Chapter IX: Introduction: The Boy Companies (7)

Oblivion has overtaken the great majority of these plays. _Longshanks_ is possibly Peele’s _Edward I_, and _Jeronimo_ certainly Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. The title of _The Wise Man of West Chester_ agrees with the subject of Munday’s _John a Kent_ and _John a Cumber_, the manuscript of which is dated December 1595. One would be more willing to identify _Henry V_ with _The Famous Victories_, if the latter had not been printed in 1598 with the name of the Queen’s men on its title-page. _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_ was printed, as acted ‘about the Citie of London’, but without any company name, in 1596 (S. R. 26 November 1595). _Stukeley_ was also printed without a name, as _The Famous History of the Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley_, in 1605 (S. R. 11 August 1600). _1 Tamar Cham_ and _Frederick and Basilea_ are extant in ‘plots’ alone, and _Belin Dun_, or _Bellendon_, as Henslowe writes it, was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 24 November 1595 as _The true tragicall historie of Kinge Rufus the first with the life and deathe of Belyn Dun the first thief that ever was hanged in England_, but is not known to be extant. The list also contains two of the early works of George Chapman, _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (1598, Admiral’s, S. R. 15 August 1598), and _The Comedy of Humours_, which can be safely identified with _A Humorous Day’s Mirth_ (1599, Admiral’s). Ingenious attempts have been made to trace in some of the remaining titles other plays by Chapman, or by Heywood, Dekker, and the like, or presumed early drafts of these, or the English originals of plays or titles preserved in German versions; but in most cases the material available is so scanty as to render the game a hazardous one.[384] It appears, however, from Henslowe’s notes of advances during 1596–7 that payment was made to Heywood for a book, from which it may be inferred that his activity as a dramatist for the company had already began. Payments to ‘marcum’ and ‘Mr. porter’ perhaps indicate the same of Gervase Markham and Henry Porter.[385]

It is evident that some of the plays marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe cannot have been new in the fullest sense. This applies to _Jeronimo_, which had been played by Strange’s men as an old play during 1592–3, and to _2 Tamar Cham_, which had been produced by the same company on 28 April 1592, and on that occasion also marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe. It applies also to _Longshanks_ and _Henry V_, if these are really the same as _Edward I_ and _The Famous Victories_. And it may, of course, apply also in other cases, which cannot now be distinguished. Two explanations are possible. One is that plays were treated as new, for the purpose of Henslowe’s entries, which were only new to the repertory of the particular company concerned, having been purchased by them or by Henslowe from the stock of some other company. There is, however, no indication that Henslowe received any special financial advantage from the production of a new play, such as would give point to such an arrangement. The other, and perhaps the most plausible, is that an old play was marked ‘ne’ if it had undergone any substantial process of revision before revival. But it must be admitted that the problem set is one that we have hardly the means to solve.

In addition to their new and revised plays, the Admiral’s had a considerable stock of old ones. Some of these they were playing, when they began their first season in June 1594. Several others were revived in the course of that season, and a few at later dates. The only new play of the repertory which reached the stage of revival during the three years was _Belin Dun_, which was originally produced on 10 June 1594, played to the end of the year, then dropped, and afterwards revived for a single performance on 11 July 1596, and for a series in the spring of 1597. But it is not likely that many new plays were written during the plague years, and probably most of the revived plays of 1594–5 were a good deal more than two or three years old. A list of the plays not marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe, nineteen in number, follows. It is, however, possible that some of them are only plays in the list already given, masquerading under different names.

_Cutlack._
_The Ranger’s Comedy._
_The Guise_, or, _The Massacre of Paris._
_The Jew of Malta._
_Mahomet._
_1 Tamburlaine._
_Dr. Faustus._
_The Love of a Grecian Lady_, or, _The Grecian Comedy_.[386]
_The French Doctor._
_Warlamchester._
_2 Tamburlaine._
_The Siege of London._
_Antony and Valia._[387]
_1 Long Meg of Westminster._[388]
_The Welshman._[389]
_1 Fortunatus._
_Osric._
_Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s._
_The Witch of Islington._

Five plays of Marlowe’s are conspicuous in the list. _Mahomet_ might be either Greene’s _Alphonsus_, _King of Arragon_ or Peele’s lost _Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek_. _Fortunatus_, as revised by Dekker in 1599, is extant, but it is doubtful whether Dekker was writing early enough to have been the author of the original play. Conjectural identifications of some of the other titles have been attempted.[390] There is, perhaps, a natural inclination to eke out our meagre knowledge of the repertory of the earlier Admiral’s men, as it was constituted before 1590, by the assumption that the old and the revised new plays of 1594–7 belong to that stock. But this can only be proved to be so in the case of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, where the title-page of the 1590 edition comes to our assistance. There is no trace between 1594 and 1597 of any of the other three plays, _The Battle of Alcazar_, _The Wounds of Civil War_, and _Orlando Furioso_, which there is independent evidence for connecting with the Admiral’s. And it must be borne in mind that there were several other sources from which a supply of old plays might be drawn. Alleyn seems to have bought up the books and properties of the pre-1590 men, and we do not know how far he also retained rights in some or all of the plays produced during his alliance with Strange’s. Moreover, there were plenty of opportunities for either Alleyn, Henslowe, or the Admiral’s men as a whole, to acquire copies from one or more of the companies, Pembroke’s, the Queen’s, Sussex’s, which went under in the plague years. _Henry V_, if identical with _The Famous Victories_, had certainly been a Queen’s play; _The Ranger’s Comedy_ had been played for Henslowe by the Queen’s and Sussex’s in April 1594; _Jeronimo_ and _The Guise_ had been similarly played by Strange’s in 1592–3; and the fact that Strange’s, the Queen’s, Sussex’s, and the Admiral’s, all in turn played _The Jew of Malta_ leads to a strong suspicion that it was Henslowe’s property and placed by him at the disposal of any company that might from time to time be occupying his theatre.

The Rose was what is now known as a ‘repertory’ house. A very successful play might be repeated on the night after its first production or revival, or in the course of the same week. But as a rule one performance a week was the limit, and after a play had been on the boards a few weeks, the intervals between its appearances rapidly became greater. _The Wise Man of West Chester_, which was presented thirty-two times between December 1594 and July 1597, had a longer life than any other new play during the three years. Next came _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_, with twenty-one performances in two years, _1 Seven Days of the Week_, with twenty-one performances in fifteen months, and _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, with twenty-two performances in fourteen months. _Belin Dun_, although not continuously upon the stage for long together, achieved with the aid of its revival a total of twenty-four performances. The only other new plays, that outlived a year, were _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_ and _A Toy to Please Chaste Ladies_. Even such highly successful plays as _1 and 2 Hercules_ ceased to be heard of after six months. The usual run of a play was anything from six to seventeen nights, but sixteen plays failed to obtain even such a run, and several plays, which apparently did well enough on the first night, were not repeated at all. As a rule the first night of a play brought Henslowe the highest returns; but this was by no means invariably the case, and the success of any play, which held the boards for as many as six nights, can perhaps best be measured by its average returns. By far the most fortunate was _The Comedy of Humours_ which averaged 53_s._ for the eleven nights available before the summer season of 1597 closed. Next came _1 and 2 Hercules_ with 42_s._ and 43_s._ respectively, _1 Seven Days of the Week_ with 35_s._, and _The Wise Man of West Chester_ with 34_s._ On the other hand the average of _Henry I_ was no more than 19_s._ and that of the second _French Comedy_ no more than 16_s._ The highest individual returns were those from the first nights of _1 and 2 Hercules_, _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_, and _1 Seven Days of the Week_, which yielded 73_s._, 70_s._, 71_s._, and 70_s._ respectively, and that from the sixth night of the _Comedy of Humours_, which was also 70_s._ The booking for this play shows a curious progress, being 43_s._, 55_s._, 58_s._, 64_s._, 66_s._, 70_s._, for the first six nights. Similarly _The Wise Man of West Chester_, which began with a bad first night of 33_s._, rose to a good average, while _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_, for all its start of 70_s._, ended with an average of only 28_s._ The worst first night taking was the 22_s._ of _Nebuchadnezzar_, and this affords another curious example of box-office fluctuations, for, though it achieved no higher average than 22_s._, it rose on its third night to 68_s._ The worst takings, on other than first nights, were 3_s._ for _Chinon of England_,[391] 4_s._ for _Vortigern_, and for _Olympo_, and 5_s._ twice over for _A Woman Hard to Please_. Probably these were due to weather or other accidents, as each play averaged enough to justify a reasonable run. The success of the old plays followed much the same lines as that of the new ones. They ran for anything from one night to twenty-four, this total being reached by _Dr. Faustus_. The best average returns were the 32_s._ and 38_s._ of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, the 30_s._ of _Mahomet_, the 29_s._ of _1 Long Meg of Westminster_, the 27_s._ of _The Guise_, and the 26_s._ of _The Jew of Malta_; the best individual returns the 72_s._ and 71_s._ yielded by the respective first nights of _Dr. Faustus_ and _1 Tamburlaine_. The persistent popularity of Marlowe’s work comes out quite clearly from the statistics; and the success of Chapman’s first attempts is also not to be overlooked.

The _personnel_ of the Admiral’s men during 1594–7 can be determined with some approach to certainty. They were Edward Alleyn, John Singer, Richard Jones, Thomas Towne, Martin Slater, Edward Juby, Thomas Downton, and James Donstone. Their names are found in a list written in the diary, without any explanation of its object, amongst memoranda of 1594–6.[392] There can be little doubt that it represents the principal members of the company, and in most cases corroborative evidence is available. The books of the Treasurer of the Chamber indicate Alleyn, Jones, and Singer as payees for the Court money of 1594–5, and Alleyn and Slater for that of 1595–6. Alleyn, Slater, Donstone, and Juby are noted in Henslowe’s subsidiary accounts for 1596 as responsible for advances made by him on behalf of the company.[393] Another advance was made to Stephen the tireman, and he is doubtless the Stephen Magett who also appears in personal financial relations with Henslowe during 1596.[394] Transactions by way of loan, sale, or pawn are also noted by Henslowe during 1594–7 with Slater, Jones, Donstone, Singer, and Towne, and also with Edward Dutton and Richard Alleyn.[395] These latter were probably not sharers in the company, but can be traced with others amongst its subordinate members by means of the ‘plot’ of _Frederick and Basilea_, which it is reasonable to connect with the performances of the play in June and July 1597, since it was a new play on 3 June, and it is recorded in the diary that Martin Slater, who figures in the ‘plot’, left the company on 18 July. It is to be inferred from the plot that the principal parts in _Frederick and Basilea_ were taken by Mr. Alleyn, Mr. Thomas Towne, Mr. Martin [Slater], Mr. Juby, Mr. Donstone, and R. Alleyn; that minor male parts were taken by Edward Dutton, Thomas Hunt, Robert Ledbetter, Black Dick, Pigge, Sam, Charles, and the ‘gatherers’ or money-takers and other ‘attendants’; and that female parts were taken by Edward Dutton’s boy Dick and two other boys known as Will and Griffen. Apparently the play, although not employing all the principal actors, made considerable demands on the minor staff. Dr. Greg may be right in identifying Sam and Charles with the Samuel Rowley and Charles Massey who became members of the company at a later date.[396] It will be seen that the only name in Henslowe’s undated list which cannot be verified as that of a member of the company during 1594–7 is that of Thomas Downton; but it may safely be accepted. Downton had accompanied Alleyn on the provincial tour with Strange’s men in 1593. So had Pigge or Pyk. Jones and Donstone, who is the same as Tunstall, had belonged to Worcester’s men in 1583, and probably to the Admiral’s men before 1590; Jones had been abroad, as we have seen, during the plague years. John Singer had been a member of the Queen’s men in 1588. The other names now come into the story for the first time. Henslowe’s advances for 1596 included sums ‘to feache Fletcher’ and ‘to feache Browne’.[397] It can only be matter of conjecture whether there is evidence here of negotiations for the incorporation in the company of Robert Browne and of Laurence Fletcher, at a later date a colleague of Slater’s, and if so, whether they led to any fruitful result.

The departure of Martin Slater on 18 July 1597 was only one of several changes which profoundly modified the composition of the company in the course of that year.[398] In February Richard Jones and Thomas Downton went to the Swan as Pembroke’s men, and the disturbance thereby caused probably accounts for the three weeks’ cessation of playing during Lent. The Swan enterprise was brought to a disastrous conclusion after five months by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_, which not only brought personal trouble on the chief offenders, but also led to a restraint of plays at all the theatres. This event synchronizes with the first appearance in the diary of Nashe’s collaborator in _The Isle of Dogs_, Ben Jonson. On 28 July Henslowe lent him no less a sum than £4, and took Alleyn and Singer as witnesses. On the same day he opened an account headed ‘℞ of Bengemenes Johnsones share as ffoloweth’ with a first instalment of 3_s._ 9_d._[399] On this very day of 28 July the Privy Council’s inhibition fell, and Jonson went to prison and paid no more instalments. It is impossible to say whether his ‘share’ was in the Admiral’s company or in Pembroke’s. In any event, although he continued to write for the Admiral’s men after 1597, there is no further sign that he was either a ‘sharer’, or indeed an actor in any capacity.

One result of the restraint was that Jones and Downton not merely returned to the Rose, but brought at least three other of Pembroke’s men, Robert Shaw, Gabriel Spencer, and William Bird, known also by the _alias_ of Borne, with them. Henslowe was thus enabled, almost immediately after playing stopped, to set about the reconstitution of his company, and the memoranda of agreement which he noted in his diary during the next fourteen months are so interesting for the light which they throw upon his relations with the actors, that I think it well, before discussing them, to transcribe them in full. There are in all eleven of them, as follows:[400]

i. (_Thomas Hearne_)

Memorandom that the 27 of Jeuley 1597 I heayred Thomas Hearne
with ij pence for to searve me ij yeares in the qualetie of
playenge for fyve shellynges a weacke for one yeare & vj^s
viij^d for the other yeare which he hath covenanted hime seallfe
to searue me & not to departe frome my companey tyll this ij
yeares be eanded wittnes to this

John Synger.
Jeames Donston.
Thomas Towne.

ii. (_John Helle_)

Lent John Helle the clowne the 3 of Aguste 1597 in redy money
the some of x^s. At that tyme I bownd hime by ane a sumsett of
ij^d to contenew with me at my howsse in playinge tylle Srafte
tid next after the date a boue written yf not to forfytte vnto
me fortipowndes wittneses to the same

E Alleyn
John Synger
Jeames Donstall.
Edward Jubey
Samewell Rowley.

iii. (_Richard Jones_)

Memorandom that the 6 of Aguste 1597 I bownd Richard Jones by &
a sumsett of ij^d to contenew & playe with the companye of my
lord Admeralles players frome Mihelmase next after the daye a
bowe written vntell the eand & tearme of iij yeares emediatly
followinge & to playe in my howsse only known by the name of the
Rosse & in no other howse a bowt London publicke & yf restraynte
be granted then to go for the tyme into the contrey & after to
retorne agayne to London yf he breacke this a sumsett then to
forfett vnto me for the same a hundreth markes of lafull money
of Ingland wittnes to this E Alleyn & John Midelton.

iv. (_Robert Shaw_)

More over Richard Jones at that tyme [6 Aug. 1597] hath tacken
one other ij^d of me vpon & asumset to forfet vnto me one
hundrethe markes yf one Robart Shaee do not playe with my lordes
Admeralles men as he hath covenanted be fore in euery thinge &
time to the oter moste wittnes E Alleyn John Midellton.

v. (_William Borne_)

Memorandom that the 10 of Aguste 1597 William Borne came &
ofered hime sealfe to come and playe with my lord Admeralles
mean at my howsse called by the name of the Rosse setewate
one the back after this order folowinge he hath receued of me
iij^d vpon & a sumsette to forfette vnto me a hundrethe marckes
of lafull money of Ingland yf he do not performe thes thinges
folowinge that is presentley after libertie being granted for
playinge to come & to playe with my lordes Admeralles men at
my howsse aforsayd & not in any other howsse publicke a bowt
London for the space of iij yeares beginynge imediatly after
this restraynt is recaled by the lordes of the cownsell which
restraynt is by the meanes of playinge the Jeylle of Dooges
yf he do not then he forfettes this asumset afore or ells not
wittnes to this E Alleyn & Robsone.

vi. (_Thomas Downton_)

Memorandom that the 6 of October 1597 Thomas Dowton came & bownd
him seallfe vnto me in xxxx^{ll} in & a somesett by the receuing
of iij^d of me before wittnes the covenant is this that he
shold frome the daye a bove written vntell Sraftid next come
ij yeares to playe in my howsse & in no other a bowte London
publickely yf he do with owt my consent to forfet vnto me this
some of money a bove written wittnes to this

E Alleyn
W^m Borne
Dicke Jonnes
Robarte Shawe
John Synger

vii. (_William Kendall_)

Memorandum that this 8^{th} of December 1597 my father Philyp
Hinshlow hierd as a covenauant servant Willyam Kendall for ij
years after the statute of Winchester with ij single penc a to
geue hym for his sayd servis everi week of his playng in London
x^s & in the cuntrie v^s for the which he covenaunteth for the
space of those ij years to be redye att all tymes to play in the
howse of the sayd Philyp & in no other during the said terme.

Wittnes my self the writer of this E Alleyn.

viii. (_James Bristow_)

Bought my boye Jeames Brystow of William Agusten player the 18
of Desember 1597 for viij^{li}.

ix. (_Richard Alleyn_)

Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Richard Alleyne came &
bownde hime seallfe vnto me for ij yeares in & asumsette as a
hiered servante with ij syngell pence & to contenew frome the
daye aboue written vnto the eand & tearme of ij yeares yf he do
not performe this covenant then he to forfette for the breache
of yt fortye powndes & wittnes to this

W^m Borne.
Thomas Dowton.
Gabrell Spencer.
Robart Shawe.
Richard Jonnes.

x. (_Thomas Heywood_)

Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Thomas Hawoode came and
hiered hime seallfe with me as a covenante searvante for ij
yeares by the receuenge of ij syngell pence acordinge to the
statute of Winshester & to begine at the daye a boue written &
not to playe any wher publicke a bowt London not whille these ij
yeares be expired but in my howsse yf he do then he doth forfett
vnto me by the receuinge of these ij^d fortie powndes & wittnes
to this

Antony Monday
Gabrell Spencer
Robart Shawe
Richard Alleyn.
W^m Borne
Thomas Dowton
Richard Jonnes.

xi. (_Charles Massey and Samuel Rowley_)

Memorandom that this 16 of November 1598 I hired as my covenant
servantes Charles Massey & Samewell Rowley for a yeare & as
mvche as to Sraftide begenynge at the daye a bove written after
the statute of Winchester with ij syngell pence & for them they
haue covenanted with me to playe in my howes & in no other
howsse dewringe the thime publeck but in mine yf they dooe with
owt my consent yf they dooe to forfett vnto me xxxx^{li} a pece
wittnes
Thomas Dowton
Robart Shawe
W^m Borne
Jubey
Richard Jonnes.

Evidently the position of James Bristow is distinct from that of the other players. He was a ‘boy’ or apprentice, whose indentures had been transferred to Henslowe for a consideration by his former master. In the rest of the cases, the essence of the agreement appears to be the undertaking by the player under bond to play only with the Admiral’s men at Henslowe’s house. It is interesting to notice that in the agreement with Hearne Henslowe calls the company ‘my company’; and the fact that its members were constituted Henslowe’s covenant servants seems to argue a closer personal relation between the organization and its financier, than might on other grounds have been inferred. Dr. Greg, indeed, draws a distinction between the agreements with Jones, Shaw, Borne, and Downton, whom he regards as merely ‘binding themselves to play at Henslowe’s house like other sharers’, and those with the rest, whom he regards as ‘placing themselves in the position of covenant servants to him, which would seem to imply that they were merely hired men’.[401] But I do not think that there is any justification for this theory in the terms of the documents, and it immediately gets Dr. Greg into difficulties about Massey and Rowley, who, as we shall see, were in fact on the footing of full members of the company even before the date of their agreement. I do not mean that I deny the distinction between sharers and hired men, which is of course important, but that I do not think that it is relevant to the contractual relations set up by the agreements. I am not quite clear whether Henslowe’s memoranda, which are written throughout, including the names of the witnesses, in his own hand or Alleyn’s, constitute the formal instruments under which the agreements were effected, or are merely notes for his own information. But in either event their terminology is loose. They are not always expressed as being agreements of hiring, or for service, even in the cases of those men whom Dr. Greg does not suppose to have been sharers, and they are not careful to specify the considerations, other than the formal 2_d._ or 3_d._, which the actors were to receive. Wages are, in fact, provided for only in the agreements with Hearne and Kendall, and it is quite possible that, if we had the full terms before us, we should find that, while some of the others were also to receive wages, some were to find their recompense in a share of such profits as the company might make. It is probable that, even where Henslowe undertook to pay wages, the general agreement between him and the company provided for the shifting of that liability to them. They certainly had to pay him, at the rate of 3_s._ a week, for the services of his boy Bristow.[402] To a slightly later date belongs an agreement with an unnamed actor, in which the hirer is not Henslowe but Thomas Downton, and this I add in order to complete the series.[403]

xii.

Thomas Downton the 25 of Janewary 1599 ded hire as his couenante
servante ---- for ij yers to begyne at Shrofe Tewesday next & he
to geue hime viij^s a wecke as longe as they playe & after they
lye stylle one fortnyght then to geue hime hallfe wages [ extra
spaces ]wittnes P H & Edward Browne & Charlles Masey.

The appearance of Jones as guarantee for Shaw is due to the fact that, as a result of _The Isle of Dogs_, the latter was languishing with Gabriel Spencer and Ben Jonson in the Marshalsea. Meanwhile some at least of the company travelled. Henslowe lent Alleyn 40_s._ for John Singer and Thomas Towne ‘when they went into the contrey’ and noted that this was ‘at ther last cominge’. There is another entry of a small loan to Singer on 9 August, so they cannot have started before that; and they must have been back by 6 October, when Singer witnessed the agreement with Thomas Downton. Possibly Edward Dutton and Richard Alleyn, who also borrowed money from Henslowe, went with them.[404] The Privy Council warrants for the release of the prisoners in the Marshalsea were signed on 3 October,[405] and a few days later Henslowe, more successful than Langley of the Swan in getting the licence for his house renewed, even before the formal expiration of the restraint on 1 November, was in a position to resume his play list with the heading, ‘The xj of Octobe begane my lord Admerals & my lorde of Penbrockes men to play at my howsse 1597’.[406] The entries of plays are few and irregular up to 5 November, and then stop. A note is appended that on 26 November the Master of the Revels was paid for four weeks. The performances included one new play, _Friar Spendleton_, and five old ones, _Jeronimo_, _The Comedy of Humours_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Hardicanute_, and _Bourbon_, of which the last two do not belong to the 1594–7 repertory, and may have been contributed by Pembroke’s men. The diary also contains an account of weekly receipts running from 21 October 1597 to 4 March 1598, under the heading, ‘A juste a cownte of all suche monye as I haue receyed of my lord Admeralles & my lord of Penbrocke men as foloweth be gynynge the 21 of October 1597’, and some notes of individual advances and repayments, mainly through Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton, on behalf of the company, from 23 October to 12 December.[407] In the course of these the company is again described on 23 October and 5 November as ‘the company of my lord Admeralles men & my lord Penbrockes’, but on 1 December as ‘the companey of my lord Admeralles men’; and the substance of the whole of these advances is set out again, without any reference to Pembroke’s men, at the beginning of a continuous account from 21 October onwards, which is headed, ‘A juste a cownt of all suche money as I haue layd owt for my lord Admeralles players begynyng the xj of October whose names ar as foloweth Borne Gabrell Shaw Jonnes Dowten Jube Towne Synger & the ij Geffes’.[408] Nothing very certain is known of the previous career of Humphrey and Anthony Jeffes, but if the former is the ‘Humfrey’ who appears with ‘Gabriel’ [Spencer] in the stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ it is most likely that these men also came from Pembroke’s.[409]

The responsible members of the Admiral’s company at the beginning of the third period of their existence were, then, so far as their relations to Henslowe were concerned, Thomas Downton, Richard Jones, Edward Juby, Thomas Towne, John Singer, Robert Shaw, William Borne, who seems to have had the regular _alias_ of William Bird, Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and Anthony Jeffes. To these must probably be added a number of hired men, including Thomas Hearne, John Helle, William Kendall, Richard Alleyn, Thomas Heywood, and probably Charles Massey, Samuel Rowley, Thomas Hunt, and Stephen Maget the tireman, and of apprentices, including James Bristow and Pigge. Of the sharers Downton, Jones, Juby, Towne, and Singer had alone belonged to the earlier Admiral’s men. Slater’s departure involved the company in a lawsuit, the nature of which is not stated in the diary. Professor Wallace, however, has found an independent record of a Queen’s Bench action by Thomas Downton to recover £13 6_s._ 8_d._, the value of a playbook which Downton had lost in the parish of St. Mary le Bow on 1 December 1597, and Slater had ‘found’, refused to surrender, and was alleged to have disposed of for his own profit. Damages of £10 10_s._ were awarded on 3 November 1598.[410] Donstone also seems to have dropped out or may have been dead; he witnessed Helle’s agreement on 3 August 1597, and thereafter no more is heard of him. But incomparably the greatest loss was that of Edward Alleyn, who now retired from the stage and did not return to it for a period of three years.[411] From 29 December 1597 to 8 November 1598 Henslowe made notes of playing goods bought ‘sence my sonne Edward Allen leafte [p]laynge’, and it would appear that the company acknowledged a debt of £50 in respect of his interest on retirement.[412] In place of Alleyn, it would seem that the lead was taken by Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton, perhaps as representing the two elements of which the company was made up. These two were joint payees for the Court money of both 1597–8 and 1598–9. For 1599–1600 Shaw was sole payee. It was, moreover, most often, although by no means always, to one or other of these men that Henslowe’s advances on behalf of the company were made. It must be added that some of the new-comers appear to have sought private assistance from Henslowe in order to enable them to take up their shares. On 14 January 1598, he opened an account of sums received ‘of Humfreye Jeaffes hallfe share’, entered seven instalments up to 4 March, amounting to a total of 60_s._ 6_d._, and then noted, ‘This some was payd backe agayne vnto the companey of my lord Admeralles players the 8 of Marche 1598, & they shared yt amonste them’. There is a later account, running from 29 April to 21 July 1598, and amounting by small instalments to 35_s._, of ‘all such money as I dooe receue for Umfrey Jeaffes and Antoney Jeaffes ... of the companey’.[413] Possibly the brothers only held a single share between them. A similar transaction took place with Gabriel Spencer. On 20 April 1598 this actor gave an acknowledgement for £4 and between 6 April and 24 June Henslowe carried to an account headed ‘℞ of Gabrell Spencer at severall tymes of his share in the gallereyes’ a total of 25_s._ 6_d._, of which 5_s._ 6_d._ was paid over to Downton.[414] In addition, personal loans were negotiated from time to time by various members of the company, and the reasons given for these indicate that in the course of 1598, besides the dispute of the ex-Pembroke’s men with Langley, Bird and perhaps the company as a whole were engaged in litigation with Thomas Pope, presumably the actor in the Chamberlain’s company.[415]

There does not seem to have been much further change in the composition of the Admiral’s men during 1597–1600. An acknowledgement of the state of their account with Henslowe between 8 and 13 March 1598 bears the signatures of ‘J. Singer, Thomas Downton, William Birde, Robt Shaa, Richard Jones, Gabriell Spenser, Thomas Towne, Humfry Jeffes, Charles Massye, and Samuell Rowlye’.[416] The last two had evidently become sharers in the course of the year. Juby and Anthony Jeffes do not sign, but this is probably due to an accident, as they were certainly sharers both in 1597 and in 1600.[417] Gabriel Spencer was killed by Ben Jonson (cf. ch. xxiii) on 22 September 1598. On 26 September Henslowe wrote to Alleyn at the Brill in Sussex, ‘Now to leat you vnderstand newes I will teall you some but yt is for me harde & heavey. Sence you weare with me I haue loste one of my company which hurteth me greatley; that is Gabrell, for he is slayen in Hogesden fylldes by the handes of Bengemen Jonson bricklayer’.[418] No doubt Henslowe wrote from the heart. Probably Spencer’s share was not yet paid for, and in addition small personal loans to the amount of 66_s._ stand undischarged against him in the diary, of which the last was on 19 May ‘to bye a plume of feathers which his mane Bradshawe feched of me’. Richard Bradshaw was an actor and may have played as a hired man with the company. A fragmentary ‘plot’ of _Troilus and Cressida_, probably to be dated in April 1599, yields the names of ‘Mr. Jones’ and his ‘boy’, Thomas Hunt, Stephen, Proctor, and Pigge. Mr. Jones’s boy is shown by a note of 17 November 1599 in the diary to have been called James.[419] Of Proctor no more is known. Stephen is probably Stephen Magett, the tireman, and Pigge was with Alleyn on the tour of Strange’s men in 1593. He is also mentioned, with Dobe, Whittcombe, and Anderson, who may have been actors, in some inventories of properties belonging to Alleyn or to the company in March 1598.[420] Thomas Downton also had in June 1600 a ‘boye’ who played in _Cupid and Psyche_.[421] Another acknowledgement of account, dated on 10 July 1600, only differs from the former one by the omission of Spencer’s name and the inclusion of those of Juby and Anthony Jeffes.[422] The alleged manuscript notes to a copy of Dekker’s _Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (q.v.), produced in January 1600, which are discredited by Dr. Greg, give the cast as composed of ‘Jones, H. Jeffes, Rowley, Shawe, Massy, Dowton, Singer, Jewby, Towne, A. Jeffes, Birde, Wilson, Flower, Price, Day, Dowton’s boy Ned and Alleine’; the last for a female part. Certainly nothing is known of Day or Wilson as actors for the Admiral’s, or of Price at any such early date, or of Flower at all. But if the document is a forgery, it is a very pointless, and at the same time a very cautious one. And how did the forger, unless he were Collier or Cunningham, know that Day was an actor at all?

The records kept by Henslowe for the period 1597–1600 differ considerably in character from those for 1594–7. The diurnal list of plays performed and of rent-takings disappears altogether. On the other hand, the records of advances made, for the books and licensing of plays, for costumes and properties, and for certain miscellaneous items of expenditure, become full and systematic. A _per contra_ account is also kept of weekly sums received by Henslowe in repayment of such advances, and from time to time a balance is struck, and the hands of the company taken to a settlement or acknowledgement of debt. Henslowe’s book-keeping, however, if not exactly faulty, is not always sufficiently lucid to make the whole of the financial transactions perfectly clear. In the absence of the daily entries of performances, the weekly records of repayments make it possible to determine roughly the periods covered by the theatrical seasons.[423] The company played for twenty continuous weeks from 11 October 1597 to about 4 March 1598, apparently with some irregularity at the beginning and again about Christmas time. Their Court plays were on 27 December and 28 February. In Lent they had a three weeks’ interval, during the course of which they met to read a book in New Fish Street, and ‘played in Fleatstreet pryuat’.[424] Playing was resumed about 25 March and lasted for some fifteen weeks, until about 8 July, making thirty-five weeks in all for the year 1597–8. The company only took two weeks’ vacation in the summer and are not likely to have travelled, although on 27 September, after the new season had begun, Borne is found riding to the Lord Admiral at Croydon at the time of the Queen’s visit there.[425] They played for thirty-one weeks from about 22 July to 24 February 1599, with performances at Court on 27 December, 6 January and 18 February, and stopped for three weeks in Lent. The summer season lasted for eleven weeks from about 19 March to 3 June, making forty-four weeks playing for 1598–9. On Easter Eve Towne and Richard Alleyn went to Court for some unspecified purpose. About the same time Anthony Jeffes was making purchases against St. George’s Day.[426] The interval of this summer was seventeen weeks, but I have no evidence of any travelling. The next season was one of nineteen weeks from about 29 September 1599 to 10 February 1600, with Court performances on 27 December and 1 January, and was followed by a Lenten interval of about four weeks. At the beginning of February they bought a drum and trumpets ‘when to go into the contry’.[427] Whether these were for use during the short break in Lent or not until the following summer must remain uncertain; at any rate the purchase confirms the view that there had been no provincial tour since 1596.[428] Finally they played for nineteen weeks from about 2 March to 13 July, thus completing thirty-six weeks for 1599–1600. Apparently the summer season was diversified by a visit to Windsor for the Garter installation of Henri IV of France on 27 April.[429] In all they seem to have played for about 115 weeks or something under 690 days in 1597–1600, as compared with 728 days in 1594–7.

The entries of sums paid for plays usually give the names of the authors as well as those of the plays, and therefore furnish a good deal of material for reconstituting the literary side of the company’s activity. Henslowe’s terminology is neither precise nor uniform, but it is clear that, while the payments were always entered as loans to the company, they were often made direct by him to the playwrights, on the ‘appointment’ of one or more of its members. Sometimes they are expressed as being ‘to bye a boocke of’ a play; that is to say, for the purchase outright of an old or even a new manuscript. But a new play was generally commissioned, upon the strength of a sample or of an outline of the plot, and in such cases payment was made by instalments, of which the earlier ones were ‘lent upon’ or ‘in earneste of’ or ‘in parte paymente of’, and the last ‘in full paymente of’ the book. Portions of the manuscript were handed over as security for the earlier payments. Production was very rapid, and a play put together in two or three weeks often represented the collaboration of as many as four or even five or six authors. The procedure, which prevailed during the whole of the period covered by the diary, is illustrated by a small group of letters preserved amongst the miscellaneous papers found at Dulwich. Thus on 8 November 1599 Shaw writes with regard to _2 Henry Richmond_, ‘Mr. Henshlowe, we haue heard their booke and lyke yt. Their pryce is eight poundes, which I pray pay now to Mr. Wilson, according to our promysse’; and accordingly Henslowe includes in his account, by an entry written and signed by Wilson, a sum of £8 ‘by a note vnder the hand of Mr. Rob: Shaw’.[430] On 14 June 1600 Shaw writes again, ‘I pray you, Mr. Henshlowe, deliuer vnto the bringer hereof the some of fyue & fifty shillinges to make the 3^{ll} fyue shillinges which they receaued before full six poundes in full payment of their booke called the fayre Constance of Roome, whereof I pray you reserue for me Mr. Willsons whole share which is xj^s. which I to supply his neede deliuered him yesternight.’ The diary duly records the payment to Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Dekker ‘at the a poyntment of Roberte Shawe’ of 44_s._[431] Similarly Samuel Rowley writes on 4 April 1601, ‘Mr. Hinchloe, I haue harde fyue shetes of a playe of the Conqueste of the Indes & I dow not doute but it wyll be a verye good playe; tharefore I praye ye delyuer them fortye shyllynges in earneste of it & take the papers into your one hands & on Easter eue thaye promyse to make an ende of all the reste’. The earnest and several supplementary earnests were paid to Day, Haughton, and Smith, but the completion of the play lagged until the following September.[432] An undated letter of Rowley’s relates to the withdrawal of a play, ‘Mr. Hynchlo, I praye ye let Mr. Hathwaye haue his papars agayne of the playe of John a Gante & for the repayement of the monye back agayne he is contente to gyue ye a byll of his hande to be payde at some cartayne tyme as in your dyscressyon yow shall thinke good; which done ye may crose it oute of your boouke & keepe the byll; or else wele stande so much indetted to you & kepe the byll our selues’. Henslowe appears to have thought it safer to adopt the second alternative, as incomplete payments to the amount of £1 19_s._ 0_d._ for _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt_ still stand in his ‘boouke’.[433] Other letters of the same kind concern _Six Yeomen of the West_, and _Too Good to be True_.[434] The normal price for a new play during 1597–1601 seems to have been £6, but sometimes it fell to £5 or possibly even £4, and sometimes the playwrights succeeded in squeezing out a few shillings more. One or two of them, notably Chapman, were able to secure a higher rate from the beginning; and about 1599 a general tendency towards a higher scale of prices becomes discernible. The ‘book’ of an old play could generally be purchased for about £2.

In attempting to estimate the actual ‘output’ of the company, one is faced by the difficulty that some of the plays commissioned are not shown by the diary to have reached the stage of payment in full, and that it must, therefore, remain doubtful whether they were ever completed. It is possible that, as Dr. Greg thinks,[435] some of the payments were made direct by the company, instead of through Henslowe. But the correspondence just quoted rather suggests that any such arrangement would be exceptional; and it would not be inconsistent with human nature, if the extremely out-at-elbows men of letters who hung about the Rose occasionally found it profitable to take their ‘earnest’ for a play, and then to find plausible reasons for indefinitely delaying its completion. Probably in the long run they had to account for the advance, but the example of _The Conquest of Spain_ shows that such a repayment would not necessarily find its way into Henslowe’s account. This view is borne out by an examination of the affairs of one of the most impecunious of them all, Henry Chettle, during 1598–9. During the first six months of the year, he had a hand in half a dozen plays, all of which were completed and paid for in full. But on one of these, _1 Black Bateman of the North_, Henslowe appears, perhaps by an oversight, to have paid him £1 too much. At the beginning of May £1 was lent to Chettle upon this play, and the loan does not appear to have been considered when, on 22 May, a further sum of £6 was laid out upon ‘a boocke called Blacke Battmane of the North ... which coste sixe powndes’. On 24 June Chettle borrowed 10_s._, not apparently on any particular play, and Henslowe seems then to have recalled the overpayment, and noted against Chettle’s name in the diary, ‘All his parte of boockes to this place are payde which weare dew unto hime & he reastes be syddes in my deatte the some of xxx^s.’ Chettle collaborated in several other plays, which got completed during the year, but no deduction seems to have been made from his share of the fees in respect of this debt. In addition he had £5 upon _A Woman’s Tragedy_, upon condition ‘eather to deliver the playe or els to paye the mony with in one forthnyght’; he had 5_s._ in earnest upon _Catiline’s Conspiracy_; and he had £1 14_s._ 0_d._ in earnest upon _Brute_, probably a continuation of an older _1 Brute_ bought by the company. When the last payment on _Brute_ was made on 16 September Henslowe noted, ‘Hary Cheattell vntell this place owes vs viij^{li} ix^s dew al his boockes & recknynges payd’. This amount is precisely made up of the 30_s._ due on 24 June and the sums paid on account of these three plays. By 22 October Chettle had completed _2 Brute_ and managed somehow to get £6 for it in full. On the same day he gave Henslowe an acknowledgement of a debt, not of £8 9_s._ 0_d._, but of £9 9_s._ 0_d._ In November he got an earnest of £1 for _Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver_, and £1 for ‘mending’ _Robin Hood_, and in January 1599 30_s._ ‘to paye his charges in the Marshallsey’. Small loans of a shilling or two are also noted in the margin of the book, and appear to be quite distinct from the company’s account with him, and to indicate private generosities of Henslowe. In February 1599 Chettle had finished _Polyphemus_, and it is recorded that in full payment of £6 he got £2 10_s._ down, ‘& strocken of his deatte which he owes vnto the companey fyftye shelenges more’. A separate entry in the diary indicates that he paid off yet another 10_s._ out of his fee for _The Spencers_ in March.[436] Material is not available for the further tracing of this particular chain of transactions, but the inference that credit obtained for an unfinished play had sometimes to be redeemed out of the profits of a finished one is irresistible. Chettle, at least, does not seem to have been hardly treated, but obviously the unbusinesslike methods of the playwrights kept down the price of plays, and a familiar device of the modern Barabbas was anticipated when Henry Porter was obliged, on the receipt of an earnest, to give Henslowe ‘his faythfulle promysse that I shold haue alle the boockes which he writte ether him sellfe or with any other’.[437] Whatever Henslowe’s precise financial relations with the company may have been, by the way, he seems to have been in a position to pose as paymaster, so far as the poets were concerned.

On the whole, I think it must be concluded that, if the diary fails to record payments to the amount of at least £5 for a new play, there is _prima facie_ evidence that that play never got itself finished. Occasionally, of course, apparently incomplete payments may be explained by the fact that the same play is entered under more than one name. Occasionally, also, a particular play may have been tacitly debited with payments not specifically expressed in the diary to have been made in respect of that play. Thus a sum of £2 paid on 4 February 1598 ‘to dise charge Mr. Dicker owt of the cownter in the Powltrey’ was probably treated as an instalment of the price of _Phaethon_ on which Dekker was then working, and for which otherwise only £4 is entered. Another sum of £3 10_s._ paid on 30 January 1599 ‘to descarge Thomas Dickers frome the a reaste of my lord Chamberlens men’ seems similarly to have gone towards _The First Introduction of the Civil Wars of France_. And Haughton probably got 10_s._ less than he would otherwise have done for _Ferrex and Porrex_, because he had required a loan of that amount on 10 March 1600, ‘to releace him owt of the Clyncke’.[438] The record, again, for a few plays is most likely rendered imperfect by the loss of a leaf or two from the manuscript, which once contained entries for the end of April and beginning of May 1599.[439] When these factors have been taken into consideration, the resultant total of possibly unfinished plays is not a very large one, amounting for 1597–1600 on my calculation to not more than twenty as against fifty-six new plays duly completed and paid for in full. Of these twenty it is very likely that some were in fact finished, either for other companies, or for the Admiral’s men themselves, later than the period covered by the diary. It is, however, consonant with the literary temperament to suppose that some at least remained within the category of unrealized projects. The most puzzling problem is that of Haughton’s _A Woman will have her Will_. For this it is impossible to trace payments beyond £2 10_s._, and these are not stated to be in full. Yet the play is not only now extant but was certainly extant in 1598. In this case I see no alternative to Dr. Greg’s theory of direct payments by the company.

Henslowe’s notes of advances to authors are not the sole material which is available for drawing up an account of the repertory of the Admiral’s men. There are also entries of the purchase of costumes and properties for certain plays, and of fees for the licensing of plays by the Master of the Revels. And there is a valuable series of inventories, formerly preserved at Dulwich, and dating from 1598, which record respectively the stock of apparel and properties in the hands of the Admiral’s men during the second week of March, their play-books at the same date, and the additions made out of Henslowe’s purchases up to about the following August.[440] The theory that some of the plays recorded in the diary were never finished receives confirmation from the absence of any corroborative proof of their existence in these subsidiary entries and documents, whereas such evidence exists in the case of a very large proportion of the plays for which the diary records payment in full. It must not, however, be assumed, either that every play completed necessarily got produced, although it is not likely that many were withheld, or that a play was necessarily not produced, because no special apparel or properties were bought for it, since it may have been quite possible to mount some plays out of the company’s existing stock. The number of fees paid for licensing is so small in proportion to the number of plays certainly produced, that these fees cannot all be supposed to have passed through Henslowe’s hands.

Subject to the difficulties discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I think that the following is a fairly accurate account of the repertory of the company for the three years now in question.[441] During 1597–8 they purchased seventeen new plays. These, with the names of their authors, were:

_Mother Redcap_ (Drayton and Munday).
_Phaethon_ (Dekker).
_1 Robin Hood_ (Munday).
_2 Robin Hood_ (Chettle and Munday).
_The Triangle of Cuckolds_ (Dekker).[442]
_The Welshman’s Prize_, or, _The Famous Wars of Henry I and the
Prince of Wales_ (Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton).[443]
_1 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton,
and Wilson).
_2 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton,
and Wilson).
_King Arthur_ (Hathway).
_Love Prevented_ (Porter).[444]
_A Woman will have her Will_ (Haughton).
_1 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and
Wilson).
_2 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle and Wilson).
_The Madman’s Morris_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson).
_The Funeral of Richard Cœur de Lion_ (Chettle, Drayton, Munday,
and Wilson).
_Hannibal and Hermes_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson).[445]
_Valentine and Orson_ (Hathway and Munday).