A Set at Maw_ and Dekker’s _Match Me in London_, _The Mack_ and Dekker’s _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, _Vortigern_ and Middleton’s _The Mayor of Quinborough_, _Uther Pendragon_ and W. Rowley’s _Birth of Merlin_, _Philipo and Hippolito_ and both Massinger’s lost _Philenzo and Hypollita_ and the German _Julio und Hyppolita_. Full details will be found in Henslowe, ii. 165 sqq.

[385] Henslowe, i. 44, 128.

[386] Possibly identical with _Mahomet_, if that was Peele’s play. Dr. Greg’s identification with _The Love of an English Lady_ strikes me as rather arbitrary.

[387] I assume that ‘valy a for’ entered on 4 Jan. 1595 is the same play. Conceivably it might be _Vallingford_, i. e. _Fair Em_, an old Strange’s play.

[388] An allusion in Field’s _Amends for Ladies_, ii. 1, shows that _Long Meg_ still held the Fortune stage about 1611.

[389] Possibly identical with _Longshanks_.

[390] The relations suggested are between _The Love of a Grecian Lady_ and the German _Tugend-und Liebesstreit_, _The French Doctor_ and both Dekker’s _Jew of Venice_ and the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_, _The Siege of London_ and Heywood’s _1 Edward IV_, _The Welshman_ and R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_, _Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s_ and Heywood’s _Timon_. For details cf. Henslowe, ii. 165 _sqq._

[391] This was on Whit-Tuesday 1596, and I rather suspect a mis-entry of _iij_^s for _iij_^{li}, the exact amount taken for the plays of the Monday and Wednesday in the same week.

[392] Henslowe, i. 5.

[393] Ibid. 44.

[394] Ibid. 31, 45.

[395] Henslowe, i. 29, 31, 43, 44, 199–201.

[396] I see no reason to agree with Dr. Greg in identifying ‘Black Dick’ with Jones, who would naturally have the ‘Mr.’; and the suggestions that ‘Dick’ might be Dick Juby and that ‘Will’ might be Will Barnes or Will Parr are mere guesses based on the occurrence of these names in other ‘plots’. ‘Will’ might just as well be Will Kendall.

[397] Henslowe, i. 45.

[398] Henslowe’s entry is (i. 54), ‘Martin Slather went for the company of my lord admeralles men the 18 of July 1597’. I think that ‘for’ must be meant for ‘from’. Elsewhere (i. 66) Henslowe writes ‘for’ for ‘from’.

[399] Henslowe, i. 47, 200.

[400] Ibid. 201–4; _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 19 (a fragment from the Diary).

[401] Henslowe, ii. 89, 101.

[402] Henslowe, i. 105, 131, 134.

[403] Ibid. 40.

[404] Ibid. 199–201.

[405] App. D, No. cxii.

[406] Henslowe, i. 54; _E. S._ xliii. 351.

[407] Henslowe, i. 68–70.

[408] Ibid. 82.

[409] Ibid. ii. 91; cf. p. 200.

[410] Henslowe, i. 69, 73; Wallace in _E. S._ xliii. 382.

[411] Cf. p. 173.

[412] Henslowe, i. 81, 122.

[413] Ibid. 64, 67.

[414] Ibid. 63, 79.

[415] Henslowe, i. 72, ‘Lent W^m Borne to folowe the sewt agenste Thomas Poope’; cf. i. 26, 38, 47–8, 56, 63–9, 71–8, 80, 201, 205; and s.v. Pembroke’s.

[416] Henslowe, i. 84.

[417] During 1599–1602 Henslowe sometimes enters advances as made to the company through ‘W^m’ Juby, and in two cases corrects the entry by substituting ‘Edward’. As there is no other evidence for a William Juby as an actor, not to speak of a sharer, either Henslowe must have persistently mistaken the name, or William must have been a relative of Edward, acting as his agent (cf. Henslowe, ii. 290).

[418] _Henslowe Papers_, 48.

[419] Henslowe, i. 26.

[420] _Henslowe Papers_, 113.

[421] Henslowe, i. 122.

[422] Ibid. 122.

[423] Ibid. 66, 68, 91, 108.

[424] Ibid. 85.

[425] Henslowe, i. 72.

[426] Ibid. 63, 104.

[427] Ibid. 118.

[428] I find ‘Lorde Haywards’ men at Leicester during Oct.–Dec. 1599, ‘Lord Howardes’ at Bristol in 1599–1600, ‘Lord Heywardes’ at Bath in the same year, ‘Lord Howards’ at Coventry on 28 Dec. 1599, and ‘Lord Haywards’ in 1602–3. This must have been another company. The Admiral’s were playing in London at the time of the Leicester and the earlier Coventry visits, and Lord Howard of Effingham became Earl of Nottingham on 22 Oct. 1596. They were at Canterbury in 1599–1600.

[429] Henslowe, i. 120.

[430] _Henslowe Papers_, 49; Henslowe, i. 113.

[431] _Henslowe Papers_, 55; Henslowe, i. 122.

[432] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135, 147.

[433] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135.

[434] _Henslowe Papers_, 56–8.

[435] Henslowe, ii. 125.

[436] Henslowe, i. 84–107.

[437] Ibid. 103.

[438] Henslowe, i. 83, 101, 119.

[439] Ibid. ii. 124.

[440] _Henslowe Papers_, 113, from Malone (1790), i. 2. 300; the manuscript is now lost. The various sections of the document are headed: (_a_) ‘The booke of the Inventary of the goods of my lord Admeralles men, tacken the 10 of Marche in the yeare 1598’; (_b_) ‘The Enventary of the Clownes sewtes and Hermetes Swetes, with dievers others sewtes, as followeth, 1598, the 10 of March’; (_c_) ‘The Enventary of all the aparell for my Lord Admiralles men, tacken the 10 of Marche 1598--Leaft above in the tier-house in the cheast’; (_d_) ‘The Enventary tacken of all the properties for my Lord Admeralles men, the 10 of Marche 1598’; (_e_) ‘The Enventorey of all the aparell of the Lord Admeralles men, taken the 13^{th} of Marche 1598, as followeth’; (_f_) ‘A Note of all suche bookes as belong to the Stocke, and such as I have bought since the 3^d of Marche 1598’; (_g_) ‘A Note of all suche goodes as I have bought for the Companey of my Lord Admirals men, sence the 3 of Aprell, 1598, as followeth’. A comparison of the book-list with the diary payments makes it clear that ‘1598’ is 1597/8 and not 1598/9. The last book entered was bought in Aug. 1598. An undated inventory of Alleyn’s private theatrical wardrobe is in _Henslowe Papers_, 52.

[441] It should be borne in mind that these lists are based in part upon a rather conjectural interpretation of evidence. Full details, for which I have not space, will be found in Henslowe, ii. 186 _sqq._ I have annotated a few points of interest.

[442] So called in the book-inventory; in the diary it is _Triplicity of Cuckolds_.

[443] The first name appears in the inventory, the second in the diary.

[444] Only £4 was paid ‘to by a boocke’, which is low for a new play and high for an old one. Possibly Porter was in debt to the company.

[445] Once described as ‘other wisse called worsse feared then hurte’, whence Dr. Greg infers that the 1598–9 play of that name was a second part of it.

[446] So in the book-inventory; in the account it is only called _The Cobler_.

[447] Possibly _Strange Flattery_, but the manuscript is lost.

[448] They had to buy _Mahomet_, _The Wise Man of West Chester_, _Longshanks_, and _Vortigern_ from Alleyn in 1601 and 1602.

[449] ‘the Mores lymes’, ‘iiij Turckes hedes’, ‘j Mores cotte’.

[450] ‘iiij genesareys gownes’, ‘owld Mahemetes head’.

[451] ‘Tamberlyne brydell’, ‘Tamberlynes cotte, with coper lace’, ‘Tamberlanes breches of crymson vellvet’.

[452] ‘j cauderm for the Jewe’.

[453] ‘j tree of gowlden apelles’.

[454] ‘j whell and frame in the Sege of London’.

[455] ‘Belendon stable’.

[456] ‘Tasso picter’, ‘Tasoes robe’.

[457] ‘senetores gowne’ and ‘capes’.

[458] ‘Kents woden leage’.

[459] ‘j mawe gowne of calleco for the quene’.

[460] ‘j sewtte for Nepton’, ‘Nepun forcke & garland’.

[461] ‘Harey the fyftes dublet’ and ‘vellet gowne’, ‘j payer of hosse for the Dowlfyn’.

[462] ‘j longe-shanckes sewte’.

[463] ‘j great horse with his leages’.

[464] ‘Vartemar sewtte’, ‘Valteger robe of rich tafitie’, ‘j payer of hosse & a gercken for Valteger’, ‘ij Danes sewtes, and ij payer of Danes hosse’.

[465] ‘j tome of Guido’, ‘j cloth clocke of russete with coper lace, called Guydoes clocke’.

[466] ‘Merlen gowne, and cape’.

[467] ‘my lord Caffes gercken & his hoose’.

[468] These include ‘Argosse head’, ‘Andersones sewte’, ‘Will Sommers sewtte’, ‘ij Orlates sewtes’, ‘Cathemer sewte’, ‘j Whittcomes dublett poke’, ‘Nabesathe sewte’, ‘j Hell mought’, ‘the cloth of the Sone & Mone’, ‘Tantelouse tre’, ‘Eves bodeyes’. Probably ‘Perowes sewte which W^m Sley were’ dated back to the days of Strange’s men. After 3 April 1598 Henslowe bought, _inter alia_, ‘a gown for Nembia’ and ‘a robe for to goo invisibell’.

[469] It looks as if the book-inventory were not exhaustive; perhaps it only includes books more or less in current use.

[470] There is a self-contradictory entry, ‘to paye vnto M^r Willson Monday & Deckers ... iiij^{ll} v^s in this maner Willson xxx^s Cheattell xxx^s Mondy xxv^s’.

[471] Regarded by Dr. Greg as _2 Hannibal and Hermes_.

[472] I agree with Dr. Greg that this, for which Chapman had £4 in 1598–9, is probably identical with _The Isle of a Woman_, for which he had had earnests of £4 or £4 10_s._ in 1597–8.

[473] I think the play licensed as _Brute Grenshallde_ in March 1599 was a second part written by Chettle to an old _1 Brute_ by Day, which would not need re-licensing.

[474] I do not see with what to identify the play licensed under this name in March 1599 except the unnamed ‘playe boocke’ and ‘tragedie’, for which Chapman had something under £9 in the previous Oct. and Jan.

[475] The title _War without Blows and Love without Strife_ in one entry is probably an error.

[476] I agree with Dr. Greg that the entries point to two plays by Chettle and Dekker rather than one. They are probably incomplete owing to the hiatus in the manuscript.

[477] Dr. Greg makes two plays of this, but the entry ‘his boocke called the world rones a whelles & now all foolles but the foolle’ seems unambiguous, and the total payments of £8 10_s._ are not too high for a play by Chapman.

[478] No importance can be attached to Mr. Fleay’s childish identifications of _War without Blows and Love without Suit_, _Joan as Good as my Lady_, and _The Four Kings_ with _The Thracian Wonder_, Heywood’s _A Maidenhead well Lost_, and _Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_ respectively.

[479] So called in Drayton’s autograph receipt, but Henslowe calls it _William Longbeard_.

[480] Henslowe, i. 72, 78.

[481] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Alleyn.

[482] The only entry is of 15 July ‘to bye a boocke’, but the hiatus in the manuscript probably conceals earlier payments.

[483] Here also the hiatus has only left an entry of £2 ‘in full payment’ on 1 Aug. Dr. Greg, however, would identify _Bear a Brain_ and _The Gentle Craft_.

[484] The entries are as follows: 2 Sept., ‘Thomas Deckers Bengemen Johnson Hary Chettell & other Jentellman in earneste of a playe calle Robart the second kinge of Scottes tragedie’; 15 Sept., ‘in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedi vnto Thomas Dickers & Harey Chettell’; 16 Sept., ‘Hary Chettell ... in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedie’; 27 Sept., ‘Bengemen Johnsone in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedie’; 28 Sept., ‘vnto M^r Maxton the new poete in earneste of a boocke called [blank]’. Dr. Greg resists the fairly reasonable identification of ‘M^r Maxton the new poete’ with the ‘other Jentellman’. All the payments are called earnests, but the total is £6 10_s._ and therefore the play probably existed.

[485] ‘Lent vnto me W Birde the 9 of Februarye to paye for a new booke to Will Boyle cald Jugurth xxx^s which if you dislike Ile repaye it back.’ The price is the lowest ever entered for a ‘new’ book. Mr. Fleay’s suggestion that Will Bird, who already had one alias in Will Borne, was also himself Will Boyle, is one of those irresponsible guesses by which he has done so much to make hay of theatrical history.

[486] Both parts were entered on the Stationers’ Register, but no copy of _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ is known.

[487] _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 236, f. 77^v (_c._ 1600), has Forman’s note of the ‘plai of Cox of Cullinton and his 3 sons, Henry Peter and Jhon’.

[488] _Henslowe Papers_, 49.

[489] This was taken up again in 1601, but still not finished. Dr. Greg, however, thinks that it is identical with Day’s Italian tragedy, and forms half of _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (1601), and that Chettle’s work in 1601 may have been the effecting of the combination with _Thomas Merry_.

[490] Dr. Greg, following Mr. Fleay, identifies this with Dekker’s _Whore of Babylon_, and as Time is a character in this play, cites the purchase of ‘a Robe for tyme’ in April 1600 as a proof that it was then performed. Time, however, might also have been a character in _The Seven Wise Masters_.

[491] Possibly finished later and identical with the pseudo-Marlowesque _Lust’s Dominion_.

[492] The payment-entry is cancelled. The play may have been finished for another company, and be identical with the extant _Grim, the Collier of Croydon_, or, _The Devil and his Dame_.

[493] Possibly the basis of Bird and Rowley’s _Judas_ of 1601.

[494] It seems to me a little arbitrary of Dr. Greg to assume that the 10_s._ entered as an earnest for this was really a bonus on _1 The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_.

[495] _Henslowe Papers_, 51. I do not think that Dr. Greg recognizes the full significance of this when he suggests (Henslowe, ii. 94) that Alleyn was back on the stage by 1598; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 410. Dr. Greg relies mainly on the appearance of his name in the plot of _The Battle of Alcazar_, which, he says, ‘almost certainly belongs to 1598’. But I can find no reason why it should not belong to 1600–2; cf. p. 175.

[496] Henslowe, i. 56.

[497] Ibid. 162.

[498] Ibid. 141.

[499] Ibid. 144, 165, 174.

[500] Ibid. 134, 136, 140, 147.

[501] Dr. Greg puts it in 1598, on the assumption that Alleyn returned to the stage in that year. It might conceivably belong to 1597, between 18 Dec., when Bristow was bought, and 29 Dec., by which day Alleyn had left. It cannot be later than Feb. 1602, by which month Jones and Shaw had left. The prefix ‘M^r’ allotted to Charles and Sam is in favour of a date after their agreements on 16 Nov. 1598. Dr. Greg’s argument (_Henslowe Papers_, 138) that Kendall’s agreement expired 7 Dec. 1599 is not convincing, as there was nothing in it to prevent him from staying on, and the satire of the play in Jonson’s _Poetaster_ of 1601, to which he refers, obviously tells in favour of a date nearer to 1601 than 1598.

[502] Henslowe, i. 38.

[503] Ibid. 131, 134.

[504] Ibid. 164.

[505] Ibid. 205.

[506] Cf. ch. x.

[507] The entry is ‘Thomas Deckers for his boocke called the fortewn tenes’. Collier read ‘forteion tenes’ and interpreted _Fortunatus_. Mr. Fleay furnished the alternatives of _Fortune’s Tennis_ and _Hortenzo’s Tennis_. I should add that Dr. Greg assigns the ‘plot’ to this play.

[508] Dr. Greg thinks that this may be the same as Haughton’s _The English Fugitives_ of the previous April. If so, it was probably finished, as the payments amount to £6.

[509] As the account of advances is continuous, I have drawn the line between 1600–1 and 1601–2 at the beginning of Aug. 1601.

[510] _The Life_ became _2 Cardinal Wolsey_, as _The Rising_, although written later, was historically _1 Cardinal Wolsey_. The entries are complicated. It is just possible that the playwrights were working on an old play, for the property-inventories of 1598 include an unexplained ‘Will Sommers sewtte’ (cf. p. 168). A ‘W^m Someres cotte’ was, however, bought for _The Rising_ on 27 May 1602.

[511] Possibly based on Haughton’s unfinished play of 1600.

[512] A note preserved at Dulwich (_Henslowe Papers_, 58) indicates that licensing fees were in arrear on 4 Aug. 1602 for ‘baxsters tragedy, Tobias Comedy, Jepha Judg of Israel & the Cardinall, Loue parts frendshipp’. But of course Warner’s identification of ‘baxsters tragedy’ with _The Bristol Tragedy_ is conjectural.

[513] There is no _1 Tom Dough_, unless this was an intended sequel to _The Six Yeomen of the West_.

[514] Already begun by Chettle in 1599.

[515] This may be identical with _1 The Six Clothiers_, which is not called by Henslowe a ‘first part’, if, as is possible, that was a sequel to _The Six Yeomen of the West_.

[516] Possibly finished later as Dekker and Rowley’s _The Noble Spanish Soldier_. But it may have been an old play re-written, for C. R. Baskervill (_M. P._ xiv. 16) quotes from the preface to H. O.’s translation of Vasco Figueiro’s _Spaniard’s Monarchie_ (1592), ‘albeit it hath no title fetched from the Bull within Bishopsgate, as a figge for a Spaniard’.

[517] I suppose this was unfinished. The only entry is on 22 June 1602, ‘vnto Bengemy Johnsone ... in earneste of a boocke called Richard Crockbacke & for new adicyons for Jeronymo the some of x^{ll}’. Jonson had already had £2 on 25 Sept. 1601 ‘vpon his writtinge of his adicians in Geronymo’. Unless _Richard Crookback_ was nearly complete, his prices must have risen a good deal.

[518] Possibly finished later as _Hoffman_ (1631).

[519] The £4 paid was cancelled and then reinstated, but the book was evidently transferred to Worcester’s men (cf. p. 227).

[520] Cf. p. 168.

[521] Cf. vol. i, p. 323. _The Massacre_ was printed (N.D.) as an Admiral’s play.

[522] The conjectural rendering of Henslowe’s ‘ponesciones pillet’ finds support from the presence of garments for ‘Caffes’ or Caiaphas in the inventory of 1598; cf. p. 168.

[523] A payment to ‘John Daye & his felowe poetes’ implies at least three collaborators.

[524] For _Samson_ cf. p. 367.

[525] All four entries merely show the payments as made to ‘Antony the poyete’.

[526] Finished later and extant; probably identical with the _Danish Tragedy_ of 1601–2.

[527] I suppose that it was the play which Chettle ‘layd vnto pane’ to Mr. Bromfield, and which had to be redeemed for £1 (Henslowe, i. 174).

[528] The more so as I do not think that Dr. Greg’s survey in Henslowe. ii. 135, is accurate.

[529] Henslowe made the total £167 7_s._ 7_d._, but evidently the error was detected, as only £166 17_s._ 7_d._ was carried forward.

[530] Henslowe, ii. 133. Apparently Henslowe reverted to the plan of deducting three-quarters only, at the beginning of 1599–1600, but only for a fortnight, as the receipts from 20 Oct. are headed, ‘Heare I begane to receue the gallereys agayne which they receued begynynge at Myhellmas wecke being the 6 of October 1599’.

[531] I have disregarded an error of 15_s._ made by Henslowe.

[532] Henslowe, i. 85, 145.

[533] Ibid. ii. 33.

[534] Henslowe, i. 29, 47, 81, 96, 97, 118, 124, 136, 138, 144, 146, 148, 152, 153, 166, 172, &c.

[535] The exact date is uncertain, as they do not appear to have had a patent until 1606; but it must lie between their visit to Leicester as the Admiral’s on 18 Aug. 1603 and the making out of a warrant to them as the Prince’s men on 19 Feb. 1604 for their Christmas plays.

[536] _N. Sh. Soc. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 17*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Books_, 58^a.

[537] Cf. ch. xvi (Hope).

[538] On the legend that he had developed moral scruples about the stage, cf. s.v. Marlowe, _Dr. Faustus_.

[539] _Henslowe Papers_, 18.

[540] _Dulwich MS._ iii. 15.

[541] _Henslowe Papers_, 13; cf. ch. xvi, s.v. _Fortune_.

[542] _Henslowe Papers_, 63.

[543] Ibid. 85.

[544] _M. S. C._ i. 268, from _P. R. 4 Jac. I_, pt. 19; also printed by T. E. Tomlins, and dated in error 1607, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 42.

[545] Birch, _Life of Henry_, 455; Greg, _Gentleman’s Magazine_, ccc. 67, from _Harl. MS._ 252, f. 5, dated 1610.

[546] Henslowe, i. 175.

[547] Ibid. 214.

[548] There may be an allusion to this play in H. Parrot, _Laquei Ridiculosi, Springes for Woodcocks_ (1613), ii. 162:

’Tis said that _Whittington_ was rais’d of nought,
And by a cat hath divers wonders wrought:
But _Fortune_ (not his cat) makes it appear,
He may dispend a thousand marks a year.

Dr. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 65) has dispersed Collier’s myth of one Whittington ‘perhaps a sleeping partner in the speculation of the Fortune’.

[549] Most of the play-dates of 1605–12 are in Apps. A and B.

[550] _A. for L._ II. i. In III. iv a drawer says, ‘all the gentlewomen [from Bess Turnup’s] went to see a play at the Fortune, and are not come in yet, and she believes they sup with the players’.

[551] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Garlick.

[552] Nichols, _James_, ii. 495.

[553] _M. S. C._ i. 275, from _P. R. 10 Jac. I_, pt. 25; also from signet bill in Collier, i. 366, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 44. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 263) notes copies in _Addl. MS._ 24502, f. 60^v, and _Lincoln’s Inn MS._ clviii.

[554] _Henslowe Papers_, 106.

[555] Ibid. 64.

[556] _Fennor’s Defence, or I am Your First Man_ (Taylor’s _Works_, 1630, ed. _Spenser Soc._ 314). The 1659 print of the _Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ has at l. 2177, ‘Enter ... Captain Westford, Sill Clark’. The title-page professes to give the play as acted by the Prince’s men, but whether Clark was an actor of 1603–12 or not must remain doubtful.

[557] Henslowe, i. 17; cf. p. 140.

[558] Cf. App. D, No. ci. It is not ‘my newe companie’, as it is sometimes misprinted. But I do not think that either term can be interpreted as showing that the company had or had not a corporate existence before it came under Hunsdon’s patronage. The use which the company ‘have byn accustomed’ to make of the inn is only related to ‘this winter time’.

[559] The dates here assigned to Shakespeare’s plays are mainly based on the conclusions of my article on Shakespeare in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

[560] Cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _Gesta Grayorum_ and _M. L. R._ ii. 11.

[561] Cf. my paper on _The Occasion of A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_ in _Shakespeare Homage_, 154, and App. A.

[562] I have recently found confirmation of the date for _Rich. II_ in a letter from Sir Edward Hoby inviting Sir R. Cecil to his house in Canon Row on 9 Dec. 1595, ‘where, as late as shall please you, a gate for your supper shall be open, and K. Richard present himself to your view’ (_Hatfield MSS._ v. 487).

[563] T. Lodge, _Wits Miserie_ (S. R. 5 May 1596), 56, ‘the Visard of y^e ghost which cried so miserably at y^e Theator, like an oister wife, Hamlet, revenge’.

[564] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). There is a slight doubt as to the authenticity of the text of the petition, which the inclusion of Lord Hunsdon’s name can only emphasize. But the fact of the petition and its result are vouched for by a City document of later date. The counter-petition of the players published by Collier, i. 288, in which they are misdescribed as the Lord Chamberlain’s men, is a forgery. The names given are those of Pope, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Shakespeare, Kempe, Sly, and Tooley. There is nothing to connect Tooley with the company before 1605.

[565] Cf. App. D, No. cvi.

[566] For the distinction between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ quartos, cf. ch. xxii.

[567] R. James (c. 1625), in the dedication to his manuscript _Legend of Sir John Oldcastle_ (quoted by Ingleby, _Shakespeare’s Centurie of Praise_, 165), says, ‘offence beinge worthily taken by Personages descended from his title’.

[568] Raleigh wrote to R. Cecil on 6 July 1597 that Essex was ‘wonderful merry at your conceit of Richard II’ (Edwardes, ii. 169); for the later history of the play, _vide infra_.

[569] Cf. ch. xvi (Curtain).

[570] App. C, No. lii.

[571] Aubrey, ii. 12. The same writer is obviously confused when he says, on the authority of Sir Edward Shirburn, that Jonson ‘killed M^r Marlow the poet, on Bunhill, comeing from the Green-Curtain play-house’.

[572] Cf. ch. x. There is no reason to suppose that the Richard Hoope, W^m Blackwage, Rafe Raye, and W^m Ferney, to whom Henslowe lent money as ‘my lord chamberlenes men’ in 1595 (Henslowe, i. 5, 6), were actors. In fact Raye was a ‘man’ of Hunsdon’s before the company was in existence at all (Henslowe, ii. 305).

[573] The order of the Shakespearian actors named in the 1623 Folio, and the omission of the names of Duke and Beeston, rather suggests that these two were hired men, and that there were ten original sharers, Shakespeare, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Kempe, Pope, Bryan, Condell, Sly, and Cowley.

[574] App. C. No. xlviii.

[575] Cf. ch. xxii.

[576] Henslowe, i. 72.

[577] Cf. ch. xxii.

[578] Malone, _Variorum_, ii. 166; Fleay, _L. and W._ 8.

[579] _Hen. V_, epil. 12.

[580] That the _Famous Victories_ was reprinted in 1617 as a King’s men’s play proves nothing. It was to pass as _Henry V_; obviously the King’s men never acted it, _Henry V_ being in existence.

[581] Henslowe, i. 72, 101.

[582] For further details, cf. ch. xvi (Globe).

[583] Cf. ch. xvi, introd.

[584] Fleay, 138; cf. Murray, ii. 125; Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 108. A loan of 21 Sept. 1600 by Henslowe (i. 132) to Duke is only slight evidence, and the fact that Anne’s men chose to revive the already printed _Edward II_, once a Pembroke’s play, even slighter.

[585] Cf. ch. xv.

[586] Cf. ch. vii.

[587] Cf. ch. xxii.

[588] _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxviii. 72, 78, 85. Accounts consistent with this are given in depositions of Sir W. Constable and Sir Gilly Meyrick (ibid.), Camden, _Annales_, 867, Cobbett, _State Trials_, i. 1445, and Bacon, _A Declaration of the Practices and Treasons attempted and committed by Robert late Earl of Essex and his Complices_ (1601; _Works_, ix. 289).

[589] Fleay, 123, 136; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 12.

[590] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland).

[591] For the texts cf. ch. xi.

[592] W. H. Griffin in _Academy_ for 25 April 1896, suggests that the ‘innovation’ of 1604 was the same as the ‘noveltie’ of 1603, i.e. the setting up of child actors. But I am afraid that this leaves ‘inhibition’ without a meaning.

[593] Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 552, prints, perhaps from a manuscript of Lord De La Warr’s (_Hist. MSS._ iv. 300), a note by W. Lambarde of a conversation with the Queen on 4 Aug. 1601, ‘Her Majestie fell upon the reign of King Richard II, saying, I am Richard II, know ye not that? _W. L._ Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkind Gent. the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie made. _Her Majestie._ He that will forget God, will also forget his benefactors; this tragedy was played 40^{tie} times in open streets and houses’. The performances here referred to must have been in 1596–7, not 1601.

[594] Cf. ch. xi.

[595] J. Manningham, _Diary_, 18.

[596] Cf. App. A.

[597] Collier, _New Particulars_, 57, and _Egerton Papers_, 343, ‘6 August 1602 Rewardes ... x^{li} to Burbidges players for Othello’; cf. Ingleby, 262.

[598] Wallace, ii, 108; cf. p. 367.

[599] Cf. ch. xv (Kempe).

[600] Cf. ch. ii.

[601] G. Dugdale, _Time Triumphant_ (1604), sig. B.

[602] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 264, from _P. R. 1 Jac. I_, _pars 2_, _membr. 4_; also in Rymer, xvi. 505, and Halliwell, _Illustr. 83_. Halliwell also prints the practically identical texts of the Privy Signet Bill, dated 17 May, and the Privy Seal, dated 18 May. The former is also in Collier, i. 334, Hazlitt, 38, and Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 82.

[603] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland).

[604] Except in one of Collier’s Blackfriars forgeries; cf. ch. xvi.

[605] W. Cory (_Letters and Journals_, 168) was told on a visit to Wilton in 1865 that a letter existed there, naming Shakespeare as present and the play as _As You Like It_; but the letter cannot now be found.

[606] Marston, _Malcontent_, Ind. 82.

[607] Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 36, ‘Give him leaue to see the Merry Deuil of Edmonton or A Woman Killed with Kindness’.

[608] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1877–9), 15*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Records_, vol. 58^a, now ix. 4 (5); cf. Law (_ut infra_), 10. Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 68, printed a list headed ‘Ks Company’ from the margin of the copy of the Privy Council order of 9 April 1604 at Dulwich. This is a forgery. To the nine genuine names Collier added those of Hostler and Day. The former joined the company some years later, the latter never; cf. Ingleby, 269.

[609] App. B; cf. E. Law, _Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber_ (1910), and the Spanish narrative in _Colección de Documentos inéditos para la historia de España_, lxxi. 467.

[610] Cf. ch. x.

[611] For the exact dates and the difficult critical questions raised by the records, cf. App. B.

[612] Cf. App. B.

[613] Clode, _Early Hist. of Merchant Taylors_, i. 290, ‘To M^r Hemmyngs for his direccion of his boy that made the speech to his Maiestie 40^s, and 6^s given to John Rise the speaker’; cf. ch. iv.

[614] Cf. ch. x.

[615] App. C, No. lvii.

[616] Cf. ch. xii (Queen’s Revels).

[617] Fleay, 173, and Murray, i. 152, are wrong in saying that there were no Court plays this year; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 154.

[618] Rye, 61, from narrative of tour of Lewis Frederick, Duke of Württemberg, ‘Lundi, 30 [Apr.] S. E. alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire où l’on joue les Commedies, y fut representé l’histoire du More de Venise’. Forman’s accounts of _Macbeth_ from _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, f. 207, and of _Cymbeline_ from the preceding leaf, but undated, are printed in _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 417.

[619] Fleay, 190, says that Ecclestone came from the Queen’s Revels. I think he must have confused him with Field.

[620] Perhaps his place between Ostler and Underwood in the actor-list of the 1623 Folio gives some confirmation to the statement of the Burbadges; cf. p. 219.

[621] Cf. ch. iv.

[622] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 415, from Simon Forman’s notes in _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, f. 200.

[623] For the precise dates and their difficulties, cf. App. B.

[624] Clode, _Early Hist. of the Merchant Taylors_, i. 334.

[625] Text in _M. S. C._ i. 280, from Signet Bill in _Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt, Privy Seals, 17 Jac. I_, Bundle ix, No. 2; also in Collier, i. 400, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 50.

[626] Tawyer, a ‘man’ of Heminges’s, played in some revival of _M. N. D._ before 1623, but not necessarily before 1619 (cf. ch. xv).

[627] _M. L. R._ iv. 395.

[628] Downes, 21, 24. Nevertheless, Taylor did not join the King’s men until three years after Shakespeare’s death.

[629] Murray, i. 56, adds 1563–83 records.

[630] G. Le B. Smith, _Haddon Hall_, 121.

[631] Kelly, 211, from _Leicester Hall Papers_, i, ff. 38, 42; _Hist. MSS._ viii. 1, 431. The latter part of the record, from the Earl’s licence onwards, was given by Halliwell in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 145, but with the date 1586, due to a misprint of ‘28^o Eliz.’ for ‘25^o Eliz.’ in the licence. This has misled Fleay, 86, and other writers. Maas, 49, and M. Bateson, _Records of Leicester_, iii. 198, introduce fresh errors of their own.

[632] Gildersleeve, 53.

[633] Cf. ch. ix and App. D, No. lvi.

[634] Halliwell-Phillipps, _Notices of Players Acting at Ludlow_; B. S. Penley, _The Bath Stage_, 12, from account for year ending 16 June 1584.

[635] Lord Herbert was, of course, Worcester’s son; not, as Dr. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 104) seems to think, one of the Pembroke family.

[636] _Henslowe Papers_, 31; cf. _supra_ (Admiral’s).

[637] Fleay, 87.

[638] Murray, i. 58, adds 1589–94 records.

[639] App. D, No. cxxx.

[640] Henslowe, i. 179. As Henslowe paid 7_s._ ‘for my Lo^r Worsters mens warant for playinge at the cort vnto the clarke of the cownselles for geatynge the cownselles handes to yt’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 108), and the only warrant to these men was dated 28 Feb. 1602, the connexion with Henslowe probably began while they were still at the Boar’s Head.

[641] Henslowe, i. 160, 190.

[642] Cf. _supra_ (Chamberlain’s).

[643] Henslowe, i. 132, 163.

[644] Ibid. 177.

[645] Ibid. 178, ‘Lent vnto Richard Perckens the 4 of September 1602 to buy thinges for Thomas Hewode play & to lend vnto Dick Syferweste to ride downe to his felowes’. This is, of course, a private loan, and not in the company’s account.

[646] Called in the earlier entries _The Two Brothers_.

[647] The two names do not occur together, but almost certainly indicate the same play.

[648] Spelt ‘Burone’ and ‘Berowne’ in the entries.

[649] Henslowe, i. 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190.

[650] Cf. p. 7. A further notice of the transfer is given by Thomas Heywood, Γυναικεῖον _or General History of Women_ (1624), who says that he was one of Worcester’s men, who at James’s accession ‘bestowed me upon the excellent princesse Queen Anne’.

[651] _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 16*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Books_, 58^a. In August the company served as grooms of the chamber (App. B).

[652] In assigning Kempe to the Queen’s Revels in 1605, Dr. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 108) has been tripped up by one of Collier’s forgeries; cf. my review in _M. L. R._ iv. 408.

[653] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 265, from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, ii. 100; also by Collier, i. 336, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _Illustrations_, 106. It is a rough draft full of deletions, marked by square brackets, and of additions, printed in italics, in the text. The theory of Fleay, 191, that the document is a forgery is disposed of by Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. 107.

[654] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 270, from _P. R. 7 Jac. I_, pt. 39; also from _P. R._, but misdescribed as a Privy Seal, by T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 45. The Signet Bill is indexed under April 1609 in Phillimore, 104.

[655] Cf. App. B.

[656] _Rutland MSS._ iv. 461. They stayed two days, and gave four performances.

[657] Kelly, 248, ‘Item the vj^{th} of June given to the Queenes Players xl^s.... Item the xxj^{th} of Auguste given to the Children of the Revells xx^s. Item the xxvj^{th} of September given to one other Companye of the Queenes playors xx^s.’

[658] Murray, ii. 245, ‘paid to the Queenes players to Thomas Swinerton xl^s’.

[659] Murray, ii. 340, from Mayor’s Court Books (18 April 1614), ‘Swynnerton one of the Quenes players in the name of himselfe & the rest of his company desyred leaue to play in the cytty accordinge to his Maiesties Lettres patents shewed forth. And M^r Maior & Court moved them to play onely on Wednesday, Thursday & Fryday in Easter weke.’

[660] Murray, ibid. (6 May 1615), ‘Thomas Swynnerton produced this day Letters Patents dated the x^{th} [? xv^{th}] of Aprill Anno Septimo Jacobi whereby hee & others are authorised to play as the Quenes men, vidz. Thomas Grene, Christofer Breston [? Beeston], Thomas Haywood, Richard Pyrkyns, Rob^t. Pallant, Tho. Swynnerton, John Duke, Robt. Lee, James Hoult, & Robt. Breston [? Beeston].’

[661] Kelly, 252, ‘Item given to the Queenes Maiesties Highnes Playors xl^s.... Item the xvj^{th} daye of October Given to the Queenes Playors xl^s. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors xxx^s.’

[662] Murray, ii. 340 (30 March 1616), ‘A Patent was this day brought into the Court by Thomas Swynerton made to Thomas Grene ... & Robert Beeston Servants to Quene Anne & the rest of their associats bearing Teste xv^o Aprilis Anno Septimo Jacobi. But the said Swynerton confesseth that hee himselfe & Robert Lee only are here to play the rest are absent....’; (29 May 1616), ‘Thomas Swynerton came this day into the Court & affirmed himselfe to be one of the players to the Quenes Maiestie & bringinge with him no patent desyred to haue leaue to play here ... the same company had liberty to play here at Easter last....’ Leave was refused on this occasion.

[663] Kelly, 253, ‘Item the sixt of Februarye given to the Queenes Playors. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors’.

[664] _Hist. MSS._ xi. 3. 26.

[665] App. D, No. clviii; cf. Murray, ii. 343.

[666] Murray, i. 204.

[667] Kelly, 254.

[668] Collier, i. 397, from a manuscript at Bridgewater House.

[669] Fleay, 192, guesses that her first husband was Robert Browne of the 1583 Worcester’s company. As Queen Anne’s men played at the Boar’s Head, he is very likely to have been the ‘Browne of the Boares head’ who ‘dyed very pore’ in the plague of 1603 (_Henslowe Papers_, 59).

[670] Murray, i. 193, appears to date this list _c._ 1612, and the allegation in the Bill (Fleay, 275) that the pensions were paid for five years supports this. But it cannot be earlier than 1613 as Read was still with the Lady Elizabeth’s in that year. Nor does it include Lee, who was payee for the Queen’s in 1614–16. It clearly belongs to the 1616 settlement.

[671] ‘Goodman Freshwater’ was furnishing stuffs to Worcester’s men in 1602–3 (Henslowe, i. 179, 187).

[672] Sanderson may be the ‘Sands’ who played with ‘Ellis’ [Worth] in Daborne’s _Poor Man’s Comfort_ (q.v.), about 1617. Or James Sands, formerly a boy with the King’s men, may have come to the Queen’s.

[673] Adams, 351.

[674] _M. S. C._ i. 272, from _P. R. 8 Jac. I_, p. 8; also printed by T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 47.

[675] Fleay, 188.

[676] Murray, i. 239, confuses the Duke’s with Lord Aubigny’s men.

[677] A letter, probably originally from Dulwich, but now _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 25 (printed in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 18, and _Henslowe Papers_, 126), is signed by William Rowley, as well as by Taylor and Pallant, and must therefore be later than this amalgamation, and not, as Dr. Greg suggests, from the Lady Elizabeth’s _c._ 1613. It confirms a purchase of clothes from Henslowe for £55.

[678] Text in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 127; abstract in _Henslowe Papers_, 90.

[679] _N. S. S. Trans. 1877–9_, 19*; cf. Fleay, 265. Collier, i. 406, has an elegy by William Rowley on Hugh Attwell, servant to Prince Charles, who died 25 Sept. 1621.

[680] App. D, No. clviii.

[681] _Henslowe Papers_, 93.

[682] _M. S. C._ i. 274, from _P. R. 9 Jac. I_, p. 20.

[683] _Henslowe Papers_, 18, 111.

[684] Cf. App. B.

[685] _Henslowe Papers_, 86, from _Dulwich MS._ i. 106; also printed in _Variorum_, xxi. 416, and Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 78.

[686] Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 58, 87, thinks that the ‘Baxter’ of the Grievances was William Barksted or Backstede. It may be so.

[687] Thorndike, 66, thinks that the list belongs to an earlier production by the Queen’s Revels before 30 March 1610, when Taylor joined the Duke of York’s. But there is no evidence that he was ever in the Queen’s Revels.

[688] _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 125; A. E. H. Swaen, _Robert Daborne’s Plays_ (_Anglia_, xx. 153). The account in Fleay, i. 75, is full of inaccuracies. The documents now form separate articles of _Dulwich MS._ 1. All, unless otherwise specified below, are letters or undertakings from Daborne to Henslowe. Most of them are dated, and I think that the following ordering, due to Dr. Greg, is reasonable: (i) Art. 70, 17 Apr. 1613; (ii) Art. 71, 17 Apr. 1613; (iii) Art. 72, 25 Apr. 1613; (iv) Art. 73, 3 May 1613; (v) Art. 74, 8 May 1613; (vi) Art. 75, 16 May 1613; (vii) Art. 77, 19 May 1613; (viii) Art. 78, 5 June 1613; (ix) Art. 79, 10 June 1613; (xi) Art. 80, 18 June 1613; (xii) Art. 81, 25 June 1613; (xiii)? Art. 100, Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xiv)? Art. 69, Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xv)? Art. 68, Field, Daborne, and Massinger to Henslowe, N.D.; (xvi) Art. 82, 16 July 1613; (xvii) Art. 83, 30 July 1613; (xviii)? Art. 76, N.D.; (xix)? Art. 99, Daborne to Edward Griffin (Henslowe’s scrivener), N.D.; (xx). Art. 84, 23 Aug. 1613; (xxi) Art. 85, 14 Oct. 1613; (xxii) Art. 86, 29 Oct. 1613; (xxiii) Art. 87, 5 Nov. 1613; (xxiv) Art. 88, 13 Nov. 1613; (xxv) Art. 89, 13 Nov. 1613; (xxvi). Art. 90, 27 Nov. 1613; (xxvii) Art. 91, 9 Dec. 1613; (xxviii) Art. 92, 10 Dec. 1613; (xxix) Art. 93, 24 Dec. 1613; (xxx)? Art. 95, N.D.; (xxxi) Art. 94, 31 Dec. 1613; (xxxii) Art. 96, 11 Mar. 1614; (xxxiii) Art. 97, 28 Mar. 1614; (xxxiv), Art. 98, 31 July 1614.

[689] _Henslowe Papers_, 68.

[690] _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 16; _Henslowe Papers_, 125, from _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 24. This document cannot be dated, but it has probably been detached from the Dulwich series.

[691] _Henslowe Papers_, 82.

[692] Ibid. 71. I should suppose this, rather than, with Dr. Greg, _Bartholomew Fair_, to be the ‘Johnsons play’ contemplated on 13 Nov. (_Henslowe Papers_, 78), but others of Jonson’s plays may also have been revived.

[693] Ibid. 69, 70.

[694] Ibid. 71, 103, 111.

[695] Ibid. 76, 77, 78.

[696] Ibid. 71.

[697] Dr. Greg (_Henslowe Papers_, 75) makes them the same play, founded on Dekker’s tracts, _The Bellman of London_ (1608) and _Lanthorn and Candlelight, or the Bellman’s Second Night-walk_ (1609), but _The Arraignment_ seems to have been too nearly finished on 5 June for this identification (_Henslowe Papers_, 72).

[698] Still more so the ascription (Fleay, i. 81) of _The Faithful Friends_ to Daborne and the Lady Elizabeth’s men.

[699] _Henslowe Papers_, 23; also in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 118. A few additional lines, much mutilated, appear to have provided for the allocation of half the daily takings of the galleries to the discharge of a debt of £124 due to Henslowe and Meade and of any further disbursements by them. This agrees with the Dawes articles _infra_, but the Articles of Grievance refer to a debt of £126.

[700] Fleay, 187; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 87, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. 138.

[701] Cf. p. 240.

[702] _Henslowe Papers_, 82.

[703] Ibid. 123, from _Variorum_, xxi. 413; also in Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 75. The original, formerly at Dulwich, is now missing.

[704] _Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79.

[705] I agree with Dr. Greg that the ‘fower’ in Dawes’s articles is probably a mistake for ‘fourteen’.

[706] _Bartholomew Fair_, v. 3, ‘I thinke, one Taylor, would goe neere to beat all this company, with a hand bound behinde him’.

[707] Ibid. _Cokes._ Which is your Burbage now?

_Lanterne._ What meane you by that, Sir?

_Cokes._ Your best Actor. Your Field?

[708] Murray, ii. 254. This, however, was probably Long’s company; v. _infra_.

[709] Robert Pallant, one of the company, is noted (Henslowe, ii. 20) as visiting Henslowe on his death-bed.

[710] _Variorum_, iii. 59.

[711] App. D, No. clviii.

[712] Murray, i. 263; ii. 4. I add Belvoir on 1 March 1614.

[713] Cunningham, xliv.

[714] Murray, ii. 344.

[715] Lawrence, i. 128 (_Early French Players in England_). One can hardly, I suppose, assume that the Turkish acrobat of 1589–90 (cf. ch. xviii) was a real Turk.

[716] J. A. Lester, _Italian Players in Scotland_ (_M. L. N._ xxiii. 240), traces _histriones_, whom he unjustifiably assumes to be actors, and _tubicines_ in 1514–61.

[717] _S. P. F._ (1569–71), 413.

[718] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 302.

[719] Murray, ii. 374.

[720] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 225, 227, 458.

[721] Furnivall, _Robert Laneham’s Letter_, 18.

[722] Cf. App. B.

[723] Smith, 148, makes him then head of the Gelosi, but the authorities she cites do not bear her out.

[724] Baschet, 18, 25, 34, 43; D’Ancona, ii. 455, 457, 459; Rennert, 28, 479.

[725] R. B. M^cKerrow (_Nashe_, iv. 462) suggests that Tristano may have been ‘that famous Francatrip Harlicken’ represented in the dedication of _An Almond for a Parrat_ (1590) as asking questions at Venice about Kempe. But Francatrippa seems to have been the stage name of Gabriello Panzanini da Bologna of the Gelosi (D’Ancona, ii. 469, 511).

[726] Is this ‘the nimble, tumbling Angelica’ of Marston’s _Scourge of Villainy_ (1598), xi. 101? If so, a later visit may be suspected. Drusiano Martinelli was comedian to the Duke of Mantua, to whose son Angelica had been mistress, in 1595 (D’Ancona, ii. 518).

[727] Baschet, 72, 82, 90, 194, 199; D’Ancona, ii. 464, 479, 504, 518, 523, 526; Smith, 147. The main body of the Gelosi passed about this time under the leadership of Flaminio Scala, fifty of whose _scenarii_ are printed in _Il Teatro delle Fauole rappresentatiue_ (1611).

[728] Cf. ch. xviii as to traces of improvised comedy in England.

[729] G. E. P. Arkwright, _Notes on the Ferrabosco Family (Musical Antiquary_, iii. 221; iv. 42); G. Livi, _The Ferrabosco Family_ (ibid. iv. 121). I may add that he was evidently the Bolognese groom of the chamber, favoured by the Queen as a musician, who dropped a hint for a Venetian embassy in 1575 (_V. P._ vii. 524). He left an illegitimate son, Alfonso, in England, who also was a Court musician by 1603, and was succeeded in turn by sons, Alfonso and Henry, in 1627 (Lafontaine, 45, 63).

[730] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 159, 160.

[731] Ibid. 160, 301.

[732] Cunningham, 221; cf. _D. N. B._; _M. L. N._ xxii. 2, 129, 201.

[733] _Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys MS._ ii. 663 (cf. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Report_, 190). The letter is endorsed, ‘To Q. Elizabeth: Ubaldino an Italian Musitian I suppose’.

[734] Cf. my letter in _T.L.S._ for 12 May 1921.

[735] Cf. ch. xiii (Interluders); _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 187.

[736] _Variorum_, iii. 461; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 202.

[737] Cf. p. 272.

[738] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 21 Jan. 1882. I am sorry to say that Mr. Scott suggests that Shakespeare was of the company.

[739] J. Scott, _An Account of Perth_, in Sir J. Sinclair, _Statistical Account of Scotland_, xviii (1796), 522.

[740] J. C. Dibdin, _Annals of the Edinburgh Stage_ (1888), 20, from _Accounts_ of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. _A True Accompt of the Baptism of Prince Henry Frederick_, printed in 1594 (_Somers Tracts_, ii. 171), records plays amongst other festivities, but does not say that English actors took part.

[741] _Scottish Papers_, ii. 676. I suppose that this document is the authority on which P. F. Tytler, _Hist. of Scotland_, ix. 302, describing the events of 1599, says of Fletcher, ‘He had been there before, in 1594; and on his return to England, had suffered some persecution from his popularity with James’.

[742] D. H. Fleming, _St. Andrews Kirk Session Register_, ii. 870, ‘Ane Jnglishman haveing desyrit libertie of the session to mak ane publik play in this citie, it was voted and concludit that he suld nocht be permitted to do the samin’.

[743] Calderwood, _Historie of the Kirk of Scotland_ (Wodrow Soc.), v. 765.

[744] _Acts of the Privy Council of Scotland_, vi. 39, 41. Calderwood seems to have put the whole business a week too late.

[745] Dibdin, 22.

[746] Lee, 83, from _S. P. D. Scotland_ (R. O.), lxv. 64; cf. summary in _Scottish Papers_, ii. 777, ‘Performances of English players, Fletcher, Martin, and their company, by the King’s permission; enactment of the [Fower] Sessions, and preaching of the ministers against them. The bellows blowers say that they are sent by England to sow dissension between the King and the Kirk’.

[747] Dibdin, 24.

[748] J. Stuart, _Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of Aberdeen_ (_Spalding Club_), ii. xxi, xxii, 222.

[749] Fleay, 136; cf. Furness, _Macbeth_, 407. Fleay goes so far as to ‘hazard the guess’ that the ‘speciall letter’ of recommendation from James produced at Aberdeen was ‘the identical letter that James wrote to Shakespeare with his own hand’, as recorded by Oldys.

[750] Henslowe, i. 45

[751] App. C, No. lvii.

[752] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311, ‘5 Thaler den englischen Spielleuten, so ufm Rathaus ihr Spiel mit Springen und allerlei Kurzweil getrieben’.

[753] The inevitable attempt to show that Shakespeare ‘must’ have been of the party was made by J. Stefansson, _Shakespeare at Elsinore_, in _Contemporary Review_, lxix. 20, and disposed of by H. Logeman, _Shakespeare te Helsingör_ in _Mélanges Paul Fredericy_ (1904); cf. _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xii. 241.

[754] Fürstenau, 69; Cohn, xxiii; Bolte, _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 99. Herz, 5, endeavours to show traces of a visit to Danzig by this company.

[755] M. Röchell, _Chronik_, in J. Janssen, _Gesch. des Bisthums Münster_ (1852), iii. 174; Cohn, cxxxiv (misdated 1599); _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxvi. 274.

[756] _Henslowe Papers_, 31. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 8, disposes of the confusion between Robert Browne and Alleyn’s step-father, John Browne.

[757] Cohn, xxxi. There seems nothing to connect the Andreas Röthsch who appeared at Leipzig in July 1591 with Browne, or even to justify the conjecture (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311) that he was English.