Shakespeare's Companies (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

SHAKESPEARE’S COMPANIES General Editor’s Preface Helen Ostovich, McMaster University Performance assumes a string of ...

Author: Terence G. Schoone-Jongen

50 downloads 845 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SHAKESPEARE’S COMPANIES

General Editor’s Preface Helen Ostovich, McMaster University Performance assumes a string of creative, analytical, and collaborative acts that, in defiance of theatrical ephemerality, live on through records, manuscripts, and printed books. The monographs and essay collections in this series offer original research which addresses theatre histories and performance histories in the context of the sixteenth and seventeenth century life. Of especial interest are studies in which women’s activities are a central feature of discussion as financial or technical supporters (patrons, musicians, dancers, seamstresses, wigmakers, or ‘gatherers’), if not authors or performers per se. Welcome too are critiques of early modern drama that not only take into account the production values of the plays, but also speculate on how intellectual advances or popular culture affect the theatre. The series logo, selected by my colleague Mary V. Silcox, derives from Thomas Combe’s duodecimo volume, The Theater of Fine Devices (London, 1592), Emblem VI, sig. B. The emblem of four masks has a verse which makes claims for the increasing complexity of early modern experience, a complexity that makes interpretation difficult. Hence the corresponding perhaps uneasy rise in sophistication: Masks will be more hereafter in request, And grow more deare than they did heretofore. No longer simply signs of performance ‘in play and jest’, the mask has become the ‘double face’ worn ‘in earnest’ even by ‘the best’ of people, in order to manipulate or profit from the world around them. The books stamped with this design attempt to understand the complications of performance produced on stage and interpreted by the audience, whose experiences outside the theatre may reflect the emblem’s argument: Most men do use some colour’d shift For to conceal their craftie drift. Centuries after their first presentations, the possible performance choices and meanings they engender still stir the imaginations of actors, audiences, and readers of early plays. The products of scholarly creativity in this series, I hope, will also stir imaginations to new ways of thinking about performance.

Shakespeare’s Companies William Shakespeare’s Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577–1594

TERENCE G. SCHOONE-JONGEN Independent Scholar, Washington, DC, USA

© Terence G. Schoone-Jongen 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Terence G. Schoone-Jongen has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Wey Court East Union Road Farnham Surrey GU9 7PT England

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05401-4405 USA

www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Schoone-Jongen, Terence Shakespeare’s companies: William Shakespeare’s early career and the acting companies, 1577–1594. – (Studies in performance and early modern drama) 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616 – Stage history – To 1625 2. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616 – Stage history – England – London 3. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616 – Relations with actors 4. Theater – England – London – History – 16th century 5. Theatrical companies – England – London – History – 16th century I. Title 792’.09421 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schoone-Jongen, Terence. Shakespeare’s companies: William Shakespeare’s early career and the acting companies, 1577–1594 / by Terence Schoone-Jongen. p. cm. — (Studies in performance and early modern drama) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-7546-6434-5 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7546-6434-1 (alk. paper) 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616—Stage history—To 1625. 2. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616—Stage history—England—London. 3. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616— Relations with actors. 4. Theatrical companies—England—London—History—16th century. 5. Theater—England—London—History—16th century. I. Title. PR3095.S37 2009 792’.09421—dc22 2008017879 ISBN: 978-0-7546-6434-5

For Tom

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Acknowledgements Introduction Part 1

viii 1

Towards a Chronological Framework

1 In Stratford

11

2 Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and Shakespeare’s First Plays

17

Part 2

Theatrical Contexts

3 Provincial Playing, c. 1577–1588

43

4 London Playing, 1588–1594

57

Part 3

Shakespeare and the Companies

Introductory Note

85

5 The Queen’s Men

87

6 Strange’s Men

103

7 Pembroke’s Men

119

8 Sussex’s Men

147

9 The “Lancashire Connection”

159

10 Leicester’s Men and Lesser Claimants

173

Conclusion: The Misguided Mission

197

Appendix: Company Itineraries, 1584–1594

201

Bibliography Index

229 247

Acknowledgements I wish to thank, above all, my adviser, mentor, and friend Tom Postlewait. This study’s origins lie in two papers written for two of his graduate seminars. By his suggestion, those papers became a Master’s Thesis, which in time became a preliminary manuscript, which, several incarnations later, became this book. Throughout this process, Dr. Postlewait offered his encouragement, guidance, and enthusiasm, all of which made completion of this project possible, and also his editing and proofreading. I am grateful to Andrew Gurr, who offered feedback on one of the papers that now forms a part of Chapter 4, and to Sally-Beth MacLean, who gave me a number of helpful pointers while I was compiling what has become the Appendix. Thanks also to Alan Woods for suggesting a number of emendations and clarifications on early versions of this study. I owe general thanks to Sally-Beth MacLean and all of the people at Records of Early English Drama (REED) at the University of Toronto, who were willing to make time in their busy schedules to allow me to ask questions and rummage through the unpublished REED transcriptions in the summer of 2002. I especially thank Elizabeth Baldwin, David Mills, John Coldewey, Peter Greenfield, Sally-Beth MacLean, Alexandra Johnston, Barbara Palmer, John Wasson, Diana Wyatt, and Jane Cowling, all of whom generously gave me permission to cite their unpublished REED transcriptions. Special thanks also to Glynn Parry for sharing his unpublished research regarding Shakespeare’s “Lancashire connection” with me. I offer additional special thanks to Erika Gaffney and Helen Ostovich at Ashgate for helping a first-time book author navigate the publication process. Thanks also to my many friends whose interest in, and encouragement of, this undertaking helped make the writing and revision process easier than it might have been. To list them all would take a separate book; you know who you are. A final thanks to Mom, Dad, and Brendan for their love and support.

Introduction

Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb Which hides your life and shows not half your parts. Sonnet 17.3–4 [...] the “object” that the historian studies is not only incomplete; it is markedly variable as records are lost or rediscovered. Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History 46

After decades of archival research on the life of Shakespeare, the eminent eighteenthcentury scholar Edmond Malone had finally identified the company that Shakespeare joined as an actor before arriving in London in the early 1590s (or perhaps the late 1580s). Malone declared that Shakespeare, before launching his career as a playwright, must have been a player with Lord Leicester’s servants. Or perhaps with the Queen’s Men. Or maybe with Lord Warwick’s players (Malone, “The Life of William Shakespeare” 166–7). So much for certainty. No wonder Malone was unable to finish his biography of Shakespeare. Malone’s doubts, though a measure of his scholarly integrity, have proved to be a prologue to two hundred years of confusion, debates, claims, and counterclaims on Shakespeare’s early life. The long, scholarly search for Shakespeare amid the various acting companies operating in the 1580s and early 1590s—the shadowy or “lost” years before he shows up in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1594—reveals, in a nutshell, the changeable and troubled history of Shakespearean biography across the centuries. It also reveals some fascinating developments in the scholarly approaches to theatre history and textual scholarship. This search is one among many unresolved problems that permeate Shakespeare studies (authorship, sexuality, religious loyalties, biographical details implied by the sonnets, date and order of the plays, suspect anecdotes, to name a few). Malone’s uncertainty opened the floodgates in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Scholars and biographers have put forward a wide range of conjectures on Shakespeare’s apprentice years: It is clear, then, that it is quite possible that Shakespeare may have followed in Leicester’s train. I think the passage in Sidney’s Letter converts that possibility into something more than a probability. (Thoms, Three Notelets On Shakespeare [1865] 117–18) ... it would appear not altogether unlikely that the poet was one of Lord Strange’s actors in March, 1592; one of Lord Pembroke’s a few months later; and that he had joined the company of the Earl of Sussex in or before January, 1594. (Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare [10th ed., 1898] i.122)

2

Shakespeare’s Companies In 1587 they [Leicester’s] were in England, playing at Stratford-on-Avon during their autumn travel ... At Stratford, in my opinion, Shakespeare joined them. (Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559–1642 [1890] 82) Most of his colleagues of latter life opened their histrionic careers in Lord Leicester’s professional service, and there is plausible ground for inferring that Shakespeare from the first trod in their footsteps. (Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare [1917] 54) There is therefore really some basis for the suggestion made long ago by Halliwell-Phillips that [Shakespeare] is to be looked for during these years in Pembroke’s company until its collapse and then in Sussex’s. (Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage [1923] ii.130) ... it seems highly probable that [Shakespeare], too, was one of Strange’s Men before 1594. (Honigmann, Shakespeare: ‘the lost years’ [1985] 60) The case for Shakespeare having belonged either to the Queen’s Men or Pembroke’s seems evenly divided. (Gurr, The Shakespearian Stage, 1576–1642 [3rd ed., 1992] 248) ... Shakespeare is thereby identifiable as an actor or a writer, or both, for the Queen’s Men. (Sams, The Real Shakespeare [1995] 59) ... I am almost convinced that Shakespeare was with his plays in Pembroke’s Company at the Theatre in 1592 and 1593. (Gurr, The Shakespearean Playing Companies [1996] 271) The conjecture that best answers these conditions is that Shakespeare belonged to the Queen’s Men early in his career, perhaps in some other capacity than as a writer. (McMillin and MacLean, The Queen’s Men and Their Plays [1998] 165) Was Mr. Shakspere one of the actors in his [the Earl of Oxford’s] employ? This seems likely. (Sobran, Alias Shakespeare [1997] 221) The young Shakespeare was to stay with Worcester’s men for four or five years. (Southworth, Shakespeare the Player [2000] 29) ... as to Shakespeare’s roles in the course of his apprenticeship and early career as an Admiral’s man. (Southworth [2000] 50) ... [Shakespeare] perhaps came to the notice of Sir Fulke Greville ... and for a couple of years served him in some capacity, probably as a player. (Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare [2001] 36)

Over the years, scholars have advanced their particular theories concerning Shakespeare’s pre-1594 acting company affiliations, but no one has ever attempted to systematically identify, outline, and analyze all of these competing theories. E.K. Chambers’s Elizabethan Stage and Andrew Gurr’s Shakespearean Playing Companies treat some, but not all, of these theories; S. Schoenbaum’s Shakespeare’s Lives, which takes up nearly all of the other Shakespeare controversies and debates, mentions this one only in passing.

Introduction

3

The goal of this study is therefore to explain, analyze, and assess the competing claims about Shakespeare’s pre-1594 acting company affiliations. It is not, however, my intention to demonstrate that a particular argument for Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company is correct. Rather, the goal of this study is to demonstrate that this topic is in fact a nexus for key issues in Elizabethan theatre history, Shakespearean biography, and historiography. In fact, I aim to show that the biographical issue of Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company affiliation is so closely intertwined with the attendant historiographic issues and related theatre history issues that these three topics cannot be intelligibly separated. Accordingly, this study has been structured with Shakespeare’s biography, theatre history, and historiography in mind. The first two chapters deal primarily with the known facts of Shakespeare’s early life; the next two chapters set out and clarify the theatrical contexts in which Shakespeare emerged as an actor and dramatist; and the remaining chapters examine a wide variety of arguments scholars have made over the last two centuries regarding Shakespeare’s theatrical whereabouts before 1594. Likewise, each individual chapter frequently evidences the inseparability of biography, historiography, and theatre history when it comes to Shakespeare. For example, what is known regarding Shakespeare’s biography in 1592 simply cannot be discussed without some understanding of the theatrical conditions of that time, but on both counts one must reckon with competing scholarly claims about both Shakespeare and the London theatre of 1592.1 Similarly, one cannot fully understand the reasons and liabilities for thinking Shakespeare might have once belonged to Strange’s Men without some knowledge of the suggestion that Strange’s and the Admiral’s Men were once an “amalgamated” company, a claim based on many questionable assumptions about acting company patronage, provincial playing, and the dating of one particular document.2 Many previous studies have focused primarily on Shakespeare with theatrical contexts as a background; others have focused on Elizabethan theatre history with Shakespeare at the periphery; still others have focused on a critique of previous Shakespearean biographers. This study seeks to do all three. While admittedly ambitious, it is my hope that by focusing on a limited part of Shakespeare’s professional career, I will be able to more clearly present him in terms of his contexts while still doing justice to these contexts (provincial, court, and London playing, dynamics between acting companies and patrons, publication practices, etc.). At the same time, I will be tracing a problem—Shakespeare’s pre-1594 acting company—that has not been traced in such detail before. Perhaps even more to the point, this study will offer a detailed analysis of the biographers and theatre historians who have presented so many different and contradictory versions of Shakespeare’s professional affiliations between the late 1570s and 1594. In this sense, my study offers both a history and a critique of Shakespearean biographers and their historical methodologies. The biographers have presented a confusing picture of not only the London theatre scene 1 2

For more on this, see Chapter 2. For more on this, see Chapters 4 and 6.

4

Shakespeare’s Companies

in these years but also the activities of the theatre companies, both inside and outside of London. It is my hope to bring some clarity to several of these issues and problems in the historical and biographical study of Shakespeare and his time. Although I will not identify which company Shakespeare worked with before 1594, I will be able to demonstrate why many explanations are impossible, why others are improbable, and why only a few meet the qualifications of historical possibility. No definitive explanations will emerge, but a number of false explanations will be exposed. In the process, perhaps, this study can set some basic conditions for writing both the biography of Shakespeare and the theatre history of the 1580s and early 1590s, those key years before two major companies—the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and the Admiral’s Men—were consolidated in London. A number of key facts are known about Shakespeare and London theatre after 1594; it behooves us to bring some clarity to the conditions before that date. This study is not, then, just another biography of Shakespeare. If anything, by focusing on this one troublesome aspect of Shakespeare’s biography I am seeking to shift attention away from the difficult, even impossible, issues of a too exclusive focus on Shakespeare. Rather, I am trying to show that the theatre history and historiographic issues are at least as significant as the life of one actor-turned-playwright; once again, these issues are not separable from the life anyway. In the end, it is not possible to prove where Shakespeare was, but it is possible to gain a more complex understanding of one of the major moments of transformation in English theatre history, all the while providing a historiographical analysis of the problems that have plagued the search for Shakespeare. In doing so, I will be following the example of scholars such as William Ingram (The Business of Playing), Roslyn Lander Knutson (Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time), and Scott McMillin (The Elizabethan Stage and the Book of Sir Thomas More). In analyzing the competing claims for Shakespeare’s early theatrical career (and a number of Elizabethan theatre history issues), my assessment relies heavily on a terminology of the possible, the plausible, and the probable. I regard a possibility as a hypothesis which no evidence flatly contradicts; in other words, if something is not demonstrably false, it is a possibility, although not necessarily a good one. A plausibility is something more than a possibility, in that it is speculation which can be justified (though not proven) on one or more counts. A plausible conjecture is thus based on some sort of positive evidence, rather than on the absence of negatory evidence. At the same time, however, a plausibility is not strong or convincing enough to rule out other possibilities or plausibilities. In the case of a probability, other possibilities can effectively be laid aside because the probable hypothesis is so much stronger or more likely than any alternatives. A probability is not certain, but it is pretty likely. Here again, however, I wish to emphasize that this study is not concerned only with deciding what is or is not possible, plausible, probable, or certain. While this study will encounter arguments or hypotheses that can be dismissed as implausible, the arguments or hypotheses themselves may still have value outside of their conclusions, in that they may bring up important issues beyond Shakespeare’s whereabouts. The issues raised, in other words, may be more rewarding to consider than the biographical search itself.

Introduction

5

*** Before proceeding any further, I should note that it is my operating assumption that William Shakespeare of Stratford did, in fact, write the plays which have been attributed to him and will not, for the most part, be taking up any anti-Stratfordian scholars. Generally speaking, anti-Stratfordian arguments about Shakespeare’s authorship rest on two contentions: 1. They doubt that a boy from Stratford would have received the necessary education or would have been able to acquire the necessary erudition they find evident in Shakespeare’s plays and poems. Diana Price, for instance, claims that “It is difficult to square Shakspere’s probable but incomplete grammar school training with the works of Shakespeare—works that attest to a highly educated mind” (235). 2. They argue that the biographical information available about Shakespeare, much of which consists of financial transactions and lawsuits, does not square with the poetic sensibilities present in the poems and plays. Bertram Fields, for instance, comments that “it is difficult to reconcile the crass actions and attitudes of the Stratford man with the sensitivity and humanity manifest in Shakespeare” (132) while Diana Price argues that “most analyses of Shakespeare’s plays find few parallels to Shakspere’s documented life” (267). The first of these objections smacks of elitism; more importantly, studies of the Elizabethan educational system demonstrate that Shakespeare would have received a basic education quite impressive by twenty-first century standards (see Chapter 1). The second of these objections rests on the assumption that the available court and financial records tell the reader everything about the Stratford man’s personality. As the available documents are concerned with matters for which there would be no call for Shakespeare to reveal his poetic sensibilities, this is not a particularly safe assumption. Besides, as Louis Gottschalk observes, the past “is likely to have gone through eight separate steps at each of which some of it has been lost; and there is no guarantee that what remains is the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most representative, or the most enduring part” (46). More importantly, in voicing dissatisfaction over the apparent lack of continuity between the certain facts of Shakespeare’s life and the spirit of his literary output, anti-Stratfordians adopt the very Modernist assumption that an author’s work must reflect his or her life. Neither Shakespeare nor his fellow Elizabethan writers operated under this assumption, and many literary critics and schools of literary criticism have been increasingly prone to challenge this assumption and argue, accordingly, that using literary works as evidence for the biography of the author is an undesirable, if not unsafe, practice (New Criticism, Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and nearly every other strain of poststructuralism, to name but a few). While it may today seem commonsensical that it is possible to detect an author’s biography in his or her works, Marc Bloch reminds scholars that “the worst of common sense is that it exalts to the level of the eternal observations necessarily borrowed from our own brief moment in time” (67).

6


Quite apart from holding these questionable assumptions, anti-Stratfordians have been unable to find a “real” author in any way more plausible than William Shakespeare of Stratford. Instead, anti-Stratfordians offer a laundry list of details about the life of their favored candidate(s), contend that these details “prove” the life of Oxford, or Bacon, or Marlowe, or Rutland, or Queen Elizabeth better fits the attitudes present in Shakespeare’s works, and consider the case closed. This is hardly a rigorous process; it is, instead, an argument based on a “rhetoric of accumulation,” to use Paul Werstine’s term, which proves nothing besides the ability of the proponent of a particular argument to amass a list of individually unconvincing coincidences (“Shakespeare, More or Less” 130, 140). Such an argument does not follow any accepted method of historical argument; it merely pokes (or claims to poke) a few holes in one thesis, offers an alternative hypothesis dependent entirely on coincidence, and presents no further evidence, beyond literary interpretation, in support of the new hypothesis. Such “evidence” fails to stand up to Gottschalk’s tests for evidential credibility. Coincidence and literary interpretation alone cannot tell the historian if those who produced the coincidence or literary interpretation were (1) willing or (2) able to tell the truth, (3) whether the coincidence or literary interpretation is accurate, or (4) if there is any independent corroboration, besides more coincidences and literary interpretations, to independently corroborate the “evidence” derived from the original coincidence or interpretation (150). As will become apparent in the pages of this study, many orthodox Shakespeare scholars and biographers also depend far too heavily on coincidence and literary interpretation when they argue about Shakespeare’s pre-1594 whereabouts. There are, however, two points at which this study and the anti-Stratfordian arguments converge. First, anti-Stratfordians have often concerned themselves with the attack on the “upstart crow” in Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and Henry Chettle’s supposed apology to the “upstart crow.” The proliferation of anti-Stratfordian interpretations of these documents would be irresponsible to ignore, particularly since some anti-Stratfordians have raised valid criticisms of the traditional interpretations of Chettle’s apology (see Chapter 2). Second, in at least one instance an anti-Stratfordian has mounted an argument concerning William Shakespeare’s acting company before 1594. Analyzing this argument (Chapter 10) is, of course, well within the scope of this study, and also affords an opportunity to point out several other liabilities in the anti-Stratfordian position. *** The chapters that follow are divided into three sections. In the first section, I define the chronological parameters of this study. It is possible to say with certainty that Shakespeare was born in 1564 and joined the Lord Chamberlain’s Men at, or very soon after, its formation in the late spring of 1594. It is also possible to set down some other chronological certainties within these thirty years. In Chapter 1, I discuss when at the earliest Shakespeare could have reasonably left Stratford to embark

Introduction

7

on his theatrical career. In Chapter 2, I try to determine a rough framework for Shakespeare’s pre-1594 London activities. To do so, I first consider two possible pre1594 allusions to Shakespeare (Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and Thomas Nashe’s Pierce Pennilesse), which firmly place Shakespeare in London by 1592, after which I consider the evidence we have for dating some of Shakespeare’s early plays. These first two chapters will show that Shakespeare could have left Stratford as early as the late 1570s, that he likely arrived in London by about 1588, and was established as a playwright by 1592 before becoming the Chamberlain’s Men’s leading playwright in 1594. Having set up this chronological framework, I provide a discussion in Part 2 of the theatrical contexts Shakespeare would (and could) have worked in between about 1577 and 1594. Chapter 3 will provide a brief overview of touring practices and active companies between 1577 and 1588, while Chapter 4 will offer an overview of London playing between 1588 and 1594. I will outline several key changes that occurred during those years and also address several misconceptions about the activities of playing companies during this period. The ensuing chapters in Part 3 will set out and analyze, within the framework furnished by Parts 1 and 2, the various arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in particular playing companies. The first four chapters in Part 3 analyze the four most prominent, substantive, and complex arguments for Shakespeare’s early company affiliations. These chapters are organized in a way designed to follow the chronological development of Shakespearean biographies and historical scholarship. Accordingly, Chapter 5 takes up the Queen’s Men, one of the companies Edmond Malone thought Shakespeare might have joined, while Chapters 6, 7, and 8 consider the three companies J.O. Halliwell-Phillips, followed by E.K. Chambers and many others, believed Shakespeare belonged to before the Chamberlain’s Men: Strange’s Men, Pembroke’s Men, and Sussex’s Men. Chapter 9 then considers the argument that Shakespeare spent several of his teenage years in Lancashire, in the service of the Hoghton family. This suggestion was first made in 1923, but since the 1980s and E.A.J. Honigmann’s Shakespeare: the ‘lost years’, it has attracted a good deal of attention and been endorsed by several prominent scholars. This chapter will focus on the Lancashire connection as a whole, but also pay special attention to Honigmann’s suggestion that, while in Lancashire, Shakespeare belonged to companies of players patronized by Alexander Hoghton and Thomas Hesketh. Finally, Chapter 10 examines a number of other, less popular and less substantive arguments that have been made regarding Shakespeare’s pre-1594 theatrical activities. This chapter will begin with a consideration of the argument for Shakespeare’s presence in Leicester’s Men, before examining how the methods used to locate Shakespeare in Leicester’s Men parallel those used to place him in Worcester’s, Warwick’s, Oxford’s, and the Admiral’s Men. After a brief conclusion, the Appendix includes the itineraries for the Queen’s, Strange’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s Men between 1577 and 1594, as I make frequent reference to these itineraries in the relevant chapters. Before proceeding, a few general notes about the text are in order. First, because of the structure of this study, there is necessarily a fair amount of repetition. For

8


example, some of what is discussed in Chapter 4 regarding London playing companies between 1588 and 1594 is repeated and expanded on in Chapter 6, but in the context of Strange’s Men’s activities in London during the same period. The reason for this repetition is to ensure that the reader always has all information relevant to the topic at hand, rather than constantly referring the reader back to previous chapters. Second, this study is primarily a work of synthesis rather than a work of original documentary research. It is the arguments that have been erected on factual foundations—not the foundations themselves—that I am primarily concerned with. For this reason, the reader will notice that most documentary sources are cited from secondary sources (Records of Early English Drama and English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660, to name two particularly prominent secondary sources). Finally, although for the most part I directly cite play scenes and lines when a scholar makes use of such in his or her arguments, there are a few instances where I do not directly cite to the play and instead cite to the scholar’s argument. I have done this only where the scholar’s references to particular plays or scenes are in passing, or are minor parts of a much larger pattern of argumentation.

PART 1 Towards a Chronological Framework


Chapter 1

In Stratford

The incontrovertible facts of Shakespeare’s pre-London existence are minimal. The exact date of his birth cannot even be determined. Tradition has assigned his nativity to 23 April 1564, St. George’s day, but this tradition is motivated by happy coincidence rather than documentary evidence. He was christened on 26 April, so could not have been but a few days old at that point; beyond this, nothing can be said with any certainty about his birth.1 He was the third child born to John and Mary Shakespeare, but the first to make it past the age of two; Joan, christened 15 September 1558, seems to have died soon thereafter, and Margaret too passed away shortly after her christening on 2 December 1562. The family continued to grow after William’s birth: Gilbert was christened on 13 October 1566, a second Joan on 15 April 1569, Anne on 28 September 1571, Richard on 11 March 1574, and Edmund, who, like his eldest brother, would become a player, on 3 May 1580, just over a year after the death of his sister Anne (Schoenbaum, Compact 23–8; Loomis 6–13). After his christening, William Shakespeare is not heard of again until 1582, when, on 27 November, according to the Episcopal Register of the diocese of Worcester, he and Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton were issued a marriage license; the next day, a bond was granted allowing young William to marry an Anne Hathaway. The general consensus is that the clerk keeping the register that day made a mistake in taking down the bride’s name, but several biographers, such as Frank Harris (1909), have seized upon the possibility William wanted to marry Anne Whateley, only to be coerced into a union with the other Anne. Whatever the truth of William’s marital intentions, it was definitely Anne Hathaway, seven or eight years his senior, who became his bride, and who, six months later, gave birth to their first child, Susanna, christened 26 May 1583. Less than two years later, she gave birth to the twins Hamnet and Judith, christened 2 February 1585 (Schoenbaum, Compact 75–94; Loomis 17–21).2 After 1585, William Shakespeare disappears from the records until 1588, when he is mentioned in a lawsuit brought against his father. The suit, however, merely says he is John’s son; it says nothing about his activities, employment, or whereabouts 1 For a more in-depth discussion of the dating of Shakespeare’s birth, see Bearman, Shakespeare and Schoenbaum, Compact 24–6 and 325, note 3. 2 For a concise consideration of the problems surrounding Shakespeare’s marriage, see Ingram, The Business of Playing 19–24 . Joseph Gray’s Shakespeare’s Marriage (1905) is another useful study of all of the circumstances surrounding the marriage.

12


(Schoenbaum, Compact 39–40; Loomis 23–5). He may have been engaged in some sort of theatrical occupation by that time since, by 1592, he was a dramatist of sufficient note to draw the wrath of Robert Greene, or someone writing under Greene’s name (the authorship, nature, and reliability of this attack will be discussed in the next chapter). Greene’s well-known attack clearly indicates Shakespeare was an actor before he was a dramatist. He must therefore have started acting some time before 1592. Perhaps Shakespeare was an actor for years before he began writing; alternatively, he could have taken up playwriting shortly after he began to act. He must have left Stratford well before 1592, as he would have needed at least some time to establish himself within the London theatre scene. Did he go directly into theatre? Would he have first joined a provincial acting company, or would he have gone directly to London and joined a company there? Did he start writing before or after he went to London? Could he have had other occupations outside of Stratford before going to London or going into theatre? There is no consensus on any of these questions, as the ensuing chapters will demonstrate. There is no other direct evidence for Shakespeare’s activities before his London emergence, and one is reminded of George Steevens’s famous comment: As all that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakespeare is—that he was born at Stratford upon Avon,—married and had children,—went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays,—returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried—I confess my readiness to combat every unfounded supposition respecting the particular occurrences of his life. (Malone, Supplement i.654)

Happily, more evidence survives concerning John Shakespeare’s activities, which in turn shed some light on William’s early life. Despite several reports which describe the father as a butcher (John Aubrey’s Brief Lives) or wool-dealer (Nicholas Rowe’s “Some Account of the Life, &c. of Mr. William Shakespear”), surviving documents clearly indicate John Shakespeare was primarily a glover, although he did have dealings in other trades, including wool, timber, and barley; he also rented out property. Like many people of his station in Elizabethan England, he was often involved in lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant (Schoenbaum, Compact 30–32). He was well regarded among his fellow Stratfordians: in 1556, he was named one of the town’s two ale-tasters, and in 1558 he was one of the town’s four constables. The next year he served as the town’s afeeror, and about this time he became one of the community’s fourteen burgesses. From 1561 to 1563 he was one of Stratford’s two chamberlains, and he served as acting chamberlain in 1565 and 1566. In 1565 he received the additional honor of being elected one of the town’s fourteen aldermen, and in 1567 he was elected bailiff, Stratford’s highest office. Although he served only one term as bailiff, he remained an important community figure, serving as chief alderman and deputy to the bailiff in 1571 (33–7). John Shakespeare’s status as burgess is particularly important in regards to William’s early life, because the children of Stratford burgesses were entitled to a free education at the King’s New School of Stratford-Upon-Avon (Schoenbaum, Lives 8). There is therefore no

In Stratford

13

reason why William could not have attended the school when he was old enough. Unfortunately, the records for the school’s sixteenth-century pupils vanished well before any scholars were interested in perusing them for the name of the boy who would become the school’s most famous student (10). As a student at the King’s New School, William Shakespeare would have received the typical and rigorous primary education of the day.3 It is unclear, however, if he finished the school’s course of study. Nicholas Rowe, for instance, reports that William was withdrawn from school owing to his father’s growing financial difficulties (i.ii–iii). Surviving records testify to John’s troubles: in 1576 he stopped attending local meetings for the most part, and beginning in 1578 he faced a series of debts, lawsuits, and mortgages pointing to strained financial circumstances for the Shakespeare family. John’s fellow burgesses and aldermen made efforts to accommodate his difficulties, exempting him from certain fees, but this aid apparently failed to alleviate John’s financial condition, as he attended his last council meeting in 1582; after four years’ grace, the council elected a replacement for him. He still occasionally was asked to perform important town duties, indicating the esteem he once enjoyed had not completely eroded, money problems and delinquency as an alderman notwithstanding; nevertheless, as late as 1592 John was avoiding church attendance for, he asserted, fear of debt collection (Schoenbaum, Compact 39–43; Loomis 30). The facts, however, do not necessarily lend credence to Rowe’s claim that William was withdrawn from school. Such an action on his father’s part certainly was possible, but it may not have been a necessity. Stratford, like much of rural England, was deep in recession during this period (Schoenbaum, Compact 42), so John’s difficulties were likely not isolated; not only that, in spite of the evidence of John’s financial strain, other records indicate he was able to produce significant sums of money during the time of his supposed financial disarray. For instance, he was able to raise £10 for someone’s bail bond (43). Coupled with the fact William’s education would have been free until John was replaced as burgess in 1586, it is distinctly possible that William could have finished his course of education despite his family’s troubles. Even if Shakespeare did prematurely leave the King’s New School, it cannot have been very long before he would have finished his studies. His father’s financial problems began around 1576, when William was twelve, and most students finished grammar school at the age of fourteen or fifteen (Schoenbaum, Compact 73). Whatever the case, Shakespeare found himself in need of employment around 1578 or 1579. Once again, there is no evidence whatsoever indicating what occupation he took up at this time, although two early sources (both removed from the events by over a century) independently report he entered the family business: Nicholas Rowe (1709) simply asserts William entered his father’s employment, while John Aubrey reports (c. 1681) 3 The definitive works on this topic remains T.W. Baldwin’s William Shakspere’s Petty School (1943) and William Shakspere’s Small Latine & Lesse Greeke (1944), which meticulously trace the typical sixteenth- century grammar school curriculum and how it is manifested in Shakespeare’s works.

14


more specifically, and erroneously, that William, like his father, became a butcher (Schoenbaum, Compact 74–5). Rowe and Aubrey base their assertions on legends which, Richard Dutton notes, were reported too long after Shakespeare’s death to be entirely trustworthy, “but too early to be dismissed out of hand” (Literary Life 3). Other possibilities that have been advanced for his early employment include law clerk, soldier, seaman, barber, surgeon, physician, and schoolmaster (Schoenbaum, Compact 109–11). The proponents of most of these conjectures maintain he held a non-theatrical occupation for some years before entering the theatre, gaining such entrance with either his emigration to London, or else with the visit of a playing company to Stratford in the mid-to-late 1580s. It is, however, at least possible he began his theatrical career earlier, perhaps even upon his completion of, or withdrawal from, school. The difficulties posed by such a scenario—namely how Shakespeare, if a traveling player, could have met, impregnated, and married Anne Hathaway— have not stopped several biographers, such as Katherine Duncan-Jones (Ungentle Shakespeare) and John Southworth (Shakespeare the Player), from making just such an argument. Most biographers ground themselves in the more traditional assumption that he worked in Stratford for a number of years before joining a playing company, although there is a notable group that contends Shakespeare traveled north for a time, finding employment, possibly theatrical, in Lancashire (see Chapter 9). Before he joined a company, however, young Shakespeare could have been exposed to theatrical entertainment in several different ways in and around his home town. First, Stratford was home to Whitsuntide entertainments, which Shakespeare might have participated in as a youth and young man; in 1583 the corporation actually paid 13s, 4d to a Davy Jones “and his company for his pastime at Whitsuntide” (Schoenbaum, Compact 112). While no other such payments are recorded around this time, it is certainly possible such entertainments were performed on other Whitsuntides during Shakespeare’s youth. Second, he may have participated in Christmas mummings. Aubrey, believing John Shakespeare was a butcher and that William worked for him, says when William “killed a calf, he would do it in a high style, and make a speech” (Schoenbaum, Compact 74). Of course, John Shakespeare was not a butcher, so the reliability of this anecdote is in doubt; however, some biographers, such as A.L. Rowse (William Shakespeare: A Biography) and Ian Wilson (Shakespeare: The Evidence), suggest this report is in fact a corrupted recollection of William’s participation in the traditional Christmas mumming play of killing the calf (Schoenbaum, Lives 67; Rowse 86; I. Wilson 61–2). Such speculation is impossible to verify. Third, Shakespeare almost certainly would have had to read various classical plays as part of the King’s New School curriculum, as was common practice in English schools at the time (Schoenbaum, Compact 68–9); perhaps there were opportunities to hold recitations, or to mount productions, in the course of his study (69). But of course there is no evidence for such activities. During his youth, Shakespeare would also have had at least two opportunities to see spectacular entertainments near Stratford. In 1575, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, entertained Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth, only twelve miles from Stratford, and many locals flocked to the spectacular entertainments Dudley staged. What the crowd

In Stratford

15

witnessed on this occasion was a water-pageant which had more in common with later court masques than with the sorts of plays Shakespeare would write; nevertheless, it is possible John Shakespeare, at the time an alderman, might have journeyed to Kenilworth with his eldest son, then aged eleven, in tow (Schoenbaum, Compact 115–16). Stephen Greenblatt cites a number of incidents in Shakespeare’s plays which might allude to Kenilworth; while Greenblatt does not argue Shakespeare was actually at the entertainment, he contends that Shakespeare would have heard, and may have read, about it (43–50). A few years later, when he was fifteen, Shakespeare would have had the opportunity to make the slightly lengthier trek to Coventry to witness one of the last performances of that city’s famous Mystery cycle. In both cases, there is no evidence to suggest the future playwright took advantage of these opportunities, but in both cases his attendance at these events is clearly within the realm of possibilities (Schoenbaum, Compact 111, 161). During Shakespeare’s early years, Stratford records also record numerous visits by professional playing companies. During the 1568–69 fiscal year, when his father was bailiff, the Queen’s players (predecessors to the more famous Queen’s Men, formed in 1583) visited Stratford, as did Worcester’s Men, which would return in 1574–75, 1576–77, 1580–81, 1581–82, and 1583–84. Leicester’s Men passed through Stratford in 1572–73 and 1576–77; Warwick’s Men made its sole Stratford visit in 1574–75. Strange’s Men made its Stratford debut on 11 February 1579, followed by the Countess of Essex’s players sometime before September 1579. Derby’s Men made its way to Stratford in 1579–80; the next year, Berkeley’s gave a performance, followed by another in 1582–83, a year in which Chandos’s Men also made an appearance. In 1583–84, Oxford’s and Essex’s Men made their first Stratford visits; no companies visited in 1584–85, and an unnamed company (perhaps Sussex’s Men) passed through town in 1585–86. During the 1586–87 fiscal year, no fewer than five companies visited Stratford: the Queen’s, Essex’s, Leicester’s, Stafford’s, and an unnamed company all performed. This fiscal year represents the apex of professional activity in Stratford, as playing company notices trail off. The Queen’s Men passed through twice in the early 1590s, and four unnamed companies visited the town at the end of the 1590s (Minutes and Accounts ii.68–9, 77, 105–6, iii.13–14, 43, 46, 98, 119, 136–37, 148–49, iv.16, 31–2, v.7, 19, 123). All these playing notices were recorded, of course, because the town paid each of these companies; it may be that there were other visits during Shakespeare’s youth which, for whatever reason, were not recorded. In any event, Shakespeare had ample opportunity to see professional playing companies during his youth, and it may be he joined one of the companies named in the Stratford records. Indeed, of the thirteen separate companies named in the Stratford Chamberlains’ accounts, six of them have, at some point, been advocated as the company he first acted, and by extension wrote, for.4 Throughout his childhood and early adulthood, then, William Shakespeare had numerous chances to see and participate in local theatrical entertainments and also 4

The six companies in question are: The Queen’s Men, Leicester’s Men, Warwick’s Men, Oxford’s Men, Worcester’s Men, and Strange’s Men . For the particular advocates for each of these companies, see the corresponding chapters in Part Three.

16


had the opportunity to witness performances by a number of professional playing companies. Sometime after 1577 (at the absolute earliest) he sought out theatrical employment. He may have done so by joining a professional company which visited Stratford, perhaps soon after finishing (or leaving) school, perhaps after having first worked in a non-theatrical capacity for several years. He may have left Stratford for London for non-theatrical work and subsequently found his calling on the London stage. Or he may have left Stratford with the goal of “making it” as a London actor or playwright. Whatever the case, by 1592 he was a playwright of sufficient note to attract the attention—and enmity—of a fellow writer.

Chapter 2

Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and Shakespeare’s First Plays

After his 1585 marriage in Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare disappears from view until 1592, when he emerges as a playwright in London. Two allusions in 1592 verify his presence in the city, and both seemingly testify to Shakespeare’s prominence as a popular playwright. In the first edition of Pierce Pennilesse, entered into the Stationers’ Register on 8 August 1592 (Arber ii.619), Thomas Nashe comments on the condition of the London stage: How it would have ioyed brave Talbot (the terror of the French) to thinke that after he head lyne two hundred years in his tombe, he should triumphe agane on the stage, and have his bones newe embalmed with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall times) who in the Tragedian that represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding. (87)1

Only one extant Elizabethan play—Shakespeare’s 1 Henry VI—features Talbot, although it is possible there may have been other Talbot plays by 1592. In the absence of additional evidence, however, it is probable, though not certain, that Nashe was referring to 1 Henry VI. If so, this means that by August 1592 Shakespeare had written a phenomenally successful play seen by “ten thousand spectators at least (at severall times).” It also means Shakespeare, or at least one of his plays, had impressed one of the prominent writers and literary commentators of the day.2 Such approval was not, however, universally the case. Robert Greene: Death and Deathbed Confessionals A second allusion to Shakespeare appeared soon after Nashe’s first edition of Pierce Pennilesse. A pamphlet entitled Greenes Groats-worth of witte, bought with a million 1 I quote G.B. Harrison’s edition. Harrison uses Pierce Pennilesse’s third edition, published late in 1592 (ix). 2 Gary Taylor has suggested in his article “Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One” that Nashe’s enthusiasm may have had ulterior motives. Specifically, Taylor suggests Nashe collaborated with Shakespeare on this play. Edward Burns, editor of the Arden King Henry VI Part 1 similarly regards the text as collaborative, but he does not speculate as to the identity of Shakespeare’s collaborators (75, 79). For objections to Taylor’s argument, see Hattaway’s introduction to the 1990 Cambridge edition of 1 Henry VI (1–2, 42–3).


18

of Repentance, entered into the Stationers’ Register on 20 September 1592 (Arber ii.620), is often cited as the first definite allusion to Shakespeare as a playwright, as well as the earliest definite evidence of Shakespeare’s London—and indeed theatrical—activities. This short work has generated several controversies, most of them pertaining directly to what, if anything, it has to say about Shakespeare. Because Groatsworth, as it is referred to hereafter, is such a contentious document, and because it is pivotal for Shakespeare’s biography, the circumstances, characters, and implications contained in it warrant close scrutiny. Groatsworth is allegedly the deathbed confession of Robert Greene, who died on 3 September 1592. Greene had been a leading literary figure of his day, writing numerous poems, novels, plays, and pamphlets, the latter not infrequently containing satirical jibes at other active writers of the time. As a playwright, he was, with Thomas Nashe, George Peele, and Christopher Marlowe, one of the universityeducated group of playwrights often referred to retrospectively as the University Wits. Greene was one of the more successful, and prolific, of the Wits, and a number of his works sold well for the time; in fact, on more than one occasion the type size for his name was much larger than that of the work’s title (Groatsworth itself being an example; see Carroll, Groatsworth v). Part of Greene’s success, however, was tied to his character, or at least his persona in the popular imagination of his readers. Greene was notorious for fraternizing with underworld types and leading a life of general dissipation. Some of his last works were “conycatching pamphlets” that described the lifestyle and practices of various groups of ill-repute. The extent of Greene’s real-life underworld connections is debatable, but by 1592 many London bookstall patrons would have heard rumors of Greene’s riotous living.3 In the late summer of 1592, Greene took ill; he was dead by 3 September. Almost immediately, writings about Greene’s last days were being sold at the bookstalls. Gabriel Harvey, Greene’s literary nemesis, set out what he understood to be the facts of Greene’s last days in a letter dated 5 September and published soon thereafter (Carroll, Groatsworth 7). Harvey characterizes Greene as a man who “sought Fame by diffamation of other” (5), a “madde libeller,” “the king of the paper stage,” “the Monarch of Crosbiters,” and “the very Emperour of shifters” (5–9).4 Despite his certainty that all Londoners had “heard of his dissolute, and licentious liuing” (9), Harvey catalogues various nefarious deeds of Greene’s: his “vnseemely apparell,” his “impious profaning of sacred Textes,” and his “forsaking of his owne wife” (9–10). Harvey claims Greene took up with a prostitute, had a child by her, and then descended into poverty and lice-infested squalor. After “a surfett of pickle herringe and rennish wine” (5) Greene took ill and his friends abandoned him. At the end, Harvey says, the prostitute and Greene’s landlady were his only companions. Harvey alleges that he visited the landlady, who gave him some of the details of Greene’s last days and showed him a letter Greene had written to his wife, asking her to pay

3 4

For more on the life of Robert Greene, see Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene. I quote G.B. Harrison’s edition of Harvey’s Four Letters and Certain Sonnets.


19

off his debt to the landlady (10–12). All told, Greene’s last days had turned him into “a very proverbe of Infamy, and contempt” (5). Perhaps due to these comments of Harvey’s, or perhaps feeding off the same morbid interest in Greene’s end, pamphlets claiming to be Greene’s last thoughts flooded into print. The first of these was Groatsworth, which was advertised as “published at his dyeing request” (Carroll, Groatsworth v). The text, a patchwork of Greene’s alleged last writings, does not form a single coherent narrative or essay, although certain recurring themes—particularly betrayal—lend the work a sort of unity. In an opening epistle, William Wright, the pamphlet’s publisher, claims the document “happened into his handes” after Greene’s death (41).5 Next, a brief epistle from the author (who, because he is not universally accepted as Robert Greene, I shall refer to as “Greene”) declares that what follows are his parting thoughts (42). Then begins the story of “Roberto,” a disinherited scholar who, upon a failed attempt to dupe his brother out of his money, begins writing stage plays at the encouragement of a richly-dressed player. Although successful in his theatrical endeavors, Roberto descends into a life of vice and riotous living, which leaves him broke and ill. Fearing that his end is near, he resolves to pass on to others the belated wisdom that should have guided his life (46–75). Abruptly, but perhaps not surprisingly, “Greene” breaks off the story of Roberto and reveals that he has been talking about his own life the whole time. After setting out rules for virtuous living (75–6), “Greene” alludes to a letter of warning to his “fellow Schollers about this Cittie” (79). This letter immediately follows, declaring that “To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plaies, R.G. wisheth a better exercise, and wisdome to prevent his extremeties” (80). In this letter, “Greene” singles out three writers for rebuke, who are referred to as “thou famous gracer of Tragedians,” “yong Juvenall, that byting Satyrist,” and “S. George” (80–83). Having warned all three to change their ways, “Greene” launches into the diatribe that has become the most famous part of the entire Groatsworth: Base minded men all three of you, if by my miserie you be not warnd: for unto none of you (like mee) sought those burres to cleave: those Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange, that I, to whom they have all beene beholding: is it not like that you, to whome they all have beene beholding, shall (were yee in that case as I am now) bee both at once of them forsaken? Yes trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shakescene in a countrey. (83–5)

Shakespearean biographers and other interested scholars have inevitably focused their attention on this one section of “Greene’s” letter to the playwrights. However, major problems with the interpretation of this passage continue to recur, in large part because scholars immediately focus on “Shake-scene” without taking the time 5

In all cases I cite D. Allen Carroll’s edition of Groatsworth.

20


to analyze the context (and even content) of the entire passage. Here are some typical comments: Among the significant pieces of evidence cited by Stratfordians is Robert Greene’s reference to an actor he calls “Shake-scene,” and his use of language that may suggest that “Shake-scene” was a playwright as well. (Fields 107) The pun in Shake-scene and ridicule of a line from 3 Henry VI ... leaves us no doubt as to Greene’s target. (Honigmann, “Shakespeare’s Life” 4) The line is read as giving special significance to the term “Shake-scene.” (Ogburn 57) “Shake-scene” clearly puns on the name Shakespeare, and “tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide,” paraphrases a line from one of the most memorable scenes in this play Henry VI. (Wells 49) The pun in “Shake-scene” leaves no doubt that Shakespeare is meant (J. Dover Wilson, Essential 44) That it is Shakespeare who is under attack is plain from the pun on his name and from the allusion to the scene in Henry VI Part 3 (Wood 144)

Basically, discussions of the passage have been plagued by a tendency among commentators to base their identifications on the “Shake-scene” allusion and then make the rest of the passage fit this identification. Accordingly, this matter becomes a touchstone for a pattern of inadequate historical testing of the biographical sources. We shall return to this contentious passage after finishing the description of Groatsworth and several related issues it raises. Following the attack on the “upstart Crow” and players in general, “Greene” urges his addressees to give up playwriting and practice virtue (86–7). Groatsworth concludes with a retelling of Aesop’s fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant, wherein at the end the Ant is blamed for abandoning his old friend, the Grasshopper, in his time of need; some have seen this as still another swipe at Shakespeare.6 At the end of the fable, “Greene” declares that he feels his life leaving his body and beseeches “them that shall burie my bodie, to publish this last farewell written with my wretched hand” (89). As an epilogue, Groatsworth closes with “A letter written to his wife, founde with this booke after his death” (90–91), quite different from the one Harvey reports, wherein he begs his wife’s forgiveness for the wrongs he did her in life and implores her to receive their child back into her care. Groatsworth was not the last supposed Robert Greene deathbed confessional published in the wake of his death. The Repentance of Robert Greene—a much shorter and substantially different confessional than Groatsworth—was entered into 6 The main proponent of this identification is E.A.J. Honigmann in Shakespeare’s Impact on His Contemporaries (1–6), although the eccentric anti-Stratfordian Alden Brooks anticipated this identification in Will Shakspere: Factotum and Agent (1937) and Will Shakspere and the Dyer’s Hand (1943). See Schoenbaum, Lives 429–30.


21

the Stationers’ Register on 6 October (Arber ii.621). Like Groatsworth, Repentance consists of disparate elements pertaining to Greene’s life and death, including two accounts of Greene’s life of dissipation (9–28), an outline of his literary career (25), a list of virtues or “Cauiats” for “a frend of his” to follow (29–30), a report on his death, including a letter to Greene’s wife quite similar to the one of Harvey’s report (31–2), and a prayer Greene allegedly wrote “in the time of his sicknesse” (33–4). However, Repentance differs from Groatsworth in several key ways. Firstly, while Repentance is less specific than Groatsworth concerning biographical details, those it does include essentially square with Harvey’s account of Greene’s last days (Jowett, “Johannes Factotum” 480). Secondly, the tone of Repentance is one of contrition, and the anger and bitterness permeating Groatsworth are entirely absent. Finally, Repentance contains no diatribes against the theatre community. Repentance mentions that Greene wrote plays, but does not overtly connect this activity with his shameful personal life. Moreover, Repentance does not even mention actors, let alone single them out for abuse. Given these discrepancies between Groatsworth and Repentance, and given that they both claim to be Greene’s dying musings, it is hard to be confident that either one is a genuine document from the pen of Robert Greene.7 Unsurprisingly, the authenticity of both was explicitly or implicitly called into question following their publication. Some time after Groatsworth’s publication, the second edition of Nashe’s Pierce Pennilesse was issued (the date is not certain, but must have been in the autumn of 1592).8 Here, in an opening epistle, Nashe expresses a desire to tell Greene’s ghost “what a coyle there is with pamphleting on him after his death” (1)9 and specifically makes reference to Groatsworth: Other news I am aduertised of, that a scald trivial lying pamphlet, cald Greens groatsworth of wit is giuen out to be of my doing. God neuer haue care of my soule, but vtterly renouce me, if the least word or sillable in it proceeded from my pen, or if I were any way priuie to the writing or printing of it. (2–3).

7

Of the two, Groatsworth is most usually seen as a hoax; Repentance is often assumed to be genuine, since its account of Greene’s last days is similar to Harvey’s letter. Jowett’s “Johannes Factotum” suggests that Repentance was for the most part genuine, with an editorial overlay; Sanders (“Greene’s ‘Editors’”) and Bolz (43) both argue the Repentance is a forgery. Whatever the case, both pamphlets, while published by different stationers (Groatsworth— William Wright, Repentance—Cuthbert Burby), were printed by the same individual—John Danter (Jowett, “Johannes Factotum” 467–8). Jowett suggests Chettle edited Repentance and forged Groatsworth (477–8). 8 The first edition was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 8 August 1592 (Arber ii.619); the third edition was published at the end of 1592 (Harrison, Pierce Pennilesse ix). The second edition therefore must have been printed after Groatsworth (20 September), but long enough before the end of 1592 to allow for it to sell out, thus necessitating the third edition. 9 I cite G.B. Harrison’s 1923 edition, which is based on the third edition of Pierce Pennilesse, published at the end of 1592; Nashe’s comments on Groatsworth were first included in the second edition (ix).

22


Evidently someone believed Groatsworth was a forgery and had accused Nashe of fabricating it, a charge Nashe emphatically denies. Significantly, however, Nashe seems to agree with the forgery charges, given his characterization of Groatsworth as “a scald trivial lying pamphlet.” Nashe was not the only person accused of forging Groatsworth. In December of 1592, Henry Chettle shed more light on the controversy in his Kind-Hart’s Dream (entered into the Stationers’ Register 8 December 1592—Arber ii.623). Writing “To the Gentlemen Readers,” Chettle makes several important statements. First, Chettle asserts that, upon Greene’s death, he had obtained many of his papers, “among others his Groats-worth of wit. “Second, Chettle reveals that two of the “play-makers” addressed in the “upstart Crow” letter had taken offense at “Greene’s” scolding. Moreover, these playwrights had apparently accused Chettle of being responsible for the pamphlet: “because on the dead they cannot be auenged, they wilfully forge in their conceites a liuing Author: and after tossing it two and fro, no remedy, but it must light on me. “Chettle claims this is unfair, as he has always “hindred the bitter inueying against schollers. “Chettle then offers his assessment of the two playwrights who had taken offense at Groatsworth: With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I neuer be: The other, whome at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had ... I am as sory, as if the originall fault had been my fault, because my selfe haue seen his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he excelent in the qualitie he professes. Besides, divers of worship haue reported, his uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writting, that aprooues his Art. For the first, whose learning I reuerence, and at the preusing of Greenes Booke, stroke out what then in concsience I thought he in some displeasure writ: or had it beene true, yet to publish it, was intollerable: him I would wish to use me no worse than I deserue. (A3v–A4)

Third, Chettle acknowledges he was involved in the publication of Groatsworth, but only as an editor who transcribed what he claimed was Greene’s near-illegible original manuscript. Fourth, after claiming neither he nor Nashe had had anything to do with Groatsworth, Chettle makes a startling confession: “Neither was he [Nashe] the writer of an Epistle to the second part or Gerileon, though by the workemans error T.N. were set to the end: that I confesse to be mine, and repent it not” (A3v– A4). Apparently, then, Chettle had been involved with some previous literary mischief, although he conveniently assigns ultimate blame for the past incident to the printer. Perhaps this is the reason why, unlike Nashe, who only offered a quick dismissal of forgery charges, Chettle felt he had more to answer for. Interestingly, unlike Nashe, Chettle does not call on God to witness his denials of responsibility for Groatsworth. Two further publications concerning Greene’s death serve to complicate matters of its accuracy, let alone authenticity, even more. First, Nashe, in Strange News (entered into the Stationers’ Register 12 January 1593—Arber ii.624) openly challenged Gabriel Harvey’s account of Greene’s death. In contrast to Harvey’s letter, as well as both Groatsworth and Repentance, Nashe asserts Greene had not died in poverty and squalor at all: “For the lowsie circumstance of his poverty before


23

his death, and sending that miserable writte to his wife, it cannot be but thou lyest, learned Gabriell” (287).10 While many scholars accept Harvey’s letter as reliable— E.H. Miller describes it as “devastatingly accurate” (157)—Nashe’s denial, coupled with the common printing-house origin of both Groatsworth and Repentance,11 must call Harvey’s accuracy into question. Second, the title page of Greene’s Vision, published sometime in late 1592, claims that this work was “Written at the instant of his death;” its publisher further asserts that “Manie have published repentaunces under his name, but none more unfeigned than this, being everie word of his owne: his own phrase, his own method” (A3). Greene’s Vision is in fact apparently by Robert Greene; however, its composition is datable to 1590 and is therefore far from being Greene’s last words (Carroll, Groatsworth 6). At any rate, this is a third “deathbed” confessional, and one that claims that the other “repentaunces”—Groatsworth and Repentance—are themselves feigned. After these final two comments on Greene’s death, the initial controversy surrounding Groatsworth seemingly died down. In the long run, however, controversy concerning Groatsworth refused to disappear entirely; if anything, in recent times it has burned brighter than ever. Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: Authorship Apart from the 1592–93 controversy, three ensuing controversies have arisen concerning Groatsworth. The first involves, as did the initial controversy, the pamphlet’s authorship; the second concerns the identities of the characters in the letter to the playwrights, especially the identity of the “upstart Crow;” and the third deals with the precise nature of the charges against that upstart Crow. In the case of the first two controversies, some tentative conclusions can be reached; doing so is more difficult in the case of the third. Over the last century, the authorship question of Groatsworth had attracted a great deal of attention. What follows is a brief summary of the various issues involved in this controversy.12 Because of Chettle’s apology, scholars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries tended to take him at his word that Groatsworth was all Greene’s doing (Jowett, “Johannes Factotum” 454). Doubts about Greene’s authorship were 10

I cite R.B. McKerrow’s edition. Harvey’s Four Letters, which contained the letter concerning Greene, when published in December of 1592 was entered in the Stationers’ Register to John Wolfe (Arber ii.623), who was Danter’s co-printer for Groatsworth and Kind-Hart’s Dream (Thomas, “Printing” 196), thereby forming a printing syndicate of sorts connected with almost all of the posthumous Greene material; then again, Nashe’s Strange News was itself printed by Danter (Arber ii.624). Sorting out what happened with all of the posthumous Greene material is a task indeed. 12 For fuller treatments of the authorship issue, see Carroll’s introduction to his edition of Groatsworth; John Jowett’s “Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit” and “Notes on Henry Chettle;” C.E. Sanders’s “Robert Greene and his ‘Editors;’” and Warren B. Austin, A Computer-Aided Technique for Stylistic Discrimination: The Authorship of “Greene’s Groats-worth of Wit.” 11


24

expressed from time to time,13 but were rarely, if ever, actively pursued. Beginning in the early twentieth century, however, serious doubts about Greene’s contributions to Groatsworth were voiced. Although certain favorite themes and motifs of Greene’s, such as the prodigal son and repentance, show up in Groatsworth, and although parts of the pamphlet do have Greene’s style about them (Carroll, Groatsworth 22), a number of important problems and inconsistencies have been pointed out over the years: 1. Serious doubts about Groatsworth’s authenticity were voiced within days of its publication. 2. The biographical information contained in Groatsworth does not square with any of the other available accounts of Greene’s last days. 3. The biographical details in Groatsworth easily could have been derived from other sources; furthermore, certain Groatsworth components are seemingly derived from previous writings of Greene’s. That Greene would repeat himself is plausible enough, but why would he go so far as to derive a new work from previous ones (Jowett, “Notes” 388 and “Johannes Factotum” 463–6; Sanders, “‘Editors’” 397–8; Carroll, Groatsworth 7–12, 22)? 4. “Greene” is inconsistent in regards to his commentary on his health. In the first three quarters of the pamphlet proper, there is no indication at all that he will die, but when he breaks off Roberto’s story and begins talking in the first person, he clearly senses his impending death. But in the epistle preceding the story of Roberto, “Greene” seems to fear he might die. The reader is apparently expected to think “Greene” wrote the epistle before he finished the work, but this was not the usual way of doing things at the time—epistles were written following completion of a work (Sanders, “‘Editors’” 400; Carroll, Groatsworth 9–10). 5. The letter claiming to be from Greene to his wife is of dubious authenticity. In it, “Greene” asks his wife to take into her care the child he has with him; Greene refers to this child as “the fruit of thy wombe” (90). But Harvey’s letter says that Greene recommended his bastard son to his wife. Harvey’s letter seems to be accurate in this regard, in that Harvey claimed the bastard son’s name was “Infortunatus,” and in 1593 a “Fortunatus Greene” was buried in Shoreditch. This being the case, it seems that the letter in Groatsworth is confused as to the details of the situation, which Greene himself ought to have been clear on (Sanders, “‘Editors’” 398; Carroll, Groatsworth 10–11). 6. Besides Groatsworth’s title page, Chettle’s explanation of affairs in Kind-Hart’s Dream is the only insistent claim that Groatsworth is in fact by Greene.14 Chettle, however, does not explain how he came by the manuscript, weakly claims that he was involved in the publication only because Greene’s handwriting was so bad, and even admits to a separate case of forgery. None of this inspires confidence in 13

See Carroll 6, note 17. “B.R.” in Greene’s News Both From Heaven and Hell, entered in Stationers’ Register 3 February 1593 (Arber ii.626), says that Groatsworth was written by Greene, but only in passing; nowhere else is Greene equated with the author of Groatsworth (Carroll, Groatsworth 21). 14


25

Chettle’s own “uprightness of dealing.” No one else seems to have seen Greene’s original manuscript. We are therefore forced to rely on the word of an admitted forger (Jowett, “Notes” 387). 7. Finally, in the Stationers’ Register entry for Groatsworth, publisher William Wright wrote that he was entering the pamphlet “uppon the perill of Henrye Chettle” (Arber ii.620). This curious phrase indicates that from the outset some trouble with the pamphlet was expected (Jowett, “Johannes Factotum” 471). If Groatsworth was genuine, and if Chettle had merely copied the work to make it legible, why would he have been made responsible for any adverse outcome resulting from the document’s publication? Taken together, these various details and observations suggest that Robert Greene was not in fact directly responsible for Groatsworth. At the least, the possibility of forgery must be admitted when these factors are taken into account. The question, then, is who was responsible for the pamphlet if Greene himself was not. Who indeed? It should come as no surprise that the answer to this question, in the opinion of several scholars, has been Henry Chettle.15 The grounds for suspecting Chettle can be quickly laid out: 1. He was suspected of being the source for Groatsworth in his own day, as he himself states in Kind-Hart’s Dream. 2. The Stationers’ Register entry for Groatsworth, while it does not accuse Chettle of writing the work, suggests Chettle had some larger role in the text’s history, over and beyond copying it. 3. Chettle competently imitates Greene’s style in Kind-Hart’s Dream in the passages spoken by the character of Greene’s Ghost (Sanders, “‘Editors’” 401–2; Jowett, “Johannes Factotum” 476–7; Carroll, Groatsworth 18). 4. Chettle had a history of literary mischief, if not fraud. He admits this in KindHart’s Dream, acknowledging that he had written the epistle to Gerileon that had been signed “T.N.,” obviously meant to be taken as “Thomas Nashe.” Moreover, Chettle was involved with the publication of other questionable texts, including the 1597 quarto of Romeo and Juliet (Jowett, “Notes” 387, 518; Carroll, Groatsworth 16–17). 5. Chettle’s denial of culpability in Kind-Hart’s Dream is weak. First, Chettle does not, like Nashe, swear to God that he had nothing to do with the composition of Groatsworth. Second, Chettle, in apologizing to one of the target playwrights, suggestively comments that he (Chettle) is “as sory, as if the originall fault had been my fault” (Carroll, Groatsworth 4–5). Last, Chettle says that while he did write the epistle to Gerileon, it was the printer that added the initials “T.N.” Carroll points out, however, that certain allusions in the Gerileon epistle are clearly meant to make it sound like Nashe’s work (3). Thus, while admitting his

15

For more on Chettle, see Harold Jenkins, The Life and Work of Henry Chettle and John Jowett, “Notes on Henry Chettle.”


26

involvement in Gerileon, Chettle gives a fine demonstration of equivocation. One cannot help but wonder if the same is going on in his denial of involvement in Groatsworth. 6. Various writers at the time testify to the lucrative nature of Greene’s name in the publishing business, as does the proliferation of works referring to Greene after his death (Greene’s Funerals, for example, or Greene’s News Both From Heaven and Hell). Comments made by Chettle in Kind-Hart’s Dream indicate that he was hard up for cash in September of 1592 (Carroll, Groatsworth 12–13; Sanders, “‘Editors’” 394). 7. Besides his own literary mischief, Chettle, in his occupation as a printer, was involved with at least one disreputable character in London printing and publishing: John Danter.16 For Groatsworth, Danter printed half the pamphlet for publisher William Wright (John Wolfe printed the other half). Chettle’s own Kind-Heart’s Dream was printed under exactly the same arrangement. Such an association may say something about Chettle’s character, at least in 1592, and they provided him with an associate capable of fraud. His access to this circle of printers and publishers also would have given him access to the various texts that Groatsworth seems to draw on (Carroll, Groatsworth 14–16; Jowett, “Notes” 385–6 and “Johannes Factotum” 466–75). 8. Finally, a 1969 computer-aided analysis by Warren B. Austin (Computer-Aided Technique) seemingly demonstrates that Groatsworth’s style was closer to Chettle’s than Greene’s. Most other scholars have hesitated to regard Austin’s study as conclusive,17 but most recognize that, in light of the other factors pointing to Chettle’s authorship, Austin’s study strengthens the case that Chettle had a hand in the writing, as well as the printing, of Groatsworth. Taken together, all of these observations make a strong case for Chettle’s authorship. The case may not be conclusive, but it certainly makes Chettle a much more likely culprit than any others who have been suggested as the pamphlet’s author.18 16

Greg describes Danter’s career as “nothing but a record of piracy and secret printing, from the time he infringed his master’s rights during apprenticeship to the time when he disappears in disgrace from the records of the [Stationers’] Company” (Two Elizabethan 130). A more measured assessment of Danter’s career appears in Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book 14–49. 17 R.L. Widman (214–15) and Richard Proudfoot (182–3) both raise objections to Austin’s methodology, but concede that his findings open up reasonable lines of inquiry. Jowett (“Johannes Factotum” 455) and Carroll (Groatsworth 24–6) are more confident about Austin’s findings, but also agree with some of Widman and Proudfoot’s reservations. 18 Recently, Katherine Duncan-Jones has argued that Nashe was responsible for Groatsworth. She argues that Groatsworth’s style is too “memorably brilliant” to have been Chettle’s doing, but fits very well with Nashe’s style; that a passage in the opening epistle to the second edition of Pierce Pennilesse could be interpreted as a half-confession; and that there are parallels between certain themes and passages in Groatsworth and Nashe’s own writings (44–8). Duncan-Jones’s characterization of Chettle as a “journeyman” is open to


27

Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: The “Upstart Crow” It is now possible to return to the controversy of the identity of the figures alluded to in the letter to the playwrights. The heading of the letter makes it clear “Greene” is addressing fellow university-trained playwrights. He addresses three of these writers individually: the “famous gracer of Tragedians” (80) “yong Juvenall” (82) and “S. George” (83). Typically, these writers are identified as Christopher Marlowe, Nashe, and George Peele. The word “gracer” can be read as a pun on “Christopher,” and the accusations “Greene” makes against this writer—that he is an atheist—make the Marlowe identification a near certainty (Carroll, Groatsworth 115–21).19 Because “Greene’s” advice for the “gracer” is so extensive and nasty it has often been assumed that Marlowe was one of the two writers Chettle mentions as having taken offense at the letter. Of the other scholar-playwrights about London, “yong Juvenall” seems to best fit Thomas Nashe, who, like Juvenal, was an accomplished, and young, satirist in 1592 (124–9).20 As for “S. George,” no candidate other than George Peele has ever been proposed. These identifications are not certain, and not everyone agrees on them, but all three are plausible. In warning these playwrights about the allegedly disloyal players, “Greene” warns them of one player in particular: “an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey” (84–5). Controversy has raged around the identification of the “upstart Crow”/”Shake-scene,” and while each of the candidates offered for this identification will be considered in the following discussion, if the passage is properly understood the correct identification is virtually certain. Often times, commentators first make their favorite identification fit the “Shake-scene” allusion and then attempt to make the rest of the passage fit this identification. But “Shake-scene” is clearly the clincher, not the first clue, for “Greene’s” readers. Prior to this allusion, “Greene” gives three crucial pieces of information about this figure:

question, given his later activities (see Chambers, Stage iii.263–4, iv.394). Moreover, her assertion that Groatsworth contains echoes of Nashe’s subject matter and style may simply point to borrowing or mimicry, not a common author. 19 C.E. Sanders is one of the few dissenting voices on this identification, arguing instead that “gracer” is Thomas Watson (“Greene’s Last Years” 489). 20 A number of scholars have argued that “yong Juvenall” is Thomas Lodge. “Greene” does refer to having written “a comedy” with “yong Juvenall;” assuming that the comedy is in fact a play, some have argued that there is no evidence Nashe and Greene ever collaborated, while there is evidence that Lodge and Greene did. However, the main problem is that Lodge was as old as Greene and thus not particularly likely to be referred to as “young.” Moreover, Nashe was apparently known as “young Juvenal” in other circles in his day (Carroll, Groatsworth 123–9).


28

1. He is a player. The “upstart Crow” is clearly connected to the “them” of “Yes trust them not,” which refers to the actors in general. 2. He has turned to playwriting. Some commentators argue “Shake-scene” was merely an actor,21 but the phrasing of the attack makes it clear that the “upstart Crow” is writing plays: he “supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you” (emphasis mine). This portion of the attack makes no sense if the “upstart Crow” is only an actor. Several scholars have argued that “bombast out a blanke verse” refers to bombastic acting (e.g., Chapman 31), but the qualifier “as the best of you” makes no sense in such a context. “The best of you” clearly refers to “Greene’s” addressees, the playwrights, not the actors. The “upstart Crow” is an upstart because he is an actor who has turned to writing plays. 3. The italicized phrase “Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde” is punning on a line from either 3 Henry VI (I, iv, 137) or The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York (B2v line 17). These plays are related, although it is unclear what that relationship is, or which came first.22 Whatever the case, “Greene’s” diatribe connects the “upstart Crow” to this line, suggesting that the player/playwright in question either wrote the line or played the character who speaks it. There are thus three criteria for determining the identity of the “upstart Crow”/ ”Shake-scene.” “Shake-scene” is a fourth criterion: there must be a way this pun fits the player-turned-playwright who is connected to the line from 3 Henry VI/True Tragedy. Rather than beginning with identifying an individual who purportedly fits the “Shake-scene” pun and proceeding to make the other parts of “Greene’s” attack fit that identification, a better way to interpret this passage is to recognize, as Irvin Matus does, that “Shake-scene” “caps” the attack on the player-playwright (67). Whatever their approach, commentators have advanced five candidates as the “upstart Crow”: William Kempe, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Wilson, Edward Alleyn, and of course William Shakespeare. William H. Chapman first suggested William Kempe was the “upstart crow” in 1912. Chapman alleges “Shake-scene” would have meant “dance-scene” in the sixteenth century, a claim for which he offers no evidence (13–14). Accordingly, Chapman says, “Shake-scene” refers to a dancing performance on the stage. In 1592, 21

See Joseph Sobran (35–6); Winifred Frazer (“William Kemp” 140–41); and William H. Chapman (11–37). 22 For more on these issues, see the recent editions of all three Henry VI plays, as well as Yashdip S. Bains, The Contention and The True Tragedy; Robert E. Burkhart, Shakespeare‘s Bad Quartos; Kathleen O. Irace, Reforming the “Bad” Quartos; Laurie E. Maguire, Shakespearean Suspect Texts; Grace Ioppolo, Revising Shakespeare; Steven Urkowitz, “Good News about ‘Bad’ Quartos” and “If I Mistake in Those Foundations Which I Build Upon;” Randall Martin, “The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and 3 Henry VI: Report and Revision;” Roger Warren, “The Quarto and Folio Texts of 2 Henry VI: A Reconsideration,” and Hardin Craig, A New Look At Shakespeare’s Quartos, among others.


29

one actor would have particularly fit this bill: William Kempe, the clown also famous for his morris-dancing. Chapman claims that Kempe was boastful and arrogant, a “personification of what Greene found detestable” (15). Chapman points to the publication of Nine Days Wonder as evidence that Kempe wrote plays (16). In addition to these points, Winifred Frazer notes that a ballad called “The Crow Sits Upon the Wall” was attributed to Richard Tarlton, the leading clown of his era. This ballad, she says, “no doubt resulted in some crow-like pantomime and jigging” (“William Kemp” 140). Following Tarlton’s death in 1588, Kempe became the most famous clown on stage, and thus could be called an “upstart Crow” (141). Eager to discredit another candidate, Frazer argues that, since Shakespeare’s name had not appeared in print in 1592, he could not have been the target of “Greene’s” attack; Kempe, on the other hand, was well known at the time and complaints about him “may have been commonplace” (141). Frazer insists that the attack is on an actor, not a playwright, and that since Shakespeare was supposedly “gentle” and “honey-tongued” he cannot, as an actor, have been the sort “Greene” singles out (140–41). Frazer’s reasoning for dismissing Shakespeare’s candidacy is problematic. The fact Shakespeare’s name had not appeared in print by 1592 does not disqualify him from being Greene’s target, nor does it mean “Greene’s” readers would have failed to understand the attack. Similarly, the adjectives “honey-tongued” and “gentle,” regardless of their accuracy, refer to Shakespeare as a writer and human being, respectively, not an actor, so they are not evidence for dismissing Shakespeare’s candidacy (Honigmann, Impact 14–21).23 Frazer also misunderstands “Greene’s” attack. She correctly notes that ideally, for Greene, “there is no crossing of the line between actors and playwrights” (140). But the point of the attack is that an actor has crossed the line. Frazer, accordingly, misses the reason behind the attack. As for Kempe, his candidacy does not live up to the first three criteria for the “upstart Crow.” Nine Days Wonder, published in 1600, is the only evidence of Kempe’s writing ambitions, unless one counts the “merriments” scene designated in the title of A Knack to Know a Knave, with Kempe’s Applauded Merriments (1592).24 Besides being written too late to attract Greene’s wrath, this body of work suggests Kempe was a dabbler in playwriting, not an actor trying to compete with the University Wits. Finally, the Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde allusion makes little sense if Kempe is the target, as the the line is spoken by York, a serious role Kempe is unlikely to have played. Thus, Kempe fails on two of three necessary counts to be the target of the “upstart Crow” passage. In 1927, C.E. Sanders suggested that Christopher Marlowe was the “upstart Crow.” Sanders’s main concern is that Greene attacked Marlowe several times in 23

Meres (1598) describes Shakespeare as “hony-tongued” in regards to his sonnets; R. Barnfield refers to Shakespeare’s “hony-flowing Vaine” as evidenced in Venus and Adonis and Lucretia (Honigmann, Impact 15); the first references to Shakespeare as “gentle” are in the two poems Ben Jonson contributed to the First Folio, several years after Shakespeare’s death (16). 24 For more on A Knack to Know a Knave, see Chapter 8.


30

print between 1587 and 1591, and the two, Sanders contends, never reconciled. Accordingly, Sanders says, it is unlikely Marlowe is one of the three playwrights addressed in the Groatsworth letter. Instead, Sanders offers Marlowe as the “upstart Crow,” arguing there are ways in which the allusions in that passage could fit Marlowe (“Greene’s Last Years” 489). Unfortunately, Sanders’s supposition is flawed in several ways. The writers addressed in Groatsworth are not friends of Greene’s, but acquaintances with similar credentials and occupations. Thus, enmity between Greene and Marlowe does not disqualify Marlowe as the “gracer of Tragedians,” an identification which has a great deal of merit. More importantly, Marlowe fails the first qualification for being “Greene’s” target: there is no evidence he was ever an actor. If he wasn’t an actor, he could not have been the “upstart Crow,” even if some connection to 3 Henry VI/True Tragedy could be demonstrated.25 Like Marlowe, Robert Wilson, suggested as an “upstart Crow” candidate by William Chapman, also fails to meet one of the three criteria for the “upstart Crow.” Although, as Chapman notes, Wilson was an actor turned dramatist, and also was an enemy of Greene’s (25–7), there is no evidence to connect Wilson to 3 Henry VI or True Tragedy as either writer or actor. Moreover, Wilson was acting already in 1572, was writing plays by about 1579, and had a play published as early as 1584 (Chambers, Stage ii.349). He was thus hardly an “upstart” in 1592, and in any case he had been active in the theatre for over a decade before Greene came on the scene, so even if they were enemies, terming Wilson an “upstart” wouldn’t make sense. In recent years, two commentators have concluded Edward Alleyn was the “upstart Crow” attacked by “Greene.” Jay Hoster argues the “Shake-scene” pun best fits Alleyn, whose acting style was so physical that he once cracked some stage boards—a literal Shake-scene, in other words. Hoster also suggests that Alleyn may very well have played the role of York in 3 Henry VI or True Tragedy, thereby solving the allusion problem (Sobran 34). None of this has any merit, of course, unless Alleyn wrote plays. Such is the contention of A.D. Wraight, who correctly realizes that the “upstart Crow” is not just an actor. Unfortunately, Wraight first identifies Alleyn as the “upstart Crow” and only then looks for other evidence that Alleyn wrote plays. Wraight links Alleyn to the “upstart Crow” by assuming Greene was the author of Groatsworth and Repentance. As such, she accepts both as valid sources of biographical information on Greene’s life (130–31, 136–41). She also argues that all references and accusations to players in Greene’s supposed writings are linked. By combining disparate disparaging mentions of players in Greene’s body of work, Wraight concludes Greene had an ongoing battle with Edward Alleyn, the leading actor of the day (142–3; 163–4). Like Hoster, Wraight asserts “Shakescene” applies to Alleyn since the phrase “was a commonly used term descriptive of a great Elizabethan actor’s performance” (134–5). Moreover, she says the Johannes fac totum line perfectly describes Alleyn, who did quite a few things besides acting, 25

Although such theories fell into disfavor many decades ago, it is worth noting that Marlowe has often been listed as one of several possible collaborators on True Tragedy.


31

as his surviving papers demonstrate (190). Since Alleyn fits the rest of the parts of the “upstart Crow” attack to Wraight’s satisfaction, she assumes he must also fit the player-turned-playwright charge, and she goes on to identify a small dramatic corpus for Alleyn.26 The argument for Alleyn as the “upstart Crow” relies on several questionable assumptions. Wraight accepts without question that Groatsworth and Repentance are autobiographical documents written by Greene himself, and thus fails to consider the differences between the two documents, as well as the fact Greene may not have been involved in the writing of both or either text. Wraight’s belief that all of Greene’s alleged autobiographical writings combine to paint a coherent picture of the “upstart Crow” also is unsupported by evidence. Still more problematic is the fact that Wraight’s basis for thinking that Alleyn was a playwright rests on Alleyn’s identification as the “upstart Crow,” a clear case of circular reasoning. If these assumptions are set aside, Alleyn’s identification as the “upstart Crow” has no merit, mainly because there is no evidence Alleyn ever tried to write plays. This is particularly problematic in light of the fact that many of Alleyn’s personal papers survive. If he had written plays, surely some evidence of this fact would be included in his papers. Moreover, while Alleyn may have acted in 3 Henry VI/True Tragedy,27 there is no definite proof that he did. Thus, Alleyn fails to meet two of the three “upstart Crow” criteria. In contrast to Kempe, Marlowe, Wilson, and Alleyn, Shakespeare does fit all three criteria. He was an actor, as numerous documents attest to. He obviously was a playwright, and the first of his plays was published (not written) in 1594 (Titus Andronicus). And he is connected with 3 Henry VI, having, of course, written it.28 As we shall see momentarily, he was probably an emerging playwright in 1592, so the epithet “upstart” is appropriate. “Shake-scene,” Greene’s clincher, is thus a pun on Shakespeare’s name, similar, as Carroll observes, to the “shake a stage” pun used in Ben Jonson’s encomium to Shakespeare (“Upstart Crow” 151). As for Johannes fac totum (“would-be universal genius,” “one who meddles with everything,” or “Jack of all trades”—Groatsworth 138–39), it could refer to the “upstart Crow’s” 26

This alleged Alleyn corpus includes the play Faire Em (190–99, 219–28), A Knack to Know an Honest Man (220–29), and certain scenes from 1 Henry VI (266–76). 27 One should note, however, that York, the character who speaks the “Tiger’s heart” line and the character that Hoster and Wraight assert Alleyn played, dies before the end of Act I in 3 Henry VI; one assumes audiences of the day paying to see Alleyn would be severely disappointed with the lead actor dying so early in the play (unless Alleyn doubled as another role later in the play). 28 As Shakespeare is the only candidate who fits all the criteria of this argument, and since he can be linked to 3 Henry VI but not necessarily to True Tragedy, it would seem “Greene” is referring to 3 Henry VI here. Then again, Shakespeare probably also had some sort of involvement with True Tragedy, since it is so closely connected to 3 Henry VI. See Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion of why Shakespeare cannot necessarily be linked to True Tragedy.


32

general attitude; it might signal that he both acted and wrote; or it may mean he filled a number of functions around the theatre. Any of these could plausibly apply to Shakespeare: he may have thought highly of himself (he would later acquire a coat of arms), he clearly was both an actor and a playwright, and since nothing is known of his daily London activities, it is possible he did other things besides act and write. Objections to Shakespeare as the “upstart Crow” will doubtlessly continue, but it is also doubtless that the case for Shakespeare being “Greene’s” target is far stronger than that of any other “upstart Crow” candidate. In sum, the case for Shakespeare is more plausible than any other possibility; it is, in fact, probable. In this matter, as in all of the other issues and problems that this study will take up, basic criteria of historical evidence and argument, as laid out by scholars such as Louis Gottschalk, will guide this investigation. In order to ascertain verifiable facts, the documents must be tested for authenticity; they must also be assessed for the credibility of all information and statements; in turn, all possible facts must be challenged according to established principles and guidelines for examining and analyzing records, sources, and documents (27–8, 52). Furthermore, each piece of evidence will be scrutinized to ensure that any arguments based on it safely rest on “credible particulars” (52) extrapolated from that piece of evidence. These particulars must be able to be verified by other evidence. As Marc Bloch says, historians “have no right to make any assertion which cannot be verified” (73), and usable evidence must “show a certain correspondence to the allied evidences (100). Moreover, because documents “will speak only when they are properly questioned” (53), this study will endeavor to find, and then ask, the proper questions of given documents or ostensible evidence. Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: The Charges Against Shakespeare The final controversy surrounding Groatsworth has to do with the nature of the attack on the “upstart Crow,” who can now safely be identified as Shakespeare. What precisely is “Greene” driving at by calling Shakespeare “an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers?“ Scholarly opinion has been split on this point between plagiarism and pride. In 1787, soon after Groatsworth had been brought to scholarly attention as an allusion of Shakespeare,29 Edmond Malone asserted that “Greene” was accusing Shakespeare of plagiarism: [Greene] therefore, in direct terms, charges [Shakespeare] with having acted like the crow in the fable, beautified himself with their feathers; in other words, with having acquired fame furtivis coloribus, by new-modelling a work originally produced by them, and wishing to depreciate our author, he very naturally quotes a line from one of the pieces which Shakespeare had thus re-written. (Carroll, Groatsworth 132)

29

The allusion was discovered by Thomas Tyrwhitt and published in the 1778 SteevensJohnson edition of Shakespeare (Carroll 132).


33

Malone’s evidence for this assertion are the plays The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, which are shorter treatments of the same events in Shakespeare’s 2 and 3 Henry VI. Groatsworth, in Malone’s opinion, confirms that Shakespeare revised the shorter Contention and True Tragedy, apparently written by Greene or/and his circle, into 2 and 3 Henry VI. Malone further observed that the word “bombast” could mean “to amplify and swell out,” which would additionally fit the theory that Shakespeare was expanding the older, shorter plays into longer versions. “Greene’s” anger comes from the fact that the fame of Shakespeare and his revised versions has rivaled, if not surpassed, that of the “originals.” (Carroll, Groatsworth 132). Based on this reading, numerous scholars have constructed a narrative whereby Shakespeare’s early dramatic work was that of a “play-patcher” who fixed up and rewrote the plays the work of other playwrights. This theory, that Groatsworth’s attack on Shakespeare was an accusation of plagiarism, remained the scholarly consensus for more than a century, although there were a handful of dissenters.30 Scholarly opinion took another direction in the 1920s and 1930s when Peter Alexander demonstrated, to most everyone’s satisfaction at the time, that Contention and The True Tragedy were in fact derived from 2 and 3 Henry VI (Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III). As such, “Greene’s” complaint must have been was about something other than plagiarism. Accordingly, Alexander suggests that “Greene” is accusing Shakespeare, a mere player, of being audacious enough to think himself as able a playwright as the University Wits (39–50). In other words, as Richard Dutton suggests, “Greene” is accusing Shakespeare not of plagiarism, but of “aping his betters and sharing in the general ingratitude of the players towards the writer” (Literary Life 19). Since Alexander, most scholars have tended to agree with the charge of pride rather than plagiarism (Carroll 131–2). In 1955, however, J. Dover Wilson argued that a charge of plagiarism against Shakespeare could still be supported on two grounds. First of all, Wilson considers Chettle’s apology in Kind-Hart’s Dream to one of the two parties that had taken offense at the Groatsworth letter. Like many others, Wilson assumes that Chettle is apologizing to Shakespeare. Wilson notes that Chettle’s apology is profuse, speaks to the offended individual’s “honesty” and “uprightness of dealing,” and refers to “diverse of worship” having come to the offended party’s aid. If “Greene” simply attacked Shakespeare for having been an actor-turned-playwright, why, Wilson asks, would “divers of worship” have felt the need to come to Shakespeare’s aid? Wilson answers that the charge was, in fact, the much harsher accusation of plagiarism (“Malone” 58–62). Wilson tries to support this assertion by noting classical allusions linking crows and plagiarism. After Alexander, scholars had assumed the “upstart Crow” referred to an Aesopian fable wherein a crow is guilty of undeserved pride (Carroll, Groatsworth 135). Wilson, though, argues that “Greene” had Horace’s crow in mind (third Epistle I.iii.9–20), which does carry connotations of plagiarism 30

Dissenters included Charles Knight in 1843, Thomas Kenny in 1864, Richard Simpson in 1874, and C.F. Tucker Brooke in 1912 (Carroll, Groatsworth 133).


34

(“Malone” 64–5). Further, Wilson notes that lines 5–6 (C1) in the ninth sonnet of Greene’s Funerals (published 1594), seem to connect feathers and plagiarism: “Nay more the men, that so Eclipst his fame:/Purloynde his Plumes, can they deny the same?” (63). Since Wilson’s article, most arguments concerning “Greene’s” accusations have either challenged Wilson’s understanding of the charge contained in the Greene’s Funerals passage (Austin, “Supposed” 377) or noted other “crow” allusions that support either the Aesopian or Horacian understanding of the “upstart Crow” passage.31 It may not be possible to figure out precisely which crow “Greene” had in mind, however, because, as Wilson himself observes, “crow” allusions of the era suggest that the crows of Aesop and Horace were related in the minds of many writers and readers of Shakespeare’s day (“Malone” 65).32 While the exact nature of “Greene’s” accusations may be indecipherable given present evidence, it should be noted that Wilson’s “pro-plagiarism” argument depends largely on the assumption Chettle was in fact apologizing to Shakespeare in KindHart’s Dream. Lukas Erne has recently challenged this assumption by observing that Chettle explicitly states that it was two of the writers “Greene” addressed in the “upstart Crow” passage were the offended parties. But Shakespeare was not one of the writers; he was the individual “Greene” warned the writers about. Moreover, Chettle linked the offended parties with “schollers.” Shakespeare, however, was never referred to as a scholar in his own day, and given Elizabethan preoccupations with social distinctions, it is thus difficult to believe Chettle refers to Shakespeare in his apology (432–4). If Chettle was not apologizing to Shakespeare, a number of claims about Shakespeare’s early life and personality are called into question. Chettle’s supposed apology to Shakespeare has been used as evidence for Shakespeare’s level of education, refinement, gentlemanliness (Kay 167), honesty and uprightness of dealing (Schoenbaum, Compact 156–7), writing talent (Adams 142), artistry, charm, and polite nature (J. Dover Wilson, Essential 48), gracefulness in his art and life (Wood 146), acting ability (Fraser 168), good breeding (Honigmann, Impact 21), urbanity and social polish (Wells, All Time 50), civility and elegance (Bate, Genius 18), tendency to dress well, integrity and courtesy (I. Wilson 127), level of respect and admiration among his peers as well as “divers of worship” (Wells, All Time 50), and, of course, gentleness (Adams 142). Chettle’s apology would seem to be one more piece of evidence for Shakespeare’s biography which has been handled according to wishful sentiment. But in allowing sentiment to guide historical inquiry, the actual available evidence for Shakespeare’s biography is either displaced or exaggerated (Dutton, Literary Life 1–3). At any rate, Erne’s observations more immediately undermine Wilson’s assertion that Chettle’s apology signals “Greene’s” charges involved something more than pride: if Shakespeare was not addressed in Chettle’s 31

See, for instance, H.P. Smith, Arthur Freeman (“Notes”), Peter Berek, David Chandler. Schoenbaum makes the same observation in William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (116–17). David Chandler has suggested that “Greene” may have also had Pliny’s crow in mind; Pliny’s crow seems to refer specifically to “the proud assumption of a superior station, or social milieu, to justify and mask a humble background” (294). If Chandler is correct, this would seem to strengthen Alexander’s case and weaken Wilson’s. 32


35

apology, Chettle sheds no light on the significance of “Greene’s” attacks. Wilson’s argument—and indeed the entire controversy over the charges against the “upstart Crow”—is thus reduced to quibbling interpretations of which “crow” (if indeed it is just one crow) “Greene” is invoking. Some have wondered if Shakespeare’s works respond to “Greene’s” accusations. If so, Shakespeare’s position as the “upstart Crow” would be strengthened and perhaps something about the nature of the charges, as well as Shakespeare’s early London career, would be revealed. Muriel Bradbrook claims Venus and Adonis was an indirect response to “Greene,” in that it allowed Shakespeare to prove he was just as talented as the university-educated playwrights (“Beasts and Gods” 68–71). Robert Fliessner suggests Polonius’s comment in Hamlet II, ii, 111–12 that “‘beautified’ is a vile phrase” refers to Groatsworth, since “beautified” is of course not a phrase and Shakespeare has no reason, metrical or otherwise, for choosing “phrase” over “word;” perhaps Shakespeare is hinting at a larger context for the use of the word “beautified,” namely “Greene’s” attack on the “upstart Crow” (145). Maureen Godman suggests that Comedy of Errors contains a subtle response to “Greene’s” attack in the repeated use of the word “crow” in the comic banter between Antipholus and Dromio of Ephesus in III, ii (58–60). And Greenblatt asserts that the character of Falstaff is an oblique parody of Robert Greene (215–25). Of course, all of these conjectures are possibilities put forward without any supporting evidence. They are literary interpretations, not historical inquiry and analysis. Gary Taylor’s suggestion that Shakespeare’s tendency to avoid collaboration may have something to do with “Greene’s” attack at least rests on quantifiable facts: as near as Shakespeare’s plays can be dated, it seems that those written before September of 1592 exhibit a degree of collaboration, while those after 1592 don’t (“Shakespeare and Others” 186). Correlation, however, has never proved causation. All of these speculations also overlook the possibility that Shakespeare’s response was that most devastating response to satire: silence. Dating Shakespeare’s Early Plays Between Pierce Pennilesse and Groatsworth, it is possible to set down a few important details of Shakespeare’s career. First, Groatsworth proves that Shakespeare, after having been an actor for a time, was a playwright of at least some note by September of 1592. Second, Groatsworth proves that either 3 Henry VI or The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York had been written by 1592, and that Shakespeare was connected, presumably as author, to whichever play Greene had in mind. Third, Pierce Pennilesse seemingly demonstrates that 1 Henry VI had also been written by August of 1592. 3 Henry VI is clearly a sequel to 2 Henry VI, just as The First Part of the Contention is a sequel to The True Tragedy, so 2 Henry VI or Contention (or both) must also have existed by September of 1592.33 So by the time of the 1592 attack, Shakespeare 33

See note 22 above for more on the relationship between 2, 3 Henry VI and Contention and True Tragedy.

36


had written at least three plays (although the order they were written in is far from certain).34 Furthermore, since the playhouses were closed in late June of 1592 and not reopened until December of that year, all three of these plays must have been written (and presumably performed) before mid-1592. Philip Henslowe’s Diary records several successful performances of a play called “harey the vj” from March 1592 until January 1593 (Foakes 16–20); this may have been one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays, though there is no way to be certain.35 It is unlikely (although possible) that Shakespeare wrote all three of the Henry VI plays in a matter of only a few months, so we can reasonably assert that he started writing plays no later than 1591, perhaps earlier. Because the plays were written especially for the London stage,36 it would presumably have been necessary for Shakespeare to become familiar with that stage before commencing his writing career, so we can reasonably push his arrival in London back to 1590 or even 1589. What else happened between Shakespeare’s arrival in London, whatever the date, and “Greene’s” attack is a matter of pure speculation. Predictably, however, biographers have dealt with the lack of evidence by turning to anecdotes. One anecdotal tradition, apparently originated by William Davenant, embellished by Samuel Johnson, and accepted by Sidney Lee, holds that Shakespeare, upon arriving in London, found his first theatrical employment by taking care of audience members’ horses during the performances (Lee 45–6; Schoenbaum, Lives 75–6). Another anecdotal tradition, first recorded by Nicholas Rowe and again repeated by Lee and others, asserts that Shakespeare’s first London job was “a very mean rank” in an acting company (Lee 46); Malone records the more detailed tradition, accepted by Lee and Sams, among others, that this “mean rank” was that of stage prompter (Lee 46; Sams 56–7; Schoenbaum, Lives 75). Some biographers, such as Michael Wood, have gone so far as to assert that Shakespeare began his backstage work for James Burbage at the Theatre (108–9). A third anecdotal tradition, already commented on, is that Shakespeare found work in London as a “play patcher” who revised the work of other playwrights. This tradition has been accepted by, among other biographers, Edmond Malone (Schoenbaum, Lives 121), Sidney Lee (99), J.Q. Adams (134–7), and more recently Peter Levi (39). Some traces of Shakespeare’s activities between Groatsworth and his first definite connection with the Lord Chamberlain’s Men at the end of 1594 also survive. 34 There is evidence that 1 Henry VI is a prequel to 2, 3 Henry VI, but not all scholars find that evidence convincing. For more on the issue of the order of composition of the Henry VI plays, see the studies listed in note 22. 35 For a more detailed discussion of “harey the vj,” see Chapter 6. 36 This, at least, is the usual assumption. Consider, for instance, Gurr’s comments in The Shakespearean Stage: “Except for the occasional university student like Jasper Mayne, or the amateur satirist of Hog Hath Lost His Pearl, writing for a group of apprentices, no poet wrote with anything but the London companies in mind” (6), or again, “the only place where a play could be profitably marketed was with the companies working in London” (6–7). There has not, to my knowledge, been any concerted challenge to this assumption.


37

He wrote Venus and Adonis during 1592 or 1593 (it was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 18 April 1593—Arber ii.630). These were years during which London theatres were often closed due to plague. Soon after Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare wrote The Rape of Lucrece (entered in the Stationers’ Register on 9 May 1594— Arber ii.648). He also had written Titus Andronicus by 6 February 1594 (Arber ii.644). Henslowe records performances of a play by this name, presumably Shakespeare’s, in early 1594 by Sussex’s Men (Foakes 21); the title-page of the published version lists Sussex’s as the third company to perform the play (Derby’s and Pembroke’s being the other two—Chambers, Stage iv.383), so unless the titlepage is referring to a joint performance by all three companies, as David George suggests in “Shakespeare and Pembroke’s Men,” Titus Andronicus would seem to have had a stage life before Sussex’s 1594 performance. A vague reference in Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair (1614) states that the judgment of anyone who would number “Andronicus”—presumably Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus—would have “stood still, these five and twentie, or thirtie yeeres” (8). If correct, this statement could date the play to 1589 or earlier. There is no agreement on the accuracy or validity of this statement,37 but it at least opens the possibility that Shakespeare had arrived in London as early as 1587 or 1588. A play called The Taming of A Shrew was also published in 1594 (entered in Stationers’ Register 2 May—Arber ii.648), but the relationship of this text to Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew is unclear.38 It is therefore unsafe to regard the existence of A Shrew as absolute proof of the existence of The Shrew. While there is definite proof that Shakespeare had written all three Henry VI plays as well as Titus Andronicus and his two narrative poems by the time he joined the Chamberlain’s Men in 1594, it is much less clear when these plays were written. Opinions on this topic vary considerably. 1 Henry VI has been variously dated to 1588 (Honigmann), 1589–91 (Hattaway), 1591 (Sokol), 1591–92 (Chambers), and 1592 (Michael Taylor, Wells and Taylor, Burns); 2 Henry VI to 1589 (Honigmann), 1590 (Knowles), 1589–91 (Hattaway), 1590–91 (Chambers), 1591 (Wells and Taylor), and 1591–92 (Warren); 3 Henry VI to 1590 (Honigmann), 1590–91 (Chambers), 1591 (Wells and Taylor), 1590–92 (Martin), 1592 (Hattaway), and by 1592 (Cox and Rasmussen); and Titus Andronicus to 1586 (Honigmann), 1588 with a 1592 revision (Hughes), 1589 (Metz), 1592 (Wells and Taylor, Waith), and 1593–94 (Chambers, Bate). Besides these four plays that must have been written before Shakespeare joined the Chamberlain’s Men in 1594, various scholars have assigned several other plays, including Richard III, Comedy of Errors, Taming of the Shrew, Two Gentlemen of 37

See, for instance, Sidney Thomas’s “On the Dating of Shakespeare’s Early Plays,” his assessment of Honigmann’s “early start” chronology (especially 192). 38 Nearly any edition of Taming of the Shrew will include a discussion of the A Shrew/ The Shrew relationship. For some recent discussions of this issue, see Ann Thompson, ed., The Taming of the Shrew; H.J. Oliver, ed., The Taming of the Shrew; Elizabeth Shafer, ed., The Taming of The Shrew; and Laurie E. Maguire, Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The ‘bad‘ quartos and their contexts, among others.


38

Verona, King John, Romeo and Juliet, and Love’s Labour’s Lost to the period before Shakespeare became aligned with the Chamberlain’s Men. Of these, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Richard III, and Taming of the Shrew may have been written before 1594, according to most recent estimates.39 Many scholars, though not all, assert that, of the other four plays, Comedy of Errors belongs to Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s days; some scholars believe King John and Romeo and Juliet similarly were preChamberlain’s plays, although most favor a later date; and Honigmann is virtually alone in thinking Love’s Labour’s Lost was written before 1594–95.40 The reasons for these various datings are complex; it is sufficient to observe that even the most cautious scholars think that Shakespeare was writing plays by 1590. Although the scholars that believe unequivocally that Shakespeare was writing by the late 1580s are a decided minority, there are enough of them (Hongimann, Schlueter, Morris, Shafer, and Ros King, among others) that the possibility must at least be considered. Even among this minority, few insist that Shakespeare began writing plays before 1588 (Honigmann being the most vocal exception). Accordingly, Shakespeare’s arrival in London, assuming it corresponds roughly to the commencement of his playwriting career, cannot safely be dated to much before 1587 or 1588, although an earlier arrival certainly remains a possibility, though perhaps not a strong one. Based upon the temporal benchmarks of Shakespeare’s Stratford years, the allusions in Pierce Pennilesse and Groatsworth, and surviving playtexts, we can derive the following framework for his “lost years.” He may have left Stratford as early as the late 1570s, although he did need to pay his hometown occasional visits to start his family in the early 1580s. Sometime in the later 1580s, perhaps 1587 or 1588, he probably arrived in London. He may have started writing plays immediately, and certainly was doing so by 1590–1591. By 1592, he had emerged as a sufficiently prominent dramatist to draw the wrath of “Greene,” and had written all three of the Henry VI plays. Between 1592 and 1594, he wrote two long poems, which won him additional literary fame, and he must have written Titus Andronicus by 1594, when it was published. Although definite evidence is not forthcoming, most scholars agree that Shakespeare had also written Two Gentlemen of Verona, Richard III, and Taming of the Shrew by 1594; he may also have written Comedy of Errors, King John, 39

Two Gentlemen of Verona: 1587 (Honigmann), late 1580s (Schlueter), 1590–91 (Wells and Taylor), 1594–95 (Chambers); Taming of the Shrew: 1588 (Honigmann), 1589 (Morris), 1590–91 (Wells and Taylor), 1591–92 (Thompson), no later than 1592 (Oliver, Shafer), 1593– 94 (Chambers); Richard III: 1590 (Honigmann), 1591–92 (Jowett), 1592–93 (Chambers, Wells and Taylor, Lull). 40 Comedy of Errors: 1589 (Honigmann), 1590 revision of a late 1580s text (Ros King), 1592–93 (Chambers), 1594 (Wells and Taylor), late 1594 (Whitworth); King John: before 1591 (Beaurline), 1591 (Honigmann), 1595–96 (Braunmuller), 1596 (Wells and Taylor), 1596–97 (Chambers); Romeo and Juliet: 1591 (Honigmann), 1593–95 (Levenson), 1594– 95 (Chambers), 1595 (Wells and Taylor), 1596, although before 1594 is plausible as well (Evans); Love’s Labour’s Lost: 1592 (Honigmann), 1594–95 (Chambers, Wells and Taylor, Pendergast), 1594–96 (Hibbard).


39

Romeo and Juliet, and Love’s Labour’s Lost before joining the Chamberlain’s Men, although once again there is neither definite evidence nor scholarly consensus for when they were written. Some of the Sonnets may also have been written before 1594.41 The Lord Chamberlain’s Men formed by 3 June 1594; Shakespeare may already have been in the company at that time, although he is not definitely connected with it until he appears as a court payee for Chamberlain’s performances on 26 and 28 December 1594 (Chambers, Stage iv.164). And thus this study’s chronological framework has been established. What now remains to be seen is how various scholars have filled the gaps in Shakespeare’s theatrical life between the late 1570s and 1594. Before this is possible, however, it is necessary to investigate in more detail the theatrical circumstances and conditions of this era, both inside and outside London. Shakespeare’s biography cannot be fully discussed without an examination of these contexts, and many arguments about Shakespeare’s pre-1594 whereabouts are closely intertwined with—or unsupported by—what is known of Elizabethan theatrical conditions. But, as with Shakespeare’s biographical details, taking stock of these circumstances involves sorting through speculations, conjectures, and failures on the part of many scholars to distinguish between possibility, plausibility, probability, and fact.

41 Schoenbaum, Compact 180, briefly discusses dating the sonnets and the attendant problems. Stephen Booth notes that versions of two sonnets appeared in 1599 as part of the Passionate Pilgrim. Besides this, the only evidence for the date of the sonnets is the 1609 publication of all of them in quarto form. In 1598 Francis Meres mentioned Shakespeare’s “sugred Sonnets among his private friends;” Booth says that this “testifies to nothing except that Meres knew of some Shakespeare sonnets by 1598; whether he referred to all or any of the sonnets in Q is a matter of pure guesswork. The same is true of all efforts to date some or all of the sonnets by internal details, by their style, by their subject matter, or by biographical speculation” (545). As an example, Booth invokes Martin Seymour-Smith’s commentary on Sonnet 107: “There is no doubt that this sonnet contains a specific [biographical] reference; the difficulty lies in discovering it ... There is a theory from almost every year, from 1588 to 1609” offered by the likes of Hotson, Butler, Chambers, and Harrison (342–3).


PART 2 Theatrical Contexts


Chapter 3

Provincial Playing, c. 1577–1588

To this point, we have seen that Shakespeare could have left Stratford by the late 1570s at the earliest, and that he quite plausibly arrived in London between 1588 and 1590. Many biographers propose Shakespeare joined a playing company in the provinces at some point during the intervening years. It is therefore necessary to consider the provincial playing conditions he would have encountered and to set out what is known about provincial activity between about 1577 and 1588. Usually, these years are associated with the rise of London commercial theatre, The Theatre (and perhaps Newington Butts) having opened in 1576, The Curtain in 1577, and The Rose in 1587. As such, this period has often been characterized as the beginning of the end of provincial playing, a time when companies wanted to center their activities in London and toured only when forced to by plague or other playing inhibitions (Bentley, Profession 178).1 According to this view, touring, while still a necessity even for London companies, was an uncomfortable, dirty, grueling, and not especially rewarding activity undertaken only to offset London misfortunes (Chambers, Stage ii.6; Bentley, Profession 178–9). Proponents of this view, like G.E. Bentley, point to declining touring records in the 1590s and complaints from playing companies and dramatists as evidence of the undesirability of touring (Profession 180–84). In the words of a petition made by Lord Strange’s Men in or about 1593, traveling was “intolerable ... and the continuance thereof will be a mean to bring us to division and separation whereby we shall ... be undone” (183). Although negative views of touring long held sway—Bentley repeated this view in his 1984 The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time—such perceptions of provincial playing have been increasingly challenged since the mid-1970s. It is still common to run across references to touring as undesirable or unprofitable, but there is a growing scholarly consensus that playing companies—London and otherwise— regarded touring as the norm, not a last resort, throughout the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century, well after the emergence of London commercial playing. Siobahn Keenan notes that even when companies “had access to permanent, purposebuilt theatres and larger audiences” London boasted, they nevertheless “continued to travel the country on a regular basis” (2). Indeed, it would seem, as Andrew Gurr states, that “Travelling dictated all the early playing practices” (Companies 36). According to this revised view of traveling, the period between 1577 and 1588 1

Following the lead of E.K. Chambers, many scholars have focused exclusively on companies that played in London, ignoring those whose ambitions may have lain elsewhere (see Stage vol. ii).


44

was at or near the apex of the era of traveling playing companies in England. True, London was emerging as a theatrical center, but it was not until a few years later, in the early 1590s, that playing companies began to see London as a “home base.” Instead, London was one touring stop among many, albeit the most important, and potentially most lucrative (McMillin and MacLean 5–7). Even when companies began to think of London as their base, traveling was “the guiding principle” among playing companies until the early 1600s; a company playing in London was not a “London company,” but rather a traveling company with the good fortune to play in London for a time (Gurr, Companies 36, 44). Traveling may have had its difficulties, but it was a practice all companies viewed as an integral part of their activities and which, Barbara Palmer argues, “clearly contributed to professional practices and to the maintenance of competitive professional standards” (291). This change in perception of traveling has been a direct result of the efforts of the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project, based at the University of Toronto. This project has dispatched scholars to each town and county in England and Wales with the goal of combing all surviving records for items pertaining to playing up until 1642. As of 2007, the project has published 19 volumes, with more to come. Thanks to REED, scholars have been able to construct revised, much fuller accounts of provincial playing. An increasing number of articles are now available regarding traveling practices,2 and several book-length, or chapter-length, studies of provincial playing are now available which give a fuller and fairer treatment of touring than earlier studies.3 The evidence for provincial playing comes from diverse and disparate sources. These sources are often incomplete, but thanks to REED there is sufficient evidence to allow for a cautious filling of many of these gaps. The largest body of evidence for provincial playing consists of various sorts of payments made to visiting playing companies which are found in town, church, and noble household accounts. Usually little is recorded besides a given company’s name, the year of its visit, and the payment awarded it. Sometimes the specific date of the visit might be noted, and on occasion other information, such as the number of players in a given company, might be provided; just as often the information might be less detailed, failing to name even the company’s patron. On the whole, household accounts tend to be slightly more detailed than town accounts, since many households kept weekly

2

For example, MacLean, “The Players on Tour: New Evidence from Records of Early English Drama” (1988); Ingram, “The Costs of Touring” (1993); Somerset, “‘How Chances it They Travel?’: Provincial Touring, Playing Places and the King’s Men” (1994); Greenfield, “Touring” (1997). 3 Bradley, From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre (1992); Gurr, The Shakespearean Playing Companies (1996); McMillin and MacLean, The Queen’s Men and Their Plays, 1583–1603 (1998); Keenan, Travelling Players in Shakespeare’s England (2002).


45

records,4 but even here the information is often incomplete. If a particular visit of a touring company was exceptional or controversial in some way, other records of the visit might survive. For instance, an individual was arrested in Canterbury in 1596–97 for attacking one of the Queen’s Men (REED, Kent 233). Contemporary allusions to, or descriptions of, provincial playing also survive, such as actors’ papers (including wills, like that of Simon Jewell, or the correspondence of Edward Alleyn). Furthermore, a number of plays make reference to provincial playing (the players in Hamlet being perhaps the most famous example). These references are not generally sympathetic or complimentary to traveling players, and are often clearly exaggerations or caricatures, such as in Thomas Dekker’s Lanthorne and Candlelight, in which he refers to traveling troupes as “players that (without socks) trotte from towne to towne upon the hard hoofe” (Non-Dramatic Works iii.255). Then again, as with any caricature, there may be a kernel of truth in such accounts (Keenan 10). Finally, a series of laws passed on the legal status of traveling players and their patronage also sheds some light onto the life of players on the road. Each playing company operating during this period had a patron. In earlier years, the laws regarding patronage were quite loose, and a company could be patronized by just about anyone, or could simply list a town as their patron, as in the case of the New Romney players.5 By 1577, however, the laws governing patronage were stricter. Specifically, the 1572 Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds and for the Relief of the Poor and Impotent stipulated that a playing company’s patron had to be of baronial rank or higher, or else be licensed by two local justices;6 otherwise, the company would be regarded as a group of vagabonds, subject to imprisonment (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 62–3). In 1572, the players of the Earl of Leicester, no doubt in response to this Act, appealed to their patron for some protection, and in 1574 Leicester secured a royal patent allowing his players to perform throughout the country. This practice was followed by other patrons, it seems, so that after 1574, each company carried a patent or license with them in order to prove they had a legitimate patron (205–6; Gurr, Companies 37). Even with a patent, a company was not guaranteed the ability to perform since, in 1559, a proclamation gave local authorities the right to authorize or deny performances of plays (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 51–2), and local authorities took advantage of this proclamation on occasion. 4

See, for instance, the Stanley household accounts and Derby Household Books (REED, Lancashire 179–84); the Household accounts of Sir Richard Shuttleworth (REED, Lancashire 166–79); the Cumberland and Clifford Household accounts (Stone 17–28); Robert J. Alexander, “Some dramatic records from Percy household accounts on microfilm;” Suzanne Westfall’s Patrons and Performance in Early Tudor Household Revels; and Barbara Palmer’s “Early Modern Mobility: Players, Payments, and Patrons.” 5 The New Romney players played at Lydd 8 times and twice at Hythe in the 15th century, as well as at Dover in 1547–48 and 1561–62 (REED, Kent 447, 461, 621, 623, 646–8, 652, 656, 659, 664, 668). 6 The ability of justices to license a company was removed in 1598 (Gurr, Companies 37; Keenan 5).


46

At Cambridge University in 1580, for example, Oxford’s Men were prevented from playing (REED, Cambridge i.290–91; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 250–51). At Norwich in 1584–85 Leicester’s, Oxford’s, and Essex’s were turned away (but Essex’s not without incident—REED, Norwich 80–81). And at King’s Lynn in 1591 Essex’s was paid to leave (“Records of Plays and Players in Norfolk and Suffolk” 65).7 It is difficult to say to what extent these laws were consistently enforced. There are records of companies with a patron below baronial rank playing after 1572, such as “Sir Thomas Cycylles” players at Norwich in 1586–87 and 1587–88 (REED, Norwich 86, 89) and Cavendish’s Men at Coventry in 1585–86 (REED, Coventry 313). Towns may not have always checked to see if a given company was carrying a patent, and in any case a company could, and apparently occasionally did, forge a patent when a legitimate one was not available, as may have been the case for one of the two Chandos’s companies that visited Norwich in September of 1591 (REED, Norwich 98; Gurr, Companies 37). Nevertheless, a traveling playing company could reasonably expect to have to operate under these legal strictures and regulations. Without question, the daily life of a traveling company was not always easy. The sheer number of traveling companies active between 1577 and 1588 guaranteed stiff touring competition. Traveling could also prove dangerous. Players are known to have attacked audience members and each other, and audience members are known to have attacked players or vandalized their vehicle. In 1583 John Singer and John Bentley, Queen’s players, attacked and killed a Norwich man who had been throwing rocks at them (REED, Norwich 66–76). William Knell, one of the Queen’s players, was killed by fellow actor John Towne at Thame in 1587 (McMillin and MacLean 52). A local thief robbed one of Chandos’s Men in “Buck Towne” in 1608–1609 (Keenan 10). And in Faversham in 1597–98 “certen persons” were fined for the “misusage of a wagon or coache of the Lo. Bartlettes players” (REED, Kent 563). Nor was traveling without economic difficulties. Companies could, and did, go bankrupt while on tour. Pembroke’s Men’s ill-fated 1593 tour is probably the most famous example of a company going broke in the provinces (Foakes 280). Despite these potential difficulties, many players chose to live as traveling players, and even the later London-based companies continued to tour on a regular basis (Greenfield, “Touring” 252; Gurr, Companies 40; Keenan 10). This suggests that life on the road had some advantages and benefits. The recorded payments traveling companies received were not especially substantial (Greenfield, “Touring” 253–4; Ingram, “Costs” 57–61; Gurr, Companies 40–41, 47), but the recorded payments do not of course necessarily represent all the money a company could have made during a visit to a given town. Records of rewards at country houses could be quite generous (e.g., the Berkeley household rewards reach £3—Greenfield, “Entertainments” 14). In addition to a monetary reward, the players could expect free food, lodging, and other accommodations during their stay at the household, as at the Clifford family houses (Wasson, “Touring Companies” 53–4; Palmer 272). On the whole, provincial 7

This right of refusal was effectively removed in 1616, when the Master of the Revels began directly licensing playing companies (Gurr, Companies 38).


47

circuits must have been consistently profitable, given repeat visits by particular companies to particular locations; after all, “neither players nor hosts would continue were the experiences not rewarding to both” (Palmer 272). It is also worth noting that touring may very well have provided companies with a respite from London playing: it allowed companies to use the same plays, costumes, and props over and over, so touring presumably did not involve many of the extra costs involved with preparing new plays. It could also be that the players “enjoyed the challenge of adapting their performances for different stages and audiences as well” (Keenan 11). The size of a given touring company appears to have varied considerably. Recent scholarship is increasingly hesitant to accept the traditional theory that touring companies were much smaller than London companies, and that London companies, when on tour, reduced their numbers. This is because the few records in which the size of a touring company is noted vary greatly. Sussex’s Men had six players on a 1569–70 visit to Ludlow (REED, Shropshire 84); in 1606 Thomas Dekker wrote of a fictional touring company of nine players (Non-Dramatic Works ii.146); Derby’s Men was fourteen strong at Chatsworth in 1611 (Bentley, Profession 185), and an unnamed company of 28 visited Norwich in 1635 (REED, Norwich 218).8 This evidence suggests that the average company size increased between 1570 and 1635, and according to John M. Wasson this is precisely the case (4). Still, the average company size may not have increased at a constant rate. For instance, Andrew Gurr notes that in 1576, Clinton’s Men was six strong. In 1577, three companies that visited Southampton—Leicester’s Men, Bath’s Men, and Worcester’s Men—contained twelve, eleven, and ten players respectively. When Worcester’s visited Norwich and Leicester in 1583, it still had ten players, but in 1585—well before Dekker wrote of his fictional company of nine—Leicester’s Men had grown to fifteen players (Companies 43). Moreover, although traveling company size steadily grew between the 1560s and early 1590s before slightly declining again, even during the late 1580s and early 1590s small companies of only a few players existed alongside large companies of twelve or more (47). Gurr theorizes that company size was directly related to company repertory, and vice versa: plays written before the mid- to late 1580s called for small casts, whereas the plays after the formation of the Queen’s Men—especially history plays—called for much larger casts. The companies that had these large-cast plays were accordingly large, while the companies that continued to use the older plays saw no need to increase their numbers (47). This explanation seems plausible, but the precise relations, including cause and effect, between cast size and company size has yet to be determined. At any rate, during the period between 1577 and 1588, company size could have ranged anywhere from four to twelve or more. Whatever the company size, the players would have gotten around by foot, or if the company was especially financially endowed, by horseback (as seems to have 8

It is not clear that all 28 persons in this company were actors; this number could include servants as well as players (Bentley, Jacobean ii.679–80).


48

been the case for the Queen’s Men—McMillin and MacLean 39, 61). Many—but not necessarily all—companies presumably used a wagon of some sort to protect properties, costumes, playbooks, and any other items the players may have needed to keep safe and dry, and a number of references to a playing company’s wagon or wagons indeed survive (REED, Kent 563; REED, Bristol 166–7; Honigmann and Brock 59). How long a given company would remain on the road before returning “home”—be that London, the patron’s estate, or somewhere else—is not clear. Some companies were probably perpetually on tour, only rarely taking a break; companies based in London appear to have undertaken very short tours as well as more extensive tours, sometimes necessitated by plague but usually apparently of their own free will. It is similarly difficult to say how many stops a given tour consisted of; once again, the numbers vary considerably (Keenan 11).9 Companies appear to have tried to make frequent stops in a particular region or along a particular touring route, especially in areas favorably disposed towards their patron; for instance, Warwick’s Men and Leicester’s Men—patronized by Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, and his brother Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester—both were frequent Warwickshire visitors during this period (McMillin and MacLean 37; Greenfield, “Touring” 262–3; Keenan 9). Given all these variations, it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak of a “typical” tour, even for an individual company. If Shakespeare was a member of a playing company during this time, he could have been perpetually on tour, frequently in London, or even frequently near Stratford, depending on the company (or companies) he joined. Although it is possible to speak of oft-traveled touring routes,10 it is difficult to say how planned out a given tour may have been. Since particular companies visited some of the same locations year after year,11 tours likely followed some sort of planned itinerary. Barbara Palmer even argues that playing company visits to noble households were even booked in advance. Palmer notes that despite the fact families such as the Cavendishes had multiple residences, playing troupes almost

9

For instance, every London company undertook long tours during the long plague closures in 1592 and 1593. Strange’s Men is a good example—after few provincial appearances before 1592, in that year they undertook an extensive tour consisting of at least 10–15 stops over at least 5 months. Yet in 1590–91, when they seemingly were playing in London, and when there were no recorded playhouse closures of any kind, they went on a short tour that apparently took them only to Faversham. See the Appendix for more detailed information on Strange’s movements. 10 For more detailed discussions of touring routes, see McMillin and MacLean 39; Greenfield, “Touring” 261–3; Keenan 8–9. 11 The Queen’s Men is recorded year after year in most surviving town accounts; other examples of “favorite” touring stops include Ipswich for Sussex’s Men (1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, and 1592–93), Leicester for Worcester’s Men (1590–91, 1591, 1591–92, 1592–93, 1593–94, 1594–95, and 1596), the Cavendish Household for Ogle’s Men (1593–94, 1594–95, 1595–96, and 1596–97), and Coventry for Berkeley’s Men (1577–78, 1578–79, 1579–1580, 1580–81, 1581–82, 1582–83, and 1583–84).


49

always showed up wherever the family was staying, thus strongly suggesting a “communication system” between players and the nobles they visited (275–80). At the same time, the players during this time were nothing if not resourceful, and particular stops may have been spur-of-the-moment. Companies had to be prepared to move on a moment’s notice, given the threat of plague closures or hostile authorities, in London as well as in the country. Companies also appear to have been opportunistic about forming alliances with other entertainers while on tour. Numerous records exist of players traveling with groups of musicians, sometimes, but not always, supported by the same patron. For example, Worcester’s appeared with Derby’s musicians in Shrewsbury in 1590–91 (REED, Shropshire i.248). Players also appear to have occasionally traveled with groups of acrobats, as in 1589–90, when the Queen’s appeared with tumblers and rope dancers in Shrewsbury (REED, Shropshire i.247), Bristol (REED, Bristol 135–136), and Norwich (REED, Norwich 96). Somewhat less frequently, two playing companies would combine forces for a performance, or sometimes even for a group of performances. Such temporary “amalgamations” may have been premeditated, as when the Queen’s and Sussex’s appeared together in several towns over the course of 1590–91,12 but it is equally possible that they were spontaneous in nature, a way to guarantee that, when two companies showed up at a given town at the same time, both were guaranteed a reward of some kind. “Amalgamations” could also serve political or symbolic ends, depending on the patrons involved (such as the alliance between Essex’s and the Queen’s on 4 January 1590 in Faversham—REED, Kent 560) (Keenan 11–13). Although evidence is limited, it is possible to make reasonable conjectures about what sorts of things the players took with them when traveling. The will of Simon Jewell, a player who traveled with either Pembroke’s or the Queen’s Men in the early 1590s, indicates players took costumes, properties, and musical instruments with them when on tour. Such items, particularly the costumes, were the most valuable part of a company’s stock, and as such they may have had some sort of protection from the elements, such as the aforementioned (presumably covered) wagons (Edmond 129–34; Keenan 11, 15). Jewell’s will does not say anything about playscripts, but it does seem that a company also took these with it on tour. A note from the Master of the Revels to the town of Leicester in 1583 (Murray ii.320) indicates that the local authorities were expected to verify that a play offered for performance had been authorized by the Master, and the proof of authorization was the Master’s signature on the actual playbook (Gurr, Companies 42). Of course, once again this law may not have been rigidly enforced in the provinces, but it does show that at least someone expected touring players to be carrying their playtexts with them.

12 The two companies played together in 1590–91 in Gloucester (REED, Cumberland/ Westmorland/Gloucestershire 312), on 14 February 1591 in Southampton (REED, “Southampton” 56), in late February or early March in Bristol (REED, Bristol 140), and on 24 March in Coventry (REED, Coventry 332).

50


The precise nature of the texts taken on tour has often been the object of heated debate. A longstanding assumption has been that players shortened their texts for touring. This assumption was predicated on the further assumption that a company on tour reduced its personnel. Just as this second assumption has recently been challenged, the assumption that playtexts were shortened has also been challenged as of late. Shortened versions of longer plays do exist (for example, The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York are shorter versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI, respectively), but it is not a foregone conclusion that these shorter texts were made for the purposes of touring, especially owing to the fact that the shortened texts do not call for appreciably smaller casts than their longer counterparts. If, then, these shorter texts were not made for touring, it does not follow that touring texts were abridgments of longer texts. Besides, there is no compelling reason why touring companies would have wanted texts of shorter length while on tour. So although assumptions and conjectures have been circulating for years regarding the “differences” between “London” and “touring” texts, there is no evidence to suggest there actually was any difference (Bradley 58–74). That having been said, virtually nothing is known about the playtexts used by traveling companies. A few isolated records in town accounts give the name of the play the company performed, such as several Bristol records between 1575 and 1579 (REED, Bristol 112, 115–17), but in almost every case the named plays have been lost. The companies themselves do not seem to have kept any sort of touring records; therefore, London repertories, when known, provide the only real clues to what sorts of plays were taken on tour. It is also difficult to say how many plays a given company took with them when touring. Purely provincial companies presumably had all of their plays with them at all times, but that tells us nothing about the number of plays in the repertoire of a traveling company. London-based companies presumably did not take all their plays on tour, nor would they have needed to; after all, touring would have allowed them to use a handful of plays over and over without wearing the audiences out, as long as the company kept moving (Greenfield, “Touring” 264). The texts themselves may have been manuscript texts, or printed texts the company had purchased or else borrowed texts from another company (Keenan 14). It may also be that the patron, or a member of the audience with literary aspirations, supplied players with material. There are references to nobles penning plays for common players, and Hamlet furnishes an example of a member of the audience giving the players textual additions (14). It is not possible, of course, to determine how widespread such practices were, but it could be that in Hamlet Shakespeare relates a fictionalized version of a practice he had either seen or heard about earlier in his career. In any case, if Shakespeare joined a traveling company between 1577 and 1588, he may or may not have found himself in a group of players hungry for new plays. It is possible that his first company would have encouraged him to develop his literary skills early on; but it could also be that it was not until he gained a London base that he began to pursue literary ambitions. Once in a given town, there were a number of places a playing company could, at least in theory, play. Most of these playing spaces appear to have been indoors,


51

although traveling companies sometimes would play outdoors, when necessary or desirable. As the largest building in a town, the town hall presented the most obvious playing space for a traveling company,13 but there are records of companies also performing in other large city structures. Players definitely performed in a school in Lyme Regis in 1606–1607 (REED, Dorset/Cornwall 218), and certain regulatory statutes from Newark in 1568 and Boston in 1578 indicate schools were being used for performances (Keenan 109). Traveling companies played in churches in Lyme Regis in 1558–59 (REED, Dorset/Cornwall 212), Bewdley in 1571–72 (REED, Herefordshire/Worcestershire 361), Aldeburgh in 1573–74 (“Playing Companies at Aldeburgh” 19), and in several other instances as well. Berkeley’s Men played in an inn chamber at Dorchester in 1608 (REED, Dorset/Cornwall 195, 342). And ample records of players at noble houses exist.14 In terms of outdoor spaces, records survive of the Queen’s Men performing in a churchyard in Gloucester in 1589–90 (REED, Cumberland/Westmoreland/Gloucestershire 311) and an innyard in Norwich in 1583 (REED, Norwich 70). Performances also took place in marketplaces, such as Essex’s 1584 performance in a Shrewsbury apple market (REED, Shropshire i.238– 47). Moreover, in a few cases provincial cities, such as Bristol, had purpose-built playhouses (Gurr, Companies 39–40; Greenfield 264–5; Keenan 144–64). These provincial playhouses, however, were not built until well after 1588 and are, as such, beyond the scope of the current chapter. While there was probably no such thing as a “typical” visit by a playing company, it seems most visits took something of the following form, as described by Robert Willis, who recollected a playing company’s visit to Gloucester during his boyhood in Mount Tabor (1639).15 Upon arriving in town, the players would meet with the mayor, or equivalent authority, and present their patent (110). In some cases the mayor might turn the players away, with or without payment, for whatever reason: perhaps he was hostile to playing; perhaps he feared disorder, as at Norwich in 1614 (REED, Norwich 140); perhaps he worried that the players brought plague with them; perhaps the town as suffering a plague outbreak and was trying to avoid 13

Keenan reckons that of the 160 named playing places in the REED volumes published by 2002, 120 of the playing places are town halls (24). A somewhat different figure is given on the REED Patrons and Performances website which, as of 2008, lists 172 venues, the majority of them private residences. At present (2008), the site notes that performance venue research is still ongoing, even for those volumes for which complete patron and performance data has been uploaded. As the REED site continues to expand, it will become the most extensive and complete list of playing places. 14 Some of the noble houses whose theatrical activities have been closely studied are the Shuttleworths and Stanleys (REED, Lancashire), the Berkeleys (Greenfield, “Entertainments”), the Middletons (REED, “Nottinghamshire”), and the Cavendishes and Cliffords (Palmer, “Early Modern Mobility”). 15 Although written in 1639, Willis’s account is of a performance he saw as a child; since Willis was born in 1563 or 1564, the performance he writes about must have been in the late 1560s or early 1570s. No one has ever raised any serious objections to the accuracy of Willis’s description.


52

large gatherings, as at Cambridge in 1580 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 250–51); or perhaps the town was in mourning, as at Canterbury in 1603 (REED, Kent 241). The outright rejection of a company’s request to play seems to have been the exception rather than the rule; instead, players were usually very much welcome when they arrived at their destination (Palmer 273). In towns, the mayor would often request what Robert Willis refers to as a “mayor’s play” (110), wherein the players would perform their play for the mayor, other local officials, and perhaps the public at large. The “mayor’s play” presumably presented the local officials with an opportunity to screen or censor the productions, exercise control over the gathering, or demonstrate their power and goodwill to the community. After the conclusion of the play, the town would give the players some sort of reward (ranging from a few pence to several pounds, and sometimes including other non-monetary compensation). Then the mayor would perhaps give the company permission to play elsewhere in the locality. It could be that there would be more than one civic performance; such performances gave the local government an opportunity to show their wealth, power, and beneficence towards the players, or even towards the public (Willis 110; Greenfield, “Touring” 255–56; Keenan 15, 18–20). Before a performance, players might publicize their presence in several ways. Some records indicate that players would play drums and trumpets as they marched through the town, as happened in Edinburgh in 1599 (Chambers, Stage ii.267). A scene from John Marston’s Histrio-mastix suggests that the players could also issue a proclamation from some central space announcing the forthcoming production (The Plays of John Marston iii.258).16 On occasion, a company may have posted notices around the town, as the Queen’s Men did in 1592 in Cambridge (REED, Cambridge 342, 723). At the performance itself, the audience could expect to see something fairly sophisticated. One record notes that players damaged a ceiling, suggesting complicated staging of some sort (REED, Devon 46). The costumes and properties the players brought with them no doubt added to the spectacle. Apparently, though, necessary set pieces were borrowed from the locals, as indicated by a 1605 record from Leicester compensating a citizen for a chair of his visiting players had damaged (Keenan 21). Performances may have taken place either in the afternoon or evening, and sometimes a company appears to have offered two performances on the same day. It is unclear how long a company would remain in one location; company visits seem to have ranged anywhere from a day or two to a week or more. The Admiral’s Men performed in Ipswich on 26 May 1587 (“Players at Ipswich” 274) and Aldeburgh on 28 May (“Playing Companies at Aldeburgh” 21), so their visit to Ipswich was quite short. Queen Anne’s Men were allowed to play in Norwich for a week in 1611 (REED, Norwich 136); Richard Weekes and John Shanke were permitted to play for 12 days in Norwich in 1635 (219). Whatever the length of a company’s stay, their performances could make marked impressions on their audiences. Richard Willis 16

Marston’s authorship of this play is not certain and has been recently challenged by Knutson in “Histrio-Mastix: Not by John Marston.”


53

commented that, years after having seen a morality play, it remained fresh in his mind (110–14). The players’ performance in Hamlet elicits a reaction of extreme guilt in Claudius that Shakespeare evidently thought his audience would regard as plausible (Hamlet III, 2 and III, 3). And Thomas Heywood, in Apology for Actors (1612), relates an anecdote about a woman so moved by a play she confessed to a v murder she had committed years before (Book Three, G –G2). These, then, were the general characteristics of touring between 1577 and 1588 and those that Shakespeare would have encountered, if he did indeed join a traveling company during this time. What, then, were the specific conditions for touring between 1577 and 1588, especially the companies active in the provinces at the time?17 Thanks to the REED collections, it is possible to summarize provincial playing activity during these years. In 1577, there were a number of important touring companies ranging throughout the provinces. Of these, the Earl of Leicester’s Men, based on its provincial appearances was the most prolific touring company, as it had been for some time. Leicester was apparently relatively involved in the activities of his players, and also often used them for political purposes (McMillin and MacLean 18–24; Gurr, Companies 185–92). His company was not, however, without stiff competition, as Derby’s, Howard’s (later known as the Lord Admiral’s), Sussex’s, Warwick’s, Worcester’s, and Berkeley’s Men all frequently appeared in the provinces in the late 1570s. Companies belonging to Lord Strange18 and the Countess of Essex were also relatively important at the time, as were Stafford’s and Sheffield’s Men. Most of these companies remained highly active between 1577 and 1583, with the exception of the Countess of Essex’s company, which appears to have disbanded around 1580 (Gurr, Companies 170). During the late 1570s and early 1580s, several other notable companies emerged on the provincial scene: Hunsdon’s Men appear in 1581, Oxford’s in 1580, and Chandos’s and Morley’s in 1581–82. Furthermore, Essex’s Men (if distinct from the Countess of Essex’s Men) begin to appear in 1581–82. Other companies did not fare as well between 1577 and 1583. Warwick’s Men, for instance, does not appear in the provinces after 1581–82, and Howard’s Men appears only once between 1578–79 and 1584–85. In 1583, the face of English theatre was changed with the formation of the Queen’s Men. Francis Walsingham granted Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, the authority to form this company by selecting the best members from other active companies. 17

More specific details about the individual companies mentioned in the following discussion can be found in the individual chapters dealing with particular companies (where applicable), as well as in the Appendix. 18 The Strange’s company of the late 1570s is often referred to as “players.” Between 1580 and 1587, however, each time Strange’s performed at court, it seems to have done so as tumblers (Chambers, Stage iv.156–61). Accordingly, it may be that the late 1570s Strange’s was this group of tumblers, although the use of the phrase “players” opens up the possibility that (1) these tumblers were also actors, or (2) there was a separate Strange’s players at the time the tumbling troupe was also active. At present (2007), the REED Patrons and Performances website describes the company as “players,” not tumblers or acrobats.


54

The result was a company with more players, better patronage, and better talent than any of its rivals. Judging solely by playing notices before and after 1583, many of the other companies of the day suffered from the formation of the Queen’s Men. Leicester’s players seem to have taken a year or so off after 1583, as was the case with Sussex’s Men,19 while notices of Derby’s Men trail off after 1582–83, and the company disappears entirely after 1584–85 Beverly performance. The Queen’s Men, however, flourished, dominating London, court, and provincial playing for a number of years. In fact, the Queen’s Men dominated provincial playing like no other company before or after, and the sheer number of appearances between 1583 and 1603 has allowed scholars to construct more detailed provincial itineraries for the Queen’s Men than for any other English acting company of the era. Competition did not, however, completely melt away in the face of the Queen’s Men’s dominance. The activities of Worcester’s Men do not appear to have been interrupted by the Queen’s formation, nor those of Hunsdon’s, Chandos’s, Stafford’s, Morley’s, or Sheffield’s Men. Provincial notices of performances by Essex’s, Berkeley’s, and Oxford’s Men actually increase in 1583 and 1584, and between 1583 and 1585 Oxford’s Men appears in the provincial records more often than the Queen’s Men. However, by 1585–86 the Queen’s was decidedly the chief traveling company in the land, its provincial notices easily exceeding Oxford’s Men. Beginning in 1584–85, several other traveling companies reemerged, and although they did not challenge the Queen’s Men in terms of number of provincial notices, they seem to have fared pretty well. Howard’s/Lord Admiral’s Men toured again in 1584–85 and remained a major force in the provinces into the seventeenth century. The Sussex’s Men that emerged in 1584–85 would frequently perform in the provinces over the next decade. Leicester’s Men also made a 1584–85 comeback, and between 1586 and 1588 it would be second only to the Queen’s in terms of provincial appearances. The reemergence of these three formidable companies may have impacted the fortunes of those who had challenged the Queen’s Men during its first two years of existence. Several companies apparently ceased traveling for a few years to regroup, reorganize, or to be completely reconstituted (Worcester’s disappears between 1585 and 1589, Berkeley’s between 1586–87 and 1591–92, and Morley’s between 1586 and 1591), while others, like Oxford’s in 1587 and Sheffield’s in 1585–86, disappeared completely. By 1588, then, the Queen’s Men and Leicester’s Men were easily the two primary traveling companies in England, with Essex’s, the Lord Admiral’s, and Sussex’s Men forming a second tier of sorts; Hunsdon’s, Chandos’s, and Stafford’s Men, while not as active, nevertheless maintained a consistent provincial presence through 1588. The companies named in the preceding discussion constitute only the most active, or most noted, traveling companies between 1577 and 1588. Many other companies operated during this timeframe as well, but they either did not tour as extensively as the companies already mentioned, or else fewer records of their visits to provincial 19

Thomas Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex, died in 1583 and was succeeded by his son, Henry. The Sussex’s that appears in 1584–85 thus may be distinct from the previous group.


55

towns have survived. Several such companies are mentioned multiple times between 1577 and 1588; these include Monteagle’s, Huntingdon’s, Mountjoy’s, Arundel’s, Cecil’s, Radcliffe’s, Bath’s, Kinderton’s, and Hertford’s Men. Some of these companies had a more substantial existence either before or after the time period this discussion is concerned with, and all of them probably had a more substantial existence during this time period than the surviving records indicate. Besides this handful of “minor” traveling companies, a number of other companies are named at least once during this period, including Willoughby’s, Montagu’s, Mordaunt’s, Evelyn’s, Sturton’s, Rogers’s, Hesketh’s, Cavendish’s, Lincoln’s, Windsor’s, Eglionby’s, Compton’s, Dudley’s, Lucy’s, Beauchamp’s, Ogle’s, Bartholomew’s, and Rich’s Men. In addition to these companies, at least one boy company, the Chapel Children, toured briefly during this period, appearing in two locations in 1586–87; moreover, a company apparently patronized (or claiming to be patronized) by the Master of the Revels appears several times in 1583 and 1584. The general story of provincial playing between 1577 and 1588 seems to be the story of the emergence of the Queen’s Men and the perseverance, or disappearance, of the other major touring companies. Among both major and minor companies, there was a rapid turnover, although it may not have been out of the ordinary. The apparent capriciousness of company fortunes between 1577 and 1588 indicates just how volatile touring could be, but the fact that there were so many traveling companies also testifies to the viability, even attractiveness, of the life of a traveling player. Again, traveling must have been rewarding as well as difficult; were it otherwise, so many people would not have gravitated towards such a lifestyle. Recorded profits may not have been great, but large sums of money were involved in touring; this, along with the possibility of eventually playing in London or at court must have drawn a number of young men into the playing profession. There was no guarantee of glory in such a lifestyle, but the potential for it, however small, was nevertheless there, and in any case it would have attracted curious and free-spirited young men, including some of artistic potential. It is to this difficult-yet-rewarding lifestyle that many biographers and theatre historians argue young William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon was drawn. It is distinctly possible that he received his first professional theatrical employment and training with some provincial playing company; the question, however, is which one. Our biases perhaps lead us to think he was more likely to have been a member of one or more of the larger, successful companies during this era, but it is equally possible that he was, for a time, associated with one or more of the obscure companies active between 1577 and 1588. It is also possible that he was not active in the theatre at all during this time. Locating him in any specific company is, therefore, a complex matter of possibilities and plausible conjectures. But is it possible to develop arguments based upon probabilities? Part III will show just how complex this picture becomes. First, however, it is necessary to turn from provincial playing to what was, by 1588, becoming the center of Elizabethan theatrical activity: the London stage.


Chapter 4

London Playing, 1588–1594

While Shakespeare may have been involved in provincial playing before 1588, he was definitely a part of the London theatre scene by the early 1590s. The exact year of Shakespeare’s arrival in London is impossible to date with certainty, but as he was a playwright of some mettle by 1592, it is reasonable to place his arrival sometime in the late 1580s. As Peter Thomson notes, biographers have often chosen 1587 as the exact year Shakespeare came to London (Shakespeare’s 20), but some have argued for earlier as well as later dates.1 Even if Shakespeare did not move to London until 1591, 1588 marks the beginning of a number of key changes that would significantly alter London playing. Shakespeare, his career, and whatever company or companies he was affiliated with before 1594 were very much bound up with these changes. This being the case, any attempt to reckon with the London contexts Shakespeare found himself in before 1594 must begin no later than 1588. Quite apart from Shakespeare’s emergence, the years between 1588 and 1594 were pivotal for London playing for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was about 1588 that the Queen’s Men’s dominance of London playing began to wane. This decline has often been linked to the death of Richard Tarlton in September 1588, but the Queen’s Men was already being challenged in terms of court performances in 1585–86 (Astington, English 231). Audience tastes were also changing by 1588, so Tarlton’s death, rather than causing the Queen’s London decline, was more of a symbol of a decline already underway (McMillin and MacLean 52–3). As the Queen’s presence in London waned (the company’s provincial preeminence remained intact for another decade), other companies moved into the void: Strange’s, the Admiral’s, and, a few years later, Pembroke’s and Sussex’s. Secondly, audience tastes changed significantly between 1588 and 1594. At the beginning of this period, moralities and “medley” style plays continued to draw large audiences. While audiences did not completely lose their taste for plays of this kind, the vogue for the chronicle history play, inaugurated by, among others, Marlowe and Shakespeare, exploded onto the London scene during these years (Gurr, Playgoing 119–58; McMillin and MacLean 121–24, 155–60). Along with other emerging genres, such as revenge tragedy and citizen comedy, the chronicle history play brought new playwrights to the fore and, it seems, changed the organization of the acting companies during this period. This was to be an era of large-cast plays, 1

The range of London arrival dates includes 1580 (Southworth 27), 1582 (Sams 52), “after 1585” (Halliwell-Phillips 47), 1586 (Lee 37), 1588 (Fraser 7–8), “as early as 1589” (Duncan-Jones 43), and about 1590 (Adams 125).

58


and acting company size swelled to the highest level it would ever reach during the Elizabethan period (Gurr, Companies 59–60). These six years also saw the temporary disappearance of the boy companies, which had been very popular up to 1589. The suppression of these companies following (and perhaps a result of their participation in) the Martin Marprelate controversy of 1589 changed the dynamics of court playing, and also forced audiences who had preferred to attend performances of boy companies to look elsewhere for theatrical entertainment. Similarly, the suppression of the boy companies forced playwrights writing for them to find other outlets for their creative energies. The disappearance of the boy companies thus effectively created a truly popular theatre, wherein all theatrical tastes and audiences mingled together (Gurr, Companies 218–26; Playgoing 137–8; Cook, “Audiences” 318). Finally, the period between 1588 and 1594 saw the emergence of Philip Henslowe as a theatrical power. He was, with son-in-law Edward Alleyn, to influence London playing well into the seventeenth century. Henslowe had opened his Rose Theatre in 1587, inaugurating a new era in playhouse building and introducing professional theatre to the south bank of the Thames. Moreover, thanks to Henslowe’s Diary, in which he began keeping daily theatrical records in 1592, a great deal is known about his theatrical activities between 1588 and 1594 (and beyond). The Diary also serves as the main source of information about London company organization and operations in the last decade of the sixteenth century. With such pivotal changes occurring during this six year period, it is surprising that there has never been a systematic attempt to consider these years in their own right. The years before 1588 are treated in William Ingram’s The Business of Playing, but he stops his account in 1586, the year before Henslowe built the Rose theatre in Southwark. Similarly, the decade after 1594 has received scholarly attention from Andrew Gurr (The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642), Roslyn Knutson (The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613) and Ingram (A London Life in the Brazen Age). The years between 1588 and 1594 are often discussed in studies of the theatrical activity from 1594 to 1603 (and beyond), but as precursors to later developments. McMillin and MacLean (The Queen’s Men and Their Plays, 1583– 1603) consider theatrical conditions during these years, but only in the context of the Queen’s Men’s activities. Scholars concerned with Pembroke’s Men, such as Karl Wentersdorf (“Repertory” and “Origin”) and David George (“Shakespeare and Pembroke’s Men”) have also given serious thought to the conditions of 1588–94, but by focusing on this one company, their accounts suffer under the (unsolvable) problems of figuring out where Pembroke’s Men came from and what its relationship was to other acting companies active at the same time. This chapter, accordingly, considers the dynamics of these six years not as a prelude to later developments, or as an interlude between “stable” playing periods, but as a time of pivotal changes and interesting theatrical activity in their own right. Apart from sketching a context for Shakespeare’s London emergence, this chapter serves to address a number of assumptions and errors concerning the playing companies active during this period. Addressing these issues will not only make it


59

possible to talk more sensibly of Shakespeare’s whereabouts before 1594, but will also help set the stage for future, and fuller, discussions of London playing during these years. Playing Places and Audiences Between 1588 and 1594, adult acting companies in London had at least eight potential venues. Four of these venues were innyards. “The Four Inns,” as they are collectively referred to, were the Bel Savage, the Bell, the Bull, and the Cross Keys. When they were first used for public performances is unknown, but all four were active as playhouses by the mid 1570s. Documents demonstrate that the Bel Savage was used for performances by 1575, the Bell by 1577, the Bull by 1578, and the Cross Keys by 1579 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 297–8). No records indicate which companies performed at the inns before 1583, but between 1583 and 1588, the Queen’s Men played at all four. Strange’s Men played at the Cross Keys in 1589. The Admiral’s Men may have played at the Bel Savage between 1588 and 1594.2 And the Lord Chamberlain’s Men played at the Cross Keys in 1594 (300– 304). After 1594, no mentions exist of the Four Inns being used as playhouses, and in 1600 the Privy Council expressly forbade playing at the city inns (305). Of course, the need for such an order may suggest that the inns continued function as playhouses throughout the 1590s.3 Besides inn-yards, playing companies used the larger, and better-known, purposebuilt playhouses. Five such venues had been built by 1588, but only four remained in operation. The first public playhouse, the Red Lion, was built in Stepney in 1567 by John Brayne, a grocer. Records demonstrate the playhouse had been completed by July 1567. Brayne filed a lawsuit against the carpenter who built the stage in autumn 1568, but after this nothing more is heard of the Red Lion. Brayne’s reasons for building the Red Lion are not known, but James Burbage, one of Leicester’s leading players, was his brother-in-law. In any case, no company can be linked to the Red Lion, and it is not clear if Brayne envisioned it as a permanent structure in the first place (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 291–4).4 In 1576, Brayne and Burbage built the Theatre in Shoreditch, which was clearly conceived as a permanent playhouse. Again, few companies can be linked to the Theatre in its early years. Burbage, a member of Leicester’s Men in 1574, perhaps 2

This is suggested by a reference to Dr. Faustus being performed there; the only company known to have performed this play before the closure of the inns is the Admiral’s Men. 3 For more on the Four Inns, see Wickham, Berry and Ingram 295–305; Oscar Brownstein, “A Record of London Inn-Playhouses from c. 1565–1590;” Wickham II.ii 95–109; Salkeld, “The Bell;” and Chambers, Stage ii.380–83. 4 For more on the Red Lion, see Wickham, Berry and Ingram 290–94; Janet S. Loengard, “An Elizabethan Lawsuit: John Brayne, His Carpenter, and the Building of the Red Lion Theatre;” John H. Astington, “The Red Lion Playhouse: Two Notes;” Herbert Berry, “The First Public Playhouses, Especially the Red Lion;” and Ingram, Business 102–12.


60

built the Theatre for his own company, but this, as Andrew Gurr says, “is a hopeful presumption unsupported by any evidence” (Companies 189). In 1579, Gabriel Harvey vaguely commented that Leicester’s, Warwick’s, Vaux’s, and Rich’s Men performed at “the Theatre or some other painted stage” (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 341). An April 1580 scuffle between Inns of Court students and Oxford’s Men demonstrates that company occupied the Theatre at that time (Gurr, Companies 307), and the Queen’s Men performed there at least as early as June 1584 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 345–6). Depositions filed in conjunction with lawsuits involving Giles Allen, leasor of the land the Theatre stood on, Margaret Brayne, John’s widow (he died in 1586), Robert Miles, an old business partner of Brayne’s, and James Burbage and his sons Richard and Cuthbert demonstrate that the Admiral’s Men had been playing at the Theatre for a time before May 1591, when several of its number were drawn into the Burbage-Brayne/Miles conflict (349–64). In 1594, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men took up residence at the Theatre soon after its 1594 formation. In 1599, lease troubles forced Richard and Cuthbert Burbage (James died in 1596) to dismantle the Theatre. They rebuilt it in Southwark as the Globe; the Lord Chamberlain’s Men made the move with the Theatre’s timbers (346–8, 367– 72, 375–87; Gurr, Stage 41).5 At roughly the same time the Theatre was built, a playhouse was erected at Newington Butts, south of London. The playhouse’s builder cannot be identified with certainty, but William Ingram has demonstrated it was probably Jerome Savage, the leading player in Warwick’s Men (Business 163–77).6 It is therefore possible Warwick’s Men first occupied the playhouse, but no definite evidence proves this conjecture. Warwick’s disappears from the records in 1580, although it may have been reconstituted as Oxford’s Men, which Ingram thinks briefly played at Newington, although no definite evidence supports this assertion (171–5). Sometime in the early 1590s (and definitely before September 1593), Strange’s Men performed at Newington, as testified to by an undated Privy Council order (327–8). Henslowe’s Diary records performances by both the Admiral’s and Lord Chamberlain’s Men at the playhouse from 3–13 June 1594 (Foakes 21–2), just before the Admiral’s took up permanent residence at the Rose and the Lord Chamberlain’s at the Theatre. A man named Paul Buck, who may have been a player, acquired the playhouse on 6 July 1594 on the condition that playing cease there (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 329). Buck seems to have abided by these terms, for no further records exist of playing at Newington, and by 1599 the playhouse had definitely been replaced by houses (329).7 5

For more on the Theatre, see Charles William Wallace, The First London Theatre, Materials for a History; Berry, ed., The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch 1576–1598; and Ingram, Business 182–218. 6 Ingram’s conjecture has been generally accepted. An older proposal, made by Ida Darlington, is that the playhouse at Newington was built by Richard Hickes, who definitely owned the land the playhouse was built on (Ingram, Business 153; Darlington, St. George’s Fields 86). 7 For more on the playhouse at Newington, see Wickham, Berry and Ingram 320–29; Ingram, “The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal” and Business 150–81, 243–5.


61

In 1577, the Curtain opened in Shoreditch, virtually next door to the Theatre. Henry Lanman, who owned the Curtain from 1585 to 1592, is often credited as its builder, but there is no definite evidence this was the case (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 405). As with the other theatres, the early occupants of the Curtain are unknown. Lord Arundel’s Men may have played there in 1584 (410), and, according to Tarlton’s Jests, the Queen’s Men also performed at the Curtain during the comic’s lifetime (B3). No evidence survives for its occupants between 1588 and 1594. Records do survive, however, of a curious arrangement reached between Lanman and Burbage and Brayne in 1585, whereby the profits of both playhouses, for a period of seven years, were split, half going to Lanman, half to Burbage and Brayne. Why this arrangement was instituted remains a mystery, but it was still in place in 1592, and the parties involved seem to have found it satisfactory (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 348–9, 405; Ingram, Business 227–36).8 The Rose, the last of the public playhouses in operation between 1588 and 1594, was originally built in 1587 by dyer/financier Philip Henslowe and grocer John Cholmley (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 419–25). Before 1592, there is no evidence for what company or companies played at the Rose, but in that year Henslowe remodeled it and began keeping daily records of Rose receipts in his Diary. When these records commence on 19 February 1592, Henslowe lists Lord Strange’s Men as the Rose’s resident company. Strange’s may have been playing at the Rose before then, but it is also possible that 19 February marked the beginning of the troupe’s occupancy. Whatever the case, Strange’s played at the Rose until 22 June 1592; after a six-month break because of the plague, Strange’s returned to the Rose on 29 December. Strange’s second Rose run ended on 1 February 1593, again owing to plague outbreak. When the Rose reopened on 27 December 1593, Sussex’s Men, rather than Strange’s, was the resident company. Sussex’s season lasted until 6 February 1594; then, from 1 to 8 April, Sussex’s and the Queen’s Men both played at the Rose. From 14–16 May the Lord Admiral’s Men played at the Rose; this company returned on 15 June 1594 and the Rose was its London home for the remainder of the 1590s (Foakes 16–22).9 In addition to the public playing places available to professional adult companies, a small playhouse at St. Paul’s hosted public performances by Paul’s Boys up to 1591, as it had since at least December 1575 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 306, 309–10). It is sometimes believed this playhouse closed owing to the Paul’s Boys’ involvement in the Martin Marprelate controversy; however, this controversy took place in 1589 and the Privy Council order that sought to prevent theatrical interference in “matters of divinity and state” says nothing about closing theatres 8

For more on the Curtain, see Wickham, Berry and Ingram 404–18; Ingram, “Henry Lanman’s Curtain Playhouse as an ‘Easer’ to the Theatre, 1585–1592;” Ingram, Business 219–38; and Lucyle Hook, “The Curtain.” 9 For more on the Rose, see Ernest L. Rhodes, Henslowe’s Rose; Carol Chillington Rutter, ed., Documents of the Rose Playhouse (2nd ed.); Christine Eccles, The Rose Playhouse; W.W. Greg, ed., Henslowe’s Diary, and R.A. Foakes, ed., Henslowe’s Diary.


62

or suppressing companies (311–12). The first mention of plays as Paul’s being suppressed occurs on 4 October 1591, when the printer of Lyly’s Endymion noted that “plays in Paul’s were dissolved” (A2). Still, as Gurr points out, “A clamp-down because of their involvement in the Marprelate troubles is certainly a possible cause for the company’s closure” (Companies 226). In any case, the playhouse at St. Paul’s was closed by 1591, and with its closure boy companies ceased to be a major force in London playing until their return in 1599–1600.10 Besides public playing places, companies fortunate enough to play at court used several venues. Between the 1587–88 and 1594–95 court seasons, playing companies performed at Whitehall, Greenwich, Richmond, and Hampton Court (Astington, English 232–4). No fewer than ten companies performed at court between 1588 and 1594. The Queen’s Men, Paul’s Boys, the Admiral’s Men, and Strange’s Men were the most frequent court performers during these years, with ten, eight, three (but possibly five) and nine (possibly eleven) performances, respectively. Lesser presences at court during these years were Mr. Evelyn’s Men and “John Simons ... and his Companie,” performing once each in 1587–88, the Gentlemen of Gray’s Inn, performing once in 1587–88 and again in 1594–95, Sussex’s Men and Hertford’s Men, playing once each in 1591–92, and Pembroke’s Men, which performed twice in 1592–93 (Astington, English 232–4; Chambers, Stage iv.161–5). It is not entirely clear what sorts of audiences saw plays in these London venues. Court performances were attended by elite audiences,11 and plays at Paul’s drew educated, moneyed, and privileged individuals. But there were only a handful of court performances a year, and performances at Paul’s, which took place once a week at most, could accommodated only 200 spectators (Gurr, Playgoing 22–3, 133–4). The vast majority of the playgoing public thus went to outdoor public playhouses. Alfred Harbage (Shakespeare’s Audience and Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions) thinks open-air audiences consisted of lower, working class individuals; Ann Jennalie Cook (The Privileged Playgoers) argues these audiences were mostly made up of people of wealth, status, and education; Andrew Gurr (Playgoing) and Martin Butler (Theatre and Crisis) point to a division between higher class indoor audiences and somewhat lower class outdoor audiences, with Gurr emphasizing the heterogeneous nature of outdoor audiences. Today, most scholars agree outdoor audiences were diverse, but there is still no agreement on what end of the social spectrum the “typical” playgoer gravitated toward. Despite fragmentary and contradictory evidence concerning public playhouse audiences (Cook, “Audiences” 305), a few generalizations can be made, although 10

For more on Paul’s boys and the playhouse at Paul’s, see Wickham, Berry and Ingram 306–19; Gurr, Companies 218–29; Reavley Gair, The Children of Paul’s; Berry, “Where was the Playhouse in which the Boy Choristers of St Paul’s Performed Plays?”; and Bowers, “The Playhouse of the Choristers of Paul’s, c. 1575–1608.” 11 Astington points out that, although a court audience was an audience of elites, it is difficult to piece together a more detailed picture of court audiences. For his own attempt at doing so, see English Court Theatre, 1558–1642, Chapter 5.


63

one must bear in mind that these generalizations apply to the whole period of public performances up to 1642; the composition of audiences may have shifted over time, and some of these generalizations may be more (or less) applicable to the period of 1577–88 than others. First, both men and women attended the outdoor theatres; young men were seemingly particularly well-represented (315). Second, audience members had money and free afternoons; the presence of refreshments, thieves, and prostitutes at theatres also suggests a certain level of audience means, although less well-off people seem to have flocked to the theatres on holidays (317–18). Finally, contemporary references to audiences (collected in Gurr’s Playgoing, 213–62, with others cited by Bernard Capp, “Playgoers,” and Salkeld, “Allusions”) mention a wide variety of classes in the audiences, ranging from apprentices to aristocrats. Whoever was in the audiences, it is clear that they were often physical and vocal in their behavior. There are a number of violent incidents, even riots, on record, but these events were extreme and relatively unusual. Audiences did, however, frequently compete with the players for attention in the course of a performance, through display or minor disruption. This was the case even at court performances (Gurr, Playgoing 45–9; Cook, “Audiences” 311–13). What relationships or interactions would Shakespeare have plausibly had with these playing places and audiences? In terms of venues, he could have had contact with any number of them as an actor and/or playwright during his emergence as a major London theatrical figure. He would not likely have had any contact with Paul’s company or playhouse, but he may have played at or written for companies performing at any of the outdoor theatres and innyards, and he could have been involved with a number of court performances. Whatever the venue he worked at, he would have had to please, as both actor and playwright, large, diverse, and volatile audiences. And it was exactly his ability to write plays that appealed to a wide variety of audience members and tastes that propelled him to the front ranks of the playwriting profession during the early 1590s. Playing Companies in London The period between 1588 and 1594 was a particularly pivotal time for playing companies in London. Companies that had once been prominent in London disappeared into the country (or disappeared altogether), and new companies took the place of the old, only to themselves disappear from London by 1594. These new companies—notably the Admiral’s, Strange’s, and Pembroke’s Men—were seemingly the first adult playing companies to think of themselves as predominantly London companies, and thus mark the emergence of London-based playing companies. The early years of London-based playing companies were highly disorganized: a succession of playing companies with London aspirations came and went rapidly, players apparently switched company affiliations frequently, and plague outbreaks limited the amount of time any company could actually play in London (and leave evidence of its activities). This state of affairs makes it difficult, if not impossible,

64


to reconstruct a complete or satisfying history of playing companies in London during these years. Moreover, scholarly narratives concerning the London playing companies between 1588 and 1594 have been riddled with problematic assumptions and questionable conclusions, especially in regards to the relationships between the various companies that played in London during this period. Before considering which of the playing companies Shakespeare may have belonged to before 1594, it is necessary to clear up some of this confusion. In doing so, though, one must recognize that the incomplete nature of the evidence for playing company activities during this period effectively prevents a systematic determination of the pattern of relationships between the various companies and the buildings and inns in which they performed (which in turn carries implications when certain claims about London playing between 1588 and 1594 are brought to bear in debating which company Shakespeare was aligned with at this time). The Queen’s Men Before 1588, several companies had frequently performed in London, but none of them can definitely be described as London-based companies. Leicester’s Men and Warwick’s Men both might have aspired to such a status, since individual members of each company had invested in purpose-built playhouses, but there is no evidence that either of these companies had long runs in London. The Queen’s Men, however, seems to have had a much more substantial London existence between about 1583 and 1588. The Queen’s performed in every, or nearly every, available London playing space and frequently performed at court. Nevertheless, there is again no evidence that the Queen’s Men ever engaged in, or attempted to engage in, long runs in London, save for a short stint at the Rose in 1594. Rather, it seems to have viewed London as a stop, albeit an important one, on its touring circuit (McMillin and MacLean 5–7). Between 1588 and 1594, the Queen’s Men experienced a marked decline in its London fortunes, symbolized by the death of Richard Tarlton in September 1588. While the impact of his death on the Queen’s Men can be, and often has been, overstated, the loss of the company’s most popular player cannot have helped the Queen’s Men’s London prospects. In any event, within two years of Tarlton’s death, notices of the Queen’s Men playing in London decline markedly, as do its court appearances. The company appeared twice at court in 1588–89, twice again in 1589– 90, and five times in 1590–91, but just once in 1591–92, not at all in 1592–93, and only once in 1593–94, which proved to be its final command performance (Astington, English 232–4; Chambers, Stage iv.161–5). It would seem that for much of the 1588–94 period, the Queen’s Men operated as two distinct branches. Four of the 1590–91 court performances are designated as performances by a Queen’s company led by Laurence and John Dutton, while the fifth was designated as a performance of a Queen’s company led by John Laneham (Chambers, Stage iv.163). These two groups seem to have conducted separate provincial tours as well, as indicated by the fact several provincial notices specify visits by the Dutton branch of the Queen’s Men


65

(REED, “Nottinghamshire” 35; REED, “Southampton” 57; REED, Coventry 336; REED, Cambridge i.340–41; REED, Dorset/Cornwall 217). The Laneham branch apparently also briefly toured jointly with Sussex’s Men (REED, “Southampton” 56; REED, Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire 312; REED, Bristol 140; REED, Coventry 332). After 1592–93 branch distinctions are not specified in any records, and the number of yearly recorded provincial visits by the Queen’s Men declines somewhat, suggesting that the practice of splitting was discontinued. The final documentable London appearance of the Queen’s Men is from early 1594. Following a court performance on 6 January (Chambers, Stage iv.164; Astington, English 234), the Queen’s appeared at the Rose, between 1 and 8 April, seemingly in combination with Sussex’s (Foakes 21). This piece of evidence has led some scholars to conclude that Laneham’s branch was the troupe in question, given its previous association with Sussex’s Men, but there is no other evidence besides the four 1590–91 provincial entries to support such speculation.12 After this stint at the Rose, the Queen’s Men appears to have faded entirely from the London scene, although there are hints it may have made one final London gamble in 1595 (Ingram, London Life 115–20; McMillin and MacLean 51; Knutson, Playing Companies 61–2, 67). John Heminges, who may have been a Queen’s player,13 joined the Chamberlain’s Men at this time (Gurr, Shakespeare Company 230); if he had indeed been a Queen’s man, one wonders if other leading Queen’s Men followed him to the Chamberlain’s. Regardless, the years between 1588 and 1594 were clearly ones of decline for the Queen’s London fortunes. When the Chamberlain’s and Admiral’s Men were formed in 1594, the Queen’s Men’s days as a major company in London and at court came to an end. The Admiral’s Men Charles Howard became the Lord High Admiral in 1585, commanded the English fleet that defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, and remained Lord High Admiral until 1619. He also became Earl of Nottingham in 1596 and Lord Steward in 1597 (Chambers, Stage ii.134). Howard had patronized a company of players as early as the late 1570s, but this company seems to have disbanded in 1578–79.14 Upon becoming Lord Admiral, Howard apparently decided to sponsor a playing company 12 G.M. Pinciss (“Shakespeare, Her Majesty’s Players, and Pembroke’s Men” 134) and Karl P. Wentersdorf (“Origin” 58) both argue that Laneham’s Queen’s played with Sussex’s at the Rose in 1594; David George, however, argues that it was the Duttons’ branch that played with Sussex’s at the Rose (318, 322). 13 Heminges married the widow of William Knell on 10 March 1588, less than a year after Knell’s death. While this may suggest Heminges was one of Knell’s fellows, there is no evidence to verify that Heminges was indeed a Queen’s player (McMillin and MacLean 195; Gurr, Shakespeare Company 230; Chambers, Stage ii.320–23). 14 There is, however, an isolated of a company under his patronage appearing at Ipswich in 1582 (“Players at Ipswich” 273).


66

again, as a Lord Admiral’s Men began appearing in the provinces in town records from the 1584–85 civic year. This company performed at court during the 1585– 86 holiday season (Chambers, Stage iv.161; Astington, English 231), which may suggest that it was playing in London during this time. The Admiral’s Men was definitely playing in London in November 1587, when law student Philip Gawdy reported in a letter to his father that the misfiring of an onstage gun accidentally killed a child and a pregnant woman and injured an old man (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 277).15 The Admiral’s Men’s presence in London in 1587 is corroborated by a letter from an anonymous army officer to Sir Francis Walsingham in January of that year which names the Admiral’s as one of the companies playing in London “every day in the week” (90–91). Between 1587 and 1589, the Admiral’s Men performed only infrequently in the provinces (and then only at Oxford and Cambridge), yet it performed at court in 1588–89 and 1589–90 (Chambers, Stage iv.162–3; Astington, English 232–3). Given that the Admiral’s was definitely playing in London in 1587, it is possible that the company was playing in London throughout the late 1580s. The only further evidence to support this conjecture, however, is a letter from the Lord Mayor to Lord Burghley noting that the Admiral’s was playing in London in early November of 1589 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 93–4). More substantial evidence attests to the Admiral’s Men’s presence in London in 1590 and 1591, when it was at the Theatre and may have appeared twice at court with Strange’s Men (a more detailed consideration of this evidence follows in the discussion of Strange’s Men). After May of 1591, about which time the Admiral’s Men nearly came to blows with James Burbage, the company is not traceable in London again until 14 May 1594, when it took up residence at Henslowe’s Rose (Foakes 21). Numerous records, however, attest to its presence in the provinces. While the Admiral’s Men performed exclusively outside London after 1591, its most famous member, Edward Alleyn, appears to have parted company with the Admiral’s, electing to join the company that would prove to be the most dominant of the early 1590s: Lord Strange’s Men. Lord Strange’s Men The Strange’s Men that rose to prominence in the late 1580s and early 1590s was likely distinct from the Strange’s that appeared in the provinces and at court during the late 1570s and early-to-mid 1580s (Chambers, Stage iv.161–2).16 The patron, however, was the same: Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange. Stanley became Lord Strange in 1572 and was summoned to parliament under that title in 1589 (Tiner 11). The latter group of Strange’s Men is first recorded in 1587–88, when it performed in Coventry (REED, Coventry 321). Like the Admiral’s Men, Strange’s rarely appeared in the provinces over the next several years, but it performed at court twice in 1590–91 and 15

No additional documents verify Gawdy’s report of the deaths and injury. As noted in Chapter 3, the company is often referred to as “players,” but court records indicate the company was primarily a group of tumblers. It is also possible there were two distinct Strange’s companies at this time, one players, one tumblers. 16


67

six times in 1591–92 (Chambers, Stage iv.163–4; Astington, English 233) and was playing at the Cross Keys Inn in November of 1589 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 93–4). These London appearances, combined with the paucity of provincial activity, suggest Strange’s was based in London during these years. This was definitely the case by 1592, when Henslowe’s Diary records an uninterrupted five-month run by Strange’s at the Rose beginning on 19 February. This run concluded on 22 June; the next day, the theatres were closed due to plague and would remain so until 29 December 1592 (Gurr, Companies 91). Strange’s returned to the Rose on that day, possibly after a brief run at Newington Butts17 (Foakes 19). The company also performed three times during the 1592–93 court season (Chambers, Stage iv.164; Astington, English 234). Strange’s Men’s second run at the Rose was again ended by plague on 1 February 1593. This time, the playhouses remained closed for nearly 11 months, reopening only on 27 December 1593 (Gurr, Companies 91). During this enforced period of touring, Strange’s Men became Derby’s Men, as its patron became Lord Derby on 25 September 1593 (Gurr, Companies 265). The change in name roughly corresponds to an apparent decline in fortunes. Strange’s/ Derby’s was not called to court in 1593–94, and it did not return to the Rose when it reopened in late December of 1593. It is possible the company played at another London playhouse instead, but no evidence supports this conjecture. Even if Strange’s/Derby’s did return to London in 1593, another plague closure on 3 February 1594 would have forced it back on the road. The London theatres had reopened by April 1594 (91), but by this time London’s theatrical landscape had been radically altered and the Chamberlain’s and Admiral’s Men were quickly becoming London’s leading playing companies. Edward Alleyn and most of the other known Strange’s/ Derby’s players joined one or the other of these companies; to make matters worse, Ferdinando Stanley, Strange’s/Derby’s patron, died on 16 April 1594 (265). With these changes in the air, Derby’s Men disappeared from London playing until a new Derby’s Men, under the patronage of William Stanley, would make London inroads in about 1600 (265–6; Chambers, Stage iv.166; 105–109, 453–5). The Strange’s–Admiral’s “Amalgamation” The London activities of Strange’s Men and the Admiral’s Men in the late 1580s/ early 1590s have often been muddied by the belief that the two companies formed one “amalgamated” company during these years. This belief, first propounded by W.W. Greg18 and E.K. Chambers in the early twentieth century and repeated 17

The document which reveals Strange’s played briefly at Newington Butts is undated, and while many scholars believe it is from 1592, others have argued that it may belong to 1591 or 1594 (Foakes 283–5; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 328). 18 As noted below, Greg did not usually use the term “amalgamation,” but since he described the Strange’s–Admiral’s union in largely the same way as Chambers, and since subsequent scholars have adopted Chambers’ term, I occasionally use the term “amalgamation” in relation to Greg for the sake of convenience and economy of language.


68

by numerous scholars since that time,19 is an erroneous one that rests on faulty assumptions and inadequate evidence. It should be discounted as an unfortunate, although somewhat understandable, mistake. Andrew Gurr has forcefully argued against the “amalgamation” in Shakespearean Playing Companies and “The Chimera of Amalgamation,” but in spite of his well-reasoned arguments many scholars have continued to talk about the “amalgamation” as fact. Because scholars continue to accept the existence of the “amalgamation,” because Gurr does not deal with several items which support his case, because the existence (or lack thereof) of the “amalgamation” has several important implications for the history of Elizabethan theatre between 1588 and 1594, and because several arguments for Shakespeare’s company affiliation have been based in part on the existence of the “amalgamation,” it is necessary to outline the argument for the “amalgamation” and to provide the reasons why this argument does not withstand close scrutiny. The idea of an “amalgamation” between the Lord Admiral’s Men and Lord Strange’s Men received its first, and fullest, articulation in 1923 in E.K. Chambers’s The Elizabethan Stage. The idea that these two companies shared some sort of link was not new in 1923; as early as 1910, John Tucker Murray posited a “close connection” (i.62) between Strange’s and the Lord Admiral’s Men. It was, however, Chambers who first developed the hypothesis of an actual “amalgamation” between the two companies. Several years after this initial formulation, W.W. Greg endorsed the hypothesis in his 1931 Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses (volume i), although in 1908 he had already suggested the possibility of a “union” between the two companies (Henslowe’s Diary ii.71). The accounts given by Chambers and Greg of the “amalgamation” have yet to be superseded, at least among supporters of this theory. In The Elizabethan Stage, Chambers listed four primary reasons for suspecting a Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation” between about 1588 and 1594: 1. During the court season of 1590–91, Privy Council records include warrants for two performances by the Lord Admiral’s Men on 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591. However, the payments for these performances list “George Ottewell” as the payee, and his company is referred to as Strange’s Men (ii.120). 2. Several provincial notices between 1588 and 1594 appear to indicate joint performances of Strange’s and the Admiral’s Men: the two are listed together at Shrewsbury in 1592–93, and the Admiral’s and Derby’s are listed together at Ipswich on 7 August 1592 (although here something is amiss, since Strange’s did not become Derby’s Men until nearly two years later) (ii.120–21). 19

The list of scholars who have accepted the existence of a Strange’s–Admiral’s amalgamation includes: Alfred Harbage and S. Schoenbaum in 1964 (Annals 302), Mary Edmond in 1974 (9), G.M. Pinciss also in 1974 (134), Alexander Leggatt in 1975 (101), David George in 1981 (322), Charles Boyce in 1990 (4, 616), Andrew Gurr in 1992 (Shakespearian Stage 24–40), T.J. King also in 1992 (14, 27–32), W.R. Streitberger in 1997 (346–7), Mark C. Pilkinton in his Bristol volume for REED in 1997 (145), and Park Honan in 1998 (130–31).


69

3. Edward Alleyn, although one of Strange’s Men in 1592 and 1593, continued to wear the livery of the Lord Admiral, his previous company’s patron (ii.120). 4. Chambers’s last piece of evidence for the “amalgamation” is the so-called “plot” of The Second Part of the Seven Deadly Sins. This “plot” is a document, found among Edward Alleyn’s Dulwich papers, which provides an unusually complete list of the players performing The Second Part of the Seven Deadly Sins. While the document is undated and the company unnamed, many of the players listed are traceable in other documents. Based on what else is known of these players, Chambers and Greg concluded the “plot” must have belonged to the company that was playing at the Theatre in about 1591 or 1592, since Richard Burbage, son of the Theatre’s proprietor, is on the cast list. Many of the other players named on the “plot” were members of Strange’s Men in 1593, as attested to by a Privy Council license granted Strange’s Men in that year. Strange’s company is never recorded as having played at the Theatre, but if it “amalgamated” with the Admiral’s before the latter company left the Theatre in 1591, this would explain how Strange’s players could be named on a document for a performance at the Theatre (ii.125–6; Shakespeare i.48–52).20 Based on these four pieces of evidence, Chambers speculated that the “amalgamation” may have begun as early as 1588–89, most likely was in place by 1589–90 when “the residue of Strange’s” joined the Admiral’s at the Theatre, was “a fact by 1590–91, and lasted until 1594” (ii.120). Chambers figured the two companies performed together while in London (at the Theatre before 1592, the Rose thereafter) or at court, but split into their component companies for purposes of touring, as indicated by the continuing provincial notices of both a Strange’s and Admiral’s company, although they would join up on the road whenever convenient (ii.121). W.W. Greg largely agreed with these conjectures in Henslowe’s Diary and Dramatic Documents, but tended to avoid using the word “amalgamation.” He also contended that the “plot” of Seven Deadly Sins was from a performance by Strange’s Men only at the Theatre in about 1590, and he thought Strange’s was the “amalgamation’s” controlling company (Diary ii.71–2).21 Both Chambers and Greg were cautious in their initial descriptions of the “amalgamation,” but became more certain of themselves in later books and articles and, as often happens, allowed

20

Chambers, it should be noted, is hesitant to assign the “plot” to the “amalgamated” company; rather, he says that “it may have come into the possession of Strange’s or the Admiral’s or the combined company before ever they reached the Rose” (Stage ii.125). Elsewhere, however, he does seem to indicate that he believes the “plot” belonged to the “amalgamation,” though he never explicitly says so (Shakespeare i.50–52). 21 Chambers, elsewhere in The Elizabethan Stage, also suggests that Strange’s was the controlling interest in the “amalgamation” (ii.136–7); apparently Chambers himself did not seem to be able to decide entirely what the nature of the “amalgamation” was.

70


speculation to harden into fact.22 Later scholars, for the most part, have accepted these speculations as facts. In 1993 and 1996, however, Andrew Gurr revisited the “amalgamation” theory and concluded it had no merit. Gurr points out two main assumptions at work in the “amalgamation” theory which, besides playing a role in the formation of the theory, have been used to justify it: 1. the “amalgamation” was necessary in order for the large-cast plays23 of the late 1580’s and early 1590’s to be effectively staged in London (“Chimera” 85–7); and 2. in retaining two separate licenses, the “amalgamation” made touring easier, insofar as the company could break into its constituent parts, which was necessary since it was difficult to survive while on tour (86–7). Both of these underlying assumptions are highly problematic. First, at least four companies are known to have performed large-cast plays (Strange’s, the Admiral’s, Pembroke’s, and the Queen’s). Even if one were to argue that Strange’s and the Admiral’s performed their large-cast plays in combination, Pembroke’s and the Queen’s appear to have been capable of staging these plays by themselves. Moreover, most of the large-cast plays were performed by the Admiral’s Men by themselves after 1594, again suggesting an “amalgamation” was not necessary for the performance of these plays (85–6). Second, David Bradley raises strong arguments that call into question the idea companies deliberately pared themselves down for touring: (1) sizeable companies are known to have played in the provinces; (2) a London company that reduced its cast size to tour would have rendered its own playtexts that called for a full-size company useless, an action it is difficult to believe a company would have willingly, or regularly, taken; (3) at least one surviving text allegedly shortened for touring, Orlando Furioso, still requires a relatively large cast of sixteen (“Chimera” 86; Companies 42–3; Bradley 58–74). Moreover, Gurr observes, a single company keeping two licenses would have violated the licensing rules of the time. Since Strange’s and the Admiral’s were two of the best–known companies of the time, it is unlikely that such an illegal maneuver, in London itself, would go unnoticed. Authorities would be angry at the misuse of the licenses, and the company patrons

22 For instance, despite his uncertainty over the “amalgamation” in Stage, Chambers later states “It is difficult to resist the inference” that Strange’s and the Admiral’s were “amalgamated” and writes his chapter on London playing in the early 1590s with this as an operating assumption (Shakespeare i.27–56, especially 43 and 48–52). 23 Gurr regards the following as large-cast plays: The Wounds of Civil War; Edward I, II, III; I Henry VI; 2 Henry VI; The Contention; 3 Henry VI; The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York; Sir Thomas More; Titus Andronicus; 2 Seven Deadly Sins; The True Tragedy of Richard III; The Famous Victories; Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay; The Massacre at Paris; and The Taming of the Shrew (Gurr, “Chimera” 88, Companies 59–60).


71

would likely be annoyed at the careless handling their names would receive under such an arrangement (“Chimera” 86–7). These arguments are directed at the reasons for, rather than the fact of, the “amalgamation,” but Gurr also objects to the theory on several factual counts: 1. The Seven Deadly Sins “plot,” Gurr argues, can and has been interpreted in different ways, all of which seem logically valid. Gurr offers Scott McMillin’s 1989 interpretation (“Building Stories”), which dates the “plot” to 1593 or 1594, as a viable alternative to that of Chambers (and Greg, for that matter). Gurr’s own analysis of the “plot,” it should be noted, is very similar to that of Greg. Recently, however, David Kathman has published a new, extremely thorough analysis of the “plot” which reaches very different, but arguably equally logically valid, conclusions from those of Chambers and Greg. Kathman observes that, because the “plot” was discovered amidst Edward Alleyn’s papers at Dulwich University, it is generally assumed the “plot” was made for a performance involving a playing company Alleyn belonged to, although Alleyn himself is not named on the “plot.” Because several other names on the “plot” were Strange’s Men in 1593, as was Alleyn, the general consensus has been that the company in question was Strange’s. Kathman demonstrates, however, that the history of other items in the Dulwich collection should prevent scholars from assuming Alleyn ever had contact with the “plot” (14–18). Eleven of the actors named on the “plot” can be identified elsewhere during the 1590s, but only two of them are otherwise known to have been acting as early as 1590 (19–26). If Alleyn is left out of the reckoning, virtually all of the players on the “plot”—including those in Strange’s Men in 1593—can be linked to the 1597–98 Chamberlain’s Men. Furthermore, if the “plot” is dated to 1597–98, the usual identifications for actors for whom only a first name is supplied on the “plot” are easier to corroborate than if the “plot” is dated to c. 1590 (26–9). Kathman’s analysis is as logical and rigorous as those of Greg, Chambers, Gurr, and McMillin, illustrating perfectly Gurr’s claim that the “plot” is kaleidoscopic in nature: shake the pieces one way, and one interpretation emerges; shake them again, and a different, equally valid interpretation emerges (“Chimera” 87–8). 2. Gurr argues that the 1590–91 court records discrepancy, in which the Admiral’s company is named on the Privy Council warrant but Strange’s company is named in the payment accounts, can be accounted for by confusion on the part of a record keeper, as had been assumed prior to Greg and Chambers (Companies 234, “Chimera” 87). We will consider several possibilities which satisfactorily explain such a mistake momentarily. 3. Gurr notes that after the 1590–91 court season, which allegedly was near the beginning of the “amalgamation” period, the company in question is always referred to as Strange’s in court records, official documents, and, most tellingly, in Henslowe’s Diary and correspondence, which also names Alleyn as a Strange’s player. Alleyn is sometimes singled out as an Admiral’s man, but the Admiral’s company does not appear in any London records between early 1591 and the summer of 1594 (“Chimera” 88).

72


4. If the company which played at the Rose in 1592–93 was, as Chambers claimed, a combination of Strange’s and the Admiral’s, then it is virtually inexplicable why neither Tamburlaine nor Dr. Faustus, two of the most successful plays of the late 1580s, both of which belonged to the Admiral’s, was performed during the Rose run. The best explanation for this circumstance is that the Admiral’s Men was not involved with the company at the Rose, despite Alleyn’s retention of the Admiral’s livery and the possible presence of one or two other former Admiral’s Men at the Rose (“Chimera” 90–91, Companies 237). 5. Gurr argues that the provincial records which Chambers cites for joint Strange’s– Admiral’s performances are not clear on whether two companies did, in fact, perform together. Instead, the relevant records may merely indicate that the two companies were in the same town at the same time (“Chimera” 90, Companies 235–6). Based on these observations, Gurr proposes the following analysis of the relationship between Strange’s and the Admiral’s. The Admiral’s, a major acting company in the late 1580s, underwent a change around 1590 or 1591 which resulted in Alleyn, and possibly others, leaving for Strange’s. Owing to some sort of personal allegiance, Alleyn opted to keep the Admiral’s livery, but this marked him as an Admiral’s servant, not a player in the Admiral’s Men. What was left of the Admiral’s Men went to the provinces and stayed there for the next several years. This company presumably retained Tamburlaine, Dr. Faustus, and possibly other Admiral’s plays that cannot be accounted for between 1591 and 1594. Strange’s, meanwhile, became the preeminent London playing company, playing first at the Theatre and then the Rose. When Strange’s disintegrated in the spring of 1594, Alleyn returned to a rejuvenated or reconstituted Admiral’s while many other former Strange’s players joined the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (“Chimera” 90–93). Beyond Gurr’s objections, there are four additional factors which further weaken the “amalgamation” hypothesis. 1. According to Chambers, the “amalgamation” was in place by about 1589 (Stage ii.120). If so, the activities of the Admiral’s and Strange’s Men between 1589 and 1594 ought to reflect similar modes of operation. This is the case between 1592 and 1594 when both companies appear frequently in the provinces, but this would have been the case whether or not they were “amalgamated,” as London plague closures forced all companies to tour during these years. Between 1589 and 1592, however, the itineraries of the two companies suggest very different operating styles (see the Appendix for the 1577–94 Admiral’s and Strange’s itineraries). Between 1589 and June of 1592, Strange’s Men gave only one recorded provincial performance (at Faversham in 1591–92) (REED, Kent 561). Five additional provincial performances took place during 1591–92, but four of these performances could have come after the 22 June 1592 plague closure of the Rose. This evidence suggests a company that was not interested in touring and remained in London as much as possible. The Admiral’s Men, by contrast,


73

appeared in the provinces at least twenty-two times between 1589 and 1592. Clearly, the Admiral’s company was more active in the provinces during these years than Strange’s Men. Why would two supposedly “amalgamated” companies behave so differently? 2. Two provincial performances by the Admiral’s Men seemingly violate Chambers’s contention that the two companies were united in London and at court, but divided on the road.24 a. The Admiral’s Men performed in Leicester on 19 December 1592 (REED, “Leicester” 78), while Strange’s performed at court on 27 December (Chambers, Stage iv.164 Astington, English 234). While it is true touring companies were remarkably mobile, it is odd that the Admiral’s would have ranged so far afield so close to the court season if an “amalgamated” company was needed to perform at court, even if plague closure prevented playing in London proper.25 Strange’s had been called to court six times the previous holiday season; if the Admiral’s Men was in partnership with Strange’s, it is hard to believe that the Admiral’s would have been so far away from London on 19 December. Strange’s does not display similar behavior: its latest recorded pre-court season performance took place in Oxford in early October (REED, Oxford 218). b. According to several sources, the Admiral’s Men played at Shrewsbury on 3 February 1592 (Chambers, Stage ii.120n; Gurr, Companies 254). Strange’s, however, played at court on 9 January and again on 6 February (Chambers, Stage iv.164; Astington, English 233). Quite apart from the difficulty in moving an entire company from Shrewsbury on 3 February to London in time to play at court on 6 February, one wonders why the Admiral’s was on tour at all in the midst of the court season, unless it hadn’t performed at court on 9 January and didn’t on 6 February. At least one source, however, lists the Admiral’s Shrewsbury performance as 3 February 1593 (REED, Shropshire 277).26 This date again conflicts with the “amalgamation” hypothesis, since Strange’s played at the Rose until 1 February 1593 (Foakes 20). As the Rose season ended due to plague closure, it is unlikely the “amalgamated” company was prepared to undertake a tour the next day; even if it was, it could not have covered the 150 miles in time to perform at Shrewsbury on 3 February. Still, 24 The following assumes that the dates of the performances concerned are more or less accurate, which is not always the case in records of provincial performances. 25 This assumes companies that believed they could be called on for command performances tried to play in or near London during the court season (Gurr, Playing Companies 19). Probably the strongest evidence backing up this assumption is the fact that, between 1594 and 1599, only two companies—the Admiral’s and the Chamberlain’s—were sanctioned to play in London, and during this period only they were called to perform at court. 26 It should be noted that if Somerset’s dating is correct, it means the Admiral’s visited Shrewsbury three times between 29 September 1592 and 29 September 1593, which is an unusually high number of (recorded) visits for a single year.


74

it is possible the 3 February date is not accurate, or that it refers to the date the record was made, rather than to the date of the Admiral’s visit. 3. Although Chambers speaks of other companies “amalgamating” from time to time, the six other possible London amalgamations between 1585 and 1603 provide no precedent for the sort of long-term “amalgamation” proposed for the Admiral’s and Strange’s Men. a. During the court season of 1585–86, the Lord Chamberlain’s and the Lord Admiral’s companies may have staged a joint court performance on 6 January 1586 (Chambers, Stage iv.161; Astington, English 231); the Admiral’s and the Chamberlain’s are also listed together at Dover on 12 June 1585 and Leicester during 1585–86 (REED, Kent 477; REED, “Leicester” 65). In absence of any further evidence about these three performances, it is impossible to say if they were joint or if both companies performed separately on the same dates. Even if the two companies did play jointly on all three occasions, such a six-month amalgamation (June 1585–January 1586) hardly provides precedent for the three-to-five year “amalgamation.”27 b. Henslowe’s Diary records that the Queen’s and Sussex’s Men performed “to geather” at the Rose between 1 and 8 April 1594 (Foakes 21). During this short season, five plays were performed: Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (1 and 5 April), The Ranger’s Comedy (2 April), The Jew of Malta (3 and 7 April), The Fair Maid of Italy (4 April), and King Leir (6 and 8 April). Of these, Friar Bacon and King Leir were Queen’s plays and Fair Maid was Sussex’s. Sussex’s had also played Jew during its 27 December 1593–96 February 1594 Rose season, but this play was also performed by every company which performed at the Rose during the 1590s. The Ranger’s Comedy would subsequently appear in the Admiral’s Rose repertory. It is once again unclear if the companies played jointly or separately on different days, although the phrase “to geather” may mitigate toward joint performances. If the two companies were amalgamated, it was only for a week, again hardly a precedent for a three-to-five year Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation.” c. Henslowe’s Diary records a run from 3 to 13 June at Newington Butts which featured both the Lord Chamberlain’s and Lord Admiral’s companies (Foakes 21–2). Yet again, it is unclear if the companies played jointly or separately on different days. Of the seven plays performed during this run, three were almost certainly Lord Chamberlain’s plays (Titus Andronicus, The Taming of A Shrew, Hamlet) and a fourth (Hester and Ahasuerus) probably was, while three (Cutlack, Belin Dun, and The Jew of Malta) subsequently appear in Henslowe’s Diary as Admiral’s plays performed at the Rose (Foakes 21–2; 27

It should also be noted that during the course of 1585 Charles Howard held both the office of Lord Chamberlain (until July) and Lord Admiral (after 8 July), at least raising the possibility that the records referring to seemingly joint Admiral’s-Chamberlain’s performances in 1585–86 do not refer to two companies playing jointly, but to one company listed under both of its patron’s recent offices.


75

Gurr, Companies 279–80). Henslowe’s records do not yield any intelligible pattern of alteration between the repertories of the two companies; if this signals they were playing jointly, though, this arrangement was hardly anything like the long-term “amalgamation” envisioned by Chambers and Greg. d. The title page of the 1594 quarto of Titus Andronicus announces it was played “by the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembroke, and the Earle of Sussex their Seruantes.” It is presumed that the reference to “Darbie” should actually read “Strange’s,” which was Derby’s by 1594 (but unlikely to have ever had access to Titus Andronicus once the name change occurred). Most scholars interpret the list of companies on the title-page as a catalog of successive companies that performed the play, beginning with Strange’s, then Pembroke’s, followed by Sussex’s. A later edition of the play adds the Lord Chamberlain’s to the list, bolstering this interpretation (Gurr, “Reluctant” 158). Some scholars, however, have argued that the title page lists a combined company which performed the play (George 316–17). Even if one accepts the unlikely argument the three companies played jointly, this amalgamation would have been brief—perhaps only a single performance— and as such provides no precedent for the supposed Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation.”28 e. The Admiral’s Men and Pembroke’s Men may have amalgamated during 1597–98. Daily entries of Admiral’s performances in Henslowe’s Diary abruptly stop during February 1597, about the time several Admiral’s actors (Richard Jones and Thomas Downton, at least) left the Rose to join Pembroke’s Men, the resident company at Francis Langley’s Swan playhouse (Gurr, Companies 239). The Swan venture ended in late July 1597 (Shakespearian Stage 108), and Jones and Downton subsequently reappear in Henslowe’s Diary (on 6 August and 6 October, respectively). At least three actors who had been attached to Pembroke’s Men also appear in the Diary at roughly the same time (Robert Shaw on 6 August 1597, William Borne alias Bird on 10 August 1597, and Gabriel Spencer by 25 March 1598) (Chambers Stage iv.152–3). Henslowe resumed keeping daily records of Rose receipts on 11 October 1597 under the heading “my lord admirals & my lord of penbrockes men” (Foakes 60). There are no indications of separate accounts for the two companies, and a few entries for purchases Henslowe made for the players list both companies as recipients (Greg, Diary ii.91–2). References to both the Admiral’s and Pembroke’s Men continue in the Diary until 5 November 1597, but thereafter entries again refer only to the Admiral’s, although a list of receipts begun on 21 October 1597 and running until 4 March 1598 lists both companies in the heading (Foakes 71–3). On 27 December 1597, the Admiral’s appeared at court with no other company named, as it did on 28 February 1598 28

More will be said about George’s theory in Chapter 8.

76


(Gurr, Companies 253). Since the names of actors known to have been Pembroke’s Men at the Swan continue to appear in the Diary after 27 December, it would seem the union of Pembroke’s and the Admiral’s was so thorough there was no longer any reason to use two names for the same company. The nature of the Admiral’s-Pembroke’s union is complicated by two factors, however. First, a Pembroke’s company played at Bristol twice between 28 August and 10 September 1597, just after the closure of the Swan (REED, Bristol 150). Second, a Pembroke’s Men appears in the provinces in 1598–99 (Greg, Diary ii.91–2). These records suggest that not all of Pembroke’s Men took up playing at the Rose. This situation is problematic because if one Pembroke’s company was on tour while another was at the Rose, this would have been a violation of the law restricting the use of a patron’s name to a single company. Legal issues aside, records of a provincial Pembroke’s Men raises questions as to whether the Pembroke’s that unified with the Admiral’s at the Rose was a full-size company or just a few players unable or unwilling to remain with their fellows who went to the provinces. Whatever the case, the union of Pembroke’s and the Admiral’s once again seems to have been brief—roughly 11 October until 8 December 1597—and as such a weak precedent for the long-term Admiral’s-Strange’s “amalgamation.” f. A Privy Council order dated 31 March 1602 officially recognized a combined Oxford’s/Worcester’s Men, “joyned by agrement togeather in on Companie,” as the third company sanctioned to play in London, along with the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s Men (Gurr, Companies 318–19; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 109–10). How and why the two companies had joined forces is not clear; the Privy Council order itself was apparently written by the Earl of Worcester, leading Gurr to speculate that Worcester himself enforced the merger (Companies 319). Although this “amalgamation” apparently became permanent, it did so only under Worcester’s name, and never split into its component parts while touring. Moreover, it seems that this merger was a governmental imposition, rather than a combination of convenience, such as the Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation” supposedly was. 4. Finally, the known personnel of Strange’s Men (as listed in a 1593 document— Wickham, Berry, and Ingram 191–2) do not include any players, with the exception of Edward Alleyn, who belonged to the Admiral’s Men before 1594. The known pre-1594 Admiral’s players are Edward Alleyn, James Tunstall, Richard Jones, probably Robert Browne, possibly John Bradstreet and Thomas Sackville, and perhaps Edward Alleyn’s brother John, who may or may not have been a player (Nungezer 11–12; Chambers, Stage ii.137–9, 298–9; Gurr, Companies 234). Each of these individuals appears in documents from the same period as the “amalgamation’s” supposed existence, but only Edward Alleyn can be connected to Strange’s Men. Thomas Downton, like Alleyn, moved from Strange’s to the Admiral’s Men in 1594, but there is no evidence to connect him to the Admiral’s Men before 1594 (Gurr, Companies 237; Foakes 282–3).


77

The balance of the evidence, then, is clearly against the existence of any Strange’s– Admiral’s “amalgamation,” unless the transfer of a player from one company to the other constitutes an amalgamation. This, however, would be like saying that Manchester United amalgamated with Real Madrid when David Beckham switched teams, or that the Boston Red Sox amalgamated with the New York Yankees when Babe Ruth switched teams. Of course, the initial “problem” which resulted in the “amalgamation” theory still exists: the 1590–91 court records which list the Admiral’s as performers and Strange’s as payees. This may be a simple mistake in the records, but there may be other ways to account for it which involve Alleyn’s transfer from the Admiral’s to Strange’s. We will return to this issue presently. The Admiral’s, Strange’s, and The Theatre, 1591 Discarding the misconceived Admiral’s-Strange’s “amalgamation” hypothesis in turn allows misconceptions about an alleged Edward Alleyn-James Burbage quarrel at the Theatre in late 1590 or early 1591 to be cleared up. As the story is usually narrated, Edward Alleyn and his company played at the Theatre in 1590–91. At the time, James Burbage and his sons were involved in a lawsuit by Margaret Brayne, John Brayne’s widow. One afternoon, Margaret Brayne and several of her supporters came to the Theatre in an effort to collect the money she believed she was owed. They encountered a hostile James Burbage. Several members of Alleyn’s company intervened on Brayne’s behalf, making Burbage more belligerent. Several days later, the players were involved in another altercation with the elder Burbage; as a result, they left the Theatre and took up residence at the Rose in 1592. This narrative, which C.W. Wallace (19–21) derived from legal documents, has been repeated by various scholars, including Chambers (Stage ii.120), Greg (Dramatic Documents i.13, 17, 100–111), and Gurr (Companies 71, 259–62, 270, 274). Each of these scholars has supposed the company in question was either the Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation” (Chambers and Greg) or Strange’s Men alone (Gurr and others).29 Setting aside the “amalgamation” seemingly leaves Strange’s Men as the company at the Theatre, but careful reconsideration of the documents involved reveals 1) Strange’s was not the company at the Theatre; 2) the company at the Theatre did not necessarily leave after the fight with Burbage; and 3) Edward Alleyn may not have even been involved in these events.30 The narrative of the Burbage-Alleyn quarrel is based on two court depositions given by John Alleyn, Edward’s brother, in 1592 concerning the hostile encounter between the Burbages and Margaret Brayne. The first deposition, filed 6 February 29

C.W. Wallace lists the Admiral’s Men as the company involved in the Burbage quarrel, but he believes the Admiral’s, Strange’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s Men were basically one company, so he, too, essentially favors the “amalgamation” (21). 30 Roslyn Lander Knutson, in Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time, has already questioned the Burbage-Alleyn quarrel narrative, not on factual bases, but to combat the assumption that the history of playing companies can be boiled down to competition based on personal quarrels (1–20).


78

1592, describes John Alleyn as a 35-year-old innholder familiar with the parties involved in the case. Alleyn, describing himself as “a servaunt withe” James Burbage, relates that he was at the Theatre when Margaret Brayne and Richard Miles, her ally, confronted the elder Burbage, who responded by driving Brayne and Miles out “wt vyolence.” Alleyn describes how he then tried, to no avail, to persuade Burbage to come to terms with Brayne. According to Alleyn, after eight days he came to the Theatre to collect money Burbage owed Alleyn “and his fellowes,” but that Burbage refused to pay. Alleyn accused Burbage of dealing with him the same way he was dealing with Brayne, and threatened to “compleyne to ther lorde & Mr. the lord Admyrall.” At this, Burbage flew into a rage; Alleyn does not comment on what the outcome of this confrontation was (Wallace 98–102). In Alleyn’s second deposition, dated 6 May 1592, he said that the incidents recorded in his first deposition had occurred “about A yere past” and that James Tunstall and others had been present when Alleyn attempted to collect the money from Burbage. In responding to a peripheral question, Alleyn also mentions that, although he never saw James Burbage deliver payments owed to Henry Lanman, owner of the Curtain, before the death of John Brayne, he had seen Burbage deliver such payments since Brayne’s 1586 death (124–7). Alleyn’s depositions reveal key information about events at the Theatre in 1590–91. Firstly, his testimony dates the incidents reported therein to about May 1591. Secondly, he clearly indicates that the company playing at the Theatre at that time was the Admiral’s Men; James Tunstall, an actor, presumably was among the company’s members at that time. John Alleyn himself apparently was involved with the Admiral’s in some capacity, as he refers to the players as his “fellowes,” but he does not indicate that he himself was a player. Finally, Alleyn’s discussion of Burbage’s payments to Lanman before and after John Brayne’s death seems to indicate that Alleyn, at least, had been involved with Burbage for some time; this in turn suggests that the Admiral’s Men had also acted at the Theatre for some time before 1591, as Brayne had died in 1586. Alleyn’s depositions do not, however, make any mention of Edward Alleyn, Strange’s Men, or any playing company leaving the Theatre as a result of Burbage’s tantrums. In other words, the available evidence does not support any of the key points of the usual narrative, save that there was a quarrel at the Theatre in 1591. How, then, did Edward Alleyn, Strange’s Men, and the departure of a playing company become part of this tale? The answer is likely the Seven Deadly Sins “plot.” Again, this plot is often dated to 1590–91; as Richard Burbage is named on it, the Theatre has been assumed as the likely venue for the performance. Because Burbage is not listed as “Mr.,” it has been assumed he was younger, and not a sharer, in the performing company; scholars have therefore assumed the “plot” belonged to a pre-1594 company (Greg, Dramatic Documents i.20, 86, 118; Chambers, Stage ii.125–6; Gurr, Companies 71).31 Because other names on the “plot” are known to have been Strange’s Men in 1593, the performing company is assumed to have been Strange’s (Greg, Dramatic Documents i.19, 21; Gurr, Companies 60, 71, 261). Thus, Strange’s must have been 31

David Kathman has also questioned this assumption (20–21).


79

at the Theatre in the early 1590s. But Henslowe’s Diary records that Strange’s played at the Rose by early 1592, so it must have left the Theatre at some point. And when better to leave than after a fight with James Burbage? Because Edward Alleyn was a leading Strange’s player in 1592–93, and because his brother was in the thick of the altercations at the Theatre in 1591, it has been further assumed Edward must have been involved in these altercations. If all these assumptions are joined together, one can arrive at the narrative of Edward Alleyn quarreling with James Burbage and leading Strange’s away from the Theatre. But all these assumptions depend on dating the Seven Deadly Sins “plot” to 1590–91, and we have already seen there is reason to doubt this dating; Kathman in particular has made a strong case for dating the “plot” to 1597–98 (14). If the undated and contentious “plot” is set aside and John Alleyn’s eyewitness testimony alone is relied on for determining the course of events, Strange’s Men is nowhere to be found. If any company left the Theatre in 1591, it was the Admiral’s Men, and at any rate John Alleyn has nothing to say about the results of his altercation with James Burbage. Finally, apart from John Alleyn’s presence at the Theatre, nothing else suggests Edward Alleyn had any part in these events. Indeed, one would think if Edward had been involved in these events, his own brother would have mentioned him. By discarding the “amalgamation” hypothesis and relying on John Alleyn’s testimony rather than assumptions generated by a questionable dating of the 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot,” it is possible to outline the London activities of Strange’s and the Admiral’s in the late 1580s and early 1590s. The Admiral’s clearly played at the Theatre in 1591 and perhaps had done so for several years before. No direct evidence survives to support this conjecture, but the Admiral’s frequently played at court during the mid-to-late 1580s and is known to have played in London in 1587 and 1589. In any case, the Admiral’s was playing at the Theatre by late 1590 or early 1591 and remained there until at least May 1591. After this, the Admiral’s left London altogether and spent several years exclusively in the provinces.32 Strained relations with James Burbage may have precipitated the departure, but this is not certain. Strange’s also likely played in London between 1589 and 1592, although its exact venue is unknown, save for the 1589 performance at the Cross Keys in defiance of a mayoral order (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 302). Strange’s was not, as is often supposed, at the Theatre. It may even be that Strange’s played at the Rose before Henslowe began keeping daily records. The Rose had, after all, been built in 1587; presumably some company or other used it from time to time before the 1592 remodeling. The Admiral’s, Strange’s, and the Alleyns, 1589–1591 The one unresolved issue in the Strange’s–Admiral’s story is why the two companies were confused in court records during 1590–91. Perhaps this was a flat out mistake, 32

Some Admiral’s players also toured the continent (Chambers, Stage ii.273–7; Gurr, Companies 234–6; Schrickx 114–31, 184–219).


80

but as this confusion corresponds roughly to Edward Alleyn’s transfer from the Admiral’s to Strange’s Men, there could be another explanation. For instance, Alleyn may have switched companies just before the court season; perhaps the Queen wanted to see Alleyn perform, so she summoned his company. Until recently, this had been the Admiral’s, and he still wore the Admiral’s livery, so the warrant may have been made out to the Admiral’s for any or all of these reasons. But Alleyn’s company was now Strange’s Men, so it, led by Alleyn, performed and was paid accordingly. It seems as though the payment records are more likely to be correct anyway, since money actually changed hands, whereas no such exchange took place when a warrant was issued. Yet other documents complicate this version of events. John Alleyn’s court depositions, for instance, identify him as a fellow of the Admiral’s Men in May 1591, meaning the Alleyn brothers at this point would have been involved with different companies if Edward already was with Strange’s Men. But other records indicate the brothers worked together on certain theatrical matters: 1. A 3 January 1589 document reveals John and Edward bought Richard Jones’s share in an unnamed company, in which Robert Browne was a sharer. Jones, Browne, and Edward Alleyn were Worcester’s Men in the early 1580s, but as Worcester’s is not traceable after 1585,33 the company in question seems to be the Admiral’s Men. The Admiral’s emergence (c. 1585) corresponds to Worcester’s disappearance, and John Alleyn was associated with the Admiral’s in 1590–91; moreover, Browne and Jones would tour the continent in the early 1590s under a passport from the Admiral. While it remains possible that another company’s internal changes are recorded in this document, the Admiral’s Men is probably the company in question (Foakes 273–4; Chambers, Stage ii.137–8). 2. A 23 November 1590 deed shows John alone buying what appears to be theatrical apparel; James Tunstall is a witness (Alleyn Papers 11–12). 3. A 6 May 1591 deed shows John and Edward buying theatrical apparel, with Tunstall again the witness (Alleyn Papers 12–13). 4. A document from 25 July 1591 records John and Edward’s acknowledgment that they were in debt (Alleyn Papers 14–15). The first of these documents was once the matter of some contention, as various scholars were unable to agree upon what company was involved.34 The general consensus now is that it is the Admiral’s, and that Edward and John were buying out Richard Jones’s share in the company as he prepared to depart for a European tour with Robert Browne (Gurr, Companies 232–3). Whatever the case, this document does not interfere with the premise that Alleyn left the Admiral’s for Strange’s in late 1590 or thereabouts. Edward does not appear in the second of these documents, so 33

A new, seemingly unconnected Worcester’s appears in 1589. Greg argued Alleyn was buying out other Worcester’s sharers on behalf of the Admiral’s; Frederick Fleay, along the same lines, believed Alleyn was buying out Worcester’s on behalf of Strange’s. Chambers asserted that the documents were evidence of some internal reorganization of the Admiral’s (Chambers, Stage ii.137–9; Greg, Diary ii.70, 83; Fleay 82–3). 34


81

this document also does not challenge the assumption Edward left the Admiral’s for Strange’s at about this time. The fourth document shows that two brothers were in debt; even if a theatrical debt, family members helping each other out, even possibly across acting company lines, and as a result going into debt together, is hardly a surprising occurrence.35 The third document, however, does present difficulties, if one assumes that Edward was a member of Strange’s by late 1590, that he exclusively dealt with Strange’s Men after that date, and that John exclusively dealt with the Admiral’s Men. James Tunstall is the complicating figure in this document. He was, according to John’s court deposition, an Admiral’s player in May 1591, so it seems odd that he would witness a deed of sale for an actor belonging to a different company. It also seems odd that John and Edward would jointly buy theatrical apparel when belonging to different companies. This, however, assumes that their companies were in fact competitors, which they may not have been. The belief the London theatre world was one of cutthroat competition has been increasingly challenged, especially by Roslyn Lander Knutson (Playing Companies 1–20). It may be that the Alleyn documents provide evidence of different companies cooperating. Then again, these documents may also be evidence that the Alleyns and Tunstall were still in the same company in May 1591 and Edward Alleyn joined Strange’s after that date, in which case his transfer from the Admiral’s to Strange’s does not explain the confusion in the 1590–91 court documents.36 So while it is possible to untangle the confusion surrounding the “amalgamation” and the events at the Theatre in 1590–91, it may not be as easy to untangle Edward Alleyn’s movements before 1592. Pembroke’s Men By 1592, Strange’s Men occupied the Rose. The Admiral’s seems to have left London by about this time. The Queen’s Men perhaps still played in London, but if it did, no evidence of its presence survives, apart from scattered court performances. With no other strong companies in London besides Strange’s, the time was ripe for a new company to try its London fortunes. Accordingly, in 1592 notices of a company 35

For example, on 8 May 1593 Philip Henslowe lent his nephew Francis £15 to buy a share in the Queen’s Men and lent him a further £9 on 1 June 1595 to buy an additional half share “wth the company wch he dothe play wth,” presumably still the Queen’s (Foakes 7, 9). At the time of the first loan, the Rose was between companies; Strange’s had left in February due to plague closure, and Sussex’s would play there in December. At the time of the second loan, the Admiral’s was playing at the Rose. Thus, in the second instance, Philip was helping a family member associated with a company that may have even been associated with the rival Swan Theatre (Ingram, London Life 115–20; McMillin and MacLean 51; Knutson, Playing Companies 61–2, 67). 36 There is at least one other example of one company being called to court and another delivering the performance: on 11 February 1578 Leicester’s Men was summoned to court but the Countess of Essex’s actually performed (Chambers, Stage iv.153).

82


called Pembroke’s Men begin to appear. The company’s patron was Henry Herbert, who became the Earl of Pembroke in 1570 and the Lord President of Wales in 1586 (Chambers, Stage ii.128). Pembroke’s Men played at court twice during the 1592– 93 court season (iv.164; Astington, English 234), which suggests Pembroke’s was operating in London. No further evidence, though, attests to its London activities. Of course, only records of theatrical activity at the Rose survive for these years. Because Pembroke’s began its short life just as London theatre was falling prey to long plague closures, most of the rest of the available information about Pembroke’s Men comes from provincial records. This, coupled with the fact that several plays apparently in Pembroke’s repertory are seemingly abridged, has led many scholars to suppose Pembroke’s was exclusively a provincial company (Chambers, Stage ii.129; Pinciss 134; Edmond 130; and George 307, among others). But this was not the case. On the one hand, the fact Pembroke’s played twice at court in 1592–93 strongly suggests it was playing in London at the time; on the other hand, a 1593 letter from Philip Henslowe to Edward Alleyn mentions that Pembroke’s players, after a difficult tour, were “at home” in London (Foakes 280–82). This is the last we hear of the company in London before 1597, when a reconstituted Pembroke’s briefly played at the Swan. Beyond these few facts, little of certainty can be said concerning Pembroke’s London career. The various speculations about the nature and personnel of this company will be taken up in Chapter 7. Sussex’s Men Strange’s Men played at the Rose between February and June of 1592, and then again between December 1592 and February 1593. Strange’s leading player, Edward Alleyn, was Philip Henslowe’s son-in-law, and the two remained in close contact during Strange’s 1593 tour. It is therefore surprising to discover that, when the Rose reopened on 26 December 1593, Sussex’s Men, not Strange’s, took up residence there (Foakes 20–21). Sussex’s patron was Henry Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex since 1583 (Chambers, Stage ii.92). Sussex’s Rose repertory is completely different from that of Strange’s in 1592 and 1593, and Strange’s continued to play in the provinces after late 1593, so Sussex’s does not appear to have been a reconstituted Strange’s under a new patron. Sussex’s may, in fact, have played in London before its sudden appearance at the Rose, as it performed at court on 2 January 1592 (iv.164; Astington, English 233). Moreover, on 29 April 1593 the Privy Council issued “an open warrant for the plaiers, servantes of the Erle of Sussex, authorysinge them to exercyse theire qualitie of playinge comedies and tragedies in any county, cittie, towne or corporacion” more than seven miles from London (Chambers, Stage ii.94). Strange’s Men, decidedly a company with London connections, was issued a similar warrant a week later (6 May) which explicitly indicates the warrant was being issued to a London company that wanted to guarantee smooth provincial travel (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 191–2; Chambers, Stage ii.123). In any event, why Sussex’s Men replaced Strange’s at the Rose in December 1593 remains a mystery. Perhaps Sussex’s was near London when the inhibition on


83

playing was lifted and Henslowe, needing to reopen the Rose as soon as possible, could not wait for his son-in-law’s company to return. Perhaps a personnel shift took place in the fall of 1593, making Sussex’s a more attractive company than Strange’s/ Derby’s; for example, maybe popular ex-Pembroke’s Men had joined Sussex’s and brought successful plays, such as Titus Andronicus, with them, which Sussex’s then played to great acclaim at the Rose (Foakes 21). Or perhaps Edward Alleyn had again switched companies. This, however, is pure speculation.37 In any case, Sussex’s played at the Rose from 26 December 1593 until 6 February 1594, when plague again stalled London playing (Foakes 20–21; Gurr, Companies 91). Playing resumed on 1 April, and Sussex’s again performed at the Rose, but this time with the Queen’s Men; Henslowe records the two companies played “to geather” (Foakes 21), although it is not clear if this refers to joint playing or simply two companies performing at the same playhouse on different days. These two companies had briefly toured together in 1590–91, but why they now combined forces again is a matter of speculation.38 It may have been a matter of necessity. Playing companies certainly faced great difficulties because of the plague closures of the early 1590s; perhaps this Sussex’s-Queen’s alliance was one way of facing the challenging theatrical conditions during these years. It may also be that Henslowe had family connections to the Queen’s Men; in 1593 he lent his nephew Francis money to buy a share in the Queen’s Men, and two years later lent Francis money to buy a half share in a company that was almost certainly the Queen’s again (Foakes 7, 9). Perhaps Francis had persuaded his uncle to help his company out in April 1594. Whatever the case, the Sussex’s-Queen’s arrangement lasted only until 9 April 1594 (Foakes 21). After this, Sussex’s Men disappears for good. *** When Henslowe resumed his daily records on 14 May 1594, the Admiral’s company was playing at the Rose. After three performances, the records again stop. The next daily entries, beginning 3 June 1594 and lasting until 13 June, are for the Chamberlain’s and Admiral’s Men at Newington Butts. On 15 June, the Admiral’s returned to the Rose and would remain there for the next number of years, while the Chamberlain’s took up residence at the Theatre (Foakes 21–2). This would remain the legally sanctioned London playing arrangement for the remainder of the sixteenth 37

For a more developed consideration of Sussex’s connection to Titus Andronicus, The Jew of Malta, and Edward Alleyn, see Chapter 8 as well as Scott McMillin’s “Sussex’s Men in 1594.” 38 It may be misleading to characterize this 1594 association as a continuation of the 1590– 91 one. In 1590–91, Sussex’s clearly was touring with Laneham’s branch of the Queen’s Men; the Queen’s company that joined Sussex’s at the Rose may have been the Duttons’ branch, or else a combination of Laneham’s and the Duttons’ personnel. See the following chapters on the Queen’s Men (Chapter 5) and Sussex’s Men (Chapter 8) for more on this point.

84


century, although several other companies would attempt London incursions in the following years. With the establishment of this “duopoly,” the first, unstable phase of London-based playing companies comes to an end and the second, much more stable phase begins. Frustratingly, few statements about playing companies in London between 1588–94 can be made with absolute certainty, but many tantalizing hints survive which allow us to form the foregoing picture, murky as it is, of the events of these years. It is, in any case, within this volatile context of plague closures, restless players, and rapidly rising and falling acting companies that William Shakespeare gained entrance to the London theatre world and embarked on his playwriting career. Having now established an outline for Shakespeare’s Stratford and pre-Chamberlain’s London life, as well as the provincial and London playing contexts he would have found himself in, it is at last possible to turn to the various arguments for Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s company membership.

PART 3 Shakespeare and the Companies Introductory Note

Each of the next four chapters deals in detail with arguments that have been put forward over the years for which playing company (or companies) Shakespeare belonged to before his emergence as a Lord Chamberlain’s player in 1594. Each chapter is divided into two sections. The first section of each chapter traces the history of the company in question, focusing particularly on the years when Shakespeare might have joined that company. The second section of each chapter surveys reasons scholars have given for thinking Shakespeare was in that particular company and provides a running commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments. Again, it is not my intention to demonstrate that one of these arguments is the “best” or “right” argument, but rather to show the variety of scholarly hypotheses on this issue that have accumulated over the years and to consider the ways in which the history of this controversy opens onto other scholarly issues of equal, or greater, importance to the overall history of Elizabethan theatre. To that end, I have attempted to avoid an organization that privileges one argument or another. These chapters do not move from strongest to weakest or vice versa. Instead, I have elected to use a roughly chronological sequence of the scholarship on both Shakespeare and the history of Elizabethan theatre. Thus, since Malone proposed Shakespeare might have been in the Queen’s Men, I begin with chapter on this company before moving on to Strange’s Men, Pembroke’s Men and Sussex’s Men. Following these four chapters, I examine the currently popular proposition that Shakespeare went to Lancashire as a teenager, possibly acting under the patronage of Alexander Hoghton and Thomas Hesketh. A final chapter is dedicated to examining the argument for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s Men, which I use a springboard to discussing arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in Essex’s, Worcester’s, Warwick’s, Oxford’s, and the Admiral’s Men, all of which have relatively little evidence to support them. Over the course of these chapters, I intend to provide not only a comprehensive examination of the amazing variety of biographical conjectures on Shakespeare’s early professional life, but also an examination of what we now know about each of these theatre companies of the 1580s and 1590s. Moreover, I offer a historiographical critique of the scholarship surrounding Shakespeare’s early theatrical affiliations. This body of scholarship has often been inconsistent, contradictory, and not as rigorous as it might be. Indeed, each argument for Shakespeare’s early playing company membership runs up against significant difficulties. But in examining

86


these difficulties, it becomes evident that the search for Shakespeare’s “lost years” or pre-Chamberlain’s playing company is not an end in and of itself, but a touchstone for a number of issues pertaining to biography, Elizabethan theatre history, and historiography. In this regard, Shakespeare is the beginning, rather than the end, of this study.

Chapter 5

The Queen’s Men

In Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare (2004), Stephen Greenblatt joins the speculation on Shakespeare’s first acting company. He asserts that “The most intriguing possibility that scholars have explored in recent years concerns the Queen’s Men” (162). Greenblatt is partially correct in this statement. There have indeed been a number of recent attempts to demonstrate the likelihood, or at least possibility, that Shakespeare was once a Queen’s man: Eric Sams’s The Real Shakespeare (1995), Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean’s seventh chapter of their book The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (1998), and Katherine DuncanJones’s Ungentle Shakespeare (2001). Less recently, G.K. Pinciss, writing in the 1960s and 1970s, and A.W. Pollard, writing in the 1930s, similarly proposed the Queen’s Men as Shakespeare’s first company. The notion that Shakespeare might have been a Queen’s player, however, reaches back further still, to none other than Edmond Malone, the first of Shakespeare’s great biographers. But before turning to the possibility that Shakespeare was once among the Queen’s Men, it is necessary to give an account of the history of the Queen’s Men. The Queen’s Men Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean’s The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (1998) stands as the most thorough study of the history, repertoire, personnel, and organization of the Queen’s Men. Because McMillin and MacLean so effectively lay out the story of the Queen’s Men, it is not necessary to go into great detail concerning the company’s history here. The Queen’s Men was formed in March 1583, when Sir Francis Walsingham, in effect the secretary of state, authorized Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels, to bring the best players at the time into a single, large company (Chambers, Stage ii.104; McMillin and MacLean 24–5). McMillin and MacLean, noting Walsingham’s involvement, suggest court politics and national policy contributed to the Queen’s formation. First, a royal company regularly called to perform at court could have reduced infighting amongst Privy Councilors who used court performances by their playing companies to demonstrate—or improve— their standing with Elizabeth (26). Second, the Queen and Privy Council may have seen a traveling royal company as a way to unify the religiously and political divided England of the early 1580s, as “a travelling company of Queen’s Men would not only carry the name and the influence of the monarch through the country, but would also give the impression of a watchful monarch, one whose ‘men’ ranged over the land” (28). Moreover, in demonstrating the Queen’s support for theatre, the Queen’s Men


88

blunted radical Protestant attacks on the theatre, thereby keeping this potentially dangerous group at bay.1 Accordingly, the Queen’s company served as cultural ambassador, as part of the government’s intelligence network, and as a weapon in the emergent cultural, social, political, and religious disputes in the 1570s and 1580s (28–32). Gurr, by contrast, says nothing about the Queen’s Men’s potential as cultural ambassadors. Instead, he focuses on “more local and immediate concerns” (Companies 196). Specifically, he follows Barroll (“Drama and the Court”) and an earlier McMillin article (“The Queen’s Men and the London Theatre of 1583”) by emphasizing the usefulness of the Queen’s Men in diffusing the aforementioned rivalries between great lords played out through their playing companies. Gurr also suggests the formation of the Queen’s Men guaranteed the safety of leading players of the day from hostile civic leaders, which in turn ensured the availability of Christmas entertainment for the Queen. Gurr also suggests that the Queen’s Men was an innovation not of Walsingham’s, but of Charles Howard, later Lord Admiral, with the assistance of Tilney, Howard’s cousin (Companies 196–8). Regardless of who masterminded the formation of the Queen’s Men and his or her motivations, the company was active by the summer of 1583. A late 1583 City of London record lists the original twelve members as John Adams, John Bentley, Lionel Cooke, John Dutton, John Garland, William Johnson, John Laneham, Tobias Mylles, John Singer, Richard Tarlton, John Towne, and Robert Wilson (Chambers, Stage ii.106). Johnson, Laneham and Wilson were former Leicester’s Men; Adams and Tarlton came from Sussex’s; and Dutton formerly led Oxford’s players (Gurr, Companies 200–201). The other six are not traceable before 1583, but they presumably were leading players in one of these or other prominent companies, such as Derby’s or Hunsdon’s Men, both of which played at court during the 1582–83 season (201). After an initial provincial tour, the Queen’s was granted permission in November 1583 to play at the Bull and Bell inns on Wednesdays and Saturdays until Shrovetide 1584 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 300). During the tour, several Queen’s players were involved in an altercation in Norwich (REED, Norwich 70–76), but the first London run passed without incident, apart from a November 1584 complaint by the City of London that, despite the fact only the Queen’s had been sanctioned for London playing the previous year, “all the places of playing were filled with men calling themselves the Queen’s players” (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 301). The Queen’s Men made its court debut in 1583–84, playing on 26 and 29 December 1583 and again on 3 March 1584. For this and the following court season, the Queen’s was 1

Examples of radical Protestant attacks on playing include Gosson’s School of Abuse (1579) and Plays Confuted in Five Actions (1582) and Anthony Munday’s Second and Third Blast of Retrait from Plays and Theatres (1580). Munday later returned to writing plays for the public stage (McMillin and MacLean 28, 30–32). For more on sixteenth-century attacks on theatre, see Chambers, Stage i.236–68, iv.184–259; chapter IV of Barish, The Antitheatrical Prejudice (especially page 82 note 5, which gives a short bibliography on Puritan attacks on the stage); Collinson, Birthpangs of Protestant England; and White, Theatre and Reformation.

The Queen’s Men

89

the only adult company that performed at court (Astington, English 231; Chambers, Stage iv. 159–61). The company appears to have still been in London in June 1584, when it met with the City Recorder during a period of unrest; during this meeting, the players mentioned James Burbage, perhaps suggesting the Queen’s had been playing at the Theatre (McMillin and MacLean 46–7). By 9 July 1584, the Queen’s was on tour, playing in Cambridge on that day (REED, Cambridge 311). A relative paucity of provincial records during the rest of 1584, 1585, and the first half of 1586 (see Appendix) may indicate the Queen’s was more interested in London playing during this period, although provincial records could be incomplete. In the middle of 1586, the company’s recorded provincial visits jumps markedly. For both 1586 and 1587, datable tour stops begin in June and last through October or November; presumably the company played in London from October or November until June during these years. Starting with the 1585–86 court season, the Queen’s was no longer the sole adult company called to court, but it remained the dominant adult company at court through 1590–91, always performing at least as often as any other adult company each season (Astington, English 231–3; Chambers, Stage iv.161–3). Between 1583 and 1588, the Queen’s seems to have played at most available London venues. In addition to the Bell, the Bull, and the Theatre, books containing Tarlton’s jests describe him plying his trade at the Curtain and Cross Keys, and the Stationers’ Register entry for Tarlton’s last sonnet claims it was performed at the Bel Savage (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 301–2, 345; Gurr, Companies 212). For the Curtain, Bel Savage, and Cross Keys, reference is only made to solo Tarlton performances; accordingly, it is not certain his fellow Queen’s Men also played at these locations.2 Given its presence at all these venues, McMillin and MacLean agree with Oscar Brownstein that even when in London, the Queen’s was “on tour,” lacking a permanent home (McMillin and MacLean 46; Brownstein 22). In 1588, the Queen’s apparently began traveling earlier, and remained on tour longer, than in previous years. The company was in Canterbury on 2 February and played at Dover as late as Christmas day. This does not necessarily mean the Queen’s had moved to a pattern of year-round touring. As early as 1583, conflicting provincial records point to a practice of splitting the company into branches.3 This practice apparently was an increasingly settled practice after 1586; by 1589, each branch— one apparently led by John and Laurence Dutton, the other by John Laneham—was 2 For more on Tarlton and his solo performance, see Peter Thomson’s “The True Physiognomy of a Man” as well as John Astington’s “Tarlton and the Sanguine Temperament.” 3 In 1583, for instance, the Queen’s company is recorded at Nottingham at 2 September (McMillin and MacLean 175) but at Rye on 14 September (REED, Sussex 130). As McMillin and MacLean note, the players at Nottingham “cannot have been the same Queen’s Men who were playing the south-east towns at about the same time” (44). Although later records indicate that multiple Queen’s branches were sanctioned by their patron, and this may have been the case already in 1583, it is also of course possible that one of these 1583 groups was a company of players passing themselves off as the Queen’s Men.


90

sometimes identified by its leader as well as patron (McMillin and MacLean 44, 62–3, 211). Initially, the divided branches may have been a touring practice, but by 1590–91 it seemingly was a permanent arrangement, as the Dutton-led Queen’s four court performances were distinguished from the Laneham-led Queen’s one in the Chamber accounts (Chambers, Stage iv.163). Despite regular court performances and extensive tours, not all was well for the Queen’s in the late 1580s. Beginning in 1585, with the deaths of Tobias Mylles (or Mills) and John Bentley, the company sustained a series of personnel losses. William Knell, apparently Bentley’s replacement and a noted tragic actor, was killed during a fight with fellow Queen’s player John Towne on 13 June 1587 in Thame (McMillin and MacLean 52). Barely a year later, Richard Tarlton, easily the most popular actor of the day, fell ill and died. The impact of his death on the Queen’s should not be overstated, as the company continued to play frequently at court (and thus perhaps also in London, at least during the holidays) and still received generous payments when on tour (53). By the early 1590s, however, the Queen’s status as England’s leading company was eroding, likely due to increased competition from companies like Strange’s and the Admiral’s. After the five 1590–91 court performances by the two Queen’s branches, the company played at court only once in 1591–92, not at all in 1592–93, and once in 1593–94 before disappearing from court records entirely. Some scholars argue that during this time one of the Queen’s branches may have sought a new patron as a way of reviving flagging fortunes, but evidence for such a maneuver is sparse.4 In 1593–94, the Queen’s briefly played at the Rose with Sussex’s; this was its last recorded London performance. Perhaps by 1594, and certainly by 1597, the Queen’s ceased to operate as two branches and became a single, exclusively provincial company (65, 211).5 It would be incorrect to regard this relegation to the provinces as a failure for the Queen’s Men, however. The company still bore the Queen’s name and patronage, and it still received handsome payments in the provinces. Thus, while it faded from the London scene, it remained an important traveling company until its ultimate dissolution upon its patron’s 1603 death; this provincial status may have suited the remaining members just fine. The Queen’s Men and Shakespeare: The Evidence The possibility Shakespeare was a Queen’s player before 1594 was first raised by Edmond Malone nearly two centuries ago. Since Malone, various scholars have assembled a sizable body of circumstantial evidence for Shakespeare’s membership in this company. Some scholars have pursued the possibility that Shakespeare 4

For more on this, see Chapter 7. McMillin and MacLean note the best evidence for different Queen’s branches are conflicting records of provincial visits; there are no such conflicting records after 1597. While they assert that “Signs of a divided company continue to be a possibility until 1597” (65), McMillin and MacLean do not note any conflicting dates after 1592 (65, 211). 5

The Queen’s Men

91

joined the Queen’s Men during a Stratford visit; at least one has argued Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit contains evidence for Shaksepeare’s association with the Queen’s; and still others have looked to similarities between Shakespeare’s works and plays the Queen’s Men performed for hints of Shakespeare’s presence in the Queen’s ranks. As noted in chapter one, the Stratford Chamberlains’ Accounts list numerous visits by playing companies during the 1570s and 1580s. One of these companies was the Queen’s Men, which paid its first visit to Stratford in 1587, a year when five companies performed in Shakespeare’s hometown. Beginning with Malone, a number of scholars have wondered if Shakespeare might have joined one of these companies. If he did, the timing would have been about right: joining a company in 1587 would have left about five years for him to establish himself as a playwright in London, a plausible amount of time. But if Shakespeare’s joining the Queen’s in 1587 is merely a matter of convenient timing, the Queen’s is only one of several possible companies that fit this requirement. In Shakespeare in Warwickshire (1961), Mark Eccles presents further circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of Shakespeare joining the Queen’s Men in 1587. Eccles specifically calls attention to documents relating to the fatal fight between John Towne and William Knell at Thame on 13 June 1587. Eccles comments Knell’s death meant the Queen’s Men “were lacking one actor in the summer of 1587” (82) but declines to state the possible implication of this situation. Other scholars, however, such as Russell Fraser, have jumped at the opportunity to do so: “So the company [the Queen’s], arrived in Stratford, needed a man to make up its full complement ... When the players departed, did he [Shakespeare] follow their wagon, leaving Stratford behind?” (78) Fraser answers his own question several pages later, stating the Queen’s Men “most likely” supplied Shakespeare’s “passe-partout to the theater” (91). From a standpoint of sentimentality, the idea young Shakespeare began his theatrical career with a “big break” may be appealing; several difficulties, however, mitigate against the plausibility of such speculation. First, the date of the Queen’s Stratford visit is not recorded; given the Stratford fiscal year, the Queen’s Stratford visit could have taken place any time between 17 December 1586 and 17 December 1587. The company’s 1586–87 and 1587–88 court performances (see Appendix) make it likely the Stratford visit occurred between March and early December 1587, but in any case it could have been well before, or well after, Knell’s death. Second, Stratford would not necessarily have been the next logical tour stop for the Queen’s after Thame. Even if the Stratford visit was soon after Knell’s death, the company might have first visited any number of other nearby communities, such as Oxford. Third, it is highly probable two Queen’s branches were active in 1587; accordingly, the branch Knell belonged to may not have been the same one that visited Stratford (McMillin and MacLean 161, 211). Finally, as Schoenbaum succinctly states, “no evidence exists of any Elizabethan troupe ever having recruited while on the road” (Lives 541). In fact, there is no evidence at all for how playing companies recruited adult actors (Bentley 134–45). As far as the Queen’s is concerned, its new recruits seem to have generally been drawn from other companies. Of three known 1580s


92

Queen’s Men not initially part of the company, two of them, Laurence Dutton and John Symons, definitely belonged to other companies before joining the Queen’s.6 The third was Knell, and his pre-Queen’s affiliation, if he had any, is not known. While such evidence for the Queen’s recruitment practices is limited, the idea that Shakespeare, without any previous professional experience, joined the Queen’s in 1587 to replace Knell does not fit this pattern. Moreover, as McMillin and MacLean assert, the “probability of an unknown from a country town replacing a leading serious actor of the day is not strong” (161). Nor do the facts that Knell was killed and Shakespeare ended up in London mean “that Shakespeare got to London because Knell died” (161). Ultimately, then, Knell’s death does not strengthen the possibility Shakespeare joined the Queens’s in Stratford in 1587. In Ungentle Shakespeare (2001), Katherine Duncan-Jones puts forward an alternative explanation for Shakespeare replacing Knell in the Queen’s in 1587. After noting that it is still possible Knell’s troupe was the Queen’s branch that visited Stratford (30–31), Duncan-Jones proposes that the Queen’s did in fact recruit Shakespeare as Knell’s replacement, but not necessarily when in Stratford. Instead, Shakespeare was drawn from another playing company he already belonged to. For reasons dealt with in Chapter 10, Duncan-Jones thinks Leicester’s Men may have been that company. She argues Shakespeare, with John Heminges (who would marry Knell’s widow and, of course, be one of the 1623 Folio editors), was culled from Leicester’s Men to offset the loss of Knell and Towne (who was not pardoned until two months after Knell’s death), just as several original Queen’s players had been culled from Leicester’s in 1583 (29–31). So even if the troupe in Stratford wasn’t Knell’s, it is still possible that Shakespeare replaced him, just not on the Queen’s visit to Stratford itself. While Duncan-Jones is correct that, as far as can be told, the Queen’s recruited players from other leading troupes (although such instances are not well-documented after the company’s initial formation), the idea Shakespeare was brought to the Queen’s to fill Knell’s place remains speculation based on the fact that 1587 is convenient timing in terms of placing Shakespeare with a company that would have taken him to London. There are, however, myriad other ways Shakespeare may have gotten to London. Thus, Duncan-Jones’s argument—as well as the general conjecture Shakespeare joined the Queen’s in Stratford—is only one possibility among many; more evidence would be necessary for it to be any stronger than the competing possibilities. In a vein similar to Duncan-Jones, Eric Sams asserts Shakespeare already was an actor by the time of the Queen’s 1587 Stratford visit; in fact, Sams argues Shakespeare was already a Queen’s player by that date. Citing themes of sudden partings after a marriage in Shakespeare’s plays, Sams argues Shakespeare left Stratford for London in 1582, just after his own marriage. Reading Shakespeare’s life into his plays is, of course, an activity which has spawned all sorts of claims, ranging from the compelling 6

Laurence Dutton was in Lane’s, Clinton’s, Warwick’s, and Oxford’s Men during the 1570s and into the 1580s. John Symons was in Strange’s and Oxford’s during the 1580s (Chambers, Stage ii.314, 341; Gurr, Companies 211).

The Queen’s Men

93

to the ridiculous, and accordingly this claim of Sams’s must be treated with caution. Sams further argues, however, that a departure date of 1582 is in accord with the report of John Aubrey, one of Shakespeare’s first biographers, that Shakespeare went to London at age eighteen (50–52). As motivation for a 1582 departure from Stratford, Sams cites the “deer-slaying” anecdote (52–4). This anecdote alleges Shakespeare fled Stratford after he was caught poaching a local nobleman’s deer. The anecdote appeared independently in several eighteenth century sources, such as Richard Davies (before 1708), Nicholas Rowe (1709), and Edward Capell (1774), among others (Schoenbaum, Lives 68–71). While this oft-repeated story7 cannot perhaps be dismissed entirely, it is unsafe to trust such reports, which only appear decades after Shakespeare’s death. Moreover, Aubrey’s reports on Shakespeare, which Sams relies heavily on, must be treated with circumspection. Aubrey’s contemporaries described his research as not particularly thorough or reliable. Although one may not accept Anthony Wood’s nasty description of him as “a shiftless person, roving and maggoty-headed, and sometimes little better than crazed,” one also cannot dismiss Wood’s warning that Aubrey, “exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters ... with fooleries and misinformations” (62).8 Many of Aubrey’s anecdotes are unreliable; for example, he described John Shakespeare as a butcher, a demonstrably erroneous report. Apart from trusting the “deer-slaying” anecdote and Aubrey’s reports, Sams makes the circular argument that, upon leaving Stratford, Shakespeare went to “London theatreland,” which Sams says would have naturally drawn a young man of Shakespeare’s temperament and ambition (53). Once there, he would have offered the leading troupe his services. And thus he was already a member of the Queen’s when it played at Stratford in 1587 (57–9). Such a scenario is unlikely. First, it is not so clear that players of the early-to-mid 1580s regarded London as the center of the theatrical world, so if Shakespeare left Stratford in 1582 intending to join a company, London may not have been his inevitable goal. As Barbara Palmer says, someone with artistic ambitions would not necessarily have had to go to London to develop them (269). Moreover, even if Shakespeare went to London in 1582, and even if he wanted to work for the leading company of the day, it would not have been the Queen’s Men, which was not formed until 1583. Even if he sought the Queen’s after its formation, he would not have been guaranteed employment therein. What, after all, would the newly formed and thriving Queen’s Men want, let alone need, with an eighteen-year-old just arrived from the country? In 1583 dozens of established actors were not chosen for the Queen’s Men; even if the company needed another actor soon thereafter, one of these established actors—many of them colleagues, even friends, of Queen’s players—would have been a more likely 7 Schoenbaum notes several subsequent scholars who took up this legend, particularly noting William Fullom (1862) and Sidney Lee (1885 and 1890) (Lives 347, 369–70). 8 While Wood’s description of Aubrey may be somewhat exaggerated (the two had had a falling out), his working habits were also not necessarily conducive to accuracy: he tended to drink too much, sleep not enough, and was utterly disorganized (Schoenbaum, Lives 61–2).


94

replacement than an unknown young man from Stratford. Unless, of course, the Queen’s Men immediately recognized him for the genius he was to become. But such scholarly hindsight, which seems to run throughout Sams’s argument, is not evidence; it is subjective bias. At the same time, while Sams’s reasoning and support for his argument are not sound, it still is possible Shakespeare went to London in 1582, and if he did so, it is possible that he might have worked his way into the Queen’s by 1587, as no evidence flatly contradicts these possibilities. To strengthen his argument, Sams attempts to link Shakespeare to the Queen’s personnel. Specifically, he alleges Richard Tarlton had several Shakespeare “connections.” First, Tarlton has sometimes been identified with Yorick, over whose skull Hamlet muses in V, i, 180–94. In the 1603 (“bad” quarto) first edition of Hamlet, some Tarlton jests are quoted in a passage which, says Sams, at least one modern editor has accepted as authentic.9 Moreover, an early, but now lost, version of Hamlet existed by 1589. Of course, there is no proof that Yorick should be equated with Tarlton, nor is there proof the lost Hamlet was connected to Shakespeare’s play. As such, the Tarlton-Shakespeare connection cannot be verified on this evidence alone. Perhaps to address this issue, Sams cites an eighteenth century engraving that describes Tarlton as “one of the first actors in Shakespeare’s plays;” he only could have been such if Shakespeare wrote for the Queen’s Men (57).10 Although Sams does not mention it, a further detail could be added to the Shakespeare-Tarlton connection: both lived in the West Midlands, and Tarlton grew up not far from Stratford (Duncan-Jones 3–4, 35). Of course, just because the two grew up in the same region, there is no reason to suspect the two knew each prior to an alleged Queen’s membership. As for the woodcut, it is indicative of a frequent problem with Sams’s handling of evidence: he tends to implicitly trust any source closer to Shakespeare’s time than our own and downplay subsequent critiques of these sources. In other words, the older, the better. This is why he places so much faith in Aubrey’s reports while ignoring the criticisms of Aubrey leveled by Malone and others, who demonstrated why Aubrey’s sources, as well as those of other earlier biographers, were unreliable. As a result, Sams’s methodology overlooks the fact the Tarlton woodcut and caption, as well as Aubrey’s gleanings, are a century or more removed from the events and may, therefore, not be any more accurate than the findings and reports of still later biographers who admittedly, like Sams, make many unsupported conjectures. In any case, Sams has joined a fraternity of Shakespearean biographers who are strong on suppositions but weak on credible evidence or even justifiable speculation. Possibilities slide far too easily into plausibilities that must be entertained despite the lack of reliable evidence. 9

The editor in question is T.J.B. Spencer, who includes a series of character jests from the 1603 Hamlet quarto at III, 2, 43–55. Spencer does not link these jests to Tarlton, and considers their wording “unreliable” (276). 10 This engraving was based on a woodcut that appeared on the title page of the 1613 edition of Tarlton’s Jests. Unlike the much later engraving, the woodcut makes no claim that Tarlton acted in Shakespeare’s plays (Pitcher 175–6).

The Queen’s Men

95

To this point, the arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men have focused on trying to find evidence that Shakespeare could have joined the Queen’s at such-and-such a time and place. This approach can only establish remote possibilities that rely on circumstantial, often flimsy, evidence. Other scholars, however, have instead looked for signs Shakespeare was a Queen’s player. Such scholars have usually concentrated on Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and several Queen’s Men’s plays as evidence for a connection between Shakespeare and the royal company. The results of their efforts are relatively sophisticated, but nevertheless inconclusive, arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men. In 1928, A.W. Pollard suggested Groatsworth might hold evidence for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men, and that the pamphlet’s assault on Shakespeare is more intelligible if Shakespeare was a Queen’s player. Pollard’s argument proceeds from his belief the phrase “beautified with our feathers” [emphasis mine] means Shakespeare, the “upstart Crow,” had acted in the plays of Greene and each of his addressees (“Introduction” 14–15). In order for Shakespeare to have acted in plays by Greene, Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele, Pollard says he would have had to be in either Strange’s Men or the Queen’s Men. Although Strange’s 1592 Rose repertory included plays attributed to all these authors, Pollard says two factors mitigate against this option. First, Groatsworth puns on a line from 3 Henry VI, a play Pollard says was not played at the Rose in 1592.11 Second, Pollard argues “Greene’s” angry tone in Groatsworth would have required “a longer and personal ‘provision of feathers’” than the 1592 Rose season would have offered (17). This longer “provision of feathers” would have been possible if Shakespeare was a Queen’s player, as Greene apparently wrote most, if not all, of his plays for the Queen’s Men, and the published text of Peele’s The Old Wives Tale lists the Queen’s Men as the company that performed it. Pollard also comments that Peele’s Edward I appears to contain a pun on Shakespeare’s name,12 but the company this play was written for is not certain. In response to the absence of evidence that Nashe wrote for the Queen’s, Pollard observes Nashe did collaborate with Greene from time to time, and so it is possible the two collaborated on a play for the Queen’s. As for the fact Marlowe never wrote for the Queen’s as far as is known, and in fact seems to have been in direct competition with the types of plays in the Queen’s repertory (McMillin and MacLean 155–60), Pollard notes “Greene” does not use the same tone in addressing Marlowe he does with Nashe and Peele (“Introduction” 17–19). Unfortunately, Pollard’s case is, as he admitted (“Introduction” 20), less than airtight. Besides the absence of concrete evidence Marlowe or Nashe wrote for 11

This assertion, of course, opens onto the ongoing question of what play is meant by Henslowe’s “harey the vj,” a problem which will be taken up in more detail in Chapter 6. 12 The pun in question is contained in the following lines spoken by Queen Elinor: Now braue Iohn Balioll Lord of Gallaway, And King of Scots shine with thy goulden head, Shake thy spears, in honour of his name, Vnder whose roialtie thou wearst the same. (C4v lines 12–15)

96


the Queen’s, four problems with Pollard’s hypothesis emerge. Firstly, the phrase “beautified with our feathers” may not be as specific as Pollard thinks. “Greene” may simply be generally speaking about himself and his addresses as playwrights, not necessarily as playwrights for the particular company Shakespeare acted in. Secondly, even if Pollard is correct in his interpretation of “beautified with our feathers,” his assertion the Queen’s and Strange’s are the only companies all four writers worked for is an argument from silence. While surviving evidence connects all four to Strange’s and the Queen’s, this does not preclude the possibility the four wrote for other companies. Thirdly, Pollard’s dismissal of Strange’s because “Greene’s” anger required “a longer and personal provision of feathers’” than Strange’s 1592 Rose season assumes (1) Strange’s did not perform plays by Greene, Nashe, Marlowe, and Peele before the 1592 season and (2) that “Greene’s” anger with Shakespeare needed time to build. On the first count, Strange’s was active in London as early as 1589, and thus might have performed plays by these writers for more than two years before Henslowe’s records commence. On the second count, what is known of Greene’s personality suggests he was a volatile man entirely capable of lashing out at his opponents at a moment’s notice. Finally, Pollard assumes Greene was, in fact, the author of Groatsworth. Chapter 2 has explained why there are strong reasons to suspect someone else wrote it, such as the fact “Greene” seems unacquainted with certain key details of Greene’s life and made errors concerning Greene’s marriage and offspring. Accordingly, skepticism is warranted in accepting “Greene’s” letter to the playwrights as an accurate source of information concerning Greene’s, or Shakespeare’s, ties to acting companies. Recently, Katherine Duncan-Jones has argued one further detail in Groatsworth may connect Shakespeare to the Queen’s Men. Duncan-Jones focuses on “Greene’s” advice, following the “upstart Crow” passage, that his addressees seek “better masters; for it is a pity men of such rare wits should be subject to the pleasure of such rude grooms” (47). Upon its formation, the Queen’s players had been designated “grooms of the chamber.” Therefore, Duncan-Jones says, it is possible “Greene” intentionally chose the word “grooms” for attacking actors. If the “anticks,” “puppets,” and “burrs,” of which the “upstart Crow” was one, were literally “grooms,” it is possible “Greene” was attacking not only actors in general, but the Queen’s Men in specific (47). While a novel interpretation of the passage in question, Duncan-Jones’s argument depends entirely on an unprovable conjecture about the single word “grooms” which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, can simply mean “a serving-man.” Thus, “Greene’s” contemptuous use of the term could merely reflect his attitude toward the social position of players, all of whom were technically servants to their patron, Queen or not. Apart from Groatsworth, many scholars have looked to the Queen’s Men’s repertory for evidence connecting Shakespeare to the company. Over twenty plays have been attributed to the Queen’s Men; not all survive, nor are all the attributions certain (McMillin and MacLean 86). Only nine surviving playtexts can be unquestionably assigned to the Queen’s: Clyomon and Clamydes (published 1599); The Famous Victories of Henry V (published 1598); Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay

The Queen’s Men

97

(published 1594); King Leir (published 1594); The Old Wives Tale (published 1595); Selimus (published 1594); The Troublesome Reign of King John (published 1591); Three Lords and Three Ladies of London (published 1590); and True Tragedy of Richard III (published 1594) (88–9). Six other lost plays were also definitely Queen’s plays: Felix and Philiomena, Five Plays in One, Phillyda and Corin, Seven Deadly Sins,13 Three Plays in One, and Valentine and Orson (92–3). Seven additional plays are often assigned to the Queen’s repertory, but it is not absolutely certain any of them actually belonged to the Queen’s: Alphonsus of Aragon, James IV, and Orlando Furioso,14 all by Robert Greene; Greene and Peele’s A Looking Glass for London and England; Robert Wilson’s The Cobbler’s Prophecy; Pedlar’s Prophecy, often credited to Wilson; and the anonymous Locrine (91–3). Various scholars have noted similarities between many of these twenty-two plays and Shakespeare’s oeuvre: 1. The Troublesome Reign of King John is, scene-for-scene, almost identical to King John, although stylistically the two plays are distinct. 2. King Leir deals with the same subject matter as Shakespeare’s King Lear. 3. The same is true of True Tragedy of Richard III and Shakespeare’s Richard III. 4. Shakespeare’s 1, 2 Henry IV and Henry V are elaborations of the plot of The Famous Victories of Henry V. 5. Felix and Philiomena, now lost, may share a common source with Two Gentlemen of Verona. Characters named Felix and Philiomena appear in Montemayor’s Diana, one of Shakespeare’s sources for Two Gentlemen of Verona; many of Diana’s techniques and devices appear in other Shakespeare plays (Pinciss 131). Sams assumes Felix and Philiomena was identical to Diana, and therefore asserts Two Gentlemen of Verona was based on this Queen’s play (58–9). 6. According to Pinciss, a scene in Clyomon and Clamydes (which Pinciss does not specify) parallels Launce’s rebuking of Crab in Two Gentlemen of Verona (II, iii, 5–32), and also contains a choral character named “Rumour,” a device and name Shakespeare uses in 2 Henry IV (131). 7. In Orlando Furioso, Orlando finds verses hanging in trees; in As You Like It, Orlando hangs verses in trees (Pinciss 130). 8. As in Midsummer Night’s Dream, Oberon is king of the fairies in James IV (Pinciss 130–31). 9. Lines from Alphonsus of Aragon, says Pinciss, are reminiscent of those spoken by Hamlet’s player king in III, ii (130–31).

13

This is apparently not the same play as the 2 Seven Deadly Sins for which a “plot” survives (McMillin and MacLean 93). 14 Orlando Furioso was decidedly a Queen’s play, but it was also played by the Admiral’s and Strange’s Men. The title page of the published Orlando does not attribute it to any company, and so it is not certain if the published text corresponds to the version the Queen’s performed (McMillin and MacLean 92–3).


98

10. There are “echoes” of A Looking Glass for London and England in Hamlet (Pinciss 130–31). 11. Finally, Locrine’s 1594 title page declares the text “newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected, By W.S.” (McMillin and MacLean 92). No playing company is listed on the title page, but Locrine’s publisher was Thomas Creede, who published other Queen’s plays. Duncan-Jones argues “W.S.” was Shakespeare and observes the phrase “newly set foorth, ouerseene and corrected” proves he was a “factotum,” as per Groatsworth’s charge (42–3). Most of these observations are of limited use in arguing for Shakespeare’s presence in the Queen’s company. James IV, Alphonsus of Aragon, and A Looking Glass cannot be definitely attributed to the Queen’s, and in any case the parallels between these and Shakespeare’s plays only demonstrate Shakespeare knew these plays, or individual scenes, devices, and lines. He need not have been in the company that performed these plays to have drawn on them. The same is true of the parallels between Shakespeare’s works and Clyomon and Clamydes and Orlando Furioso. Because imitation, collaboration, and borrowing characterized playwriting practices of the time (Masten 357–8, 372–6), one playwright (say, Shakespeare) could easily have borrowed ideas for scenes, characters, and lines from a second (say, Greene) without belonging to the company that performed the second’s plays.15 Speculation about Shakespeare’s debt to Felix and Philiomena can also be set aside, as the play is lost and Shakespeare could have drawn on Montemayor’s Diana without encountering Felix and Philiomena. As for Locrine, it is not certain it was a Queen’s play. Although certain literary features of Locrine add “an extra suggestion of a Queen’s connection” (McMillin and MacLean 92, 156–60), Thomas Creede, Locrine’s publisher, named the Queen’s on title page in other instances (92), something he did not do for Locrine. In any event, the identification of “W.S.” with William Shakespeare, while possible, lacks corroborating evidence necessary to make it a plausible identification. Moreover, while other title pages published during and after Shakespeare’s lifetime use “W.S.” to refer to him, on at least two occasions—Thomas Lord Cromwell and The Puritan—Shakespeare had little or nothing to do with the plays bearing his initials (Chambers, Shakespeare i.534–5).16 The parallels between Leir/Lear, Troublesome Reign/King John, True Tragedy/ Richard III, and Famous Victories/1, 2 Henry IV and Henry V are not so easily set aside. In each of these cases, the parallels between Shakespeare’s plays and the Queen’s plays are substantial and intricate. The pressing question, then, is which side of each pair came first: Shakespeare’s or the Queen’s. If the Queen’s plays 15

It is, however, interesting to note these possible examples of Shakespeare drawing, or commenting, on the plays of Robert Greene. 16 “W.S.” is credited as the author of Thomas Lord Cromwell in both published quartos of the play (1602 and 1613); the sole quarto of The Puritan was published in 1607. In addition to these plays, the second (1619) edition of the first part of Sir John Oldcastle names William Shakespeare as author, as does the 1605 quarto of The London Prodigal and both editions (1608 and 1619) of The Yorkshire Tragedy (Chambers, Shakespeare i.533–5).

The Queen’s Men

99

were written first, they represent one of Shakespeare’s largest theatrical sources for his plays (although one cannot rule out the possibility of common sources for both versions). This in turn could bolster the case for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s, because he then would have had easy and sustained access to this source material. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine if Shakespeare’s or the Queen’s plays came first, and there is little scholarly consensus on the issue. That having been said, several considerations are worth noting: 1. King Leir must have been written before Shakespeare’s King Lear. Leir existed by 1594, when Sussex’s and the Queen’s performed it at the Rose, but Lear belongs to the later part of Shakespeare’s career. Meredith Skura also observes Shakespeare repeats lines from Leir in Lear as well as in Richard II, Richard III, King John, Cymbeline, and Coriolanus (285–6). It is therefore difficult to envision a scenario wherein Leir did not influence Lear. 2. Most scholars agree Shakespeare’s Richard III was written in the early 1590s (Honigmann proposes 1590—Lost Years 128; others suggest 1591–92 or 1592– 93). The Queen’s True Tragedy was entered in the Stationers’ Register in June 1594 and therefore must have been written before that date. While True Tragedy may have quickly capitalized on the success of Richard III, the safer conclusion is that True Tragedy was written first, especially when one takes into account Skura and Pinciss’s observations that Richard III repeats lines from Leir. While Shakespeare might have borrowed lines from Leir for Richard III, which the Queen’s then copied in True Tragedy, a safer conjecture is that True Tragedy came first. Still, the case for True Tragedy preceding Richard III is not as secure as for Leir preceding Lear. 3. Uncertainty also surrounds whether Famous Victories or Shakespeare’s Henry V trilogy came first. However, Shakespeare’s trilogy is apparently an elaboration of Famous Victories, which would indicate the Queen’s play came first. Moreover, Famous Victories clearly fits the Queen’s Men’s usual “medley” dramaturgical style (McMillin and MacLean 134–5). Accordingly, Famous Victories was probably written with the Queen’s in mind, not derived from another, stylistically different, play written for another company. 4. The relationship between Troublesome Reign and King John is extremely difficult to tease out. It is not even clear if Shakespeare’s contemporaries distinguished between the two plays. When Troublesome Reign was published in 1591, no author was listed, but the 1611 edition lists “W. S.” as author and the 1622 edition lists “William Shakespeare.” When Shakespeare’s First Folio was published in 1623, its editors entered the titles of plays not previously published in the Stationers’ Register; King John was not on that list, despite the fact it had not been published before. It would thus seem Shakespeare’s friends and literary executors regarded King John as the same play as Troublesome Reign. McMillin and MacLean note three scenarios that explain this circumstance: Shakespeare wrote both plays (as Sams argues), Shakespeare reworked someone else’s Troublesome Reign into his King John (the standard assumption), or someone else reworked King John into

100


Troublesome Reign (as Honigmann and others assert—Lost Years 120). Stylistic differences make it implausible Shakespeare wrote both plays, and Troublesome Reign’s similarity to the Queen’s usual dramaturgical style make it unlikely it is derived from King John (163–4). Despite ongoing disagreement on which play of a particular pair has compositional priority, the emerging picture is the Queen’s plays were written first. If so, and if Shakespeare based his plays on those of the Queen’s and not on a third common source,17 six of Shakespeare’s plays are directly indebted to the Queen’s repertory. Given his apparent familiarity with almost half of the Queen’s known repertory, many scholars accordingly argue Shakespeare may have been in the Queen’s Men at some point. If he acted with this company, he would have had the opportunity to become familiar with all their plays, as reflected in his later compositions. One qualification, however, is immediately necessary. While Shakespeare was clearly familiar with forty-four percent of the Queen’s definite repertory as we know it, this figure is much less compelling if one considers how large the actual Queen’s repertory must have been. If one takes all twenty-two common, though not certain, attributions into account, Shakespeare’s “familiarity quotient,” if you will, drops to less than twenty-five percent (unless one includes less substantial and less certain parallels). And when one considers the Queen’s must have had a far larger repertory than these nine, or twenty-two, known plays (Strange’s five month 1592 repertory alone had twenty-four plays), it is clear the known Queen’s repertory is only the tip of the iceberg. One must accordingly exercise caution in making statements about Shakespeare’s familiarity with the Queen’s overall repertory. There are also other explanations for how Shakespeare might have become familiar with these four Queen’s plays. For example, all four Queen’s plays were published, so Shakespeare may simply have worked from the printed texts when writing his plays. Such an argument, besides being quite plausible, does not require a number of unverifiable conjectures. Lear was written about a decade after Leir was published (this does not, of course, account for why lines from Leir appear in Richard III, probably written before 1594). King John was likely written after Troublesome Reign, published in 1591, and most scholars (except Beaurline and Honigmann, who believe King John was written first),18 date King John to 1595 or later (Braunmuller to 1595–96, Wells and Taylor to 1596, and Chambers to 1596–97). And Famous Victories, although not known to have been in print before 1598, was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 14 May 1594, opening the possibility a 1594 edition, now lost, was also published (McMillin and MacLean 88; Chambers, Shakespeare i.383–84). Shakespeare thus would have had access to printed Queen’s texts while writing Lear, 17 Structural parallels between Troublesome Reign and King John mitigate against a common source, which in turn improves the possibility Shakespeare drew on the Queen’s plays in the other pairs. 18 Of course, if King John came first, the parallels do not require Shakespeare to have belonged to the Queen’s, as the Queen’s would have been imitating Shakespeare.

The Queen’s Men

101

King John, and the Henry V trilogy. Only True Tragedy does not fit this pattern, as it was published in 1594, slightly later than when most scholars think Richard III was written. The two Queen’s plays with the most extensive parallels with Shakespeare’s plays, however—Lear/Leir and King John/Troublesome Reign—were likely in print when Shakespeare composed his versions, thus strongly damaging the assertion his membership in the Queen’s Men was the required, best, or most likely way for him to have become familiar with his source plays. For True Tragedy and Famous Victories, there are other ways Shakespeare could have been acquainted with these plays besides seeing them in print or performing them in the Queen’s Men. For both plays, it is the story, rather than phrasing or structure, Shakespeare apparently drew on.19 He thus simply could have seen the Queen’s Men perform these plays and then remembered incidents or phrases he later made use of in his plays. Alternatively, Shakespeare could have heard about the Queen’s plays from someone else who had seen or acted in them. It may also be that Shakespeare’s company, whichever it was, acquired and performed the former Queen’s plays, which Shakespeare went on to adapt. This is all conjectural, of course, but no more so than the argument Shakespeare was in the Queen’s Men. The ultimate question is if Shakespeare’s presence in the Queen’s Men supplies the best explanation for his familiarity with several Queen’s plays. This sort of question is difficult to answer objectively; frankly, it comes down to a matter of individual opinion. Because the argument for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men is purely circumstantial, it is difficult to satisfactorily prove or disprove. This same issue occurs repeatedly in arguments for his membership in other companies. For now, however, it is safe to say that, while Shakespeare’s familiarity with some Queen’s plays make it possible he acted in that company, it does not, under any circumstances, prove he was a Queen’s player. It is perhaps justifiable and plausible to speculate about Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s, but this speculation is not conclusive, nor is it any stronger, preferable, or more forceful than other, also circumstantial arguments considered in the following chapters. This abiding condition of circumstantiality makes searching for Shakespeare among the acting companies of his day so frustrating. At the same time, these circumstantial arguments enrich one’s understanding of, or open discussions onto, other, equally important, theatre history issues, such as how and when particular plays were published, the direction or flow of dramatic influence, and the traveling practices of a particular acting company. In other words, while we lose Shakespeare, we gain something else while searching for him. Accordingly, one must exercise caution here, too: although the arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men may not be probable or conclusive, focusing simply on their weaknesses may overlook the insight the analysis of such arguments can bring to pertinent theatre history and historiographic matters.

19

Chambers does note slight phrasing parallels between Richard III and True Tragedy (Shakespeare i.304).


Chapter 6

Strange’s Men

Arguments Shakespeare belonged to Strange’s Men before joining the Chamberlain’s Men have many advocates. In fact, the belief Shakespeare performed with Strange’s is probably the most popular of all the arguments considered in this study. As far back as the mid-nineteenth century, J.O. Halliwell-Phillips advanced this hypothesis. Subsequent scholars to endorse this possibility include J.T. Murray, Sidney Lee, E.K. Chambers, Peter Thomson, Andrew Gurr, Park Honan, and E.A.J. Honigmann, to name but a few. Generally, all these proponents agree on the evidence used to make this argument; the only major disagreement is over when Shakespeare joined Strange’s. Some, notably E.A.J. Honigmann, argue Strange’s may have been Shakespeare’s first major playing company (Lost Years 59–76). Others, like Ian Wilson, contend Shakespeare became a Strange’s player only after spending time with another important company, such as Leicester’s (69, 72). Strange’s Men A Lord Strange’s company operated in the provinces between the mid-1560s and early 1570s; after a half-decade hiatus, a new Strange’s Men reemerged, playing at Exeter in 1576–77 (REED, Devon 156) and remaining together until at least 1584–85 (Gurr, Companies 274). When the 1576–85 Strange’s played at court (15 January 1580, 28 December 1581, 1 January 1583),1 it performed tumbling and “feates of activitie” (Chambers, Stage iv.158–62); in the provinces, it was referred to as “players.” Accordingly, it may be that these were two distinct companies, one players, the other tumblers, or it could be that the label “players” was used in a generic sense to refer to the tumblers on tour. Whatever the case, as previously noted in Chapter 4, an adult Strange’s Men reappeared at Coventry in 1587–88, played at the Cross Keys in violation of the Lord Mayor of London’s orders on 5 November 1589, and performed twice at court during the 1590–91 season, although discrepancies 1 For the 1 January 1583 performance, Strange’s was led by John Symons. Symons returned to court on 1 January 1585 with Oxford’s servants, on 9 January 1586 with “Mr. Standleyes Boyes,” and on 28 December 1587 with an unnamed company (Chambers, Stage iv.162). It is possible that the 1586 and 1587 companies were Strange’s, but the case is not clear. The 1586 performance would be the only reference to Ferdinando Stanley keeping a company of boy players, if he is the “Mr Standleye” in question. In any case, it is not safe to assume the 1586 and 1587 performances Symons was associated with were with a Strange’s company, especially given the 1585 performance with Oxford’s servants.


104

between the Privy Council warrant and Chamber payments make it possible the Admiral’s played on those occasions. Whichever company actually played at court, it is obvious that by 1590 an adult Strange’s company had made London inroads. W.W. Greg asserts these adult Strange’s players were the grown-up boy players of the 1580s Strange’s (Diary ii.71–2), but there is no evidence for this assertion. Symons is the only known individual associated with the Strange’s boys/tumblers, and he never appears among the adult Strange’s of 1589–94. Combined with the fact the Strange’s of the 1580s and 1589–94 had different modes of operation (tumbling versus playing), most scholars adopt the safer assumption that, except for a common patron, the two Strange’s companies were not connected.2 Strange’s Men returned to court for the 1591–92 holiday season, performing an unprecedented six times between 27 December and 8 February (Astington, English 233; Chambers, Stage iv.164). Between 19 February and 22 June 1592, the company played at Henslowe’s Rose, after which plague forced the players to go on tour until 29 December (Foakes 19–20; Gurr, Companies 91). At the Rose, Strange’s performed over 20 plays, one of them tantalizingly entitled “harey the vj.” Financially, the run was successful, mirroring the company’s court success. Part of Strange’s popularity at this time was probably due to Edward Alleyn’s presence in its ranks. While it is unclear when Alleyn joined the company, he married Henslowe’s stepdaughter on 22 October 1592 (Foakes 6); presumably he was with the company some months before this event. Strange’s incredible popularity at court is also explicable by Alleyn’s membership by December 1591. During the 22 June–29 December 1592 plague closure, Strange’s toured mainly through the south of England, although it ranged as far north as Coventry and Cambridge (see Appendix). Strange’s may have returned to London near the end of the closure, if scholars are correct in assigning three undated documents to 1592. In the first document, Strange’s players ask the Privy Council to allow them to return to the Rose, complaining that they are too large a company to tour profitably and adding that the reopening of the Rose would relieve “the poore watermen theare” (Foakes 283–4). In the second document, the Bankside watermen petition the Lord Admiral to aid in reopening the Rose (Foakes 284–5). Finally, an undated Privy Council warrant notes that while previously requiring Strange’s to play at Newington Butts instead of the Rose, the Councilors now believe because the Newington arrangement is inadequate and because “a nomber of poore waterman” need the work, the Rose should be reopened and Strange’s permitted to play there (Foakes 285). If these documents are in fact from 1592,3 it would seem Strange’s played briefly at Newington Butts before returning to the Rose on 29 December (Foakes 19). 2

Chambers notes “Standeleyes boys” in his chapter on Strange’s Men, but seems unsure of what to make of this company, given the shifting loyalties of John Symons (Stage ii.118– 19). Gurr does not address “Standeleyes boys” in regards to Strange’s Men or contemporary boy companies (Companies 227–9, 273–7). 3 The documents are unlikely to belong to the following year, as Strange’s did not return to the Rose after February 1593; they may, however, belong to an earlier year. Also, these

Strange’s Men

105

During the 1592–93 court season, Strange’s performed on 27 and 31 December 1592 and 1 January 1593 (Astington, English 234, Chambers, Stage iv.164). It subsequently played at the Rose until 1 February, when plague again suspended London playing (Foakes 20; Gurr, Companies 91). A 6 May 1593 Privy Council warrant licensing Strange’s to play in any plague-free area over seven miles from London lists six Strange’s players: Edward Alleyn (specified as servant to the Admiral), William Kempe, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, and George Bryan (Wickham, Berry, and Ingram 191–2). Of these, Kempe had previously been a Leicester’s player and Alleyn a member of the Admiral’s. Pope and Bryan may have also belonged to Leicester’s, but definite evidence is lacking. Heminges married William Knell’s widow in 1588, suggesting he may have been a Queen’s player, but again there is no definite evidence of this connection (Chambers, Stage ii.320–21; Eccles, “Actors II” 457–9; McMillin and MacLean 195). Letters between Henslowe and Alleyn ranging from 2 May to 28 September 1593 establish Thomas Downton and Richard Cowley were also members of Strange’s, along with John Pyk (or Pig), Alleyn’s apprentice (Foakes 276, 282–3). Of the other members of Strange’s Men, nothing is definitely known.4 Of Strange’s repertory, however, much is known. Henslowe’s Diary records performances of 27 plays during 1592 and 1593: Orlando Furioso, The Spanish Comedy, Sir John Mandeville, Henry of Cornwall, The Jew of Malta, Clorys and Orgasto, Pope Joan, Machiavel, Bendo and Ricardo, Four Plays in One, A Looking Glass for London, Zenobia, The Spanish Tragedy, Constantine, Jerusalem, Brandimer, Titus and Vespasian, 1 and 2 Tamar Cham, The Tanner of Denmark, A Knack to Know a Knave, The Jealous Comedy, The Comedy of Cosmo, The Tragedy of the Guise, Muly Mollocco (perhaps Peele’s Battle of Alcazar), “friar bacon” (either Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay or John of Bordeaux), and “harey the vj” (Foakes 16–20). In addition, Strange’s repertory included Titus Andronicus, the title page of which lists Derby’s (Strange’s name after early 1594) as one of three companies that performed the play, and Kemp’s Applauded Merrirments, which was published, and thus presumably performed, in conjunction with A Knack to Know a Knave. There is also reason to suspect Sir Thomas More was written for Strange’s, but the attribution is not certain.5 documents are not definitely related, although the similar circumstances mentioned in each— especially the unifying presence of the watermen—make it probable they are. 4 The “plot” of 2 Seven Deadly Sins often is cited as evidence for Strange’s personnel; arguments by Scott McMillin and David Kathman demonstrate the document cannot be safely, or confidently, assigned to Strange’s Men. For more on this issue, see Chapter 4. 5 Harold Metz explains there are three “clusters” of dates scholars have suggested for Sir Thomas More’s composition: 1586–94, 1595–99, and 1600–1605 (Sources of Four Plays 162–72). The mainstream of opinion has tended to the first cluster of dates, especially focusing on 1592–94; however, if the second or third cluster of dates is correct, Sir Thomas More would not have been written for Strange’s Men. For more on Sir Thomas More dating issues, see Metz, Four Plays (1982) and Sources of Four Plays (1989); McMillin, The Elizabethan Theatre and the Book of Sir Thomas More (1989); T.H. Howard–Hill, ed., Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More (1989); and the Gabrieli and Melchiori edition of Sir Thomas More (1990).


106

In September 1593, Ferdinando Stanley became Earl of Derby, and Strange’s accordingly became known as Derby’s Men (Gurr, Companies 265). At about this time, the company seems to have undergone some sort of significant change, to judge from its behavior after Henslowe’s last letter to Alleyn, dated 28 September 1593. In December Derby’s appeared at Coventry and Caludon Castle (REED, Coventry 341; Greenfield, “Entertainments” 15), somewhat further north than one might expect to find a previously favored court company so close to the court season. As there was only one performance given by any company during the 1593–94 season (Astington, English 234; Chambers, Stage iv.164), it is possible Derby’s knew a court invitation was not imminent, and therefore did not attempt to remain near to London in hopes of a command performance. Or perhaps some change took place rendering Derby’s less likely to receive a court invitation than in the two previous years. Such a change is suggested by the fact the company did not return to the Rose when it reopened on 27 December; instead, Sussex’s Men played there (Foakes 20–21). It may be Derby’s was too far from London, and the reopening of the theatres too abrupt, for Henslowe to wait for its return, but it could be Derby’s suffered personnel losses between 28 September and 27 December 1593 after which it no longer was the obvious company to play at the Rose (McMillin, “Sussex’s” 218–23). On 16 April 1594, Ferdinando Stanley died, leaving Derby’s patronless (Gurr, Companies 265). A 15–19 May visit to Southampton by the Countess of Derby’s players suggests the company survived under Ferdinando’s widow for a time (REED, “Southampton” 58). In May 1594, any known Strange’s players remaining in Derby’s were drafted into the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (Cowley, Phillips, Pope, Bryan, Heminges, and Kempe) or the Admiral’s Men (Alleyn and Downton) (Gurr, Companies 69–71, 265). A Derby’s Men, under the patronage of William Stanley (Ferdinando’s brother), continued to appear in the provinces until 1599–1600, when it gave a court performance (Astington, English 236; Chambers, Stage ii.118, 127, iv.166). After a failed attempt to gain a London foothold, the company returned to provincial playing in 1602.6 Intermittent records of Derby’s players continue until 1635 (REED Patrons and Performances website). Strange’s Men and Shakespeare: The Evidence Two main observations provide the basis for believing Shakespeare may have been among Strange’s players. The first is the perceived continuity between Strange’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s; the second is the fact Strange’s performed at least 6

In about 1599 the Countess of Derby wrote to Lord Burghley asking him to make Derby’s, led by Robert Browne, the third company allowed to perform in London (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 105); in 1599, Browne became co-owner of the Boar’s Head playhouse and Derby’s presumably played there until 1601, when Browne leased the playhouse to Worcester’s Men (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 105, 453–5, 479–80). Derby’s performed at court twice in 1600–1601 (Astington, English 236; Chambers, Stage iv.166). During the period the company also performed at the Rose (Gurr, Companies 265–6).

Strange’s Men

107

one of Shakespeare’s early plays. The nine known Strange’s players were Edward Alleyn, Thomas Downton, William Kempe, George Bryan, Thomas Pope, Augustine Phillips, John Heminges, Richard Cowley, and John Pyk. Of these, six subsequently were, with Shakespeare, Lord Chamberlain’s members. Kempe, Heminges, Bryan, and Pope are named as Chamberlain’s payees for court performances between 1594– 95 and 1596–97, as are Shakespeare and Richard Burbage (Chambers, Stage iv.164– 5). Cowley’s name appears in the text of Much Ado About Nothing, attached to the part of Verges (IV, ii), demonstrating he was in the Chamberlain’s before Much Ado was entered in the Stationers’ Register in August 1600 (Chambers, Stage iv.387). Phillips was in the Chamberlain’s by 1598, when he is named on the cast list for the 1598 premiere of Jonson’s Every Man in his Humor (Gurr, Companies 280). Alleyn, Downton, and Pyk are later traceable as Admiral’s Men. As six of nine known Strange’s Men became Chamberlain’s Men, several scholars assert the Chamberlain’s was in fact a continuation of Strange’s (Murray 73; Lee 51–2; Honigmann, Lost Years 59; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 332). Proponents of this hypothesis often cite the 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot” as supplementary evidence. Honigmann, for instance, observes Richard Burbage, William Sly, and John Duke, all Chamberlain’s Men, also appear on the “plot.” He also notes the “plot” refers to “Kitt” and “Harry,” who could be Christopher Beeston and Henry Condell, also Chamberlain’s Men. This means, according to Honigmann, “Shakespeare is the only member of the later Chamberlain’s Men unaccounted for” in records of Strange’s personnel (Lost Years 59). Of course, Honigmann assumes the “plot” records a performance by Strange’s men, but it may actually record a performance by the 1597–98 Chamberlain’s Men, rendering it useless as evidence for continuity between Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s. Even if the “plot” records a Strange’s performance, it, combined with the 1593 Privy Council warrant, does not prove the Strange’s-Chamberlain’s continuity Honigmann argues it does, because there is no evidence to suggest the Strange’s players who did become Chamberlain’s members moved directly from one company to the other. In fact, observes Gurr, of the nine supposed Strange’s Men who became Chamberlain’s Men, four—almost half—played under other patrons besides Lord Strange between 1590 and 1594 (Companies 71). Richard Burbage, if he ever was a Strange’s player, seems almost certainly to have belonged to another company between 1591 and 1594 (Gurr, Shakespeare Company 17–18; McMillin, “Sussex’s Men” 222). Moreover, John Sincler and John Holland, both named on the Sins “plot,” apparently were Pembroke’s Men in the early 1590s (Gurr, Shakespeare Company 231, 241; Companies 72–3).7 Combined with the fact several Queen’s Men’s plays show up in the Chamberlain’s early repertory, these observations indicate the Chamberlain’s was not Strange’s under another name, but a gathering of actors from two, if not more, different companies: Strange’s, Pembroke’s (perhaps via Sussex’s), and possibly the Queen’s (Companies 279).8 While Strange’s certainly was well7

For more on Holland and Sincler’s potential Pembroke’s membership, see Chapter 7. For more on the possible contribution of Pembroke’s and Sussex’s to the formation of the Chamberlain’s, see Chapters 7 and 8. 8


108

represented in the new Chamberlain’s Men, it is doubtful the Chamberlain’s Men was the 1593 Strange’s Men under new management. Turning now to connections between Shakespeare’s plays and Strange’s Men, it is certain Titus Andronicus was, at some point, played by Strange’s Men. The 1594 Titus title page lists Derby’s, Pembroke’s, Sussex’s and, in subsequent editions, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men as the companies that played it. While some suggest the title page refers to a joint performance by these companies, a more probable hypothesis is that each company performed the play in succession (see Chapter 4). The fact Derby’s Men—formerly Strange’s Men—is listed first on the title page leads Honigmann to make the following assertion: Since at least five and probably ten of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men of 1594 were previously Strange’s Men, and Shakespeare, also one of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1594, was connected with (i.e., Derby’s) Strange’s Men when Titus was first produced, it seems highly probable that he, too, was one of Strange’s Men before 1594. (60)

While Honigmann’s statements are reasonable, he overstates his case in declaring this scenario “probable.” While it is possible, even plausible, Shakespeare was connected to Strange’s when Titus was first produced, viable alternative explanations limit such a statement’s probability. At stake is the issue of when Titus was first performed. The traditional view, held by E.K. Chambers and recently advocated by Bate, Waith, and Wells and Taylor, is that Titus was written between 1592 and 1594 (Bate, Titus Andronicus 71, 78; Waith 10; Wells and Taylor 113). Shakespeare was a busy writer at this time, penning his two narrative poems and likely working on several plays at the same time (scholars differ as to which plays these may have been, of course). This period also coincides with prolonged plague closures that forced all London companies to travel. Given Shakespeare’s literary output, it is plausible Shakespeare himself was not traveling with an acting company. While traveling was not as undesirable as some have asserted, it cannot have been conducive to composing, let alone publishing, long poems and plays. Thus, it is possible Shakespeare was not acting during these years, since playwrights did not belong to particular companies the way actors did. If so, the company that debuted Titus, if the debut took place between 1592 and 1594, is not an unequivocal clue to Shakespeare’s own company affiliations. He perhaps wrote the play for Strange’s, but this does not mean he was a member of that company, and in any case there are numerous examples of playwrights writing for more than one company.9 If, however, scholars like Honigmann, Hughes, and Metz are correct that Titus was written in the mid-to-late 1580s (Honigmann, Lost Years 61–2; Hughes 6; Metz, 9

For example, Marlowe wrote the Tamburlaine plays for the Admiral’s in the late 1580s, wrote Edward II for Pembroke’s by 1593, and wrote Dido for the Chapel Children (Chambers, Stage iv. 382–4). Robert Greene supposedly sold Orlando Furioso to both the Queen’s and Admiral’s (383). And George Peele wrote Arraignment of Paris for the Chapel Children, Edward I for an unspecified company, The Battle of Alcazar for the Admiral’s, and The Old Wive’s Tale for the Queen’s (382–4).

Strange’s Men

109

Earliest 197), Shakespeare probably belonged to the company that premiered it. In September 1592 “Greene” indicated that Shakespeare was a recent actor-turnedplaywright, so a date of composition before then would mean Shakespeare was probably still an actor making his first forays into dramatic writing. Furthermore, the absence of plague-enforced touring makes it plausible Shakespeare could have both written and acted for one particular company. But if Shakespeare wrote Titus in the late 1580s or early 1590s for Strange’s Men, it is difficult to explain why the play is absent from Strange’s 1592–93 repertory as recorded in Henslowe’s Diary. When Sussex’s performed Titus at the Rose in 1594, it was phenomenally popular, netting Henslowe at least £2 for each performance (Foakes 21); why, then, would Strange’s not perform it if it was in the company’s 1592–93 repertory? One could argue Titus passed to Pembroke’s Men before Strange’s commenced playing at the Rose, but then one must explain why Strange’s would have let a popular play go to another company.10 In any case, those who date Titus to the late 1580s rely heavily on a single comment by Ben Jonson, made in Bartholomew Fair (1614), that admirers of Titus and The Spanish Tragedy had let their judgment stand still “five and twentie, or thirtie yeeres” (8). Honigmann’s assertion that “‘Twenty-five or thirty’ is more carefully precise than a single round number” (Lost Years 61) is hardly convincing. Jonson was somewhat prone to exaggeration,11 and the remark was made within the context of an induction scene involving a humorous—indeed, satirical—negotiation between author and audience wherein Jonson used exaggeration to comic effect in several ways.12 If the age of Titus is another comic exaggeration, the argument for an early date of composition for Titus is substantially weakened, as is the case that Shakespeare must have been a member of Strange’s when he wrote the play. Regardless of Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s, that company did perform Titus at some point before 1594. Accordingly, scholars have searched for hints of other Shakespeare plays in Strange’s repertory. If others could be found, the hypothesis Shakespeare played in Strange’s Men would obviously be strengthened. Several titles in Henslowe’s Diary have been identified as possibly referring to plays by Shakespeare. The first, of course, is “harey the vj,” which had its first performance on 3 March 1592 (Foakes 16). Nashe’s Pierce Pennilesse, published August 1592, refers to a recent popular play featuring Talbot; Shakespeare’s 1 Henry VI is the only play known to feature this character. As noted in Chapter 2, Groatsworth, published September 1592, puns on a line from 3 Henry VI or True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, apparently expecting readers to understand this reference, meaning 3 Henry VI 10

Some of these potential conditions offered by various scholars are discussed in the following chapter. 11 Without using the word “exaggeration,” Honigmann elsewhere hints Jonson exaggerated in regards to Shakespeare’s “small latine and lesse Greeke” (Impact 17, 23, 34–8, 104–5, 108, 118–20). 12 Jonathan Bate notes that in this passage of Bartholomew Fair, “exaggeration is the trope” and points out Jonson’s exaggerations of performance lengths and ticket prices. Bate’s conclusion is that Jonson similarly exaggerates the age of Titus (Titus Andronicus 71–2).


110

or True Tragedy (or even both) were written, popular, and associated with Shakespeare by late summer 1592. 3 Henry VI and True Tragedy are sequels to 2 Henry VI and The First Part of the Contention, respectively, so all three Henry VI plays probably existed in some form by June 1592, when playing was suspended due to plague until December. Henslowe’s “harey the vj” was, like 1 and 3 Henry VI, very popular during the spring of 1592, receiving fifteen performances between 3 March and 19 June, on several occasions netting Henslowe £3 or more for a single performance (Foakes 16–20). No other play from this period is known to have featured Henry VI, so “harey the vj” may be any of Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy, but there is no definite proof this is the case. Accordingly, the possible existence of another popular play about Henry VI cannot be ruled out.13 Naturally, many scholars argue if “harey the vj” is one of Shakespeare’s plays, he must have written it for Strange’s and, accordingly, would likely have acted in that company. This argument is based on the fact Henslowe affixed the mysterious designation “ne” to the 3 March 1592 performance of “harey the vj.” The usual assumption is that plays designated “ne” were new plays. If so, “harey the vj” was new on 3 March 1592. If “harey” is one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays, this in turn suggests Shakespeare had written the play, or even the entire trilogy, for Strange’s Men, thus furthering the case for his membership in Strange’s. But there is no agreement on whether “ne” does in fact mean “new.” “Ne” does often appear in conjunction with the first appearance of a given play in the Diary, but sometimes “ne” appears next to a play title on two separate occasions. Moreover, at other times “ne” appears next to a title with a previous, documentable stage history, as in the case of Titus Andronicus, designated “ne” for Sussex’s 23 January 1594 performance. Titus’s title page, however, establishes Sussex’s performed it only after Strange’s and Pembroke’s had played it. In this case, “ne” cannot mean the play was brand new or being performed for the first time. As a result of such problems with “ne,” some scholars suggest it is instead used to designate not only world premieres, but the first performance of an old play by a new company or first performance of a revision of an old play.14

13

Most scholars argue “harey the vj” was 1 Henry VI (Greg, Diary ii.152; Pollard, “Introduction” 11; Chambers, Shakespeare i.292; Born, 324–5; Martin, Henry VI, Part Three 125; Burns 4; Knowles 112; Duncan-Jones 57), but the reference to 3 Henry VI in Groatsworth leads others to conclude “harey the vj” was 2 or 3 Henry VI (Oliver notes this possibility without endorsing it—“Introduction” 4–6), if not all three parts (Southworth 59), although Henslowe’s usual practice of denoting sequels makes this last possibility unlikely (Knutson, “Henslowe’s Naming” 157–60). More cautious scholars withhold judgment on whether or not “harey” was any of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays (Bevington, Complete Works xlix; Rutter 22, 57; Schoenbaum, Compact 165). Peter Alexander goes a step farther and argues that “harey” was not Shakespeare’s (Henry VI and Richard III 188–92), a position also taken by A.S. Cairncross (The First Part of King Henry VI xxxii–xxxiii). 14 For a fuller discussion of Henslowe’s “ne,” see Chapter 8.

Strange’s Men

111

Uncertainty over the meaning of Henslowe’s “ne” means it is impossible to say with certainty what “ne” means in regards to “harey the vj.” It could mean the play premiered on 3 March 1592. But it could also mean “harey” was being performed with new revisions, or else by Strange’s, for the first time. Other plays from Strange’s 1592 repertory previously belonged to other companies. Orlando Furioso, for example, once belonged to either the Queen’s or Admiral’s, and The Spanish Tragedy and The Jew of Malta were very likely written for companies other than Strange’s.15 The performances of these plays are not similarly labeled “ne,” but perhaps Strange’s had only just acquired “harey” from another company, whereas it had already performed the other plays not originally written for it. So even if “harey” is one of Shakespeare’s plays, it does not follow that Shakespeare must have written it for Strange’s. “harey” may be one of Shakespeare’s plays, and he may have written it for Strange’s, but these are not certainties; accordingly, “harey” offers no definite proof of Shakespeare’s association with Strange’s Men. The speculation of such an association is admittedly justifiable, but given these other explanations, it is not quite probable. At least two other titles in Strange’s repertory, as recorded by Henslowe, have received attention as possibly referring to plays by Shakespeare. On 11 April 1592 Henslowe records the performance of “tittus & vespacia” which proved to be one of Strange’s more popular offerings during the 1592 and 1593 Rose seasons (Foakes 17–20). E.K. Chambers, believing Shakespeare’s early dramatic work was as a “play patcher,” and that some of his early plays are revisions of earlier works by other authors, thinks “tittus” was “probably the play on which was based Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus” (Stage ii.122). Chambers observes that in a 1620 German version of Titus Andronicus, Titus’s son Lucius was renamed Vespasian, “which might point to Titus and Vespasian” (Shakespeare i.319); Chambers also notes a 1619 Revels list of plays includes Titus and Vespasian which, he says, means it was regarded as equivalent with Titus Andronicus in 1619 (ii.319). Chambers does not, however, clarify why Titus and Vespasian on the Revels list must correspond to Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus. Naturally, if Titus Andronicus was based on Strange’s “tittus,” 15

Greg suggests the Admiral’s first played The Spanish Tragedy (Diary ii.153–4). Arthur Freeman thinks The Spanish Tragedy was written for Strange’s, but he incorrectly assumes Strange’s had an uninterrupted existence after 1576 (Thomas Kyd 120). Strange’s of the 1590s is only definitely traceable beginning in 1589 (apart from an isolated 1587–88 Coventry performance); as The Spanish Tragedy is usually dated to 1586 or earlier, it is highly unlikely it was first performed by Strange’s (Greg, Diary ii.153–4). J.R. Mulryne simply notes “all is inference” (xiv) concerning The Spanish Tragedy’s first company; David Bevington’s recent edition does not address the issue at all. There is similarly no consensus on which company debuted The Jew of Malta. Greg suggests the Queen’s Men did so (Greg, Diary ii.151); because Jew dates from about the same time as Tamburlaine, definitely written for the Admiral’s Men (Bawcutt 1; H. Bennett 5; Bevington, Jew 1), and because Edward Alleyn is credited with originating the role of Barabas (Bawcutt 2), the Admiral’s is also a likely possibility for Jew’s first company.


112

or was Strange’s “tittus,” the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s would be strengthened. Few other scholars, however, regard “tittus” as an earlier, or equivalent, version of Titus Andronicus because, as Metz points out, no text of “tittus & vespacia” survives, so its relationship to Titus Andronicus cannot be determined (Earliest 163–4). All that remains of “tittus” is a title which, while similar, is decidedly not Titus Andronicus.16 In addition to “tittus & vespacia,” Chambers proposes “the gelyous comodey,” performed on 5 January 1593, “may, I think, be The Comedy of Errors” (Stage ii.123). In William Shakespeare, Chambers similarly asserts “the Comedy of Errors might quite well be ‘the gelyous comodey’ ... I am not sure that it was not” (i.310). Chambers’s double negative betrays doubt regarding this identification, and he proceeds to outline the various problems with his conjecture (i.310–311). Few, if any, scholars since Chambers have pursued this argument; after all, there is no way to verify the conjecture, because nothing remains of “the gelyous comodey” besides its title. The title hints at the lost play’s content, but while jealousy is a theme in The Comedy of Errors, it is hardly the only play to employ this theme; moreover, jealousy is not the play’s major theme: the errors, not jealousy, drive the action. One further play which possibly belonged to Strange’s could be used to argue for Shakespeare’s membership in the company: Sir Thomas More, which survives only in manuscript. Five separate “hands” are discernible in the manuscript; one of them, Hand D, is often believed to be Shakespeare’s. Prevailing opinion currently holds this play was written in the early 1590s, perhaps 1592–93, for Strange’s Men, although there are some scholars who dispute this date and/or company. The play apparently was never performed; the general belief is Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, objected to perceived political content and prevented the play from reaching the stage. If Shakespeare was one of Sir Thomas More’s collaborators, and if the play was written for Strange’s, this would be an additional hint that Shakespeare had more than a passing connection to that company. Once again, though, several uncertainties prevent Shakespeare’s connection to More, or More’s connection to Strange’s, from being regarded as definite. As the case stands, it is not certain Hand D is Shakespeare’s. G. Harold Metz comments that while most scholars support this identification, “a significant minority, including some respected students of the play, deny it or conclude that there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a decision”

16

W.W. Greg (Diary ii.155), David George (“Pembroke’s” 315–17), Harold Metz (Earliest 163–4), Andrew Gurr (Companies 263), Eugene Waith (8), Brian Vickers (149), and Jonathan Bate (Titus Andronicus 73) are just a few scholars who reject the idea “tittus & vespacia” was an early version of Titus Andronicus, most of whom agree with Bate that “tittus & vespacia” most plausibly suggests a play about Roman emperors Titus and Vespasian, who besieged Jerusalem in the first century (Titus Andronicus 73). Other scholars, like Alan Hughes and David Bevington (Complete Works) do not even mention Chambers’s suggestion “tittus” was a version of Titus Andronicus. A lone recent exception to this trend is John Southworth, who follows Chambers’s logic (53–5).

Strange’s Men

113

(“‘Voice and credyt’” 17).17 Moreover, Hand D’s contribution to More is small and may be limited to revisions which could have been added after 1600, in which case Hand D cannot be connected to Strange’s Men.18 Apart from issues of Strange’s repertory and personnel, E.A.J. Honigmann proposes allusions to the Stanley family in Shakespeare’s plays demonstrate he had an early and sustained connection with Strange’s Men, or at least the company’s patron. Honigmann, it should be noted, approaches Shakespeare’s plays believing the personnel connections between Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s and stage history of Titus Andronicus prove Shakespeare’s connection to Strange’s (Lost Years 59–65). Accordingly, Honigmann approaches the plays convinced he will find reference to the Stanley family in the plays. The results of his search are uneven: 1. In Richard III, Honigmann says that, in relation to the actions of the character of Thomas Stanley, first Earl of Derby and direct ancestor of Lord Strange, “Shakespeare rearranged history so as to make Stanley’s services to the incoming Tudor dynasty seem more momentous than they really were” (Lost Years 63–4).19 While history has certainly been modified to Derby’s benefit, it is, as Honigmann admits, unsafe to “pretend that all the earls and dukes of the history plays reflect upon their Elizabethan namesakes” (64). Even so, Honigmann argues the dramatist’s “careful remodeling of Derby [is] understandable when we recall that ... in all probability, he was one of Strange’s Men; and we may add, conversely, that the play’s treatment of Derby supports the theory that Shakespeare was one of Strange’s Men at this time” (64). One is not inspired by the circularity of this reasoning.

17

Many More scholars agree that Shakespeare was Hand D (A.W. Pollard, ed., Shakespeare’s Hand; McMillin, Elizabethan Theatre; Long, “Occasion;” Taylor, “Date and Auspices;” Forker, “Webster or Shakespeare?;” Gabrieli and Melchiori, eds., Sir Thomas More, among others). Paul Ramsey argues Hand D is more likely that of Thomas Heywood; Carol Chillington asserts Hand D is most likely that of John Webster (“Playwrights”); and Paul Werstine comments the argument for Shakespeare as Hand D is based on an accumulation of individually inconclusive arguments which therefore cannot add up to anything more than a possibility (“Shakespeare, More or Less”). Metz surveys additional arguments for and against Shakespeare’s identification as Hand D in Four Plays, Sources of Four Plays, and “‘Voice and credyt.’” 18 The mainstream view is the revisions evident in the More manuscript were made near the initial date of composition, but several important studies suggest that even if More was originally written in c. 1592–94, the revisions were not made until after 1600. This view is most prominently advanced by Scott McMillin, who assigns Hand D’s work to the original composition (Elizabethan Theatre) and Gary Taylor, who assigns Hand D’s work to the later revisions (“The Date and Auspices”). Taylor’s argument that Hand D (whom he identifies as Shakespeare) was involved in post-1600 revisions was anticipated by J.M. Nosworthy and R.C. Bald and has been accepted by Brian Vickers (88–9). For more on this issue, see Metz, Four Plays, Sources of Four Plays, and “‘Voice and credyt.’” 19 Among other passages, Honigmann cites I, iii; IV, i, 48 ff.; IV, iv; and V, v, 4 ff. as evidence of Shakespeare’s sympathetic treatment of Stanley/Derby.


114

2. Honigmann finds several supposed allusions to Ferdinando Stanley and his activities in Love’s Labour’s Lost: a) a primary character is named Ferdinand; b) the words “strange” and “stranger” are used on three occasions (IV, iii, 372; V, ii, 174, 218); c) the inconstancy of the main characters could be a joke about Strange’s mottos;20 d) puns similar to those in a 1589 Richard Robinson poem dedicated to Ferdinando Stanley are employed; e) puns allegedly alluding to Nashe and Pierce Pennilesse are included (I, ii, 8; III, i, 60; IV, ii, 79 ff.), this at a time when Nashe was courting Strange’s favor; f) Ferdinando, Honigmann says, had a relationship with Queen Elizabeth similar to the one Henry, King of Navarre, had to his monarch (Ferdinando and Henry were regarded as potential heirs to heirless monarchs); g) Strange, like Ferdinand, had a near-royal household in the provinces; h) Strange was a member of the “school of night” whose ideas sound “remarkably like Ferdinand’s opening speech” (Lost Years 66, 64–7). Based on these alleged allusions, Honigmann characterizes Love’s Labour’s Lost as “a bantering comedy written for Lord Strange’s own entertainment ... It smiles indulgently, almost lovingly, and at the same time idealises ‘matchless Navarre’— a combination that is best explained as a tribute from a privileged follower” (68–9). The value of these supposed allusions is in the eye of the beholder; for example, even if one agrees Navarre is idealized in Love’s Labour’s Lost, it is a significant jump to the conclusion this idealization is “best explained as a tribute from a privileged follower” (emphasis mine). While this explanation might be possible, it is not necessarily plausible and decidedly not probable or “best.”21 As John S. Pendergast says, “to rely too much on possible connections based on the slightest linguistic suggestions is to oversimplify the artistic method” in general; for Love’s Labour’s Lost in specific, “There is no internal or external evidence to suggest that this play was written solely for a courtly audience; likewise, there is no play as we currently know it that was written solely and ultimately for such a narrow audience” (35). 3. Honigmann asserts that Midsummer Night’s Dream also has “intriguing” potential allusions to the Stanley family “worth following up on” (Lost Years 69). Honigmann argues this play was written for the 26 January 1595 wedding of William Stanley, Ferdinando’s brother. If Midsummer was written with this wedding in mind, Honigmann says, interesting parallels emerge: a) William Stanley, like Theseus, was interested in poetry and drama; b) like Theseus, Stanley married comparatively late in life; c) the play comments a new moon 20

Strange’s mottos were “Dieu et ma Foy” (God and my Faith) and “Sans changer ma verite” (without changing my truth) (Honigmann, Lost Years 65). 21 Recent editors and commentators of Love’s Labour’s Lost have rarely even taken up Honigmann’s interpretation of the play. Neither G.W. Hibbard nor Peter Holland address Honigmann’s conjectures; Pendergast comments any supposed allusions of the kind Honigmann detects are the result of flawed logic, as “Shakespeare did not adopt this type of referencing in any other work, and no strong evidence exists that he had a reason to do so” in Love’s Labour’s Lost (31).

Strange’s Men

115

will occur in four days (I, i, 2–3), and a new moon occurred four days after the Stanley wedding; d) Theseus’s reference to a dowager draining the revenues of a young man (I, i, 5–6) parallels Stanley’s relation to Ferdinando’s widow, by all accounts a difficult person; e) the Stanley family had been designated Master Forresters, and Theseus mentions his hunting dogs at IV, i, 106 and following (150–53). On this last count, Honigmann notes the stewards of Macclesfield forest under Stanley “maintained a celebrated breed of Lyme mastiffs, and perhaps Shakespeare referred to these ... or to others like them—hounds that may well have been present at the Derby wedding” (153). Once again, all these parallels are in the eye of the beholder; the last in particular strains plausibility. None of the other parallels are certain, either, especially as other scholars have identified various other weddings Midsummer could have been written for. Moreover, Gary Jay Williams raises major doubts about all wedding conjectures.22 As with all supposed topical allusions, scholars such as Honigmann would do well to remember the words of E.A. Strathman: The endless game of finding topical allusions in Elizabethan literature ... requires that the suggestion of secondary meanings rests upon something more than coincidence between the poet’s fiction and the historian’s fact. ... What is needed is a link between the story and event, some evidence, internal or external, that the writer intended the application proposed by his interpreter. (176)

4. The death scenes of old and young Clifford—ancestors of Ferdinando Stanley—in 2 Henry VI (V, i, 122–216) and 3 Henry VI (II, vi, 1–86) magnify the accounts of their deaths found in Shakespeare’s sources. Honigmann himself allows, though, that “the highlighting of the Clifford scenes, and Shakespeare’s retouching of some of the material, needs no justification other than that it adds to dramatic balance” (Lost Years 154). 5. Beyond Shakespeare’s plays, Honigmann considers two Edmund Spenser poems dedicated to members of the Stanley family. Tears of The Muses mentions “our pleasant Willy,” a writer of comedies (Complaints F2), while Colin Clout’s Come Home Again speaks of “Aetion,” a gentle shepherd “Whose Muse, full of high thought’s invention,/Doth like himself heroically sound” (C2–C2v) (Lost Years 75). Various scholars since John Dryden (Schoenbaum, Lives 88) have wondered if these two references are to Shakespeare. Honigmann says they are, and thus, given the poems’ dedicatees, demonstrate more Shakespeare-Stanley connections. Honigmann’s rationale for accepting the identification of Shakespeare as “pleasant Willy” and “Aetion” are unimportant; it is sufficient to note there is no 22

Williams lists eleven different weddings which have been suggested as the occasion from the writing of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2, 263–5) and goes on to demonstrate that the idea that Midsummer was written especially for a wedding cannot be convincingly supported, is completely out of step with Elizabethan theatre practices, and suppresses other major features of the play (2–37). Peter Holland adds that no play (as distinct from a masque) is known to have been written for a wedding before 1614 (111).

116


consensus on either of these supposed references to Shakespeare. Schoenbaum argues, for example, that “pleasant Willy” is likely Richard Wills/Willey (Lives 88), and calls the identification of “Aetion” as Shakespeare “a failure, as must be any effort to pin down with certainty so ambiguous a reference” (174). By trying to identify the characters in Spenser’s poems, Honigmann is working on an unsolvable puzzle, because the answer key—Spenser—is lost forever. Accordingly, these poems have nominal value in demonstrating Shakespeare’s early playing allegiances. 6. Honigmann argues the so-called “Shakespeare Epitaphs,” written for Elias James, Sir Thomas Stanley, and Edward Stanley and all at one point or another attributed to Shakespeare, demonstrate further Shakespeare-Stanley connections, since all three men were either Stanleys or connected to the family. Honigmann declares the doggerel style of these epitaphs inadequate grounds for doubting Shakespeare’s authorship (Lost Years 81–3). Of course, because the attributions of these poems to Shakespeare all took place decades after Shakespeare’s death and the poems’ compositions, Shakespeare’s authorship of these poems is still doubtful (Schoenbaum, Lives 41–6). 7. Honigmann also asserts Shakespeare’s service to Strange “may help explain Robert Greene’s furious attack” on Shakespeare (Lost Years 69–70). As noted in Chapter 5, A.W. Pollard listed Strange’s and the Queen’s as companies Shakespeare could have belonged to in 1592, but disqualified Strange’s on the grounds Greene’s anger required “a much longer and more personal provision of feathers” than the 1592 Rose season would have allowed (“Introduction” 17). Honigmann, however, thinks the longer provision of feathers could have occurred if Shakespeare was in Strange’s Men. First, the familiarity of the (debatable) allusions in Love’s Labour’s Lost suggest to Honigmann that Shakespeare had known Ferdinando Stanley for some time when he composed this play (Lost Years 71). Greene, Honigmann says, courted the Stanleys’ favor in the late 1580s “while at the same time he published, and probably encouraged, Nashe’s sneers at the author of a lost Senecan tragedy called Hamlet” in Nashe’s preface to Greene’s 1589 Menaphon (70). As Groatsworth, Honigmann says, uses similar phrases to Nashe’s diatribe against the non-university-educated author of Hamlet, “it seems that Nashe and Greene believed Shakespeare to be the author of the early (lost) Hamlet of 1589, and that Greene had looked upon Shakespeare as a rival for some years before his final outburst” (70). In 1592, however, Nashe praised Shakespeare in Pierce Pennilesse while Shakespeare’s alleged company—Strange’s—performed several Greene plays. Groatsworth’s attack thus was motivated because “Nashe had switched sides, Lord Strange’s Men would not help him, Shakespeare’s ‘tiger’s heart’ had turned everyone against him—that must have been Greene’s bitter summing up in 1592” (70). Honigmann also notes Groatsworth includes the phrase “Is it not strange that I,” which he interprets, unsurprisingly, as a pun on Shakespeare’s supposed patron’s name (71).

Strange’s Men

117

On all of these counts, Honigmann’s argument is not strong. His insistence that any use of “strange” or “stranger” alludes to Ferdinando Stanley is overzealous. His assertion that Nashe and Greene regarded Shakespeare as the author of the lost Hamlet is not self-evident. He offers no evidence of how Greene “encouraged” Nashe’s attack on the lost Hamlet. His observation that Groatsworth echoes Nashe’s attack on Hamlet proves nothing about Greene’s opinions, because Greene may not have been wholly responsible for Groatsworth, which Honigmann himself acknowledges (Lost Years 66; Impact 139). And in explaining Groatsworth’s attack through Shakespeare’s prolonged contact with the Stanley family, Honigmann overlooks two key pieces of information. First, Groatsworth’s reference to Shakespeare as an “upstart” does not square with Honigmann’s own “early start” chronology, which argues Shakespeare was a well-established dramatist by 1592. Second, Honigmann ignores the fact Ferdinando Stanley apparently did not have an adult playing company between 1584–85 and 1588, the first four years of Shakespeare’s supposed involvement with the company (Lost Years 128). These two items cast serious doubt on Shakespeare’s sustained and intimate contact with Ferdinando Stanley and indeed on Honigmann’s entire “early start” chronology. Ultimately, Honigmann’s compilation of circumstantial details and supposed literary allusions does not make his argument for Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s any stronger or sounder; rather, he falls into what Werstine calls a “rhetoric of accumulation” and what Greg called “cumulative evidence”: individually inconclusive and unconvincing details are accumulated in an attempt to convince by sheer numbers (“Shakespeare, More or Less” 130, 140). Werstine points out this type of argument cannot satisfactorily prove an issue, because it does not present a logical progression of premises and conclusion; it just collects details (130–31). Thus, the only premises for arguing for Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s are the alleged continuity between Strange’s and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, the Titus Andronicus title page, and the tentative identification of “harey the vj” with one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays. The strengths of this argument, of course, cannot be overlooked. All of these premises make Strange’s a plausible, intriguing, even promising, candidate for Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company; like arguments for his membership in the Queen’s, speculation he was in Strange’s is justified. At the same time, none of these premises are unequivocal evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in the company, and, as such, alternative explanations for his whereabouts cannot be ruled out. Once again, however, tracing the variations of the argument for Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s Men forces scholars to grapple with important issues, including assumptions about the level of continuity between acting companies, the transparency—or lack thereof—of the information contained in Henslowe’s Diary, the authorship and provenance of the enigmatic Sir Thomas More, the dubious value of literary allusions in writing biography, and the responsibility of scholars to build arguments on something more than an accumulation of circumstantial details. The search for Shakespeare within Strange’s may not yield conclusive results in regards to Shakespeare himself, but the issues raised by the search are important in their own right.


Chapter 7

Pembroke’s Men

The history of Pembroke’s Men is one of the most intriguing and frustrating in Elizabethan theatre history. On the one hand, Pembroke’s Men experienced an incredibly rapid rise to prominence, followed by a spectacular collapse, in the course of two years. On the other hand, little evidence survives to cast light on where this company came from, how it was able to attain immediate success, and what players were active in it during its brief life. A handful of Pembroke’s plays survive; numerous provincial notices testify to its 1592–93 activities; and two court performances in 1592–93 are recorded. Apart from this information, Pembroke’s Men remains an unknown quantity. Many scholars have tried to identify the origin, personnel, and repertory of Pembroke’s, with wildly divergent results. It should come as no surprise that some of these results conclude William Shakespeare was a member of this short-lived, but important, playing company. Pembroke’s Men The first record of a company patronized by Henry Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, is from a 1575–76 visit to Canterbury (REED, Kent 207). Pembroke’s Men then disappears until the 1592–93 court season, when it performed on 26 December 1592 and 6 January 1593 (Astington, English 234; Chambers, Stage iv.164). The sudden emergence and immediate prominence of Pembroke’s players has been a subject of debate, in part because Herbert was advanced in years and in poor health in 1592–93 (Gurr, “Three Reluctant” 171). Various hypotheses concerning Pembroke’s origin, discussed below, attempt to explain its immediate success. Whatever its origin, Pembroke’s 1592–93 court performances indicate it probably had existed long enough to attract the court’s attention, and presumably had actors and/or writers talented enough to attract such attention. The issue of which players and writers were attached to Pembroke’s will also be taken up shortly. Given Pembroke’s prominence at court in 1592–93, it likely played at one of London’s venues between 29 December 1592, when playing was resumed after plague inhibition, and 1 February 1593, when another inhibition commenced (Gurr, Companies 91). The plague closure forced Pembroke’s to travel, and numerous 1592–93 provincial records document this tour, during which the company ranged as far north as York and as far south as Rye (see Appendix). Not all was well on this tour, and calamity apparently befell Pembroke’s by the late summer. A 28 September 1593 letter from Philip Henslowe to Edward Alleyn records that Pembroke’s “are all at home and hauffe ben t v or sixe


120

weackes for they cane not saue ther carges <w>th trauell as I haere & weare fayne to pane the parell for ther carge” (Foakes 280). After Henslowe’s letter, Pembroke’s seemingly disappears for a time,1 but in the following months a trickle of plays with title-pages listing Pembroke’s as the playing company were published. Marlowe’s Edward II was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 6 June 1593, but not printed until 1594; Titus Andronicus was entered on 6 February 1594, as was Taming of A Shrew on 2 May; and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, never entered in the Stationers’ Register, was printed in 1595. Besides these four plays, The First Part of the Contention, to which True Tragedy is a sequel, was entered on 12 March 1594 and published soon after without any titlepage ascription (Arber ii.634, 644, 646, 648; Chambers, Stage iv.383, 385). By 1595, Pembroke’s had revived and played at Ipswich on 7 April (“Players at Ipswich” 278), although it is unclear if this Pembroke’s had any connection to the 1592–93 Pembroke’s. This new Pembroke’s frequently appears in provincial records between 1595 and 1598. Then, in 1597, Pembroke’s returned to London to play at Langley’s Swan playhouse. This run at the Swan apparently lasted from late February to late July; during this time, several Admiral’s Men defected to Pembroke’s. In late July, the Swan venture ended for reasons which are not clear and several Pembroke’s Men were jailed. After their release, they joined the Admiral’s at the Rose (Ingram, A London Life 151–96; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 211–16; Gurr, Companies 107–9; Foakes 60, 71–2). The remnant of Pembroke’s returned to the provinces and remained there until October 1600, when it performed briefly at the Rose before disappearing from the records entirely, perhaps due to the death of its patron in January 1601 (Foakes 164; Gurr, Companies 273; Chambers, Stage ii.128). Three issues concerning Pembroke’s 1592–93 existence are particularly contentious: the repertory, personnel, and origin of the company. These three issues are frustratingly complicated, but each must be addressed before turning to arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s. Repertory The title pages of four published plays name Pembroke’s as the company that performed them: Titus Andronicus, Edward II, True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, and Taming of A Shrew. As True Tragedy is the sequel to The First Part of the Contention (the two were later published together as The Whole Contention), it is almost certain Contention also belongs to Pembroke’s repertory, although its titlepage makes no company ascription. Accordingly, Pembroke’s played one play by Shakespeare (Titus) and one by Marlowe (Edward II). Titus’s title page seemingly indicates it was written for Strange’s/Derby’s Men; the issue of how Pembroke’s 1

1593–94 Bewdley records include a Pembroke’s visit; this could have come after September 1593, but also could have been part of the 1592–93 tour (REED, Herefordshire/ Worcestershire 362, 582).

Pembroke’s Men

121

came to perform it will be addressed below. The remaining known Pembroke’s plays all are related to plays by Shakespeare: Contention and True Tragedy are clearly related to 2, 3 Henry VI, although the precise relationship is elusive, and A Shrew deals with the same subject matter as The Taming of the Shrew. The complex issue of the relationship of Contention/True Tragedy quarto texts to the 2, 3 Henry VI folio texts has led to problems in the scholarly reconstruction of Pembroke’s repertory. Over the last two centuries, various positions have been held concerning the quarto-folio relationship:2 1. 2, 3 Henry VI are revisions of the earlier Contention/True Tragedy in one of two ways: a. Contention/True Tragedy were written, collaboratively or otherwise, by authors such as Greene, Peele, or Marlowe. Shakespeare revised these older players into 2, 3 Henry VI. Edmond Malone advocated this view in 1790 (“Dissertation”) and it remained popular into the twentieth century, with advocates including Sidney Lee (115–22), J.Q. Adams (136–7), and John Dover Wilson (The Second Part of King Henry VI xix). E.K. Chambers initially agreed with Malone, but later changed his mind (Shakespeare i.281–5). b. Contention/True Tragedy were written by Shakespeare, who later revised them into 2, 3 Henry VI. Alexander Pope suggested this possibility as early as 1725; while it received occasional nineteenth-century support, it fell into disfavor in the early twentieth century (Doran 7). Recently, scholars such as Steven Urkowitz have revived and vigorously defended this position (“Good News;” “If I Mistake”).3 2. Contention/True Tragedy are derivative of 2, 3 Henry VI. Opinion as to how Contention/True Tragedy were derived varies: a. Reporters “stole” 2, 3 Henry VI by taking notes during a performance, which they sold to publishers. The resultant Contention/True Tragedy were shorter, corrupted in places, and made solely to profit from their publication. Samuel Johnson suggested this idea in 1765, but the problematic logistics of longhand reporting and the inadequate shorthand techniques in the sixteenth century have kept it from gaining support during the twentieth century (Maguire 18). b. One or more actors who had performed 2, 3 Henry VI reconstructed the texts from memory; the resultant Contention/True Tragedy were shorter, corrupted in places due to accidents of memory, and made to turn a quick profit. This “memorial reconstruction” hypothesis was advocated in 1929 in Peter 2

Various sources contain fuller summaries of the fraught history of scholarly opinion of the quarto-folio relationship; those provided in the introductions to the recent Oxford and Arden editions of 2 Henry VI (Arden ed. Ronald Knowles; Oxford ed. Roger Warren) and 3 Henry VI (Arden ed. John D. Cox and Eric Rasmussen; Oxford ed. Randall Martin) are especially helpful. 3 Other proponents of the “Shakespearean first draft” hypothesis include Yashdip Bains (The Contention) and Hardin Craig (A New Look).


122

Alexander’s Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III and adopted by others, such as A.S. Cairncross (“Pembroke’s Men”). c. Theatrical conditions—such as a reduced cast—led a company of actors who had performed 2, 3 Henry VI to create the shorter Contention/True Tragedy via memorial reconstruction and deliberate abridgment/revision. This hypothesis, suggested by Madeleine Doran in 1928 (Henry VI, Parts II and III) argues accidents of memory explain occasional corrupted quarto passages, but contends other quarto-folio differences that cannot be adequately explained by memorial reconstruction must be due to deliberate abridgment. Moreover, this hypothesis recognizes the quartos are theatrically viable texts and not so corrupted as to be incomprehensible.4 3. Rather than being derived from the Folio versions, the quartos were derived from earlier versions of 2, 3 Henry VI which were subsequently revised into their Folio form. Roger Warren, for instance, argues that while the quartos report changes to the original manuscript made during rehearsals, the Folio texts also exhibit revisions made to the original manuscript after the quarto texts were reported (Henry VI, Part Two 86–98). In other words, both the quarto and Folio texts contain evidence of revision and thus are not as directly related as some scholars claim.5 4. Given current evidence, the relationship between quarto and folio texts is indeterminate and indeterminable. There is no way to determine what sorts of manuscripts underlie the folio and quarto texts; moreover, the foregoing theories about quarto-folio relations all fail to explain various differences between quarto and folio texts. Such theories haphazardly employ ideal, rather than empirical, categories such as “foul papers,” “bad quartos,” and “memorial reconstructions” to categorize texts which ultimately do not fit predicted patterns, narratives, or categories. Important advocates of this position include Paul Werstine (“Narratives”), John D. Cox and Eric Rasmussem (King Henry VI Part 3), and Laurie Maguire (Shakespearean Suspect Texts). Many scholars in this camp note, with Andrew Sprong, that there is an inherent problem in assuming it is possible to identify which text—quarto, folio, or some third text—is the authorial “original,” since the authorial manuscripts, if they ever existed in a finished form, are lost (67–8). Each of these positions hold implications for Pembroke’s repertory: If either of 1a–b) is correct, Pembroke’s must have played Contention/True Tragedy, given the company’s presence on True Tragedy’s title page; Pembroke’s may or may not have had anything to do with 2, 3 Henry VI. 4

Since Doran, contributors to this hypothesis include Scott McMillin (“Casting”), Robert E. Burkhart, who almost completely abandons memorial reconstruction in favor of deliberate abridgment (Shakespeare’s Bad Quartos), and Kathleen O. Irace, who, unlike Doran, believes the quartos were based on London, not provincial, performances (Reforming 167–8). 5 Randall Martin (Henry VI, Part Three and “The True Tragedy”) and Grace Ioppolo (Revising Shakespeare) also advocate this point of view.

Pembroke’s Men

123

If any of 2a–c) are correct, Pembroke’s might have played either, or both, of the pairs in question. For instance: a. Pembroke’s might have played 2, 3 Henry VI. Actors in these productions could have surreptitiously reconstructed these performances and sold the resultant texts to publishers as Contention/True Tragedy. Pembroke’s did not actually perform the quarto version, but the publishers credited Pembroke’s on the True Tragedy title page for publicity reasons. Thus, Pembroke’s played 2, 3 Henry VI but not necessarily Contention/True Tragedy. Peter Alexander (Shakespeare’s Henry VI 53–73), A.S. Cairncross (“Pembroke’s” 335, 349), and Karl P. Wentersdorf (“Origin” 63–4) hold variations of this view. b. Members of Pembroke’s might have performed 2, 3 Henry VI with another company they previously belonged to. Needing new plays for Pembroke’s, they reconstructed the text which was performed by Pembroke’s and published as Contention/True Tragedy. Thus, Pembroke’s played Contention/ True Tragedy but not 2, 3 Henry VI. Madeleine Doran (27, 75–83) and David George (“Shakespeare” 306–7) essentially hold this view. c. Pembroke’s might have played 2, 3 Henry VI in London but created Contention/True Tragedy for some reason; perhaps the shorter quartos were more conducive to provincial playing or better suited to less experienced actors. Thus, Pembroke’s may have played both sets of plays. Scott McMillin seems to espouse this view, as he uses actor names found in both the quarto and folio texts to deduce Pembroke’s membership (“Casting” 155–9). If 3) is correct, the same possibilities come into play as with 2a–c), but three additional considerations emerge: a. when the theoretical manuscript underlying the quarto and folio texts was written; b. when the revisions reflected in the quarto texts were made; and c. when the revisions reflected in the folio texts were made. These considerations breed so many complex questions that they essentially lead to the same situation as if 4) is correct: it is unsafe to engage in speculation that departs from the available evidence. True Tragedy’s title page says Pembroke’s performed the play; 2, 3 Henry VI only appeared in print decades later and are not credited to Pembroke’s. Such evidence suggests Pembroke’s played the quarto versions. It may have also played the folio versions, but this is not a safe conjecture on which to build further conjectures. The ultimate question is Pembroke’s agency in the relationship between quarto and folio texts. Scholars rarely clarify their views on Pembroke’s agency regarding quarto or folio versions even when a given scholar does state his or her position on the quarto-folio relationship. The problem is that, for instance, having declared the quartos “memorial reconstructions,” a scholar may then include 2, 3 Henry VI


124

in Pembroke’s repertory (e.g., Gurr Companies 73, 269, 271, 276; Wentersdorf, “Repertory” 85; Cairncross, “Pembroke’s” 345–9; Bevington, Complete Works A8– A9), but such an inclusion does not follow as a certainty if Contention/True Tragedy are derived from 2, 3 Henry VI. The problem is compounded when a scholar then bases claims about the company’s personnel or origin on the inclusion of 2, 3 Henry VI in Pembroke’s repertory. This, unfortunately, has often been the case.6 Personnel Attempts to identify Pembroke’s personnel have been based, in whole or in part, on the occurrence of “actor names” in texts attributed to Pembroke’s repertory. Both published and manuscript playtexts from this era often contain stage directions or speech prefixes which seem to refer to actors playing, rather than the characters in, a given scene. For example, the Much Ado About Nothing quarto version occasionally uses the speech prefix “Kemp” for lines spoken by Dogberry (G3v–G4v, for example). This is an evident case of an actor name appearing in a text; in other cases, actor names are not so obvious. In 2, 3 Henry VI, for example, several small roles have specific or unique names appearing in stage directions or speech prefixes. While the playwright may have decided to give these roles interesting names, it is also possible the playwright, or someone else, used the name of the actor playing the character in the stage directions or speech prefixes. As playwrights knew what company they were writing a given play for, a playwright might have used actor names to keep track of which, and how many, actors were being used at a given moment. Perhaps the playwright used the actor’s name before deciding on a name for the character. Or perhaps a prompter wrote actor names into a text to know who to prompt when, or to ensure smooth backstage traffic flow, either for the initial performance or revival of the play (Gaw, 530–40; McKerrow, “Elizabethan Printer” 271–5; Chambers, Shakespeare i.237; Greg, Dramatic Documents 216; Wentersdorf, “Origin” 46–7, 66 note 3; Cox and Rasmussen 166–74; Gurr, Companies 72). While there are several plausible explanations for how and why actor names could appear in a playtext, scholars must keep two questions in mind when dealing with suspected actor names: 1) Are the names concerned in fact actor names? 2) When did the actor name enter the text: in preparation for the first performances, for revival, for publication, or at some other time for some other reason? In regards to Pembroke’s Men, a third question also must be addressed: 3) Do the actor names appear in texts Pembroke’s 6

Everything said to this point concerning the relationship between Contention/True Tragedy and 2, 3 Henry VI can be applied to the relationship between A Shrew and The Shrew. Scholars, however, have been more hesitant to make pronouncements about this relationship; even when memorial reconstruction was near orthodoxy concerning the Contention/True Tragedy–2, 3 Henry VI relationship, scholars often refrained from applying the theory to the A Shrew–The Shrew relationship (Pinciss 135; McMillin, “Casting” 149; Thompson 1–3, 170–74; Oliver 25; Shafer 1–4). Ironically, Laurie Maguire, a leading critic of the memorial reconstruction theory, concludes that A Shrew is one of only four texts for which “A Strong Case Can be Made For Memorial Reconstruction” (324).

Pembroke’s Men

125

definitely performed? Unfortunately, many scholars do not answer all, if indeed any, of these key questions. The potential actor names in supposed Pembroke’s texts are extensive. Greg notes that the names “Gabriel,” “Humfrey,” and “Sinklo,” which appear in 3 Henry VI’s stage directions (see I, ii and III, i), are oddly distinctive given the nondescript roles in question; he proposes that these names refer to Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes (the only known Elizabethan actors with those first names), and John Sincler (the only known actor whose name approximates “Sinklo”) (Diary ii.91). Greg says that these actors, along with Humphrey’s brother Anthony,7 were Pembroke’s Men as 3 Henry VI “was presented in a somewhat different version as early as 1595 when it was described as ‘The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke’” (ii.91–2). Greg also observes that Spenser, and possibly Humphrey Jeffes, was in Pembroke’s in 1597 (ii.92). Beyond these potential actor names, Chambers notes the apparent actor names “Bevis” and “John Holland” appear in stage directions for IV.ii in 2 Henry VI; elsewhere, John Holland is listed on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot,” while “Bevis” appears in Contention’s stage directions (i.50). McMillin, following Doran and Fleay, suggests other actor names in Pembroke’s texts: “Sander,” a main character in A Shrew, and “Saunder” in Contention (II.i) could be Alexander Cooke; “Slie,” a notable in A Shrew (as is “Sly” in The Shrew) could be William Sly; and “Robin,” “Tom,” and “George” in Contention (II.iii) may be Robin Pallant, Thomas Goodale, and “Bevis,” whose first name apparently was George. McMillin observes that many of these actor names correspond to names on the Sins “plot” (“Casting” 155–7). Karl P. Wentersdorf argues that “Nicke” (III, i), “Par” (IV, ii), and “Fel” (IV, iii) from Taming of the Shrew and “Simon” from A Shrew (B1) are Nicholas Tooley, William Parr, William Felle, and Simon Jewell; he also accepts McMillin’s suggestions that “Robin” and “Tom” are Robin Pallant and Thomas Goodale as fact (“Origin” 48–9, 63). And John Southworth, following Dover Wilson, contends “Peter” in The Shrew (IV, iv) may also be an actor, perhaps Edward Alleyn’s servant (316). Many of these identification are plausible, but several problems keep them from being certain. Some of these “actor names” are too common to inspire confidence. For instance, Wentersdorf’s insistence that “Robin” and “Tom” must be Robin Pallant and Thomas Goodale is certainly open to question. While “Nick/e” and “George” may be somewhat more distinct than “Robin” or “Tom” (Wentersdorf says “Nicke” is “a somewhat unusual baptismal name—”Origin” 49), the names are still common enough to warrant skepticism in regards to any definite identifications with known actors. Even the more distinct “actor names” like “Simon,” “Humfrey,” and “Gabriel” may refer not to Simon Jewell, Humphrey Jeffes and Gabriel Spenser, but to other 7

Anthony Jeffes, however, was in the German states in December 1596, and may have been there as early as 1592 (Schrickx, Foreign 123–7). If one assumes, as does Greg, the two brothers were always in the same company, it is possible Humphrey was also touring the Continent between 1592 and 1596, casting doubt on the presence of these actors in the 1592–93 Pembroke’s, as well as the 1597 incarnation. Of course, brothers can also go their separate ways as opportunities allow.

126


actors named Simon, Humphrey, and Gabriel for whom no other evidence remains. In the case of “Gabriel” and “Humfrey,” moreover, Cox and Rasmussen comment that Gabriel is an “appropriate name for a fictional messenger” and “‘Humfrey’ may refer to an actor or to a fictional character; we simply do not know” (172–3). Even if each name listed above is that of an actor, and the proposed identifications are correct, one must reckon with when and how these names were entered into the playtexts. McMillin argues the actors named probably belonged to the initial performing company, arguing the inclusion of actor names in the texts is itself an indication of a close relationship between the playtext in question and the authorial text. This, as McMillin acknowledges, is an assumption, and intervening revisions could render it an incorrect assumption (“Casting” 145). Wentersdorf also argues the actors named belonged to the initial performing company, basing his argument on a complex set of questionable assumptions about playhouse practices. Wentersdorf ultimately asserts there “is no difficulty in imagining that an author like Shakespeare who was also a member of a players’ company would mentally cast certain roles” (“Origin” 46–7, emphasis mine). While it may indeed be easy to imagine such a scenario, this is not proof the author was responsible for the supposed actor names. McMillin and Wentersdorf present plausible reasons for why actor names could be from the original performing company, but in neither case are the arguments conclusive. One other serious problem plagues these actor name identification enterprises. Pembroke’s Men is listed as the performing company on the title pages of A Shrew and True Tragedy (and Pembroke’s must have been the performing company of Contention). Yet many of the supposed actor names are drawn from 2, 3 Henry VI and The Shrew. Apparently scholars concerned with actor names assume that because the quartos list Pembroke’s as the performing company, Pembroke’s also played the folio texts. This is not a safe assumption, as the previous discussion of the quarto-folio relationship debate illustrates. Only if Shakespeare wrote, or worked on, both versions of these plays is it possible to safely assume Pembroke’s played both, and then only if Shakespeare worked on both versions in 1592–93. But many of the scholars concerned with actor names consider the quartos to be derived from the folio versions, thus raising the possibility Pembroke’s did not play both versions. Wentersdorf, for one, derives actor names from both folio and quarto texts before arguing Pembroke’s performed only the folio texts, and that the quartos were “spurious” versions memorially reconstructed by another company (Laneham’s Queen’s) (“Origin” 63–4). While other scholars decline to use the quarto title pages to prove Pembroke’s didn’t play the quartos, none has offered a strong reason why actor names for Pembroke’s Men can be drawn from both quarto and folio texts. Even those, like Scott McMillin, who begin to address this question ultimately come up against the indeterminate relationship between quarto and folio texts. Depending on what one thinks that relationship is, Pembroke’s may have played either or both sets of texts, but no one can say for certain what the relationship is. Therefore, scholars must remain cautious about declaring the actor names found in either quarto or folio text those of Pembroke’s Men of 1592–93.

Pembroke’s Men

127

Besides actor names, two other sources have been used to try to establish Pembroke’s personnel. The first is the will of Simon Jewell, dated 19 August 1592 and proved on 23 August of the same year. Mary Edmond, who brought the will to scholarly attention in 1974, notes certain items and comments of Jewell make it clear he was a player and suggest his company may have been preparing for a tour before his death. A number of names appear in Jewell’s will, some of whom must have been fellows in his company; Roberte Nicholls, Mr Smith, Thomas Vincent, Richard Fletcher, William Belcher, and Mr. Iohnson are of particular interest. The will closes with Jewell willing “my share of such money as shalbe givenn by my ladie Pembrooke or by her means I will shalbe distributed and paide towardes my buriall and other charges by Mr Scott and Mr Smithe” (129–30). From this statement Edmond concludes it is likely “Jewell and his ‘fellows’ were in fact the original Lord Pembroke’s men” (130). Edmond demonstrates several names on the will correspond to known Elizabethan players: “Robert Nicholls” may be “Robard nycowlles,” witness to a 1595 loan from Philip Henslowe to his nephew Francis; “Mr Smith” may be “wm smyght player,” who witnessed the same loan; and “Thomas Vincente” is also the name of a bookkeeper or prompter at the Globe. Besides these players and Jewell, Edmond speculates that Richard Fletcher and William Belcher constituted Pembroke’s original six sharers (131). Edmond also proposes that “Mr Iohnson” may have been Ben Jonson, who apparently was connected to the 1597 Pembroke’s Men, thus suggesting some continuity between the two incarnations (133–4). Most subsequent scholars have been hesitant to accept Edmond’s claim that Jewell’s company was Pembroke’s Men. Scott McMillin, for instance, argues that the mention of “my ladie Pembrooke” is not conclusive proof for the identification of Jewell’s company because Mary Herbert, Lady Pembroke, was a benefactress in her own right in the early 1590s; thus, she may have aided Jewell and his fellows independent of their patron. Moreover, many of the names in the will can be connected to the Queen’s Men. For instance, Robert Scott, Jewell’s “Land lorde” and a prover of the will, was a friend of John Bentley, an original Queen’s player. McMillin agrees with Edmond that “Roberte Nicholls” and “Mr Smith” are likely the “Robard nycowlles” and “wm smyght” who witnessed Philip Henslowe’s loan to Francis Henslowe for a half-share in an unnamed playing company. In 1594, however, Francis is specifically mentioned as a Queen’s Men. Smith and Nicholls did not witness this loan, but it is unlikely Francis Henslowe would purchase a share in a different company just a year after he was in the Queen’s. It is possible his 1595 witnesses, Smith and Nicholls, were fellows in his company. McMillin further suggests “Mr Iohnson” was not Ben Jonson but William Johnson, also an original Queen’s player who was still with the Queen’s in 1588. Moreover, a “Mr Cooke” mentioned in the will could be Lionel Cooke, another Queen’s player. While inconclusive, these identifications suggest Jewell’s company was the Queen’s, not Pembroke’s, Men. Only the mention of Lady Pembroke suggests Pembroke’s was the company in question (“Simon Jewell” 175–6). Finally, the 1597 Pembroke’s personnel has sometimes been used as evidence for the 1592–93 Pembroke’s personnel. There is no proof there was any continuity

128


between these companies, but the opposite is also true. Gabriel Spenser was in Pembroke’s in 1597, and Humphrey Jeffes probably was too; if these are the “Gabriel” and “Humfrey” in 3 Henry VI, and if this was a Pembroke’s play in 1592– 93, perhaps there was additional continuity. Edmond thinks Ben Jonson’s association with Pembroke’s in 1597 and the “Mr Iohnson” in Jewell’s will is evidence Jonson was in the 1592–93 Pembroke’s, but this is an unlikely identification, as McMillin demonstrates. Wentersdorf, believing that Spenser and Jeffes suggest more continuity between the two Pembroke’s incarnations, argues Robert Shaw and William Bird, 1597 Pembroke’s members but not traceable before 1597, may have been in the 1592–93 Pembroke’s. Wentersdorf notes Henslowe’s Diary mentions Spenser and Bird each had a “man” in 1598–99 (when they were Admiral’s players): Richard Bradshawe and William Felle, respectively. Both, says Wentersdorf, probably followed their mentors, further pointing to Bird’s presence in the 1592–93 Pembroke’s, as Felle is apparently named in The Shrew (“Origin” 64). Few scholars follow Wentersdorf on this speculative assignment of Bird, Shaw and Bradshawe to Pembroke’s 1592–93 personnel. Ultimately, all the attempts to reconstruct Pembroke’s personnel rely on a complex web of unproven assumptions, especially in regards to the use of actor names found in the quarto and folio texts of plays associated with Pembroke’s. Accordingly, it is not possible to say with certainty who was, or was not, in Pembroke’s Men. This is worth bearing in mind when considering the various claims concerning Pembroke’s origin as well as the arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s. Origins A wide range of divergent hypotheses have been offered concerning the origins of Pembroke’s Men, many of them concerned with explaining the company’s immediate success. Frederick Fleay, writing in 1890, asserted Pembroke’s was formed in 1589 and was a continuation of Worcester’s Men (87); the fact Worcester’s Men reappears in the provinces in 1589–90 effectively discounts this conjecture. A second, much more popular hypothesis is that “the origin of Pembroke’s men is to be explained by the special conditions of the plague-years 1592–93, and was due to a division for traveling purposes of the large London company formed by the amalgamation of Strange’s and the Admiral’s” (Chambers, Stage ii.129). Chambers argues such a division was foreshadowed by Strange’s undated appeal to the Privy Council, wherein the company complains: “oure Companie is greate, and thearbie or chardge intollerable, in travellinge the Countrie, and the Contynuaunce thereof, wilbe a meane to bringe vs to division and seperacon, whearbie wee shall not onelie be vndone, but alsoe vnreadie to serve her matie” (Foakes 283–4; Chambers, Stage ii.129). Chambers notes that, if Pembroke’s was an offshoot of the amalgamation, it is possible to explain the transfer of Titus Andronicus from Strange’s to Pembroke’s as suggested by its title page. Moreover, the presence of Contention/True Tragedy in Pembroke’s repertory may also indicate plays were transferred from Strange’s to Pembroke’s, as Contention/True Tragedy are related to 2, 3 Henry VI, which are either sequels or

Pembroke’s Men

129

predecessors to 1 Henry VI, which Strange’s may have played at the Rose as “harey the vj” (ii.129–30). Chambers also contends the formation of a third company would have given the “amalgamation” another warrant for traveling, perhaps an advantage during the tumultuous, plague-ridden 1592–93 period (Shakespeare i.49). Finally, Chambers notes John Holland and John Sincler’s names appear in 2 and 3 Henry VI as well as in the Sins “plot.” As Chambers believes the “plot” company was the “amalgamation” or pre-“amalgamation” Strange’s, he argues it thus appears some Pembroke’s Men came from Strange’s or the “amalgamation,” furthering the case that Pembroke’s was an “amalgamation” offshoot (i.50). Many subsequent scholars have accepted and elaborated on Chambers’s hypothesis of Pembroke’s origin. McMillin, for instance, notes other “actor names” in supposed Pembroke’s texts also appear on the Sins “plot,” thereby apparently strengthening Chambers’s original conjecture (“Casting” 157).8 Unlike Chambers, McMillin and others argue Pembroke’s was not necessarily exclusively a traveling company (154), but apart from such disagreements, the general idea Pembroke’s was an offshoot of the “amalgamation” or the Sins company remains popular (Bate, Titus Andronicus 74; Waith 8; Oliver 30; Hattaway, The First Part of King Henry VI 39). This origin hypothesis, however, presents several major problems. Most importantly, there was no “amalgamated” company (see Chapter 4), so Pembroke’s could not have been its offshoot. One could argue instead that Pembroke’s was an offshoot of Strange’s, but other problems persist. First, there is no precedent for a company dividing itself into two companies under different patrons for any reason. The Queen’s Men apparently operated as two distinct companies, but both were under the Queen’s patronage. The idea Pembroke’s was formed from Strange’s requires the players to have solicited another noble’s patronage; too little is known about the patronage of acting companies to regard such an action as plausible. Second, the wording of Strange’s appeal to the Privy Council clearly indicates Strange’s did not want to divide. Moreover, the “division and separacon” the players fear is not a matter of splitting into smaller companies, but a matter of being “vndone.” Furthermore, Strange’s petition fears that, in dividing and/ or touring, the company will be “vnreadie to serve her matie.” But both Strange’s and Pembroke’s appeared at court in 1592–93. The evidence thus suggests Strange’s and Pembroke’s were in competition with each other for court performances, and at any rate both were ready to serve her majesty. If Pembroke’s was an offshoot of Strange’s, Strange’s petition to the Privy Council makes little sense. Finally, the observation that players from Pembroke’s and Strange’s Men appear on the Sins “plot” is not especially useful, as the “plot” may record a later performance by the Chamberlain’s Men. If Kathman is correct, the “plot” offers no evidence Strange’s and Pembroke’s were once a single company, but instead shows players from both companies eventually became Chamberlain’s players, which is already known to be the case (Gurr, Shakespeare Company 18). Besides, the use of “actor names” from 8

The names in question are: Harry, Robin/Ro. Pallant, Tom/Tho. Goodale, Sander/Saunder, Nick, Will, Slie/W. Sly, John Holland/J. Holland, and Sinklo/John Sincler (“Casting” 157).


130

Pembroke’s texts to establish Pembroke’s personnel presents problems we have already considered. Another hypothesis holds that Pembroke’s Men were formed from the Queen’s Men. G.M. Pinciss advances this view based on the observation 1592–93 is the only year between 1583–84 and 1593–94 the Queen’s did not perform at court. 1592–93, of course, is the one year Pembroke’s did perform at court. Moreover, says Pinciss, the whereabouts of all other major companies in 1592–93 can be accounted for with the exception of Laneham’s branch of the Queen’s Men. The disappearance of this branch “synchronizes perfectly with the short life of Pembroke’s Men” (134). Pinciss argues it would have made sense for Laneham’s branch to seek out Pembroke’s patronage in 1592–93 because Pembroke had recently been appointed Lord President of Wales; under his name, the company could expect large rewards in the Welsh Marches towns. When this expectation was not fulfilled, Pembroke’s resumed its royal name “not later than the spring of 1594 when Laneham’s branch of the Queen’s again acted [at the Rose] with their former associates, Sussex’s Men” (134). Pinciss asserts that Pembroke’s descent from the Queen’s helps explain Titus Andronicus’s title page ascription, in that Laneham’s Queen’s two associations with Sussex’s—late 1580s/early 1590s and April 1594—provided two opportunities for the companies to play it together (136), and for it to pass from Pembroke’s/Laneham’s Queen’s to Sussex’s, for that matter. Pinciss’s argument is unconvincing for several reasons. First, his only basis for claiming Pembroke’s came from the Queen’s is the alleged disappearance of Laneham’s Queen’s at the same time Pembroke’s emerged. Besides being an example of the assumption of company continuity, Pinciss’s claim Laneham’s Queen’s disappeared in 1592–93 is questionable. Laneham’s branch is only traceable in 1590– 91, when it performed at court and toured with Sussex’s (Astington, English 233; Chambers, Stage iv.163; REED, Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire 312; REED, “Southampton” 56; REED, Bristol 140; REED, Coventry 332). With no clear reference to Laneham’s branch after early 1591, it is inaccurate to say Pembroke’s 1592 appearance corresponds with Laneham’s disappearance. By the same token, the fact that provincial entries only rarely describe company appearances by the name of the lead actor means that Laneham’s may very well have still been active in late 1592. Either way, Pinciss’s assertion that Pembroke’s appearance corresponds to Laneham’s disappearance is open to question. Second, Pinciss’s assertion that Pembroke’s reverted to its old name after the 1593 bankruptcy is unlikely; one wonders why (or if) Elizabeth would have allowed her patronage to be handled so cavalierly. Third, there is no evidence to indicate Pembroke’s completely disappeared in 1593. Playing notices for Pembroke’s resume in 1595, so the gap between its bankruptcy and reemergence is not large enough to preclude the possibility of continuity between the two Pembroke’s companies. Wentersdorf offers a variation on Pinciss’s hypothesis Pembroke’s origins lay with the Queen’s Men.9 After considering the correspondence of “actor names” 9

Actually, Wentersdorf was the first to suggest a Queen’s–Pembroke’s connection in 1950 (“Shakespeares erste Truppe”).

Pembroke’s Men

131

in Pembroke’s texts with those on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot,” Wentersdorf concludes that there are too few corresponding names for Strange’s, or the Sins company, to have been Pembroke’s company of origin. He also notes Pembroke’s immediate prominence at court in 1592–93 suggests it was an established troupe that had previously operated under another name. Like Pinciss, he observes that in 1592–93 the Queen’s were absent at court, but that Pembroke’s suddenly appears, performing on dates the Queen’s had “regularly” (26 December) and “frequently” (6 January) played on (“Origin” 56). Combined, Wentersdorf says, with the lack of evidence of a divided Queen’s Men after 1592, Pembroke’s 1592–93 appearance and court performances suggest it was the continuation of a Queen’s branch. Wentersdorf thinks Pembroke’s court performances make the Duttons’ branch the company in question, because it is not traceable in the provinces after 1592 and “was artistically the superior group,” given its four 1590–91 court performances to Laneham’s branch’s one (56). Accordingly, Wentersdorf asserts John and Laurence Dutton were Pembroke’s leading actors (50–59). As with Pinciss, Wentersdorf’s argument suffers from his claim that the disappearance of the Duttons’ Queen’s just before Pembroke’s emergence is evidence Pembroke’s was the Duttons’ branch. On the one hand, this is another example—like the belief Strange’s became the Chamberlain’s Men—of the assumption companies often switched patrons en masse (hereafter referred to as the assumption of company continuity). On the other hand, Wentersdorf is incorrect in stating the Duttons’ branch is last mentioned in 1592. A Lyme Regis record from 1592–93 indicates a visit by “Queens the duttons” (REED, Dorset/Cornwall 217). As Lyme Regis operated on a Michealmas to Michaelmas fiscal year, this visit was after 29 September 1592. The Lyme Regis records are relatively consistent in listing specific dates of playing company visits: of fifteen such entries between 1584 and 1596, ten are given exact dates (215–18). The 1592–93 Duttons’ Queen’s visit is undated, but falls between a Worcester’s performance dated 9 December 1592 and a Mounteagle’s dated 26 May 1593 (217). While these dates may not be entirely accurate, they cripple Wenterdorf’s hypothesis. Pembroke’s appeared at court on 26 December 1592, meaning the Duttons’ branch would have passed under Pembroke’s patronage before that date. Given apparent reliability of the Lyme Regis records, there is little reason to doubt the Duttons’ visit took place after 9 December 1592, leaving little or no time for the patron change to take place.10 Furthermore, McMillin and MacLean argue there is evidence for a divided company until at least 1594, and possibly up to 1597, compounding the difficulty with the argument either branch of the Queen’s became Pembroke’s Men (65). Finally, there is simply no reliable evidence to suggest a connection between Pembroke’s and any branch of the Queen’s. Wenterdorf’s contention Shakespeare’s familiarity with the Queen’s repertory and apparent contributions to Pembroke’s repertory points to such a connection will be taken up below. 10

In all fairness, the Lyme Regis records were likely not available to Wentersdorf in 1979; the Dorset records were only published in 1999.

132


David George offers a different origin hypothesis that combines the Queen’s and Strange’s origin hypotheses. First, George accepts Chambers’s hypothesis Pembroke’s was formed by Strange’s Men, even asserting Pembroke’s was “controlled” by Strange’s (306). As evidence, he offers 1) Pembroke’s possession of texts (Contention/True Tragedy) allegedly derived from plays in Strange’s repertory (the Henry VI trilogy); and 2) Edward Alleyn’s interest in Pembroke’s during his 1593 correspondence with Henslowe. Next, George considers Pembroke’s personnel and Jewell’s will. George accepts Edmond’s argument that, given the reference to Lady Pembroke, Jewell’s company was Pembroke’s Men, but he also acknowledges there must be an explanation for why many of the people named in Jewell’s will apparently had Queen’s connections. George discounts the possibility Pembroke’s originated with the Queen’s, given the supposed connection between Pembroke’s personnel and the Sins company, instead suggesting Laneham’s Queen’s went bankrupt in 1592, whereupon some of these players joined Strange’s, which was in the process of creating Pembroke’s Men. George says some of the ex-Queen’s players (including John Heminges) and plays (Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, Four Plays in One, The Jew of Malta, and A Looking Glass for London and England) remained with Strange’s, while other ex-Queen’s Men joined some of Strange’s players in forming Pembroke’s (306–15). As with other Pembroke’s origin hypotheses, George’s has serious weaknesses. First, his basis for asserting Pembroke’s was “controlled” by Strange’s is questionable. Edward Alleyn’s interest in Pembroke’s activities in 1593 may simply reflect curiosity about a competing company, not a financial interest in that company. Moreover, George’s other reason for thinking Strange’s controlled Pembroke’s rests on a double assumption: 1) Contention/True Tragedy are derived from 2, 3 Henry VI; and 2) Strange’s possessed 2, 3 Henry VI. If Strange’s “harey the vj” was one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays (another assumption), it may have been 1 Henry VI and it does not necessarily follow Strange’s controlled the entire trilogy. Even if Pembroke’s did derive Contention/True Tragedy from 2, 3 Henry VI, it remains a stretch to extrapolate Strange’s control of Pembroke’s from these circumstances. In any case, there is no precedent for one adult company controlling another. Second, George’s use of the Sins “plot” to verify a Strange’s/Pembroke’s connection is problematic as the “plot” may postdate Pembroke’s 1592–93 life. Third, little evidence supports George’s suggestion that Laneham’s Queen’s joined Strange’s as Pembroke’s was forming, as there is no evidence to corroborate Laneham’s conjectured 1592 bankruptcy and disappearance. George presumably assumes the Queen’s alleged early 1590s decline makes such a bankruptcy plausible, but the Queen’s 1592 position was not as dire as George implies. The Queen’s Men was invited to play at court as late as 1593–94, and its rewards in provincial records continue to be generous throughout the 1590s; this clearly does not support speculations of bankruptcy. Moreover, the ex-Queen’s players and plays George traces in Strange’s and Pembroke’s are not necessarily ex-Queen’s. John Heminges is the only “ex-Queen’s” player George locates in Strange’s Men, and Heminges’s

Pembroke’s Men

133

Queen’s affiliation is not certain, since it is based only on his marriage to William Knell’s widow. Likewise, the “ex-Queen’s” plays George mentions in Strange’s repertory were not necessarily Queen’s plays. The “friar bacon” in Henslowe’s Diary may have been Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, a known Queen’s play, but it also could have been John of Bordeaux (McMillin and MacLean 90). George’s assertion, following Fleay and Greg, that Four Plays in One listed in Henslowe’s Diary was 2 Seven Deadly Sins has been totally discredited (McMillin, “Building Stories”), so there is no reason to believe Four Plays in One belonged to the Queen’s. As for A Looking Glass for London and England, McMillin and MacLean note the evidence for attributing it to the Queen’s Men is scant (91); similarly, the absence of evidence concerning The Jew of Malta’s pre-1592 stage history makes it dangerous to certainly assign it to any company’s repertory, let alone the Queen’s. Even if these Strange’s plays were once Queen’s plays, Strange’s could have acquired them before 1592. As for George’s reading of Jewell’s will, it is sufficient to note most scholars believe Jewell’s company was the Queen’s Men, not Pembroke’s. Finally, George’s account of Pembroke’s origin creates a narrative concerning London playing which basically asserts there was only one company in London between 1592–93: Strange’s. Strange’s, or rather that Strange’s-Admiral’s “amalgamation,” controlled Pembroke’s, Sussex’s (see Chapter 8), and the Queen’s in one way or another during this period. Such a scenario is unlikely. Although London playing companies and actors may have exhibited a degree of cooperation (Knutson, Playing Companies 10–20), it was nevertheless a competitive industry. It strains plausibility that every known company that played in London during 1592–94 was connected to Strange’s Men, or the Henslowe/Alleyn theatre enterprise. Surely another company would have tried to compete with Strange’s, especially given the existence of the Burbages and their Shoreditch playhouses. While George’s arguments strive mightily to resolve conflicting views concerning Pembroke’s origin, his conclusions do not stand up under scrutiny. Andrew Gurr offers two final theories concerning Pembroke’s origin. The first suggests that Mary Herbert, Lady Pembroke, may have prompted her husband to establish a playing company. Mary Herbert’s dramatic interests, such as her translation of a French play in 1591 and her commissioning Samuel Daniel to write its sequel, are well known (Companies 267), and her connection to Pembroke’s might be suggested by Jewell’s will, as proposed by Edmond and J.A.B. Somerset (“The Lords President” 109). Once again, however, Jewell’s mention of Lady Pembroke does not necessarily mean he was a Pembroke’s player. Gurr also observes that if Mary Herbert was as closely involved with Pembroke’s as Somerset and Edmond believe, it is surprising the company had no role in the “Astrea” entertainment she held for the Queen in August 1592 (Companies 267). Gurr’s second, and preferred, hypothesis concerning Pembroke’s origin is probably the most plausible of any considered thus far. Dissatisfied with hypotheses contending Pembroke’s came from Strange’s or the Queen’s Men, Gurr instead asserts Pembroke was “a wholly new London company” (Companies 268).


134

Following Dover Wilson (The Second Part of King Henry VI xii–xiii), Gurr suggests that, after the supposed Alleyn-Burbage quarrel at the Theatre in 1591, James Burbage found himself with a vacant Theatre “and probably higher expectations than the other companies then camped around London could readily supply” (Companies 267). Burbage’s talented younger son was presumably also in need of an acting company, assuming he had been in Strange’s and not followed it to the Rose. The vacancy, James Burbage’s high expectations, and Richard Burbage’s companyless status make it “conceivable that old Burbage moved to set up a new company led by his son under a new patron” (267). Gurr suggests James Burbage sought Pembroke’s patronage owing to Burbage’s prior connections to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who had been a close friend of Henry Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Pembroke, moreover, was a Privy Councilor interested in plays married to a woman who, besides having her own literary and dramatic interests, was connected to what Gurr calls the “Leicester circle;” perhaps, Gurr says, she aided James Burbage in securing her husband’s patronage for a new company. Gurr avoids specific comment regarding the new company’s personnel,11 but does suggest some of Pembroke’s players were Strange’s Men who remained at the Theatre after the Alleyn/Burbage quarrel (267–8).12 Gurr’s second hypothesis has several weaknesses. The most significant is his assertion Strange’s played at the Theatre in 1591. There is, however, no evidence Strange’s, or Edward Alleyn, ever played at the Theatre: the 1591 dispute occurred between James Burbage and the Admiral’s Men, represented by John Alleyn; Edward Alleyn may have been in the Admiral’s at the time, but he may already have joined Strange’s, which was not at the Theatre (see Chapter 4). Gurr’s account of the Burbages soliciting Pembroke’s patronage also relies on two questionable assumptions: 1) James Burbage organized the company and 2) it was acceptable for players or theatre owners to ask a noble for patronage. Finally, it is not certain the Theatre was vacant in 1591, nor is it certain Richard Burbage would have remained tied to his father if the Theatre was vacant (McMillin, “Building Stories” 57–8). None of these problems, however, are major liabilities for Gurr’s argument as a whole. While it is not certain the Theatre was vacant in 1591 or 1592, the Admiral’s, the 1591 tenants, ceased London playing soon thereafter. Strange’s Men was at the Rose in 1592–93; Pembroke’s court presence in 1592–93 signals it too had a London 11

Dover Wilson notes the records of Strange’s Men between 1591 and 1594 do not contain any former Admiral’s Men, save Edward Alleyn. Wilson therefore contends the new Pembroke’s consisted of ex-Admiral’s Men who were in need of a new patron since Alleyn had taken the Admiral’s patent with him to Strange’s (The Second Part of King Henry VI xii– xiii). The continued touring of the Admiral’s Men at this time mitigates against this scenario. 12 Like Gurr, Peter Alexander and A.S. Cairncross agree Pembroke’s was a new London company, but place its date of origin earlier than Gurr and do not connect its formation to the Burbage-Alleyn quarrel. Cairncross states Pembroke’s was organized “probably as early as 1589” (“Pembroke’s Men” 349); Alexander thinks Pembroke’s “activities possibly date” from 1587 (Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III 202–4).

Pembroke’s Men

135

playhouse base, which must have been one of the Shoreditch theatres under Burbage’s management. Thus, while Gurr’s suspected vacancy was not created by the AlleynBurbage quarrel, it could have been created by the withdrawal of the Admiral’s to the provinces. Burbage may not have organized Pembroke’s, but he would have been the probable landlord for the new company regardless of its organizer. Objections can be raised regarding certain details of Gurr’s argument, but it is easy to adjust the argument to dispel these concerns. Gurr’s hypothesis also has advantages over other Pembroke’s origin hypotheses. First, it does not depend on assumptions about company continuity and thus recognizes the possibility a new company could have been formed in 1591 or 1592. Pembroke’s prominence at court so soon after its formation may have been due to its patron as much as its talent,13 but its recent creation does not preclude the possibility Pembroke’s, while perhaps young, was extremely talented. Second, Gurr, unlike Chambers and others, does not rely on speculations concerning the “amalgamation” or the supposed characteristics of traveling companies. Without the “amalgamation” influencing his thinking, Gurr avoids both the questionable arithmetic deriving three companies from two and the debatable proposition that companies combined, split, and recombined as the occasion suited them. By setting aside the idea traveling troupes used shortened plays and smaller casts, Gurr also avoids the pitfall of assuming Pembroke’s was an exclusively provincial company, which in turn has led many to believe it was formed from an already-extant company. Third, Gurr’s origin hypothesis does not rest on actor names in Pembroke’s texts, thereby allowing him to avoid the thorny issues of whether Pembroke’s played the quarto or folio texts (or both). Finally, Gurr is able to explain Pembroke prominence at court (managerial connections, status of patron) without resorting to the tenuous logic employed by proponents of other origin theories. Instead, Gurr’s hypothesis depends solely on the evidence for Pembroke’s company, repertory, personnel, and activities. This evidence does not indicate Pembroke’s was some sort of offshoot; questionable assumptions and details of dubious relevance are needed to suggest otherwise. If some of Gurr’s details are suspect, his basic claim Pembroke’s was a wholly new company in 1591 or 1592 is more plausible than any other origin hypotheses and is supported by the meager available evidence. Pembroke’s Men and Shakespeare: The Evidence The idea Shakespeare belonged to Pembroke’s company has found support in many quarters since Halliwell-Phillips first made the suggestion in the nineteenth century. Halliwell-Phillips observes that Shakespeare’s name does not appear on the list of Strange’s Men in the 1593 Privy Council warrant authorizing the company to 13

Such, it would seem, was the case with the abrupt appearance off Hertford’s Men at court on 6 January 1592 (Astington, English 233; Chambers, Stage ii.116–17; Gurr, Companies 310–12).

136


travel. Given Shakespeare’s prominent position with the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1594 (he was a court payee in 1594–95), Halliwell-Phillips is confident that had Shakespeare been with Strange’s in 1593, he would have been included on the list. The fact Pembroke’s may have played 2, 3 Henry VI and definitely played Titus Andronicus leads Halliwell-Phillips to suggest Shakespeare, after belonging to Strange’s during the 1592 Rose season, joined Pembroke’s some time thereafter (i.122, ii.329). Most subsequent arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s Men have been based in large part on the presence of plays by Shakespeare—especially Titus Andronicus—or plays closely related to Shakespeare plays—Contention/True Tragedy and A Shrew—in Pembroke’s repertory. Scholars such as J.Q. Adams, E.K. Chambers, Peter Alexander, John Dover Wilson, A.L. Rowse, G.K. Pinciss, Scott McMillin, Karl Wentersdorf, and Andrew Gurr all follow this pattern. This view, however, raises two significant issues: 1. While clearly related to the folio 2, 3 Henry VI and The Shrew, the quarto texts of Contention/True Tragedy and A Shrew are not necessarily by Shakespeare. If any scholar bases the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s on his supposed contributions to the company’s repertory, that scholar must offer a rationale for why the quarto title page attributions imply Pembroke’s possession of the folio versions. 2. The title page of the 1594 edition of Titus Andronicus suggests Pembroke’s played it only after Derby’s/Strange’s. Shakespeare need not have followed the play from one company to the other, so if Titus is used as evidence for Shakespeare’s affiliation with Pembroke’s, one must argue that, in seeming contrast to the 1594 title page, Pembroke’s actually played it before Derby’s/Strange’s. Before addressing the ways scholars deal with these problems, a recap of the possible quarto-folio relationships is in order: 1. The folio texts are derived from the quarto texts in one of two ways: a. Shakespeare revised someone else’s Contention/True Tragedy into 2, 3 Henry VI. Or b. Shakespeare revised his own Contention/True Tragedy into 2, 3 Henry VI. 2. a–c) The quarto texts were derived from the folio versions through shorthand reports or, more likely, memorial reconstruction by actors that had performed the folio plays. 3. The quartos were derived from earlier manuscripts subsequently revised into the folio texts. And 4. The relationship is indeterminate, and lack of knowledge concerning Elizabethan processes of composition, revision, and publication prevent definite pronouncements on the topic. In none of these scenarios does Pembroke’s possession of the quarto texts necessarily imply its possession of the folio texts, although 1b) does directly imply Shakespeare’s

Pembroke’s Men

137

membership in Pembroke’s Men. But no scholars who argue for Shakespeare’s Pembroke’s connection advocate 1b) as the correct quarto-folio relationship. Adams (132–7) and Chambers (Stage ii.130–31) argue 1a) was the correct relationship (although Chambers later changed his mind on this point); if this relationship is correct, Shakespeare need not have revised the quarto texts into the folio versions while in Pembroke’s. Instead, he could have done so later, perhaps when (and if) the Chamberlain’s acquired the old Pembroke’s texts. Chambers and Adams, though, assume 2, 3 Henry VI existed in folio form by 1592, when Groatsworth employed the “tiger’s heart” line, but this line could have been taken from True Tragedy rather than 3 Henry VI. Most other scholars arguing for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s, however, believe the quarto texts derive from the folio versions. These scholars assume those responsible for the quarto texts were trying to capitalize on the success of the folio versions; if so, the quarto title page attributions presumably name the company that played the folio versions to lure prospective buyers. But many scholars note that the allegedly derivative quartos exhibit dramatic coherence and that many differences between quarto and folio texts appear carefully planned for dramatic effect, not as accidents of memory (Doran 76; McMillin, “Casting;” Kreps). In other words, the “reconstructors” produced performance texts. If this is the case, three options are possible: a. The “reconstructors” were Pembroke’s Men, and thus could have derived the quartos for another company’s folio versions. b. The “reconstructors” were another company that derived the quartos from Pembroke’s folio versions. c. The “reconstructors” were Pembroke’s who, due to new circumstances, derived the quartos from older Pembroke’s plays. It then falls to proponents for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s Men who believe the quarto-Folio relationship is one of quarto derived from Folio to argue that option b) or c) is the case. This has been accomplished in a number of ways. Madeleine Doran, for one, argues Pembroke’s players, having gone into the country during plague closures in London, needed or wanted certain (folio) playtexts they had not brought with them in prompt-copy form. Accordingly, Pembroke’s Men collaborated to create the quarto texts for performance (75–83). Doran’s explanation, unfortunately, does not address why, if Pembroke’s had regularly played 2, 3 Henry VI, the “recreated” quarto texts should differ as substantially as they do from the “originals.” Why, for instance, is the quarto text nearly a third shorter than the Folio version? The explanation that touring texts were shorter than London texts is unsupported by any evidence, but no other explanation for the length difference has been offered. Why, moreover, do the quarto texts have different dramatic emphases and characterizations than their folio counterparts? If Pembroke’s players simply attempted to recreate a text they had left in London, the result suggests they were unable to remember their lines, an unlikely scenario for a group of actors. McMillin, citing Chambers, Greg, and A.S. Cairncross, offers the appearance of actor names in speech prefixes and stage directions of folio texts as another rationale


138

for why Pembroke’s possessed the folio texts. Such names, McMillin says, indicate “the text is based upon authorial papers marked either to serve as the promptbook or to provide copy for a promptbook freshly transcribed” (“Casting” 145). Wentersdorf, basing his argument on the appearance of definite actor names in the 1600 Much Ado About Nothing quarto, similarly argues that because actor names appear in 2, 3 Henry VI, these folio plays were “printed in all likelihood from Shakespeare’s autograph,” (“Origin” 47). Of course, these actor name inclusions tell us only that the names of actors from the company that originally performed 2, 3 Henry VI are preserved in the folio versions, not that the folio versions belonged to Pembroke’s Men. To tie 2, 3 Henry VI to Pembroke’s, the actor names in the texts would need to be identified with known Pembroke’s actors, but no such identifications can be made. Even if such definite identifications could be made, McMillin acknowledges actor names could have entered a text during a subsequent revision or revival. Moreover, the actor names in the folio texts do not demonstrate the company which held the allegedly derivative quarto versions must have also played the folio texts. It may be notable that “Bevis” seemingly appears in both 2 Henry VI and Contention (McMillin, “Casting” 157), but the dual occurrence of his name is not adequate evidence on which to base the claim Pembroke’s held the folio texts. Another way scholars implicitly argue Pembroke’s possessed the folio texts, and explicitly argue for Shakespeare’s membership in the company, is by expanding Pembroke’s possible repertory. McMillin, while not necessarily endorsing the position, observes the thematic unity of the Henry VI plays leads some to regard them as a trilogy Shakespeare designed for a single company. Furthermore, the trilogy “can become a tetralogy under pressure from the argument that Richard III shares textual characteristics with Henry VI and was part of the original design” (“Casting” 142).14 Of course, it is an assumption, and not a widely held one, that Shakespeare designed the Henry VI plays as a trilogy or, with Richard III, as a tetralogy. It is also an assumption that, tetralogy or not, Shakespeare wrote all four plays for one company. And even if he did, why must that company have been Pembroke’s, which is credited only with playing the quarto texts? Pembroke’s repertory has also been expanded owing to supposed “recollections,” “borrowings,” or “echoes” from other Elizabethan plays in the quarto texts. Cairncross argues Contention and True Tragedy contain “recollections” from 2, 3 Henry VI and, more importantly, Titus Andronicus and Edward II, known as Pembroke’s plays (“Pembroke’s Men” 337). Pembroke’s thus held the folio texts, because the actors who reported Contention/True Tragedy drew not only on 2, 3 Henry VI but Pembroke’s Edward II and Titus Andronicus. Contention/True Tragedy contain “recollections” from other plays as well. Alfred Hart detects borrowings from Kyd’s Soliman and Perseda, Marlowe’s The Massacre at Paris, and the anonymous Arden of Faversham, suggesting these plays were also in the repertory of the actor reporters 14

McMillin does not state which scholars he is referring to when he speaks of those who assign 1 Henry VI and Richard III to Pembroke’s by virtue of the relationship of their theme and content to 2, 3 Henry VI.

Pembroke’s Men

139

reconstructing Contention/True Tragedy (389–90). In addition to these, Cairncross finds “recollections” from 1 Henry VI and Richard III in Contention/True Tragedy, suggesting Pembroke’s repertory included the Henry VI/Richard III tetralogy. Cairncross supplements this possibility by noting the 1597 quartos of Richard III and Romeo and Juliet, which he considers memorial reconstructions, exhibit “recollections” drawn from a repertory identical to that “recalled” in Contention/ True Tragedy, suggesting the same group that reported Contention/True Tragedy reported the Richard III and Romeo and Juliet quartos. The folio Romeo and Juliet and Richard III, Cairncross says, can be dated to 1590–91, the same time the other plays apparently composed for Pembroke’s originate (1, 2, 3 Henry VI, Edward II, Arden of Faversham, Soliman and Perseda) (337–49). As the repertory the reporters of Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, and Contention/True Tragedy “recollected” is consistently connected to Pembroke’s, and because none of the “recollected” plays appear in Strange’s 1592–93 repertory—“harey the vj” and “tittus & vespacia,” Cairncross says, are “red herrings” (347)—Cairncross deems it likely Pembroke’s “existed before 1592, probably as early as 1589, and that it was then Shakespeare’s company ... for which he wrote, by 1590, or early 1591, the three parts of Henry VI, and Richard III, and in 1591 Romeo and Juliet” (349). If Pembroke’s possessed Richard III, the Henry VI trilogy, and Romeo and Juliet, in addition to Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s membership in the company is almost a foregone conclusion. Two serious questions, however, put Cairncross’s argument in doubt. First, Cairncross assumes Contention/True Tragedy are definitely memorial reconstructions made by the same reporters. While there once was nearuniversal agreement such was the case, the growing consensus today is that memorial reconstruction, even where it may exist, is not as easy to identify as Cairncross believed. Laurie Maguire argues, for instance, that if one uses all the criteria for memorial reconstruction set out by scholars since Greg, no extant Elizabethan play definitely fits these criteria, and only several are “probable” memorial reconstructions; Contention and True Tragedy are not among this handful (324–5). Second, even if Cairncross is correct that Contention/True Tragedy are memorial reconstructions, it is necessary to ask if Cairncross’s method for detecting “recollections” is valid for expanding Pembroke’s repertory. Cairncross himself observes the use of “recollections” has been “much abused,” and they have not always been distinguished from less reliable literary echoes, stock phrases in dramatic vocabulary, and similar phrases with independent contexts and origin (335). A “recollection,” Cairncross says, can be accurately accounted for by its derivation from another play in the reporter’s repertory ... where it occurs in an identical context, likely to create the false association of ideas. The ‘source-play’ ... supplies the measure of the difference between the play reported and the report. (336)

If “recollections” are accounted for by their derivation from plays in the reporter’s repertory, how can they be used to demonstrate other plays were in the company’s


140

repertory? As a “recollection” by definition comes from the reporter’s repertory, by marking something a “recollection” Cairncross already links it to the reporter’s repertory. The circularity of this logic is not encouraging. Further difficulties arise from the implication that “recollections” must come from plays composed before the creation of the reported text. Cairncross allows Contention/ True Tragedy, written not later than 1594, to “recollect” Richard III and Romeo and Juliet by dating the latter plays to 1591. But many scholars believe Romeo and Juliet was written after 1594 (Chambers, Shakespeare i.270; Bevington, Complete Works A14; Levenson 97; Wells and Taylor 118; Evans 94–6). Thus, it may be Romeo and Juliet that “recollects” Contention/True Tragedy. This issue demonstrates an inherent weakness in using “echoes,” “borrowings,” or “recollections” to determine a company’s repertory: it is not always possible to say which play came first, and therefore which play “recollects” which. Moreover, Cairncross assures his readers that “recollections,” however slight, may “by the exactitude of the agreement with a similar context in another play, be of quite certain and of high significance” (336). But who defines “similar context,” “certain,” and “significance?” Or rather, how are they determined? Consider the following 3 Henry VI “recollection” Cairncross detects in the Richard III quarto: 3 Henry VI II.iii.42–43: Richard III (folio) III.iii.24–25: Richard III (quarto):

Now, Lords, take leaue until we meet again, Where’er it be, in heauen or in earth. Come Gray, come Vaughan, let vs here embrace. Farewell, vntill we meet againe in Heauen. Come Gray, come Vaughan, let vs all imbrace And take our leaue vntill we meete in heauen.

The context of these passages is similar, but since the sense of the passage between folio and quarto is not changed, what makes the “recollection” detected “certain” or “significant”? Is it even a recollection? Richard III folio and 3 Henry VI both use “until we meet again”; Richard III quarto and 3 Henry VI both use “take [our] leave”; what makes the latter a “recollection”? The problem arguably is that while Cairncross defines what a “recollection” is, he says little about what it is not. It is therefore unclear what Cairncross compares “recollections” against, nor is it clear what sort of sample Cairncross uses to determine what constitutes a “recollection.” At base, Cairncross’s methodology and underlying assumptions present too many questions to place any faith in his results. Similar attempts to expand Pembroke’s repertory through “echoes,” such as that of Wentersdorf (“Repertory”), run afoul of the same problems with even less methodological consideration. It would be possible to continue to indefinitely rehash quarto-folio relations, but the ultimate problem is already clear: the relationship is too obscure, or complex, to allow for any certainty. Even if the quartos are memorial reconstructions of the folio texts, this does not demonstrate Shakespeare’s presence in Pembroke’s, because evidence survives only for Pembroke’s having played the quarto texts. Pembroke’s did, however, definitely perform Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus. Titus’s title page, though, lists Derby’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s, in that order, as

Pembroke’s Men

141

the playing companies; the addition of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men to the 1600 title page makes it almost certain the title page provides a sequential list of performing companies. If so, Derby’s/Strange’s played Titus before Pembroke’s. In defiance of the title page implications, some scholars have nevertheless argued Titus was written for Pembroke’s. Peter Alexander, for example, observes that while the 1594 quarto lists Derby’s/Strange’s before Pembroke’s, the 1600 quarto, which added the Lord Chamberlain’s, lists Pembroke’s before Derby’s/Strange’s. Perhaps, then, the 1600 title page not only updated Titus’s performance history but also corrected a mistake on the 1594 title page. If the 1600 title page is correct, it also clears up two details. First, it explains why Derby’s, not Strange’s, is listed on Titus’s title page; second, it explains why Titus is absent from Strange’s 1592–93 Rose repertory. If Pembroke’s possessed the play first and then sold it to Strange’s after February 1593, it would not have appeared in Strange’s Rose records, and Strange’s would, after September 1593, have performed Titus as Derby’s Men, until Titus in turn passed to Sussex’s, which first performed it at the Rose on 23 January 1594 (Foakes 21). Basically, then, Alexander argues Titus’s 1600 title page is more accurate than its 1594 title page (Shakespeare 208–9). Two considerations weaken Alexander’s argument. First, as Chambers notes, there is no good reason to accept the 1600 quarto as more authoritative that the 1594 quarto. The publishing personnel were essentially the same for both editions (1594: Edward White and Thomas Millington; 1600: Edward White), although the printer differed (1594: John Danter; 1600: James Roberts), and the 1600 edition seems to have been published from the 1594 text (Shakespeare i.312–15). Accordingly, nothing suggests that someone more knowledgeable about Titus’s stage history than the 1594 publishers was involved in the 1600 publication. Second, the 1600 quarto provides two different Titus stage histories. The title page lists Pembroke’s, Derby’s, Sussex’s, and the Lord Chamberlain’s as performing companies, but the head-title is identical to the 1594 quarto’s Derby’s/Pembroke’s/Sussex’s sequence, making no mention of the Chamberlain’s (i.313, 319). If the 1600 publishers were concerned with accuracy, why did they fail to update the head-title as they had the title page? Thus, the retention of the 1594 stage history alongside the 1600 alterations does not particularly recommend the theory that the 1600 quarto title page is more accurate than that of 1594. Other arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in Pembroke’s Men move away from repertory issues. For instance, several arguments consider alleged personnel patterns. McMillin, for example, notes that several of the actors whose names appear in supposed Pembroke’s texts later were Chamberlain’s players. This is true of John Sincler and John Holland, who appear in 2 and 3 Henry VI, and may also apply to “Saunder” (Contention and A Shrew), “Harry” and “Nick” (Contention), and “Slie” (A Shrew), who may be Alexander Cooke, Henry Condell, Nicholas Tooley, and Will Sly, respectively, all of whom were Chamberlain’s Men. McMillin suggests these identifications indicate Pembroke’s players “continued their Shakespearian associations beyond the apparent financial trouble of 1593 and into the newly-formed Chamberlain’s men of 1594” (“Casting” 159). Thus, as with Strange’s, a cluster of

142


actors from the Chamberlain’s, Shakespeare’s eventual company, may have been previously affiliated with Pembroke’s; perhaps Shakespeare also was in this cluster. Apart from the quarto-folio relationship and actor name issues, this argument is not adequate for demonstrating Shakespeare’s Pembroke’s membership, because the Chamberlain’s Men seems to have been made up of several groups of actors coming from several different companies (Gurr, Shakespeare Company 18). Pinciss and Wentersdorf present different personnel continuity arguments that place Shakespeare in Pembroke’s, both stemming from their mutual belief Pembroke’s was a continuation of a branch of the Queen’s Men and that Shakespeare had once belonged to the Queen’s. Pinciss, for his part, says that the case for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men is “rather strong” (129); if Pembroke’s was a continuation of the Queen’s, it would make sense for Shakespeare to have been a member of this branch. Wentersdorf agrees with Pinciss on this point, and offers Jewell’s will as evidence that several Queen’s Men may have been with Pembroke’s Men in 1592 (“Origin” 59–63). So, for these two scholars, the circumstantial evidence Shakespeare was a Queen’s player, combined with the circumstantial evidence Pembroke’s was descended from the Queen’s, combined with the circumstantial evidence Pembroke’s played at least one of Shakespeare’s plays suggests Shakespeare belonged to Pembroke’s. Circumstantial, of course, is the key word in this argument. The reader must decide if arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in the Queen’s Men are compelling, but they are not anything more than circumstantial. The premise Pembroke’s was descended from the Queen’s is similarly circumstantial and encounters strong objections already outlined. Accordingly, there are too many questionable, circumstantial “ifs” necessary to make Shakespeare’s alleged Queen’s connection evidence for his Pembroke’s membership to place any faith in such an argument. As in the case of the Queen’s and Strange’s, several scholars argue that Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s Men helps clarify the attack in Groatsworth. The “upstart Crow” passage singles out 3 Henry VI (or True Tragedy, if Shakespeare is responsible for both texts), which, Gurr argues, was a Pembroke’s play (Companies 270). We have already seen that 3 Henry VI is not necessarily a Pembroke’s play, but it is connected to True Tragedy, which was. Moreover, 3 Henry VI could have been Strange’s “harey the vj,” but there is no way to tell for sure. In any case, it is at least possible “Greene” was attacking a Pembroke’s play. Adams, believing Contention/True Tragedy were Marlowe plays Shakespeare revised into Pembroke’s 2, 3 Henry VI, that Peele and Greene wrote 1 Henry VI, and that 1 Henry VI is “harey the vj,” argues the success of 1 Henry VI inspired Shakespeare to rework the older Contention/True Tragedy for Pembroke’s, both of which proved incredibly successful and propelled Shakespeare to prominence. Adams says the fact Shakespeare’s success was built on the work of Marlowe and was in competition with Peele and Greene bred resentment among this group, “who would regard their new arrival from Stratford as an ‘upstart’ beautifying himself with stolen feathers” (138). The result was “Greene’s” brutal Groatsworth attack. Such an account makes

Pembroke’s Men

143

sense if Adams’s presuppositions are correct, but the idea that Marlowe wrote Contention/True Tragedy has been almost universally rejected, as well as the idea Peele and Greene wrote 1 Henry VI. Adams also assumes that Robert Greene did in fact pen Groatsworth, which is not likely. Like Adams, Pinciss asserts Shakespeare’s presence in Pembroke’s makes “Greene’s advice to three of his fellow playwrights ... more intelligible” (134). As Pinciss believes Shakespeare belonged to the Queen’s branch which became Pembroke’s Men, he says “Greene,” his target, and each of his addresses can be linked to this company under its different patrons. Greene, it seems, sold nearly all his plays to the Queen’s Men. Nashe also wrote for the Queen’s Men. Peele seems to have written for the Queen’s as well, and Pinciss says Peele’s Edward I was written either for the Queen’s or Pembroke’s. Marlowe did not write for the Queen’s, but he wrote at least Edward II for Pembroke’s. Thus, all three adressees, Greene, and Shakespeare are tied to the same company (134–35). Again, the assumption that “Greene” was in fact Robert Greene is problematic, but less so than the complete absence of satisfactory evidence pointing to Pembroke’s prior existence as the Queen’s Men. Still other arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s Men deal with the influence of Marlowe on Shakespeare, or vice versa. It has long been recognized that Marlowe exerted much influence on Shakespeare’s earlier work. Adams asserts Marlowe was Pembroke’s “chief dramatist” (131); as such, an association with Pembroke’s would have allowed Shakespeare to acquire “his first training in dramatic literature through acting in the plays of Marlowe; and we find the influence of Marlowe clearly revealed in his early style” (132). Marlowe only wrote Edward II for Pembroke’s, so his status as Pembroke’s “chief dramatist” is an overstatement. Furthermore, Shakespeare could have become familiar with Marlowe’s plays by means other than acting in them, and the two need not have been in the same company for Marlowe to have influenced Shakespeare, especially when Marlowe’s plays were phenomenally popular. Other scholars, however, argue that Marlowe, while doubtlessly influencing Shakespeare, was himself influenced by Shakespeare, especially Shakespeare’s history plays. Edward II, for instance, has more in common with Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays than it does with Marlowe’s own Tamburlaine and Dr. Faustus. Alexander goes so far as to assert Marlowe, in Edward II, “was trying to improve his plotting and characterization by emulating” Shakespeare, and that the two writers “had become associated” (Henry VI and Richard III 205). Alexander argues that, given Pembroke’s repertory, this was the company Shakespeare and Marlowe most likely could have become acquainted in. Besides Shakespeare’s influence on Edward II’s style, Alexander notes Edward II contains “borrowings” from Shakespeare’s 2, 3 Henry VI. From this, Alexander argues Marlowe joined Pembroke’s shortly after Shakespeare did so. Determined to emulate Shakespeare’s success with history plays, Marlowe borrowed not only a genre and style, but individual phrases from Shakespeare (Shakespeare 73–7). This, of course, assumes the Edward II lines are

144


borrowed from 2, 3 Henry VI; Chambers, for instance, thinks Shakespeare borrowed the lines in question from Marlowe (Shakespeare i.285). Even if Marlowe was the borrower, his borrowings need not have resulted from his sharing a company with Shakespeare; perhaps Marlowe saw 2, 3 Henry VI, or perhaps he and Shakespeare crossed paths in another company or context. As 2, 3 Henry VI were apparently popular, to judge from “Greene’s” 3 Henry VI pun, Marlowe could have been influenced by them without having direct contact with Shakespeare. A final argument for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s deserving note draws on the differences between 2, 3 Henry VI and Contention/True Tragedy. In addition to thematic and character differences between the two sets of plays, Gurr notes intriguing differences in staging details. In 2 Henry VI, stage directions at V.ii state “Enter Richard and Somerset to fight. In Contention, the corresponding directions read “enter the Duke of Somerset, and Richard fighting, and Richard kills him under the signe of the Castle in saint Albones” (H2). In 3 Henry VI, stage directions at II.vi read “Enter Clifford wounded; in True Tragedy, the corresponding directions read “Enter Clifford wounded, with an arrow in his necke” (C3v; Gurr, Companies 271). In both cases, Gurr observes the quarto directions more closely replicate details from Holinshed’s Chronicles, the source for both sets of plays. Gurr argues the addition of source details cannot be explained by actor-reporters; rather, someone, presumably the playwright, was on hand for the performances on which the Contention/True Tragedy texts were based to insert such details. Based on this evidence, and Shakespeare’s plays in Pembroke’s repertory, Gurr is “almost convinced that Shakespeare was with his plays in Pembroke’s Company at the Theatre in 1592 and 1593” (271). Gurr’s unwillingness to pronounce the case closed is laudable. While the source details found in the quarto, but not folio, texts may have been inserted into the staging by a playwright who did not see the need to include them in the published folio version, it is still possible someone else inserted them. As for Pembroke’s Shakespearean repertory, it is, again, more difficult to demonstrate Pembroke’s access to Shakespeare’s plays than is often suggested by scholars discussing Pembroke’s plays. The two staging details Gurr points out are intriguing, but in need of further, elusive evidence to make them into anything more substantial. By now it is abundantly clear that arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s have substantial hurdles to clear. One must at least demonstrate Pembroke’s possessed 2, 3 Henry VI, which is no small feat. The ultimate problem with all these arguments is that they try to read the elusive Shakespeare into an equally elusive playing company. All that is known about Pembroke’s, apart from a few court and provincial performance records, is that it performed Contention, True Tragedy, A Shrew, Titus, and Edward II. Basing further arguments about Pembroke’s personnel, repertory, and origin on these texts, especially Contention, True Tragedy, and A Shrew, forces one into issues of the quarto-folio relationship, which essentially dooms one to running in circles. The shifting consensus on what the quarto texts are prevents solid arguments from being raised on such a shaky foundation. This is

Pembroke’s Men

145

not to say the effort is not worthwhile. Arguments for Shakespeare’s affiliation with Pembroke’s Men have their strengths, but these strengths are not necessarily greater than those of arguments for his membership in other companies. Perhaps, like the other company arguments, the value of searching for Shakespeare in Pembroke’s Men is found in the historiography and theatre history issues it raises. For example, arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in Pembroke’s force scholars to deal with the quarto-folio relationship issues, which in turn spurs discussion of repertory and publishing practices. In fact, almost any research involving Pembroke’s Men, at its core, intersects with the issues of the quarto-folio relationship. In any case, arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Pembroke’s illustrate the difficulties of navigating the quarto-folio issues (especially when “memorial reconstruction” is concerned), the liabilities of premising arguments on such subjective grounds as literary influence, “echoes,” and “recollections,” and the difficulties of dealing with a playing company which, essentially, is an unknown quantity. Then again, surviving evidence concerning Pembroke’s Men is more plentiful than surviving evidence for some of its fellow playing companies. The next chapter turns to such a company, equally intriguing and still more elusive: Sussex’s Men.


Chapter 8

Sussex’s Men

Like Pembroke’s Men, the history of Sussex’s Men is fraught with uncertainty. Although one of the longest-lived Elizabethan playing companies, frustratingly little evidence survives concerning who Sussex’s players were, or what plays they performed. The dearth of evidence is particularly disconcerting because Sussex’s Men on more than one occasion found itself at or near the center of theatrical activity; accordingly, Sussex’s role on these occasions can only be guessed at. Yet what evidence does survive for Sussex’s Men is less equivocal than the surviving evidence for Pembroke’s Men. For instance, the evidence relating to Sussex’s Men does not deal with issues like actor names and quarto-folio relationships. As a result, the circumstantial evidence suggesting Shakespeare’s presence in Sussex’s Men is clear enough, but there is too little of it to allow for anything more than vague claims of possibility. Sussex’s Men Sussex’s Men first appears in provincial records in 1568–69, its first datable performance taking place at Nottingham on 16 March 1569. In July 1572, the company’s patron, Thomas Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex, became Lord Chamberlain (Chambers, Stage ii.92), and the following court season Sussex’s Men made its first court appearance. Sussex’s frequently played at court between the 1574–75 and 1582–83 seasons, the height of its court prominence coming in 1578–79 and 1579– 80, when it performed three times each season. The company’s court popularity is reflected in a 24 December 1578 Privy Council Act, which instructed the Lord Mayor of London to permit Sussex’s, among others, to play within the city in anticipation of court performances (Gurr, Companies 55). Court records pertaining to Sussex’s performances during this period provide scant insight into the company’s personnel, the lone named payee being John Adams for a 2 February 1576 performance. The same records, however, provide names of ten Sussex’s plays: Phedrastus, Phigon and Lucia, Cynocephali, The Cruelty of a Stepmother, The Rape of the Second Helen, Murderous Michael, The Duke of Milan and the Marques of Mantua, Portio and Demorantes, Sarpedon, and Ferrar; unfortunately, all of these plays are lost (Chambers, Stage ii.93, iv.150–59; Astington, English 228–31; Gurr, Companies 174). During these years Sussex’s was also popular in the country. A Bristol record from August 1575 relates that the audience for Sussex’s The Red Knight (lost) was so large that the town hall’s doors had to be repaired after the performance (REED, Bristol 112). Sussex’s popularity was probably due in part to the presence of Richard

148


Tarlton, whose Sussex’s connection is demonstrated by the dedication of Tarleton’s Tragical Treatises (1578) which describes him as “Richard Tarleton, Servaunt to the right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine Earle of Sussex” (M. Eccles, “Elizabethan Actors IV” 173). Sussex’s suffered two setbacks in early 1583. First, the company lost John Adams, Richard Tarlton, and perhaps other leading players to the newly-formed Queen’s Men (McMillin and MacLean 12). While Sussex’s suffered the same fate as other companies in this regard, the loss of the incredibly popular Tarlton must have been an especially painful blow to the company. Second, the company’s patron died in June 1583 (Chambers, Stage ii.92). If Sussex’s had not already dissolved upon the loss of Tarlton and Adams, it must have done so with Thomas Radcliffe’s death, as the company disappears from all records until 1584–85, when a new Sussex’s Men, under the patronage of Thomas’s son, Henry Radcliffe, fourth Earl of Sussex, appears in provincial records (ii.92, 94; REED, Dorset/Cornwall 215). From this point forward, Sussex’s maintained a noteworthy provincial existence. On at least two occasions, Sussex’s seems to have played alongside the Queen’s Men, the first at King’s Lynn in November 1586 (“Records of Plays and Players in Norfolk and Suffolk” 64). Then, in early 1591, Sussex’s temporarily allied with Laneham’s Queen’s; the two groups played together at Southampton on 14 February (on which day Duttons’ Queen performed at court), Bristol in late February/early March, and Coventry on 24 March (REED, “Southampton” 56; Bristol 140; Coventry 332). An undated 1590–91 Gloucester record also names the two companies performing simultaneously (REED, Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire 312). The reasons for this temporary alliance are not clear, but it apparently ended by 5 June 1591, when Sussex’s performed in Norwich by itself (REED, Norwich 98). After a decade’s absence, Sussex’s returned to court on 2 January 1592 (Astington, English 233; Chambers, Stage iv.164). This performance suggests Sussex’s played in or near London at this time, as does a 29 April 1593 Privy Council warrant authorizing Sussex’s to perform “comedies and tragedies in any county, cittie, towne or corporacion not being within vijen miles of London, where the infection is not, and in places convenient and tymes fitt” (Chambers, Stage ii.94). This warrant is almost identical to one granted Strange’s—a company which certainly maintained a consistent London presence—in the same year (see Chapter 6). Although not certain, the granting of a warrant to Sussex’s seems to suggest that, like Strange’s, Sussex’s was a London company which currently could not play near London due to plague. If Sussex’s had not been playing in London, it is unclear why it would have obtained such a warrant. At any rate, in 1593 Sussex’s was apparently rated, at least by the Privy Council, on equal terms with Strange’s Men. Throughout most of 1593, Sussex’s was on the road, owing to London plague closures. In December, Henry Radcliffe died, but his death does not seem to have interrupted Sussex’s activities; instead, Robert Radcliffe, the new fifth Earl of Sussex, apparently extended his patronage to his father’s company (Chambers, Stage ii.92). Between 27 December 1593 and 6 February 1594, Sussex’s was back in London, performing at the Rose (Foakes 20–21). After a two-month plague closure, Sussex’s returned to the Rose

Sussex’s Men

149

on 1 April, this time playing with the Queen’s Men, either jointly or on alternating days; this arrangement lasted until 8 April (Foakes 21). Sussex’s Men subsequently disappears from all records until 1603; thereafter, it performed intermittently in the provinces until 1617, when it disappeared for good (Chambers, Stage ii.98; Gurr, Companies 176). Sussex’s tenure at the Rose has understandably attracted much scholarly attention. Owing to the 1591–92 court performance and the 1593 Privy Council warrant, the fact Sussex’s returned to London playing in 1594 is not particularly surprising. What is surprising is that Sussex’s played at the Rose (McMillin, “Sussex’s” 215). Previously, Strange’s had acted at the Rose, led by Edward Alleyn, Henslowe’s son-in-law. Evidence suggests Strange’s was still faring well as late as September 1593; so why did Sussex’s, rather than Strange’s, play at the Rose when the playing inhibition was lifted in December 1593? Scott McMillin suggests Sussex’s 1593– 94 Rose repertory may answer this question. Between 27 December 1593 and 6 February 1594, Sussex’s performed twelve plays. Of these, nine are lost: God Speed the Plough, Huon of Bordeaux, Buckingham, Richard the Confessor, William the Conqueror, Abram and Lot, The Fair Maid of Italy, King Lud, and Friar Francis (Foakes 20–21). Of the remaining three, George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield’s published title page credits Sussex’s as the company that performed it. The remaining two plays were The Jew of Malta and Titus Andronicus. Titus was designated “ne” for its 23 January 1594 performance; Jew had previously been performed by Strange’s Men. During the joint run with the Queen’s in April 1594, the repertory included The Fair Maid of Italy, Jew, “frier bacon,” The Ranger’s Comedy (lost), and King Leir. The Fair Maid had been in Sussex’s previous repertory, as had Jew. Leir was a Queen’s play, and “frier bacon” was probably the Queen’s Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (although it may have been Strange’s “frier bacon,” which McMillin thinks was John of Bordeaux). The Ranger’s Comedy may also have been a Queen’s play, but it, like Jew, subsequently was in the Admiral’s Rose repertory (“Sussex’s” 215–18). By cross-referencing the repertories of Sussex’s, Queen’s-Sussex’s, Strange’s, and the Admiral’s found in Henslowe’s Diary, McMillin makes four observations: 1. all company activity recorded in the Diary before and after the Sussex’s and Sussex’s-Queen’s seasons is connected to companies Edward Alleyn played with; Sussex’s and Sussex’s-Queen’s is the lone exception (215). 2. Titus and Jew, both connected to other companies during the 1590s (Titus: Strange’s/Derby’s, Pembroke’s, Chamberlain’s; Jew: Strange’s, Admiral’s), appear only in the last several days of Sussex’s first run at the Rose (215–16). 3. Titus, the most popular play during Sussex’s first run, does not appear during the Queen’s-Sussex’s run, whereas Jew does (216). 4. Sussex’s disappears after the Queen’s-Sussex’s season (216). McMillin argues that for both Titus and Jew, Sussex’s performances are the only anomalies in otherwise unbroken chains of company ownership. Titus passed from Strange’s to Pembroke’s, which McMillin says was an offshoot of Strange’s, before

150


passing through Sussex’s to the Chamberlain’s, which had many ex-Strange’s and exPembroke’s players in its ranks. Likewise, Jew passed from Strange’s through Sussex’s to the Admiral’s; both Strange’s and the Admiral’s were led by Edward Alleyn. Given these circumstances, McMillin suggests that Alleyn, with other Strange’s Men, was also with Sussex’s Men at the Rose in 1593–94 (218). McMillin speculates Alleyn and the ex-Strange’s players joined Sussex’s only after the first Rose run had begun, thus explaining Jew’s late entrance into Sussex’s repertory; similarly, ex-Pembroke’s players joined Sussex’s about the time Alleyn did, explaining the presence of Titus, a former Pembroke’s play, in Sussex’s repertory (220). This ex-Pembroke’s contingent may have left Sussex’s before the April Sussex’s-Queen’s run, thereby explaining the absence of the popular Titus during that brief season. Alleyn presumably stayed with Sussex’s, as Jew was in the Sussex-Queen’s repertory; some of Sussex’s Men likely joined the Admiral’s in May 1594, as both Jew and The Ranger’s Comedy appear in the Admiral’s repertory (216–22). While certainly possible, McMillin’s hypothetical reconstruction of Sussex’s 1594 activities requires too many “ifs” and unproven assumptions to be accepted as probable. The fact Pembroke’s was probably not an offshoot of Strange’s calls McMillin’s smooth narrative of Titus’s stage history into question. More importantly, by 1591–92 Sussex’s performed at court, and the Privy Council warrant may indicate it played in London in 1593, and it was capable of producing its own repertory at the beginning of the 1593–94 Rose seasons. One therefore wonders why it would have needed the addition of ex-Strange’s and ex-Pembroke’s Men (or indeed why certain scholars claim Sussex’s was a cobbling together of ex-Strange’s and exPembroke’s—C. Eccles 38; Rutter 78). Perhaps instead Alleyn alone joined Sussex’s, bringing it to the Rose; Sussex’s possibly then purchased Titus from the bankrupt Pembroke’s. Titus’s absence from Sussex’s April 1594 repertory is peculiar, but there was a two-month gap between Sussex’s first and second Rose seasons during which some sort of reorganization seems to have taken place to warrant the joint run with the Queen’s and during which Titus may have passed out of Sussex’s hands (it was, in any case, entered for publication in the Stationers’ Register on 6 February 1594, the last day of Sussex’s first Rose run). If more Sussex’s plays survived, or if only one or two Sussex’s players in the 1590s were known, it might be possible to verify McMillin’s claims. As it is, however, there simply is inadequate evidence to safely accept his suggestions concerning Sussex’s 1593–94 Rose seasons. Sussex’s Men and Shakespeare: The Evidence With the lack of evidence about Sussex’s Men, arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in that company have been largely limited to dealing with the 1593–94 Rose runs and the stage history of Titus Andronicus. Halliwell-Phillips seems to have been the first scholar to explicitly suggest Shakespeare’s membership in Sussex’s Men. Halliwell-Phillips argues Shakespeare, as an actor and playwright, “belonged to those companies” that debuted his plays. Accordingly, “it would appear not altogether unlikely that the poet was one of Lord Strange’s actors in March, 1592; one of Lord

Sussex’s Men

151

Pembroke’s a few months later; and that he had joined the company of the Earl of Sussex in or before January, 1594” (i.122). Halliwell-Phillips does not specify what evidence links Shakespeare to these companies, but presumably he bases this claim on the records of “harey the vj” and Titus in Henslowe’s Diary, as well as perhaps the Titus title page.1 Halliwell-Phillips also notes that in 1594, some of Sussex’s Men “in all probability” joined the Chamberlain’s Men (ii.329–30). The appearance of Titus in the Chamberlain’s repertory makes this a reasonable conjecture, but since Sussex’s 1594 players are never named, it is impossible to be certain. E.K. Chambers adds several details to Halliwell-Phillip’s conjecture that may also hint at Shakespeare’s presence in Sussex’s Men. Chambers observes that in Henslowe’s Diary, Titus is listed as “Ne” for its first performance by Sussex’s. “Ne” often seems to signal the debut of a new play, but if the Titus title page records a sequence of company ownership, the play cannot have been new when Sussex’s performed it. To reconcile this evidence, Chambers proposes Titus “passed, probably in a pre-Shakespearean version, from Pembroke’s to Sussex’s, when the former were bankrupt in the summer of 1593” and once in Sussex’s repertory was revised “by the hand of Shakespeare,” thereby warranting the designation “ne,” meaning newlyrevised, a contention we will return to momentarily (Stage ii.95). Chambers suggests that Titus’s journey from Pembroke’s through Sussex’s to the Chamberlain’s may have been a route followed by Taming of A Shrew and Contention/True Tragedy or their Shakespearean correlates. Chambers also observes that Buckingham, a Sussex’s play, bears “a title which might fit either Richard III or that early version of Henry VIII, the existence of which, on internal grounds, I suspect” (ii.95). Chambers later backed away from the ur-Henry VIII/Buckingham connection (Shakespeare i.61, 497–8), and the one of the few Henry VIII editors to even acknowledge Chambers’s suggestion completely dismisses the possibility (Maxwell, King Henry the Eighth xi). As for the Richard III/Buckingham connection, Chambers remains its sole proponent; in addressing the fact that Buckingham, the title character of Sussex’s play, is hardly one of Richard III’s main characters, Chambers offers the halfhearted defense that “Henslowe was not precise in his use of titles” (Shakespeare i.303–4). The stage history of Titus Andronicus, however, has continued to suggest to various scholars that Shakespeare may have belonged to Sussex’s Men. Even so, a seeming contradiction plagues any attempts to connect Shakespeare to Sussex’s performance: 1. Henslowe’s Diary lists the play as “ne,” which seems to often mean “new,” to one degree or another, on 23 January 1594. But 2. Titus’s title-page indicates that Strange’s/Derby’s and Pembroke’s performed Titus before Sussex’s.

1 Halliwell-Phillips would have worked from the 1600 Titus title page, as no copy of the 1594 edition was available before 1904. The 1594 edition was known to have existed, owing to a seventeenth-century transcription of the title page which incorrectly lists Essex’s Men in place of Sussex’s (Chambers, Shakespeare i.315).

152


One solution to this contradiction is to call the accuracy or truthfulness of one of these sources into question. Henslowe, it has been argued, was disorganized, but this view has largely subsided (Rutter 1–5; Foakes xxv–xxxiii). Alternatively, the Titus title page may be inaccurate. Other contemporary play title pages lie about authorship, and Titus’s 1594 printer, John Danter, was the most unscrupulous of all Elizabethan printers. However, there are no known examples of title pages which lie about or misstate what company performed the play (Knutson, “Evidence” 63–89), so to dismiss Titus’s title page is not a viable option. There are, essentially, two responses to this contradiction: 1. Henslowe’s “ne” does not mean new, but something else. 2. The Titus title-page refers to a joint performance by Derby’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s Men. In regards to Henslowe’s “ne,” scholars have taken three positions: 1. “ne” has nothing to do with the newness of the denoted play. 2. “ne” means the play was brand new. 3. “ne” means the play was new in some degree—perhaps newly revised, or new to the performing company, or perhaps, but not necessarily, brand new. Position 1) raises problems because no one has ever offered a plausible explanation for what, besides “new,” “ne” may mean. Winifred Frazer suggests “ne” meant the performance in question took place at Newington Butts (“Henslowe’s”); Brian Vickers endorses Frazer’s analysis as a “definitive correction” concerning the meaning of “ne” (149). Frazer and Vickers, however, overlook the fact that the Newington playhouse had almost certainly ceased to exist by September 1595 (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 329), whereas Henslowe continues to use “ne” after that date. Moreover, “ne” performances inevitably yielded large takes for Henslowe, but the one place in the Diary Henslowe definitely recorded Newington performances shows well below average takes (Foakes 21–2). Close analysis of the occurrences of “ne” also mitigates against the idea “ne” has nothing to do with the newness of a play. Of the 65 times Henslowe uses the designation between 19 February 1592 and 5 November 1597, only five times is “ne” attached to a play not appearing in the Diary for the first time. Other plays make first appearances without “ne,” of course, so the reasonable conclusion is that there was something special about the several dozen first appearances marked “ne.” Since in 60 out of 65 cases, “ne” is attached to a play appearing for the first time, it therefore seems “ne” almost certainly means “new.” Accordingly, E.A.J. Honigmann’s statement that “quite often ‘ne’ meant something else—and we have no means of knowing what, or how often” (Impact 77) is clearly exaggerated. Moreover, Henslowe apparently often used abbreviations consisting of the first and last letter of the abbreviated word: “pd” for “paid,” “rd” for “received,” “dd” for “delivered,” and “mr” for “master.” Frequently, although not consistently, Henslowe spelled “new” as “newe;” perhaps here too “ne” is a first letter/last letter abbreviation.

Sussex’s Men

153

While position 1) on “ne” is highly questionable, position 2) cannot be correct either, as on five occasions “ne” cannot logically mean brand new: a. The Spanish Tragedy first appears in the Diary in Strange’s 1592–93 repertory and is never designated “ne.” When the play reappears in the Admiral’s repertory on 7 January 1597, it is marked “ne” (Foakes 55). b. The same is true of 1 Tamar Cham, a 1592–93 Strange’s play marked “ne” when first performed by the Admiral’s Men on 6 May 1596 (Foakes 55). c. The same is also true of 2 Tamar Cham, a 1592–93 Strange’s play marked “ne” when first performed by the Admiral’s Men on 12 June 1596 (Foakes 47). d. Alexander and Lodowick is marked “ne” for its first two entries on 14 January and 11 February 1597 (Foakes 56). e. “the frenshe Comodey” is marked “ne” on 11 February 1595; “a frenshe comodey” is designated “ne” on 18 April 1597. These may not be the same play. After its debut, “the frenshe Comodey” was played five times, the last performance on 24 June 1595 (Foakes 27, 57). In these entries, the play is called “the frenshe Comodey” four times and simply “frenshe Comodey” once; “a frenshe comodey appears 10 times, always as “frenshe comodey” after its debut. Henslowe’s use of articles may not be the most reliable evidence, but it opens the possibility “the” and “a” are two different plays, as in the case of A Shrew and The Shrew. Thus, while it is unlikely “ne” does not, in some sense, designate “new,” Honigmann and others are right to note the four or five definite non-premiere uses of “ne” call into question what sort of “new” Henslowe means. This leaves position 3): “ne” means new, but not necessarily brand new. If Henslowe uses “ne” to mean a sort of “new” other than brand new in these four or five cases, it may be other occurrences of “ne” which are seemingly premieres—such as Titus—are actually the other sort of “new.” There are various hypotheses as to what other sort of “new” Henslowe may mean. One common assertion is that “ne” may mean “newly revised.” The five nonpremiere “ne” plays do not strengthen this argument: 1, 2 Tamar Cham, Alexander and Lodowick, and A/The French Comedy are lost, so there is no way to know if they were revised, and although The Spanish Tragedy was revised at one point, this apparently took place after 1597 (Foakes 55, 203). There is therefore no evidence to state with certainty, as does Chambers, that “ne” was “sometimes a revised play” (Shakespeare i.320). Nevertheless, the possibility “ne” can mean “newly revised,” coupled with the fact Titus exhibits features suggesting it was revised at some point, has led some scholars to suggest Titus was newly revised, by Shakespeare, but not brand new, when Sussex’s performed it at the Rose in 1593–94. Many scholars note Titus contains passages that do not follow Shakespeare’s usual writing style. Several of these scholars have thought the passages in question do, however, bear resemblances to the work of George Peele. Chambers, for one, cites Titus passages that “go rather beyond a repeated use of out-of-the-way words or of

154


short collocations of words” in their similarity to Peele (Shakespeare i.317). Because Titus definitely exhibits Shakespeare’s style in many places, Chambers cautiously suggests that Peele was Titus’s original author and that Shakespeare later revised it, probably for Sussex’s, who them performed it as “ne” at the Rose in early 1594 (i.61, 320). While Chambers remains uncertain about this narrative, John Dover Wilson accepts and expands on it. Wilson says Peele wrote a shorter Titus predecessor for traveling purposes in 1593. When Sussex’s obtained this ur-Titus, it needed to expand it for London performances. Because they were in a hurry to perform the play, Sussex’s hired Shakespeare to help Peele write Titus. Shakespeare, Wilson argues, was a logical choice for this job, because he had recently been working on Rape of Lucrece, a poem with similar material. Thus, Sussex’s performed a partially new Titus, thereby explaining Henslowe’s “ne;” at the same time, the ur-Titus had been played by Strange’s/Derby’s and Pembroke’s, explaining the 1594 Titus title page (Titus Andronicus xviii–xix, xxv–xxxvi). The above account relies on several unsafe assumptions. First, it assumes, at least in Chambers’s variation, that “ne” could mean “newly revised;” and while certainly possible, there is not enough evidence to trust such an assertion. Second, it assumes there was an ur-Titus, for which no concrete evidence exists. This is tied to a further assumption: that Shakespeare did not collaborate. The ur-Titus’s existence is predicated on the non-Shakespearean passages of Titus, but these passages could also be explained as the result of collaboration between Shakespeare and Peele or another playwright. Brian Vickers has recently revisited the problem of Titus’s authorship, and he argues forcefully that the different styles evident in Titus should be attributed not to revision, but to collaboration with George Peele (148–243). Furthermore, Wilson’s assertion that Peele’s ur-Titus was a short traveling text assumes that touring necessitated shorter texts than London playing. While shortened texts do survive, there is no reason to believe they were written for purposes of touring. So if there was an ur-Titus, it would not have been short by virtue of being written for a touring company; consequently, its introduction to the London stage would not have necessarily required extensive revision. Returning to “ne,” another suggestion is that, when not referring to a premiere, “ne” could mean “new to the performing company.” J.C. Maxwell accordingly suggests the 23 January 1594 Titus performance is marked “ne” because it was new to Sussex’s repertory, having passed to it from Strange’s/Derby’s and Pembroke’s (Titus Andronicus xxviii). Of the five non-premiere uses of “ne,” The Spanish Tragedy and 1, 2 Tamar Cham are examples of old plays appearing as “ne” when performed by the Admiral’s for the first time. However, there are also cases of the Admiral’s performing plays for the first time not designated “ne.” The Jew of Malta, previously played by Strange’s, Sussex’s, and Sussex’s/Queen’s is not marked “ne” for its first performance by the Admiral’s on 14 May 1594. Similarly, The Ranger’s Comedy, previously performed by Sussex’s-Queen’s, was not “ne” for the Admiral’s first performance on 15 May 1594. As neither of these plays was new during their previous Diary appearance, it could be the Admiral’s performed them before coming to the Rose, but there is no way to prove such a conjecture. This explanation cannot, however, be applied to The Tragedy of the Guise, designated “ne” when performed

Sussex’s Men

155

by Strange’s on 30 January 1593 but performed by the Admiral’s on 19 June 1594 without “ne.” Chambers is thus correct that while “new to the company” is a possible interpretation of “ne,” there are no Diary entries with which this is clearly the case (Shakespeare i.320). Maxwell’s assertion that Titus was “ne” only to Sussex’s in 1594 is therefore unconvincing; moreover, if “ne” does mean “new to the performing company,” it has no bearing on Shakespeare’s company affiliations, as he need not have accompanied his plays when they changed hands. The remaining option to connect Shakespeare to Sussex’s Men in 1594 is to argue, like Paul E. Bennett, David George, and Jonathan Bate, that Henslowe’s “ne” does in fact mean Titus was brand new on 23 January of that year, and that the title page companies played Titus not in sequence, but as a single combined company. This position must address evidence apparently attesting to Titus’s existence before 1594: 1. A Knack to Know a Knave was originally performed by Strange’s Men at the Rose on 10 June 1592. The quarto of this play, entered into the Stationers’ Register 7 January 1594, seemingly alludes to events described in Titus Andronicus, specifically Titus’s conquest of the Goths (F2v). 2. Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, written in 1614, says that Titus and the Spanish Tragedy were then 25–30 years old (8). 3. The addition of the Lord Chamberlain’s to Titus’s 1600 title page appears to support the belief the title page describes a sequence of companies that performed Titus, not a joint performance. Those scholars who believe Titus was new for the 1594 Rose performance have found ways to account for each of these indications Titus was written earlier: 1. David George, building on Paul E. Bennett (“An Apparent Allusion” and “The Word ‘Goths’”), argues the Knack quarto is a memorial reconstruction, meaning its text only reflects the repertory the reporters were familiar with in late 1593 or early 1594, when they were reconstructing Knack. George also asserts the Titus allusion in Knack relates events that are more reminiscent of the historical emperor Titus Vespasianus, save that Titus Vespasianus conquered the Jews, not Goths. George therefore argues Knack in fact recalls Titus and Vespasian, the lost play recorded in Henslowe’s Diary, but because the reporting actors were familiar with Titus Andronicus, then being rehearsed, they substituted “Goths” for “Jews” (316–18). 2. Jonathan Bate, among others, observes Ben Jonson was prone to exaggeration, and he exaggerates two other items in the Bartholomew Fair scene that records the “age” of Titus and The Spanish Tragedy. Having exaggerated elsewhere in the very same satirical scene, it is possible Jonson does so with Titus’s age too (Titus Andronicus 71). 3. Bate offers several observations concerning Titus’s title page which, he says, may suggest it does not describe a sequence of owning companies. First, he notes

156


Titus apparently does not appear in Strange’s 1592–93 repertory, so Pembroke’s must have owned it by that time. Second, given the plague hardships of 1593, it would be “eminently plausible” for actors from the companies named on the title page to return to London to play with the group performing at the Rose. Bate says Henslowe’s mention of Sussex’s alone is insignificant, as Henslowe only refers to the Admiral’s-Strange’s “amalgamation” as Strange’s. Finally, the 1594 title page omits the standard “as was played sundry times” phrase, later included on the 1600 title page. Thus, Bate argues, in 1594 Titus had not been played “sundry times,” which is in keeping with the idea the play was brand new when played at the Rose on 23 January (74–7). While Bate has a point on 2), his arguments concerning 3) and George’s concerning 1) are flawed. Concerning the Knack quarto, Laurie Maguire asserts that while one can make the case that the Knack quarto is a memorial reconstruction, it is not a particularly strong case (274–76). If the Knack quarto is not a memorial reconstruction, the George/Bennett hypothesis regarding the insertion of “Goths” rather than “Jews” is inconsequential. Even if Knack is a memorial reconstruction, the idea that “Goths” should read “Jews” assumes the lost Titus and Vespasian is in fact the story of the emperor Titus Vespasianus, which there is no way to verify. Moreover, the contention that the reporting actors confused the plot of a play they were rehearsing with one they had performed a few years before rests on shaky ground. With the repertory system used in London in the 1590s, actors had to be able to keep plots straight, otherwise performances presumably would have been as garbled as certain passages in the Knack quarto are alleged to be. If Knack is garbled because it is a report, the actor-reporters were guilty not of forgetting their lines, a plausible offense, but of forgetting the difference between two plays. The supposed desperation of playing companies in 1594 does not account for actors losing their ability to tell one play from another. Bate’s comments about the Titus title-page also exhibit several weaknesses. First, the absence of Titus from Strange’s 1592–93 repertory may simply mean Strange’s performed the play before 1592, at which point it passed to Pembroke’s, or else that Strange’s first performed Titus after the February 1593 closure of the theatres, with the play rapidly passing to Pembroke’s and then Sussex’s. Second, while other scholars agree with Bate that Pembroke’s and Strange’s possibly returned to London to play with Sussex’s, none of these other scholars suggest the companies played jointly; instead, the ex-Pembroke’s and ex-Strange’s players joined Sussex’s (Gurr, Companies 34, 69, 72; McMillin, “Sussex’s” 220; Rutter 78; C. Eccles 38). Third, there is neither evidence nor precedent for the sort of company interaction Bate, following George (317–21), proposes in arguing three companies joined together to perform Titus. Moreover, the lack of evidence about Sussex’s personnel prevents the supposed Pembroke’s-Strange’s-Sussex’s combination from being verified; it is an unprovable conjecture and nothing more. Fourth, Bate’s assertion that the Strange’s-Admiral’s “amalgamation” provides a precedent for Henslowe using only one company name when two were involved is demonstrably false. There was no

Sussex’s Men

157

Strange’s-Admiral’s “amalgamation” (see Chapter 4), and in April 1594 Henslowe records Sussex’s and the Queen’s as performing together. Thus, Henslowe’s naming of Sussex’s alone for the run in which Titus debuted most assuredly is significant. Finally, the Titus title page’s lack of “sundry times” need not indicate the play was still new when published. Furthermore, while mentioning the 1600 title page adds “sundry times,” Bate avoids the implication the 1600 title page’s inclusion of the Chamberlain’s Men among the list of playing companies suggests the 1594 title page does in fact describe a sequence. To his credit, Bate recognizes the liabilities in his argument and allows that while he believes Titus was new in January 1594, it may have been written earlier “and that the January 1594 performances was new only in the sense that it was of a text that was newly revised” (Titus Andronicus 78). Basically, the argument Sussex’s played a brand new Titus in combination with Pembroke’s and Strange’s/Derby’s at the Rose on 23 January 1594 is less secure than the standard assumption Strange’s, Pembroke’s, and Sussex’s performed the play sequentially. If Titus was not new on this date, as most scholars and editors believe,2 Shakespeare would have written the play for Strange’s or Pembroke’s, not Sussex’s. Even if he did write if for Sussex’s, he would have done so at a time when he was busy composing his two narrative poems, which suggests, as George notes, Shakespeare was not attached to any company following the 1593 plague closure. If he was traveling the country with a troupe of actors, it is difficult to explain how he could have managed to write and publish two long poems as well as at least one fulllength play. None of these considerations strengthens the argument that Shakespeare was to be found among Sussex’s in 1594. All that remains is the theory Shakespeare revised Titus for Sussex’s, which has its own set of problems. Ultimately, the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Sussex’s Men hinges on what one thinks of McMillin’s argument regarding the passage of ex-Pembroke’s and ex-Strange’s Men, as well as Titus, into Sussex’s Men. If one agrees with this reasonable, but unprovable, suggestion, one may agree with him that “we are one step closer to seeing that [Chambers] was right” concerning Shakespeare’s place in Sussex’s (“Sussex’s” 222). Gurr, for example, agrees that after Pembroke’s 1593 collapse, certain of its players “may have gone to the Rose with Sussex’s” (Companies 74). These players, he says, likely included Richard Burbage, John Sincler, John Holland, and “possibly” Shakespeare, all of whom eventually went to the Chamberlain’s (279). Most recently, Gurr goes so far as to assert Pembroke’s reformed as Sussex’s in 1593, and that Richard Burbage “had been partnered in [these] two former companies” with Shakespeare and Will Sly (Shakespeare Company 17– 18). Events may have unfolded as Gurr describes them, but it seems in this case he runs dangerously close to allowing possibilities and conjectures to harden into facts, a persistent problem in scholarship concerning Shakespeare and Elizabethan theatre. 2 Gurr, Companies 69; Wells and Taylor 113–15; Chambers, William Shakespeare i.318– 21; McMillin, “Sussex’s” 216–17; Hughes 3–6; Waith 1–10; Metz, Shakespeare’s Earliest Tragedy 190–97; Maxwell, Titus Andronicus xxviii; J. Dover Wilson, Titus Andronicus xxxix–xl; Honigmann, Lost Years 128.

158


Then, too, McMillin and Gurr must contend with the fact that while Pembroke’s did run into financial hardship in 1593, it is not certain that the company actually broke up, nor is it certain, as McMillin asserts, that Strange’s was not operating between December 1593 and May 1594 (218). Pembroke’s was touring again by April 1595, and although there is a gap in Strange’s known itinerary between December 1593 and May 1594 (see Appendix), such a gap does not necessarily point to the company breaking up. Besides, Sussex’s Men had an unbroken existence from 1584–85 to 1594, and was clearly capable of operating on its own in 1593. Accordingly, it is entirely plausible Sussex’s earned its prominence at the Rose based on its own merits, rather than the sudden influx of Strange’s and Pembroke’s Men proposed by McMillin, Gurr, and George. While there certainly is a case to be made for Shakespeare’s brief association with Sussex’s Men, that case relies on conjectures and speculations that cannot be verified due to the fact that no evidence about Sussex’s personnel, and little evidence about its repertory, has survived. Sussex’s performance of Titus Andronicus drops a tantalizing hint, but a hint is not proof. Arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Sussex’s Men do, however, bring up several important issues. First, such arguments force scholars to reckon with a company about which no personnel evidence survives. Such companies, despite being in the majority throughout the Elizabethan period, are often ignored. Each of these companies, though, has a story to tell, incomplete though that story may be. Second, arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Sussex’s serve as reminders of the problems of dating Shakespeare’s plays. Third, George’s arguments are reminders that less is known about printed texts than scholars are often willing to admit. Fourth, the issue of the possibility of revision, or collaboration, in Titus is a reminder that less is known about playwriting practices than scholars are sometimes willing to admit. Finally, the whole issue of Henslowe’s “ne” is a reminder that even the most cited and studied documents pertaining to Elizabethan theatre practices continue to hold secrets that have not been, and may never be, entirely unlocked or explained. Basically, Sussex’s Men, and arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in this company, are reminders that less is known about Elizabethan theatre than scholars and biographers are typically willing to admit.

Chapter 9

The “Lancashire Connection”

In recent years, several prominent scholars have expressed interest in, and support for, the possibility that Shakespeare spent several of his immediate post-grammar school years in Lancashire, where he may or may not have commenced his theatrical career. E.A.J. Honigmann has been the standard bearer of this argument for many years; more recently, Stephen Greenblatt, in Will in the World, endorses the existence of the “Lancashire connection,” as does Richard Wilson in Secret Shakespeare. Moreover, the contributors to Region, Religion and Patronage: Lancastrian Shakespeare, while not necessarily accepting the “Lancashire connection” as fact, use it as touchstone for discussing relevant issues the connection raises, regardless of its truth. Since this argument is currently relatively popular, because it exhibits a number of methodological weaknesses which need to be addressed, and also because it raises noteworthy theatre history topics and issues, it behooves us to devote a short chapter to this argument. While not an argument regarding Shakespeare’s affiliation with a particular acting company per se, the Lancashire hypothesis does involve the companies of Alexander Hoghton and Thomas Hesketh, or rather involves the debate over whether these nobles ever kept playing companies and, at any rate, connects to the issue of how Shakespeare got his theatrical start. The case for Shakespeare’s stay in Lancashire has floated in and out of scholarly consciousness since 1923, when E.K. Chambers first noted the possibility (Stage i.280). The first case for Shakespeare’s connection to the Hoghtons, a notable Lancashire family, was made by Oliver Baker in In Shakespeare’s Warwickshire and the Unknown Years (297–319); in 1944, Chambers expanded on Baker’s argument and raised several questions for future scholars to consider (Gleanings 52–6). Ten years later, the case was revived by Alan Keen and Roger Lubbock in The Annotator (34–5, 43–7, 74–81). Then, in 1970, Douglas Hamer’s “Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte?” seemed to conclusively demonstrate Shakespeare was unlikely to have been associated with the Hoghtons and, by extension, Lancashire. E.A.J. Honigmann, however, reopened the case in 1985 with Shakespeare: ‘the lost years’ and has argued vigorously for Shakespeare’s Lancashire connection since that time. This chapter is therefore chiefly concerned with Honigmann’s arguments and observations, as well as recent responses to the issues Honigmann raises. The basis for the argument for Shakespeare’s “Lancashire connection” is the will of Alexander Hoghton, a rich Lancashire gentleman. The will was made in August of 1581 and contained the following item: Thomas Hoghton ... my brother shall have all my instruments belonging to musics, & all manner of play clothes if he be minded to keep & do keep players. And if he will not

160

Shakespeare’s Companies keep & maintain players, then it is my mind & will that Sir Thomas Hesketh knight shall have the same instruments & play clothes. And I most heartily require the said Sir Thomas to be friendly unto Fulk Gillom & William Shakeshafte now dwelling with me & either to take them unto his service or else to help them to some good master, as my trust is he will. (Honigmann, Lost Years 136)

Later in the will, Fulk Gillom and William Shakeshafte, listed together as “servants” to Hoghton, are granted annuities of 40 shillings each (137). The argument for Shakespeare’s presence in Hoghton’s household is based on the longer item from the will. Proponents of this argument assert that, given the context of Hoghton’s recommendation, it seems that Shakeshafte was, with Gillom, a player. Since it seems that Hoghton assumed Sir Thomas Hesketh would keep players (regardless of Thomas Hoghton’s decision on the matter), it would follow that Hesketh had a playing company. An entry in the Derby Household Books from 1587 may corroborate the existence of Hesketh’s players (4, 16); whether or not this entry does so will be considered shortly. There is no indication Thomas Hoghton kept a company of players, nor is there any indication Fulk Gillom and William Shakeshafte were ever in his service, so, Honigmann says, it seems likely Shakeshafte and Gillom ended up in the service, and presumably the playing company, of Thomas Hesketh. That William Shakeshafte was in fact William Shakespeare can be argued on the grounds that last names were not as fixed in the sixteenth century as they are today (18). As explanation for why Shakespeare would be at the Hoghton household in Lancashire, 130 miles from Stratford, Honigmann offers John Aubrey’s report that Shakespeare, in his youth, was a schoolmaster in the country. Several Stratford schoolmasters were from Lancashire, so possibly one of them recommended Shakespeare to the Hoghtons as a teacher (though not necessarily a “schoolmaster,” as Aubrey would have it) (2–7). This is the case for Shakespeare’s presence in Lancashire and affiliation with the Hoghton and Hesketh households as it stood before 1970, when Douglas Hamer raised five objections to such a scenario: 1) Why would Shakespeare change his name to Shakeshafte while in Lancashire, then back to Shakespeare in Stratford? 2) Shakeshafte was a common Lancashire name, so William Shakeshafte was probably a local, not Shakespeare. 3) Shakeshafte’s annuity of 40 shillings was too large an annuity for a 17-year-old servant who would have only been a servant to the household for a year or two. 4) The “players” of the will could have been musicians, not actors. 5) The Derby Household book entry used to prove the existence of Hesketh’s Men reads “Sr Tho. Hesketh, Players went awaie;” as the Derby Household books usually pluralize playing companies, this record could refer to the arrival of Hesketh and the departure of a group of unnamed players (Hamer 41–8; Honigmann, Lost Years 15–16), and many scholars have interpreted the entry in that way (e.g., Thaler 657). Honigmann addresses most of these objections in a satisfactory manner. In response to Hamer’s third objection, Honigmann argues the size of the annuities in the will is not proportional to age. Thomas Barton, 44 in 1581 and Henry Bond, 55, were not left annuities, but Thomas Coston, 29, was left £1. Thus,


161

says Honigmann, Hamer’s objection “collapses.” Concerning Hamer’s first two objections, Honigmann says Shakespeare was not necessarily the one changing his name, since he wasn’t the one who wrote the will, and in any case names were variable at the time; Shakespeare himself appears under several spelling variations in the court records of the late 1590s and early 1600s.1 Since Shakeshafte was a common Lancashire name, Shakespeare’s name could have been assimilated to that spelling while/if he lived there. As for Hamer’s fourth objection, Honigmann notes that “play-clothes” is nowhere else used to refer to the clothes of musicians, and actors are known to have kept musical instruments, so there is no reason to think Hoghton’s players were not actors, although they probably were musicians as well. The phrase “all manner of play-clothes,” moreover, seems to suggest a stock of costumes, not musicians’ uniforms. Finally, Honigmann concedes that while Hamer may have a point concerning his fifth objection, it seems clear from the will that Hoghton fully expects Hesketh to take the play-clothes and instruments if Thomas Hoghton doesn’t, and thus it follows Hesketh did, in fact, keep players (Lost Years 16–19). In these responses, Honigmann skirts the issue of the frequency of the name “Shakeshafte” in Lancashire and does not address the possibility that there was a local William Shakeshafte in Hoghton’s employ. Perhaps for this reason, Honigmann sets about adding more flesh to the bones of this argument, demonstrating possible linkages between Shakespeare, the Hoghton household and its environs, and the Hesketh household and its environs. Honigmann begins by addressing why and how Shakespeare would have been in Lancashire. He cites Aubrey’s assertion that Shakespeare was a schoolmaster in the country, and then notes that, as Catholics, the extended Hoghton family, like other Catholic families of the era, particularly Catholic Lancashire families, often employed unlicensed teachers. John Cottom, one of the Stratford schoolmasters Shakespeare presumably would have studied under, was a Catholic (his brother was executed in 1582 owing to his religious practices). A John Cottom also lived at Tanacre, near the Hoghton estate. Based on handwriting samples, Honigmann argues the two John Cottoms are one and the same, meaning the Stratford schoolmaster had lived only a few miles from the Hoghton estate and returned to that area after his time in Stratford. Honigmann next introduces evidence John Shakespeare was a Catholic. Honigmann argues John Shakespeare’s withdrawal from public life in the 1570s and 1580s cannot fully be explained by financial difficulties, because lawsuits and financial transactions from the period in question indicate John Shakespeare was still capable of meeting his financial obligations. An alternative explanation is that John Shakespeare failed to attend church not to escape debt collection, but because he was a recusant Catholic. To further connect the Shakespeares to recusancy, Honigmann notes 1) Susanna Shakespeare, William’s daughter, was accused of being a recusant 1

He is listed as “Willm Shakespeare” in a payment record dated 15 March 1595 and “Shaxberd” in payment records dated 21 January, 24 February, and 28 April 1605 (Chambers, Stage iv.164, 171–2).

162


in 1606; and 2) a document known as John Shakespeare’s “Spiritual Testament” seemingly proves John Shakespeare harbored Catholic sympathies to the end of his life. The issue of the “Spiritual Testament” will be returned to shortly; for now, it is sufficient to say that Honigmann, believing John Shakespeare may have been Catholic, observes this would in turn mean his children were raised Catholic. Certain allusions in Shakespeare’s plays, Honigmann says, may indicate Shakespeare knew Catholicism from the inside. Honigmann also notes, but does not place great stock in, Richard Davies’ (d. 1708) claim that Shakespeare “dyed a papist” (Lost Years 40–42, 115–18, 123–5). If, then, John Cottom the Stratford schoolmaster was John Cottom of Tanacre, Honigmann says Cottom may have heard that Hoghton, an old neighbor, needed a new schoolmaster, or an assistant to the current one. If Shakespeare’s family was indeed Catholic, Cottom could have recommended the teenage William to the Hoghtons. It was not unheard of for teenage boys to act as teachers without the benefit of a university education during this time period; moreover, John Shakespeare’s financial and/or social troubles at the time would have made the late 1570s or early 1580s a good time for Shakespeare to “break away,” or to be sent away, for that matter. But assuming Cottom of Stratford was the same as Cottom of Tanacre, did he know Alexander Hoghton well enough for such a scenario to be plausible? Honigmann answers yes, observing that 1) there is a “John Cotham” named in Hoghton’s will, and 2) John Cottom of Tanacre was a witness to a Hoghton document in 1606. Moreover, Hoghton apparently had a large number of servants, and as such the need for a teacher for their children would likely have existed (Lost Years 19–24, 46–8). Given these possible connections, Honigmann suggests Shakespeare, from a Catholic family, was, at the suggestion of John Cottom, hired by the Catholic Alexander Hoghton as an unlicensed teacher for the children attached to the Hoghton household. Once in the household, Shakespeare, already inclined to theatre and drama, became involved with Hoghton’s players and distinguished himself as a player enough for Hoghton to recognize this was Shakespeare’s best way forward in life. This is why Hoghton attached the bequest of the play-clothes and instruments of Hoghton’s troupe to Thomas Hesketh, if Thomas Hoghton was not interested in keeping players. Honigmann notes many of the servants in Alexander Hoghton’s will later appear in the service of Thomas Hoghton; Shakeshafte and Gillom are not among them. A Fulk Gillom does, however, appear occasionally as a servant to none other than Thomas Hesketh. If Gillom passed to Hesketh’s service, then presumably Shakeshafte, three times mentioned next to Gillom in Alexander Hoghton’s will and bracketed with him the bequest pertaining to players, also entered Hesketh’s service (Lost Years 21–2, 31–4). Honigmann next makes an observation of dubious value to his overall argument: the present-day Hoghton family has a long-standing tradition that Shakespeare worked for the family for two years in his youth; Honigmann demonstrates this tradition stretches back to before Alexander Hoghton’s will, and thus the possible Shakespeare-Hoghton connection, came to scholarly attention. In fact, it seems the


163

Hoghton family was unaware of the conjectured Shakespeare-Hoghton connection until after 1948. Satisfied the family tradition existed long before the family knew of the possible implications of Hoghton’s will, Honigmann also comments that as no one until E.K. Chambers suggested Shakespeare was ever in Lancashire, it is unlikely the Hoghton family would have cooked up such a far-fetched tradition without it being true. Like all family traditions, says Honigmann, it must be treated with a degree of circumspection, but its existence is noteworthy in light of the other circumstantial evidence for a Shakespeare-Hoghton connection (Lost Years 28–30). Next, Honigmann considers connections between Shakespeare and Thomas Hesketh who, like Hoghton, was a Catholic (the connections between Hesketh and the Hoghtons are well-documented and need not be dealt with here). Again, a Fulk Gillom appears in Hesketh’s service in 1591 and 1608. This Fulk Gillom seems to have been a “guild player,” just as the Gillom in Hoghton’s will may have been a player; thus, one of the Shakeshafte-Gillom pair apparently did in fact enter Hesketh’s service. Since they were connected in the will, Shakeshafte likely also entered Hesketh’s service. Honigmann wonders if evidence of this transfer might be contained in the fact that, according to a Hesketh acquaintance of Honigmann’s, the Hesketh estate had old instruments bearing the Hoghton crest as recently as the twentieth century. Honigmann thinks the rumor of the existence of these instruments may corroborate the transfer of players from Hoghton’s household to Hesketh’s service; moreover, a tradition in Rufford (near the Hesketh estate) claims Shakespeare lived there for a time. Interestingly, when Shakespeare and four of his fellow Chamberlain’s players bought a half-interest in the Globe, one of the trustees was Thomas Savage, a goldsmith from Rufford and connected to the Hesketh family through marriage (Lost Years 31–5, 84–9). Of course, the fact that the instruments, if they ever existed, have disappeared means this observation of Honigmann’s must be treated with at least as much circumspection as the Rufford tradition. Traditions and rumors may contain kernels of truth, but they are not facts. An additional figure in this web of alleged connections is John Weever, a publisher, poet, and one of Shakespeare’s early admirers. In 1599, Weever published a collection of epigrams, one of them written to Shakespeare, complimenting his writing abilities (Fourth Week, Epigram 22). This collection, entitled Epigrammes in the oldest cut, and newest fashion, was dedicated to a member of the Hoghton family and other Lancashire landowners. Honigmann reveals that Weever had an uncle connected to the Hoghtons through marriage and, moreover, relatives of Weever’s were virtual neighbors to the Heskeths. Unlike Weever’s other epigrams, the one addressed to Shakespeare is the only one to take the “Shakespearean” sonnet form. This means he had seen some of Shakespeare’s sonnets by 1599, perhaps a year or so earlier. Thus, Weever, connected to the Hoghtons, celebrated Shakespeare with a Shakespearean sonnet at a time “when only ‘private friends’ could understand the significance of this particular sonnet-form” (Lost Years 56; 50–58). To further the case for Shakespeare’s Lancashire connection, Honigmann discusses how the Hoghton and Hesketh families could have guided Shakespeare

164


toward a more prominent playing company that would have brought him to London. Both the Hoghton and Hesketh families, Honigmann notes, were well-connected to the Stanley family. During the 1580s, the Stanley family was patron to two companies: Derby’s and Lord Strange’s Men. For the latter of the two companies, Honigmann notes, circumstantial evidence suggests Shakespeare may have been involved with it in or around 1592 (see Chapter 6). Honigmann argues Shakespeare joined Strange’s perhaps as early as 1581 or 1582, but probably not later than 1586, when he began writing plays. Honigmann finds references to the Stanley family in several of Shakespeare’s early works, and because Honigmann is a proponent of the “early start” theory—he thinks Shakespeare began writing plays well before 1590, probably in 1586—he offers such references as evidence of Shakespeare’s association with the Stanley family by the mid-1580s (Lost Years 39, 63–71, 128, 150–54). While the evidence that Shakespeare was a Strange’s player is open to question, it does seem that if William Shakespeare was William Shakeshafte, he could have passed from Hoghton’s service to Hesketh’s service and then could have passed into the service of the Stanley family. Seem, if, and could, however, are not was, when, and did. Honigmann concludes by anticipating several objections to his theory. First, he again notes Shakespeare might have left Stratford at a young age to escape his father’s trade, or even because his parents sent him away, possibly due to the scandalous nature of his romantic involvement with the markedly older Anne Hathaway. Second, Honigmann explains the high annuity granted a young Shakespeare/Shakeshafte as another example of Shakespeare’s charm. Finally, the absence of other documents connecting Shakespeare to the Hoghtons or Heskeths is explained away by the fact that he was too young during his time in their service to have frequently appeared in their records, and that after leaving both families, he became a Protestant, whereupon the relationships established when he was a servant no doubt cooled. Once the Hoghtons became Protestants in the late 1580s, however, this would have ceased to be an issue, and perhaps that is where the traditions noted above have their origins (Lost Years 129–31). To recap: Shakespeare’s family may have been Catholic. Shakespeare, according to Aubrey, was a schoolmaster in the country as a youth. John Cottom, Stratford schoolmaster in the late 1570s and early 1580s, was a Catholic who may have lived near, and been connected to, the Catholic Hoghton family. Hearing Alexander Hoghton wanted a schoolmaster or assistant schoolmaster, and aware of the Shakespeares’ difficult financial and/or religious situation, as well as their eldest son’s abilities, Cottom recommended William Shakespeare to Alexander Hoghton. Once in Lancashire, Shakespeare distinguished himself via his dramatic talents, leading Alexander Hoghton to recommend him to Thomas Hesketh, who kept players. From Hesketh’s service, Shakespeare became attached to the Stanley family; while in Strange’s Men, a playing company patronized by the Stanleys, Shakespeare started his family. When Strange’s emerged as an important London company in the late 1580s, Shakespeare was with them, thereby ending up in London. However, his connections to former patrons persisted in the persons of Thomas Savage and John Weever.


165

The argument for Shakespeare’s connection to the Hoghton household continues to essentially stand on Honigmann’s groundwork. Other scholars, such as Stephen Greenblatt and Richard Wilson, have taken up the argument and tried to add a few more details, but ultimately both rely on Honigmann’s arguments. Greenblatt, for instance, notes several other biographical details which might signal the Catholicism of Shakespeare’s parents, but these details do not substantially strengthen or modify Honigmann’s basic argument (88–116). Similarly, Richard Wilson, in Secret Shakespeare, tries to argue certain stylistic techniques and themes employed in Shakespeare’s plays parallel certain spiritual strategies Edmund Campion advocated for English recusants, namely a “secretive self.” From this literary insight, Wilson embarks on a detailed project of trying to connect Shakespeare and Alexander Hoghton to Campion’s last mission, arguing Shakespeare in fact went to Hoghton Tower in Campion’s tow, where he had access to Campion’s library, which allegedly was later reflected in his plays (17–19, 30–34, 48–65). The details of Wilson’s argument are unimportant, because, like Greenblatt, he does not in fact add any substantial evidence to Honigmann’s basic argument. Instead, Wilson merely provides a sensationalized motive and means for why and how, if Shakespeare was a Catholic who did enter Hoghton’s service, he could have gone to Lancashire. However, as Glynn Parry observes, Wilson does nothing to prove Shakespeare was Catholic and did live in Lancashire, nor does he succeed in proving a CampionAlexander Hoghton connection, for that matter (2–5). The additional details registered by Greenblatt and Wilson aside, the string of connections Honigmann presents is assuredly fascinating and should not be dismissed out of hand. Honigmann overstates his case, however, when he asserts John Cottom’s connections to Shakespeare and Hoghton move the ShakespeareHoghton connection from the realm of possibility into the territory of “probability” (Lost Years 127). Honigmann’s case is built entirely on circumstantial evidence, which makes it a no more than plausible argument at the very best. Moreover, a number of problems persist with Honigmann’s argument which mitigate against its plausibility. First, Honigmann perhaps does not adequately address some of Hamer’s 1970 objections. Recently, Robert Bearman has succeeded to some degree in rehabilitating Hamer’s case against the Shakespeare-Shakeshafte identification. In particular, Bearman focuses on the common occurrence of the surname Shakeshafte in Lancashire and revisits the question of Shakeshafte’s age based on the annuity he received from Hoghton’s will. Regarding the name Shakeshafte, Bearman notes surviving Lancashire records contain 120 Shakeshafte baptisms, marriages, and burials between 1530 and 1630. As many Lancashire records from this period no longer exist, it is likely there were even more Lancashire Shakeshaftes than documentary evidence indicates. The main concentration of Shakeshaftes between 1530 and 1630, Bearman observes, was in and around Preston, five miles from Hoghton Tower. In other words, the occurrence “of Shakeshafte families in the Preston area thus coincides neatly with the epicenter of the Hoghton family’s sphere of influence” (“Revisited” 89). Accordingly, it is not surprising someone with the surname Shakeshafte would show up in Hoghton’s

166


will; had this Shakeshafte “been christened Thomas, it is difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with the proposition that he must have been a local man, drawn into the Hoghton household in a perfectly natural way” (89). But the Shakeshafte in question was christened William. In addressing this fact, Bearman relates there were three or four Preston Shakeshaftes named William; this being the case, Bearman asserts that to maintain William Shakeshafte “was actually William Shakespeare under an assumed name must now seem an even more suspect line of argument than Hamer had earlier maintained” (89). Instead, it is much more likely that one of these local William Shakeshaftes, or another unrecorded William Shakeshafte, was the annuitant named in Hoghton’s will (85–9). Concerning the size of Shakeshafte’s annuity, Bearman offers a strong rebuttal to Honigmann’s argument that age had nothing to do with the size of annuities in the will. Honigmann argues this is the case because one of the annuitants, Thomas Costen, was clearly younger than two others named in the will who received no annuity. After observing the implausibility of the young William Shakespeare receiving an annuity larger than almost all the rest of Hoghton’s servants, Bearman points out a liability in Honigmann’s analysis of annuitant ages. Of the 30 servants named in the will, only 11 were annuitants. Costen and Shakeshafte were annuitants; Bond and Barton, while older than Costen, were not. Accordingly, “whatever the reason Barton and Bond were included in the will, it was not as annuitants, and their ages, relative to Thomas Costen’s, are therefore irrelevant to any discussion of the validity” of the proposition Shakeshafte’s annuity was too high for him to be William Shakespeare (“Revisited” 92). Because the ages of any of the annuitants besides Costen are not available, Bearman concedes it is neither possible to prove Hamer’s objection nor possible to dismiss it, as Honigmann has. As matters stand now, however, we have to decide whether it places less strain on the evidence to opt for Hamer’s very reasonable suggestion that the annuities were prorated to take account of age ... or to opt for the proposition that Shakeshafte was actually the seventeen-year-old William Shakespeare who, within a matter of months of joining Hoghton’s household, had somehow secured for himself more favorable treatment than servants with longer periods of service. (92–3)

Honigmann has subsequently conceded that Bearman and Hamer are right that the ages of those individuals named in Hoghton’s will who did not receive annuities are of no use for determining whether or not there is any correspondence between the age of the annuitant and the size of the annuity. Honigmann maintains, however, that there still is no proof the size of the annuity is connected to the age of the annuitant (“Shakespeare/Shakeshafte” 83–4). Still, Honigmann acknowledges, it is difficult to explain why a seventeen-year-old Shakespeare, if he was Shakeshafte, who had only served Alexander Hoghton for a few months by the time the will was written in 1581, would have been given such a large annuity. Honigmann attempts to resolve this difficulty by citing Shakespeare’s personality, namely his “remarkable talent for inspiring friendship and affection” (84). Rowe, for instance, describes Shakespeare’s


167

“great sweetness” and says he was connected to the Earls of Southampton, Pembroke, and Montgomery; Heminges and Condell describe Shakespeare as “so worthy a Friend;” Ben Jonson declared he “loved the man;” and “the Young Man of the Sonnets reciprocated the poet’s love” (84). Alexander Hoghton, Honigmann says, was strong-willed and somewhat eccentric; would it then be a surprise, Honigmann asks, if “Hoghton was favorably impressed by young Shakespeare and chose to treat him generously?” (85). Such a rejoinder does not appreciably add to Honigmann’s argument; instead, it demonstrates he, like so many others, has bought into sentiment concerning Shakespeare’s personality and charisma, a sentiment for which there is no proof, only anecdotes. Bearman’s rehabilitation of two of Hamer’s key objections certainly weaken the case for the Shakespeare/Shakeshafte identification; Honigmann’s argument begins to strain plausibility. While Bearman does not disprove Honigmann’s circumstantial argument, recent research by Glyn Parry has uncovered a plausible, even probable, link between the William Shakeshafte of Hoghton’s will and a Preston William Shakeshafte. In 1606, William Shakeshafte of Preston, along with his wife Elizabeth, initiated a lawsuit against Thomas Wall, Richard Tomlinson, and William Arthwryght, all powerful Preston figures. During the course of the suit, Elizabeth Shakeshafte often acted on her husband’s behalf, which may indicate she was the actual force behind the suit, but may also suggest William was too old, infirm, or ill to act on his own behalf, which, Parry notes, would accord well with a man who was middle-aged in 1581. More importantly, on 6 August 1607 Elizabeth named two of four members to the commission to examine witnesses concerning the lawsuit. The first Shakeshafte nominee was Cuthbert Hesketh, a distant relative to the Rufford Heskeths and the younger brother of Alexander Hoghton’s widow. Given the lack of any other known connection between William Shakeshafte and Cuthbert Hesketh, it seems, Parry observes, the Shakeshaftes, suing powerful individuals, had turned to the locally influential brother-in-law of a powerful man William had once served. Moreover, by appealing to the Catholic Cuthbert Hesketh, the Shakeshaftes openly connected themselves to his recusancy and implicitly connected themselves to Alexander Hoghton’s recusancy. The best explanation of the circumstances of this lawsuit, then, is that the 1606 William Shakeshafte was the 1581 William Shakeshafte of Hoghton’s will, and that he and his wife chose Cuthbert Hesketh to examine witnesses in hopes that family and religious loyalties would favorably dispose him to the Shakeshafte cause. Although absolute proof of this identification has not, at present, been found, it is decidedly more plausible that the 1606 William Shakeshafte was the man named in Hoghton’s will than is the idea Hoghton was referring to William Shakespeare (7–10). Besides the Hamer, Bearman, and Parry objections, three problematic assumptions underlie Honigmann’s argument, each of which further questions the plausibility of Honigmann’s case. The first assumption is that John Aubrey’s report that Shakespeare was a schoolmaster is reliable. Honigmann argues for Aubrey’s reliability as Aubrey cites Mr. Beeston on this matter; Beeston was the son of Christopher Beeston, one

168


of Shakespeare’s fellows in the Chamberlain’s/King’s Men. But Aubrey is also known to have reported incidents that are demonstrably false. His schoolmaster report may not be one of these instances, but it is notable that Aubrey also reports Shakespeare went to London, not Lancashire, at age eighteen. These two reports are not entirely complementary, and Honigmann ignores Aubrey’s London report, which does not fit the chronology Honigmann advances. Granted, few alternatives seem as plausible as Aubrey’s suggestion Shakespeare was a schoolmaster, but, again, there is no independent evidence of Shakespeare’s pre-1592 trade, save for various anecdotes, most of which claim Shakespeare worked for his father for a time. Aubrey mentions this possibility too. Whatever the truth of the matter, it is safest to follow Schoenbaum, who notes Aubrey’s schoolmaster report “cannot be proved, nor should it be casually dismissed” (Compact 111). While some err on the side of casual dismissal, Honigmann errs on the side of accepting anecdote as fact. Then again, Honigmann’s argument could be amended so that Shakespeare needn’t necessarily have been a schoolmaster, and in any case if the rest of his argument is correct, it could be taken as validation of Aubrey’s anecdote. Honigmann’s second key assumption is the “early start” chronology, wherein Shakespeare began writing plays in the mid 1580s, if not even earlier. While there may be some truth to the assertion that Shakespeare was writing by no later than 1589, Honigmann’s use of early plays as evidence for a Stanley connection does not stand on uncontested ground (see Chapter 6). Despite Honigmann’s best efforts to promote his “early start” chronology, the vast majority of scholars adhere to a more orthodox chronology, perhaps not as conservative as that offered by E.K. Chambers in William Shakespeare (i.270–71), but hardly as optimistic as Honigmann’s insistence Shakespeare was definitely writing plays by 1586. Sidney Thomas’s “On the Dating of Shakespeare’s Early Plays” presents just a few of the major objections to the “early start” chronology. The particulars of Thomas’s objections are unimportant here; it is sufficient to note that few other scholars have fully embraced Honigmann’s “early start” chronology. If Shakespeare began writing his plays even a few years after Honigmann believes, there would be no need for Shakespeare to have commenced his theatrical career in 1581; at any rate, there are other plausible explanations for how Shakespeare could have begun his theatrical career which do not strain plausibility to the same degree Honigmann’s arguments do. Honigmann’s third major assumption is that the Shakespeares were Catholic. The evidence he presents for this position is well known, since Shakespeare’s religion has been a frequent topic of scholarly and amateur debate. The fact of the matter is that the case is frustratingly unclear in terms of Shakespeare’s religion: both Catholic and Protestant sides of that coin have been argued with equal effectiveness, as Honigmann seems to admit in commenting that the evidence of Shakespeare’s religion “lends itself to diametrically opposed interpretations” (Lost Years 115). The evidence Honigmann cites for the Shakespeares’ Catholicism is, moreover, questionable. First, Bearman has recently addressed the claim that John Shakespeare’s withdrawal from public life was tied to recusancy. In “John Shakespeare: A Papist or Just Penniless?”


169

Bearman argues that the known details of John Shakespeare’s business career in the 1570s and 1580s strongly suggest he overextended himself financially; only his citation for not attending church suggests a religious dimension to his misfortunes. Bearman also observes that Shakespeare’s own life is more reflective of a man who suffered financial trauma in his early life than it is of a man raised by recusants: “Whereas there is nothing in William Shakespeare’s later years to indicate that religious dogma was of much concern to him, there is much to suggest that he set great store by reestablishing his family’s social position in Stratford” (432). Second, Susanna Shakespeare was only accused of recusancy, was quickly cleared of the charge, and married a devout Protestant the next year, suggesting the accusation was mistaken, or motivated by something other than piety. Third, serious questions have been raised concerning the authenticity of John Shakespeare’s “Spiritual Testament.” First, it was brought to light by John Jordan, a sometime forger in Stratford and a man eager to supply information about Shakespeare to Edmond Malone. Some, among them Robert Bearman, have therefore wondered if Jordan forged the “Spiritual Testament.” This is unlikely on the whole, but inconsistencies riddle Jordan’s account of when and how the document was found, suggesting duplicity on his part. Specifically, Jordan claimed the “Spiritual Testament” was found in the rafters when Shakespeare’s Birthplace was being repaired, and that the owner of the house hadn’t seen it. But the Birthplace owner told Malone he had seen the “Spiritual Testament.” Initially, Malone accepted the “Spiritual Testament,” but later rejecting it, citing a document he promised to produce later; his death prevented him from further elaborating his doubts about the “Testament’s” authenticity. Moreover, John Shakespeare, father of William, was not the only John Shakespeare in Stratford in Shakespeare’s day. Thus, perhaps the “Testament” was signed by this other John Shakespeare; perhaps Jordan found the document and, wishing to give it more authenticity, reported it had been found in the Birthplace. His inconsistency in terms of the story of the document’s discovery would seem to at least open this possibility (Bearman, “‘Spiritual Testament’” 184– 201). Also, it is important to note that even if John Shakespeare was a Catholic, it does not follow that William was raised Catholic, because the “Testament” does not prove John remained a Catholic all his life. Because Honigmann’s argument depends so heavily on the unprovable conjecture that the Shakespeares were Catholics in the late 1570s, the entire argument must be treated with a degree of skepticism; accordingly, it is a unsafe to declare, with Honigmann, that his scenario concerning Shakespeare’s “Lancashire Connection” is “probable,” let alone plausible. Two other problems complicate the argument for Shakespeare’s “Lancashire Connection.” These are not so much assumptions so much as two points which Honigmann does not address in enough detail to quell significant doubt. First, the recurring names in Honigmann’s argument cannot always be proven to refer to the same person. For instance, while the John Cottom of Stratford and the John Cottom of Tanacre can apparently be linked by handwriting samples, neither can be absolutely linked to the John Cotham in Hoghton’s will. It is a good guess that all are the same,

170


but not a certainty. Similarly, while Fulk Gillom may not be an ordinary name, there is no absolute proof that Hoghton’s Gillom and Hesketh’s Gillom are one and the same. On a similar note, the interpersonal connections Honigmann cites in support of the “Lancashire connection,” while interesting, could simply be cases of the “six degree of separation” phenomenon; such connections do not prove Shakespeare was at all intimate with these individuals connected to him and Lancashire and may, ultimately, be coincidences. Second, Honigmann does not adequately address the problem of Shakespeare’s growing family between 1582 and 1585. Honigmann’s conjecture that Shakespeare was sent to Lancashire owing to his parents’ disapproval of Anne is a romantic notion, but it is sheer speculation. In any case, if Shakespeare was in Lancashire in late 1581, how did he get back to Stratford to meet, woo, and impregnate Anne Hathaway before November 1582, all the while living over 100 miles from Stratford? This is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it is not a good possibility. Honigmann’s response is that Shakespeare was back home in 1582 and remained there until 1585; this, says Honigmann, may be when he worked for his father, and could be when he became a Protestant. Sometime around 1585, then, he entered the Stanleys’ service. But this is not passing from Hesketh or Hoghton’s service to Stanley’s, and it requires the unlikely proposition that Hesketh in 1585 recommended a youth who had served him for only a few months three years before to the power Stanleys. Some arguments for Shakespeare’s early playing company membership rely on convenient timing for their plausibility (see Chapters 5 and 10); this argument, by contrast, suffers from the problem of bad timing. Ultimately, Honigmann’s argument rests on three contentious assumptions, has complicated timing issues, and relies on the dubious claim the William Shakeshafte of the Hoghton will is not one of the many local Lancashire Shakeshaftes, one of whom can be connected to the Hoghton family, but instead William Shakespeare of Stratford. As such, it is difficult to deem this argument plausible. The argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, but far too many holes remain for anything about it to be “probable.” While scholars like Richard Wilson and Stephen Greenblatt may agree with Honigmann’s arguments, it seems, on the whole, that this circumstantial argument is the most recent example of a hypothesis regarding Shakespeare’s early life whose popularity is out of sync with its plausibility or probability. It would be a mistake, however, to end the consideration of Honigmann’s arguments on these negative points. True, the evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in Lancashire amounts only to an argument from accumulated circumstantial details and cannot, therefore, rise to a more substantial level of persuasiveness. Even so, the argument raises interesting questions and possibilities that reach well beyond the question of Shakespeare’s affiliation with Hoghton’s and/or Hesketh’s Men. The essays in Region, Religion and Patronage: Lancastrian Shakespeare are a case in point. The contributors to this volume take the possibility that Shakespeare might have once lived and worked in Lancashire and, rather than arguing, like Honigmann, for the objective truth of this possibility, use the possibility as the basis for an


171

investigation into regional theatrical practices, regional household culture, and recusant culture, among other topics. For instance, Richard Dutton’s “Shakespeare and Lancaster” article notes that Shakespeare’s plays, especially his early histories, have a great deal to say about Lancashire. In the hands of Honigmann, this would certainly become evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in the Hoghton household. Dutton, however, takes a more measured approach. He points out that while references to Lancashire in Shakespeare’s plays may or may not have anything to do with the author’s own biography, they have much to say about general late sixteenthcentury English attitudes towards Lancashire, its culture, its religious traditions, and its people. Elsewhere, Dutton judiciously notes that while Shakespeare may have been a Catholic and may have lived in Lancashire, these assertions “remain a tottering edifice of speculations” (William Shakespeare 7). Along with Dutton’s essay, the other contributors to this volume provide excellent insights into the sorts of contexts Shakespeare would have worked in as a young man, whether or not his apprentice years were spent in Lancashire. In the end, then, this entire argument for Shakespeare’s early playing company affiliations opens up onto a wealth of rich topics which merit the attention of the theatre, religious, and cultural historian. As in previous chapters, the man Shakespeare may be lost in this line of inquiry, but great insight into Shakespeare’s social, geographical, cultural, professional, and religious contexts may be gained.


Chapter 10

Leicester’s Men and Lesser Claimants

The Queen’s Men, Strange’s Men, Pembroke’s Men, and Sussex’s Men arguably constitute the four most prominent candidates for Shakespeare’s early company membership, while the Lancashire argument, with or without Hoghton’s and Hesketh’s Men, represents one of the currently popular theories about Shakespeare’s pre-1594 whereabouts. Over the course of the last two centuries, however, a halfdozen other companies have been proposed as Shakespeare’s first (or at least early) company. Of these troupes, Leicester’s Men has historically attracted the most attention from scholars, who have pointed to several different areas of evidence in support of Shakespeare’s membership in that company. Various arguments for other companies, most of which have found few advocates and thus remained on the fringes of Shakespeare scholarship, utilize similar kinds of evidence or logic—and exhibit the same sorts of weaknesses—found in arguments for Leicester’s Men. This final chapter, then, will first examine the argument for Shakespeare’s presence in Leicester’s Men, followed by brief considerations of arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Essex’s, Worcester’s, Warwick’s, Oxford’s, and the Admiral’s Men. Leicester’s Men and Shakespeare From its first recorded notice in early 1559 (MacLean, “Leicester’s” 250) until the death of its patron, Robert Dudley, in September 1588, Leicester’s Men was one of the most prominent English playing companies. Leicester’s was a significant court presence during the 1560–61, 1561–62, and 1562–63 seasons (Chambers, Stage iv.142; Astington, English 223); after a decade-long hiatus, the company made a total of seventeen appearances between the 1572–73 and 1582–83 court seasons, as well as a final command performance on 27 December 1586 (Astington, English 226–34; Chambers, Stage iv.146–61). Leicester’s Men was also prominent in the provinces: the company appears more frequently in provincial records than any other company between 1562 and 1572 (Gurr, Companies 185). Numerous provincial performances by Leicester’s continue to be recorded through 1582–83 and then again from 1584– 85 until September 1588. Limited information is available on the individual members of Leicester’s troupe. A 3 January 1572 letter from the company to Leicester was signed by James Burbage, John Perkinne, John Laneham, William Johnson, Robert Wilson, and Thomas Clark, making it likely they were sharers in the company at that time (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 205–6). The presence of Burbage in the company raises the possibility,

174


addressed in chapter 4, that Leicester’s Men also was involved in playing at London playhouses. John Brayne, Burbage’s brother-in-law, built the Red Lion in 1567; since Burbage was a leading Leicester’s player in 1572 (and thus quite plausibly before this date as well),1 forces one to entertain the possibility, however uncertain, that Leicester’s Men played there (Ingram, Business 101, 105, 111–12; Gurr, Companies 186). As it happens, there is a gap in provincial notices for Leicester Men between a 1566–67 Canterbury performance and a 7 April 1569 New Romney appearance (Gurr, Companies 194). Perhaps mere coincidence, this gap may also point to Leicester’s occupancy of the Red Lion between 1567 and 1569. Burbage and Brayne, of course, would build the Theatre in 1576, two years after Leicester’s was granted a royal patent allowing it to play in London (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 206). Again, Burbage’s appearance on Leicester’s Men’s 1574 patent makes it tempting to speculate that the Theatre was built to house Leicester’s Men, but the only evidence, such as it is, positively connecting Leicester’s to the Theatre is Gabriel Harvey’s imprecise comment that “Leicester’s, Warwick’s, Vaux’s or Rich’s men” might ask him “for some malt-conceived comedy fit for the Theatre or some other painted stage” (Wickham, Berry, and Ingram 341; Gurr, Companies 189). It also must be noted that Burbage left Leicester’s Men sometime between 1574 (when he is named on the patent) and 1584 (when he describes himself as a servant to Henry Carey). Accordingly, Burbage could have left Leicester’s by the time he built the Theatre with Brayne (Gurr, Companies 189–90; MacLean, “Leicester’s” 261); then again, it is also possible he only did so in 1583, when the formation of the Queen’s Men seemingly halted Leicester’s Men’s activities for a time. Between a 10 February 1583 court performance and records of 1584–85 provincial performances, nothing is heard of Leicester’s Men. Three members of the troupe—Laneham, Wilson, and Johnson—had become Queen’s Men in 1583; Burbage was occupied with managing the Theatre; and Perkinne is not traceable in theatrical records after 1574. With most, perhaps all, of its key 1574 players gone, Leicester’s likely took a year to reorganize. The post-1584 incarnation of Leicester’s included noted comic actor Will Kempe, named in a 1585 payment from the Earl to the players (MacLean, “Politics of Patronage” 180). Later that year, Leicester took a company of fifteen players on his military expedition against the Spanish in the Low Countries. Three of these fifteen players are named in various documents: Kempe; Robert Wilson, a former Leicester’s actor but a Queen’s player since 1583; and Robert Browne, a Worcester’s actor in 1584 and Admiral’s member in the late 1580s and early 1590s. As only one of these three was currently in Leicester’s company, and since Leicester’s Men continued to play in England while the Earl was in the Low Countries—Exeter on 24 March 1586, for example (REED, Devon 163)—the

1 Ingram notes that St. Stephen’s parish registers stop referring to Burbage as a “joiner” after 1560, perhaps suggesting that Burbage was an actor by this time. However, Ingram also notes that Burbage identified himself as a joiner in 1576, so the parish records cannot be considered definite evidence for when Burbage became a player (Business 99–100).


175

company in the Low Countries seemingly was not Leicester’s Men per se. It is quite possible some of the Earl’s players may have accompanied him, but it is unsafe to assume all players named in association with the expedition were regularly affiliated with Leicester’s Men. Accordingly, George Bryan, Thomas Pope, Thomas Stephens, Thomas King, and Robert Percy, who Leicester sent to Denmark and Saxony in 1586 (Kempe would later join them), may or may not have been Leicester’s players. Bryan and Pope subsequently acted with Kempe throughout the 1590s, a fact some scholars have taken to mean all three were once members of Leicester’s. This conjecture, however, is by no means certain, because Bryan, Pope, Stephens, King, and Percy remained in Saxony until July 1587, while from 27 December 1586 on Leicester’s Men is traceable in England (Gurr, Companies 191; MacLean, “Leicester’s” 264–6; Chambers, Stage ii.271–3). On 4 September 1588, while his troupe was on an extensive provincial tour, Robert Dudley passed away. The last recorded performance by Leicester’s Men was at Ipswich on 14 September 1588 (“Players at Ipswich” 275); what happened to company members immediately thereafter is not clear. Kempe was probably a member of Strange’s Men by 1592, and this was definitely the case by May 1593, when he, with Pope and Bryan, was listed on a Privy Council license for Strange’s (Gurr, Companies 264). Because these three players became Strange’s, and since Strange’s appearance roughly corresponds to Leicester’s demise, some scholars have assumed Leicester’s Men became Strange’s en masse. No further evidence, however, supports such a conjecture, which rests on the questionable assumption Pope and Bryan were definitely Leicester’s players. This conjecture also depends on the assumption of company continuity; as noted elsewhere, the disappearance of one company and the emergence of another need not be causally related. Still, Kempe certainly moved from Leicester’s to Strange’s in the late 1580s or early 1590s, making it possible other Leicester’s players went with him. More than one person has suggested William Shakespeare was one of these “others.” The evidence for Shakespeare’s affiliation with Leicester’s company is rather slim, in part because, unlike the Queen’s, Strange’s, Pembroke’s, or Sussex’s, little information about Leicester’s repertory survives. Names of nine lost plays are preserved in records of the company’s court and provincial performances; the only surviving play that might have been in Leicester’s repertory is Robert Wilson’s Three Ladies of London, and this attribution is not certain (Gurr, Companies 102; MacLean, “Leicester’s” 270). This lack of repertorial evidence, however, has not prevented Leicester’s from being a popular candidate for one of Shakespeare’s pre1594 acting companies. The types of arguments used to argue for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s Men are on many counts similar to other lines of thinking we have encountered and parallel a number of other, weaker arguments for Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s company, which shall be taken up shortly. Specifically, there are five aspects to the arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in Leicester’s troupe: 1) convenient timing of Leicester’s Men’s visits to Stratford; 2) the proximity of the Earl’s manor to Stratford; 3) a letter which makes reference to


176

a player named “Will” in Leicester’s service; 4) evidence of Shakespeare’s military knowledge in his plays; and 5) personnel connections between Leicester’s Men and the later Chamberlain’s Men. Edmond Malone was the first scholar to suggest Shakespeare might have joined Leicester’s Men when it visited Stratford in 1587. As noted in Chapter 5, Malone had made the same suggestion about the Queen’s Men. However, Malone observed that in addition to the 1587 visit, Leicester’s had also visited Stratford in 1572–73, 1576–77 and 1586 (although this last visit was actually by an unnamed company).2 Given Leicester’s company’s frequent performances in Stratford during Shakespeare’s youth and adolescence, Malone speculated Shakespeare might have been acquainted with some of Leicester’s leading players over time, perhaps joining them in 1587 (“Life” ii.166). As with the Queen’s, however, Leicester’s is only one of several companies that visited Stratford in a year which, at any rate, is arbitrarily singled out as the beginning of Shakespeare’s theatrical career. Malone, though, adds a further observation which bears consideration: Leicester himself lived near Stratford, and visited the town on occasion (“Life” ii.166). Or, as Sidney Lee says, Leicester was a Warwickshire magnate (54). Leicester’s brother was the Earl of Warwick, who John Shakespeare, in his capacity as a town alderman, would probably have had some contact with. According to Malone’s scenario, Shakespeare might have known Leicester’s players, due to their frequent visits, and their patron, given his geographical proximity and the Shakespeare family’s once-notable status. This set of conjectures avoids the problem of a leading acting company recruiting a provincial unknown on the road. Then again, in 1587 William Shakespeare was merely the son of a local alderman (one who had not been executing his duties, at that), while Leicester was an important national figure. That Leicester personally recruited Shakespeare for his acting company strains credibility unless, of course, the Earl recognized Shakespeare for the genius he would become. The idea Shakespeare successfully sought Leicester out is only slightly less implausible; in 1587, the Earl probably had things other than actor recruitment on his mind, such as the faltering Low Countries expedition. Perhaps recognizing these difficulties, Katherine Duncan-Jones proposes several intermediate steps that might more plausibly have brought Shakespeare to Robert Dudley’s attention. Specifically, she suggests Shakespeare may have been recruited into Leicester’s Men after first playing in a company patronized by Sir Fulke Greville of Beauchamps Court. Greville, Duncan-Jones notes, was a regular visitor to Stratford, living only several miles from the town, and he is known to have kept “a brave company of gentlemen” (35). Duncan-Jones speculates the Stratford grammar school, like other English schools at the time, might have mounted its own theatrical productions on holidays; she also observes that records exist of Whitsuntide performances of some sort at Stratford during the late 1500s. Duncan-Jones suggests 2

Edgar Fripp suggests this unnamed company was Sussex’s, not Leicester’s, Men (Minutes and Accounts iv.16).


177

that Shakespeare was involved in performances of this sort, that Sir Fulke Greville saw such performances, and thus recruited Shakespeare into his service “probably as a player” and perhaps in other capacities too (36). Greville was well-connected to the Dudleys and so, Duncan-Jones says, his company might have been a recruitment source for Leicester’s Men. Thus, if Shakespeare was in Fulke Greville’s company, he perhaps was recruited into Leicester’s Men from there. Leicester’s company would have needed new players following its 1583 “decapitation” with the formation of the Queen’s Men, so Shakespeare might have joined it in about 1584. From thence, according to Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare was in turn recruited into the Queen’s Men, perhaps due to the void left by William Knell’s death (29–31, 35–6). Unfortunately for this argument, there is no evidence that establishes Greville ever kept a company of players,3 no definite example—except for the formation of the Queen’s Men—of one acting company actively recruiting its members from another, and no evidence that Shakespeare was, in fact, ever in Greville’s service. The fact Shakespeare and Greville lived near each other is simply not substantial enough for Duncan-Jones’s hypothesis to strengthen the arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s troupe.4 Sir Fulke Greville of Beauchamps Court’s son, also named Fulke Greville, was a close friend of Sir Philip Sidney. As it happens, a letter Sidney wrote to Walsingham, his father-in-law, on 24 March 1586 has been offered as evidence of Shakespeare’s attachment to Leicester’s Men. At the time he wrote the letter, Sidney was in Utrecht as part of the Low Countries expedition. At one point in the letter, Sidney expresses frustration with a messenger he had recently utilized: I wrote to yow a letter by Will, my lord of Lester’s jesting plaier, enclosed in a letter to my wyfe, and I never had answer thereof. Hit contained something to my lord of Lester and council, that som way might be taken to stay my lady there. I since dyvers tymes have writt to know whether you had receaved them, but yow never answered me that point. I since find that the knave deliverd the letters to my ladi of Lester, but whether she sent them you or no I know not, but earnestly desyre I do, because I dout there is more interpreted thereof.5 3

Greville’s bearward appeared in Coventry in 1574, 1576, 1577, 1596 and 1601 (REED, Coventry 265–358) and in Shrewsbury in 1591–92 (REED, Shropshire 276). 4 In Pseudonymous Shakespeare, Penny McCarthy similarly suggests Shakespeare might have been brought to Greville’s attention and through Greville passed into Leicester’s service as a page-boy. McCarthy believes Shakespeare was employed in Leicester’s household by 1575 and received the bulk of his education there. The bases of this argument are rather suspect and not important for this study, as McCarthy does not raise the possibility that Shakespeare acted or wrote for Leicester’s playing company. 5 This transcription is my own. The letter itself is located in The Harleian Manuscripts, volume 287, folio 1. The letter is the first document on the microfilm edition of this volume (The Harleian Manuscripts, reel 29). Sidney’s handwriting is quite legible. My transcription is in almost complete agreement with that used by John Bruce (89–90); the only differences between our transcriptions are the occasional letter (u versus w, i versus e, etc.).

178


This letter had been occasioned by Leicester’s opulent behavior in the Low Countries, where he had accepted the title of Governor-General in January 1586 (in direct violation of the Queen’s orders to take only titles including the word “Deputy”) and held frequent banquets. When Lady Leicester heard of these activities, she threatened to bring her entourage to the Low Countries, a move which would have displeased Elizabeth (Duncan-Jones 33; Haynes 165–6). Accordingly, Sidney’s letter urged Leicester and his council to stop Lady Leicester’s plans. The messenger, however, delivered the letter to Lady Leicester, no doubt creating an embarrassing situation for everyone concerned. Contextual matters aside, the reference to “Will, my lord of Lester’s jesting plaier,” Schoenbaum observes, “is calculated to make a bardolater’s heart skip a beat” (Compact 116), and indeed has on more than one occasion. In 1844, John Bruce became one of the first scholars to call attention to the letter and listed four possible “Wills” Sidney may have been referring to: William Johnson, a Queen’s player and former Leicester’s player; William Sly, an early Chamberlain’s Men; William Shakespeare; and William Kempe. Bruce ruled out Shakespeare on the grounds the labels “knave” and “jesting player” did not fit Shakespeare’s personality or typical acting roles (90–91), but this dismissal was quickly disputed by W.J. Thoms. Thoms argues that “knave” may not have been a term of contempt (and that Shakespeare may have been knavish in his early days, as suggested by the deer-stealing legend), and that “jesting” may refer to Shakespeare’s wit, rather than the roles he played (119–20). Having correctly identified the weaknesses in Bruce’s reasoning, Thoms attempts to strengthen the identification of Shakespeare with “Will” by trying to demonstrate Shakespeare was part of the Low Countries expedition. Thoms observes that (1) a number of soldiers in the expedition came from Warwickshire, several of whom may have been neighbors or relatives of Shakespeare; (2) Shakespeare’s plays exhibit knowledge of the military, horsemanship, and seamanship that could have been acquired while on Leicester’s expedition; and (3) a 1605 document lists a “William Shakespeare” as a trained soldier at Rowington (122–36).6 While Thoms marshals a wide range of evidence for his argument, all three of these observations are questionable. First, the names of the soldiers in the expeditionary force only demonstrate that people who shared names with people who may have been acquaintances or relatives of Shakespeare went to the Low Countries, not that Shakespeare, whose name is in any case absent from the muster rolls, did. Second, while Shakespeare’s plays certainly contain military allusions, it is debatable that he would have had to have been a soldier, let alone been on Leicester’s expedition, to gain such knowledge. Thoms, by his own admission, was never a soldier, but detected the allusions himself (123–4). Why, then, would Shakespeare have needed to be a soldier to make the allusions? Although many biographers have followed such lines 6 Thoms also cites a 1589 document naming Shakespeare as a Leicester’s sharer in support of his argument (121–2); this document, however, was one of J.P. Collier’s forgeries. Apparently Collier did not realize Leicester’s Men had ceased to exist in 1588 (Schoenbaum, Lives 149).


179

of thinking, vocabulary choices are not adequate evidence on which to base claims about Shakespeare’s early occupations. Finally, few, if any, subsequent scholars have agreed that the 1605 William Shakespeare at Rowington was the William Shakespeare. Schoenbaum, for one, states with absolute certainty that the 1605 William Shakespeare “was of course not the poet but his namesake” (Lives 331). Other attempts since Thoms to link “Will” and Shakespeare also exhibit major liabilities. Duff Cooper’s Sergeant Shakespeare (1949) depends entirely on military allusions in Shakespeare’s plays to “prove” Shakespeare was on Leicester’s expedition, eventually attaining the rank of sergeant (Schoenbaum, Lives 533). Like Thoms, Cooper ultimately offers only one secure conclusion: Shakespeare knew something about the military. More recently, Katherine Duncan-Jones has made a more concerted effort to link Shakespeare to “Will.” Like Thoms, Duncan-Jones offers reasons for why Sidney might have referred to Shakespeare as a “knave” and “jesting player”: besides the fact Shakespeare was known for his wit (hence “jesting”), he had delivered a politically sensitive letter to the wrong person (33). Duncan-Jones also argues two factors mitigate against the (usual) identification of “Will” with Will Kempe. First, she doubts a leading player would have served as a messenger. Second, throughout her discussion of Sidney’s letter, Duncan-Jones uses a transcription which names the player as “William,” not “Will,” and she observes that Kempe was not usually referred to as “William” in contemporary documents (32). Besides the fact the documents which establish Kempe’s presence in the Low countries and Denmark in 1585–86 refer to him as “Don Guilhelmo” and “Wilhelm,” respectively (Chambers, Stage ii.90),7 Duncan-Jones errs in asserting that other scholars have been incorrect in rendering the name of the player in question as “Will” (291). Duncan-Jones’s quotation of the letter is apparently taken from Albert Feuillart’s transcription, published in Sidney’s Complete Works (1923), which also transcribes the player as “William.” The 1962 reissue of this volume notes, however, that “Feuillart did not work from the best copy-texts, and that many of his readings are corrupt” (iii.v). Recourse to the original manuscript of Sidney’s letter demonstrates the name in question is, beyond any doubt, “Will,” not “William.”8 Moreover, Duncan-Jones uncovers no real evidence that “Will” was Shakespeare and, for all her efforts, concedes “Will” possibly “was, after all, William[!] Kempe” (34). Beyond Sidney’s letter, other arguments for Shakespeare’s presence in Leicester’s Men are based on the company’s personnel. For example, in A Life of William Shakespeare (1917 edition), Sidney Lee asserts Shakespeare was one of Leicester’s Men because “Most of his [Shakespeare’s] colleagues of latter life opened their histrionic careers in Lord Leicester’s professional service” (54). This is an overstatement, as only two of Shakespeare’s later associates can be definitively linked to Leicester’s Men. Will Kempe was a Leicester’s player in 1585 and later was in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men with Shakespeare; likewise, James Burbage 7

Kempe is also listed as “William” on the list of actors including in the First Folio. Again, the letter is located in The Harleian Manuscripts, volume 287, folio 1 and is the first document on the microfilm edition of this volume (The Harleian Manuscripts, reel 29). 8


180

was a Leicester’s player in the early-to-mid 1570s and later managed the Theatre, the initial home of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men.9 Burbage, however, had left Leicester’s Men by no later than 1584, so his involvement with Leicester’s ended before Shakespeare’s would have begun. Additionally, Thomas Pope and George Bryan, both subsequently Chamberlain’s players, were, with Kempe and others, recommended by Leicester to the Danish court, but Leicester’s recommendation does not mean Pope and Bryan were members of Leicester’s Men, which, as noted earlier, apparently did not even accompany Leicester to the Low Countries. Moreover, Pope and Bryan remained on the continent until at least July 1587, whereas Leicester’s Men was active in England during the first half of 1587 (Chambers, Stage ii.90–91; Gurr, Companies 191). Of course, if Pope and Bryan were, like Kempe, Leicester’s Men, three of Shakespeare’s later Chamberlain’s associates not only began their careers with Leicester’s Men, but also, as Ian Wilson observes, performed together at Helsignor (Elsinore) castle in Denmark, a location which, of course, figures prominently in Hamlet (69). Pope, Bryan and Kempe were all Strange’s Men by the early 1590s and Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1594; if all three were in Leicester’s Men, other Leicester’s players may have followed this same course; perhaps Shakespeare was one such player. Wilson attempts to bolster these conjectures by examining the list of principal actors in Shakespeare’s plays included in the 1623 Folio. Wilson argues the list is organized chronologically, save for John Heminges and Henry Condell, who, as Folio compilers, appear at the head of the list. After Heminges and Condell, the names atop the list—and therefore possibly Shakespeare’s earliest fellows—are Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips, William Kempe, Thomas Pope, and George Bryan. Kempe, Pope, and Bryan were all Leicester’s players, Wilson says, as was Burbage’s father; and all of the first seven names, save Condell, later were in Strange’s Men which. Wilson, like many before him (see Fleay 82), claims Strange’s Men was a continuation of Leicester’s Men (69), but this position relies on the unsafe assumption of company continuity. Even scholars prone to make use of this assumption in other cases have hesitated to characterize Strange’s as a continuation of Leicester’s,10 perhaps because Kempe, Pope, and Bryan cannot definitely be connected to Strange’s Men before 1593.11 The five-year gap between Leicester’s death and their appearance in Strange’s leaves plenty of time for each 9

Shakespeare may have also been a member of one of the companies that played at the Theatre in the early 1590s. For more on this possibility, see Chapters 6 and 8. 10 See, for instance, Murray i.36. Murray thinks some of Leicester’s went to Strange’s, but he does not, like Fleay, believe the company simply switched patrons. For Murray’s affinity for assuming company continuity, see i.73–109, wherein he asserts Strange’s Men and the Chamberlain’s Men were the same company. 11 Unless one believes the “plot” of 2 Seven Deadly Sins, on which all three are named, records a performance by Strange’s in 1590–91; Kathman’s analysis of the “plot” calls such dating into question (see Chapter 4). Kemp’s Applauded Merriments was published with A Knack to Know a Knave, which Strange’s performed in 1592; if the two pieces were connected in performance, Kempe may have been in Strange’s by 1592.


181

of them to have taken an indirect route from Leicester’s to Strange’s. In any case, the Folio actor list does not strengthen the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s Men. If the list is chronological, as Wilson proposes, it seems to point to Shakespeare’s presence in Strange’s, rather than Leicester’s, Men, as five of the first six names (after Shakespeare’s own) can be traced to Strange’s. In sum, arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s Men rest on five, hardly unequivocal, pieces of circumstantial evidence: 1) the visits of Leicester’s Men to Stratford; 2) Stratford’s geographical proximity to Leicester’s estate; 3) Sidney’s mention of “Will” the “jesting player;” 4) Shakespeare’s military knowledge; and 5) the pre-1594 company affiliations of a handful of Shakespeare’s fellow Lord Chamberlain’s Men. Because each of these five pieces of evidence exhibits logical leaps and problematic assumptions, these arguments cannot be regarded as anything beyond speculative possibilities. They do, however, force scholars to reckon with issues of the mechanics of patronage, the movement of players between playing companies, and the usefulness of dramatic allusions in writing an author’s biography. Four of the five areas of evidence utilized for arguing for Shakespeare’s Leicester connection also provide something a framework for examining several other arguments for Shakespeare’s early company. Besides the Queen’s and Leicester’s Men, the timing of visits to Stratford has been used to raise the possibility of Shakespeare’s membership in Worcester’s and Essex’s Men; the proximity of the company patron to Stratford has been cited as a way in which Shakespeare might have joined Warwick’s Men; the supposed biographical usefulness of allusions in Shakespeare’s plays has led some commentators to connect him to Oxford’s Men; and prior affiliations of later fellows has led to speculation Shakespeare may have once been in the Admiral’s Men. Convenient Timing: Essex’s Men and Worcester’s Men In Will in the World, Stephen Greenblatt suggests, like many previous biographers, that Shakespeare probably “remained in Stratford at least until the summer of 1586” (161) and joined a company at about that time. Before settling on the Queen’s Men as the most likely candidate for the company Shakespeare joined at this time, Greenblatt mentions Strange’s, Leicester’s, the Admiral’s, Sussex’s, and Essex’s as other troupes Shakespeare could have joined (161–2). Greenblatt’s offhand mention of Essex’s Men is, to my knowledge, the only suggestion Shakespeare joined this company, which enjoyed a long existence spanning from as early as 1572 until 1597 (Gurr, Companies 178). Walter Devereaux, first Earl of Essex, was the company’s first patron; after his 1576 death, his widow seemingly retained the troupe, which appeared under her name at court in 1577–78, in London in 1578, and in the provinces until 1580, its last recorded performance coming at Stratford (Chambers iv.153; Astington, English 228; Gurr, Companies 55, 170, 178; Minutes and Accounts iii.46). Beginning in 1581–82, a company under the patronage of Robert Devereaux, second Earl of Essex, was a fixture on the traveling circuits; this company may or may not have been a continuation of the Countess’s company. While a prominent


182

provincial company between 1583–84 and 1589–90, Essex’s Men was never invited to court and does not appear to have ever played in London; after 1590, its recorded provincial appearances drop of rapidly and disappear entirely after 1597 (Gurr, Companies 170, 179). Since so little is known of Essex’s Men, it seems that the only reason to even suggest Shakespeare joined this troupe is the timing of its 1586–87 Stratford visit (Minutes and Accounts iv.31–2); accordingly, any argument for Essex’s Men would be based solely on the convenient (and arbitrary) timing of its Stratford visit.12 Clearly, more evidence would be necessary to in any way recommend this suggestion as even plausible. A more intricate argument, but one which again ultimately relies on the convenient timing of a company’s Stratford visits, is presented by John Southworth in regards to Worcester’s Men. Between 1562 and 1585, a troupe under the patronage of William Somerset, eighth Earl of Worcester, maintained a notable provincial presence (Gurr, Companies 328–9). Successor to a short-lived 1550s troupe bearing Somerset’s patronage (Gurr, Companies 317, Chambers, Stage ii.220), this company boasted several players in the early 1580s who would later be among the most prominent English actors. Records of two run-ins with local authorities in 1583 and 1584 reveal that James Tunstall, Edward Browne, Robert Browne, Richard Jones, Edward Alleyn, Thomas Cook, William Harrison, Richard Andrewes, and Thomas Powlton were members of Worcester’s Men at this time (Gurr, Companies 317–18; Chambers, Stage ii.221; REED, Norwich 65–6; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 244–6).13 Of these, Tunstall, both Brownes, Jones, and of course Alleyn would emerge as leading players of the 1590s and beyond; evidently, then, the 1583–84 Worcester’s was a talented young company. Soon thereafter, however, the troupe dissolved, with a number of its players joining the Admiral’s in or about 1585, as indicated by three factors: (1) no documents refer to Worcester’s between 1585 and 1589; (2) Richard Jones, Robert Browne, and Edward Alleyn were all definitely Admiral’s Men by 1589; and (3) by 1589, Jones, Browne, and Edward Alleyn were connected to John Alleyn, a known servant to the Lord Admiral (though not necessarily a player himself) (Chambers, Stage ii.137–8, 224; Gurr, Companies 317).14 A Worcester’s Men appears again in 1589, but this group, under the patronage of Edward Somerset, 12

Unless one were to argue that the decision by the Essex plotters on 7 February 1601 to pick a play by Shakespeare to boost their morale on the eve of their rebellion was due not just to parallels between Richard II and their plot (Gurr, Companies 85–6, 133, 288), but also due to Shakespeare’s previous service in Essex’s Men. 13 The Leicester records also note the presence of William Pateson, referred to as a Herbert’s Man (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 245). As Herbert was the Earl of Worcester’s son, it is unsurprising to learn at least one player in the company was wearing Herbert’s, rather than Worcester’s, livery (Gurr, Companies 318). 14 Greg suggests Worcester’s continued to perform after 1585, reorganizing itself in 1589, when many of its personnel joined the Admirals’ Men. Greg offers the 1589 deeds of sale naming Browne, Jones, and the Alleyns (see Chapter 4) as potential evidence for this reorganization (Diary ii.83). Few, if any, scholars since Greg have agreed with this conjecture, preferring, like Chambers, to see these deeds as evidence of a reorganization within the


183

who succeeded his father as Earl of Worcester in that year, probably has little or no relationship to the previous Worcester’s Men (Chambers, Stage ii.240, iv.167; Gurr, Companies 321–6). The Worcester’s Men that operated between 1562 and 1585 was, as it happens, by far the most frequent playing company to visit Stratford during Shakespeare’s youth and young adulthood, playing there in 1568–69, 1574–75, 1576–77, 1580–81, 1581–82, and 1583–84 (Minutes and Accounts ii.35, 105; iii.14, 98, 119, 148). Based largely on this fact, John Southworth argues that Worcester’s was likely Shakespeare’s first acting company. Southworth asserts that, since Shakespeare was apparently an accomplished actor in 1592 (as supposedly evidenced in Chettle’s apology), and since “the normal, if not invariable, routes of entry to the profession [acting] were either by patrimonial inheritance or apprenticeship at an early age (between ten and sixteen) to a senior member ... in one of the existing companies” (20), he must have commenced his theatrical career in the late 1570s or early 1580s (20–21). In response to scholars who have felt the dates of Shakespeare’s marriage and the birth of his children tied him to Stratford until after 1584, Southworth observes these events may be irrelevant to Shakespeare’s initial departure from Stratford. Quoting John Dover Wilson, Southworth notes these dates only prove that Shakespeare must have been home about August 1582, nine months before the birth of Susanna; in November of the same year for his marriage; and once again ... nine months before the birth of the twins ... the dates referred to do not at all forbid us supposing Shakespeare to have been already a professional player at this period. (21–2)

Southworth adds that it makes more sense for Shakespeare to have been a player before his wedding, because while it is not difficult to grasp how a teenager would have become an actor, “it is far from easy to envisage circumstances that might have induced him to do so as a mature young man with family responsibilities” (22). These are valid observations: as long as Shakespeare could have returned to Stratford occasionally during the early 1580s, there is no good reason, apart from unreliable anecdotal evidence about Shakespeare working for his father, why he could not have started his acting career in his immediate post-grammar school years, as several other scholars agree.15 Having established Shakespeare could have been a player in his adolescence, and believing Shakespeare must have been recruited into an acting company in his early teens (and thus between 1577 and 1580), Southworth asserts Worcester’s Men was the company Shakespeare would have most likely joined. The other companies that visited Stratford during this period either came too early (Leicester’s in 1576–77) or fail in delivering Shakespeare to London by 1592; instead, these four companies Admiral’s, not Worcester’s, company, particularly since John Alleyn can be connected to the Adrmial’s Men, but not Worcester’s (Stage ii.137–8). 15 See Duncan-Jones’s hypothesis Shakespeare acted in Greville’s company or Honigmann’s hypothesis Shakespeare acted with Hoghton’s and Hesketh’s Men, for example.


184

(Berkeley’s, the Countess of Essex’s, Derby’s, and Strange’s) all disappear before 1586–87. Worcester’s is thus the only company to visit Stratford that Shakespeare could feasibly have joined between 1577 and 1580 (23–6). Southworth argues Worcester’s six visits to Stratford between 1568–69 and 1583–84 also provide “ample opportunity” for Shakespeare to have become acquainted with the troupe and made contact with his eventual “master.” Moreover, Worcester’s itinerary in the early 1580s conveniently places it near Stratford precisely when Shakespeare’s children would have been conceived. If Worcester’s 1581–82 Stratford visit was in the summer, Susanna could have been conceived at that time; Worcester’s 1581–82 Coventry visit may have corresponded to Shakespeare’s wedding;16 and if Worcester’s visits to Coventry and Stratford in 1583–84 were in the spring, either visit would correspond to the conception of Hamnet and Judith (26–8). Satisfied Shakespeare was, indeed, in Worcester’s Men by 1580, Southworth declares it “probable” that Robert Browne was Shakespeare’s “master,” and that Shakespeare followed him to the Admiral’s Men in 1585, thus gaining his entrance to the London stage (31—additional evidence Southworth cites for Shakespeare’s membership in the Admiral’s Men will be presented shortly). Southworth offers this as further proof of Shakespeare’s membership in Worcester’s, arguing that because his proposed sequence of events brings Shakespeare “to a point where [he] is known to have been when he first emerges from obscurity,” it serves as “confirmation that we have been on the right track from the start” (23). The ends, in other words, justify the conjectures that get us there. Two difficulties with Southworth’s account emerge rather quickly. First, the endsjustify-the-means methodology he employs to verify his conjectures is logically inadequate; after all, the other arguments we have considered thus far also ostensibly safely deposit Shakespeare in London by 1592. This liability aside, Southworth’s foundational assumption concerning the system of theatrical apprenticeship is also less than certain. It is true that evidence suggests boy players were often apprenticed to adult players, and that each identifiable Elizabethan boy player was apprenticed to an adult, as far as can be told (Bentley, Profession 113–34). However, there is no evidence to suggest any given company ever followed a uniform pattern of apprenticeship: boys of all ages were recruited and were apprenticed for various lengths of time, ranging from as few as three to as many as eleven years (113–34). Accordingly, if Shakespeare was ever an apprentice, Southworth’s assertion that he must have become one by 1580 is unsupported by any consistent pattern of evidence. Moreover, Southworth’s claim that apprenticeship as a boy or adolescent was the “usual” way one entered the acting profession is also questionable. Of the 1,000 recorded professional adult players between 1590 and 1642, only about thirty-five are known to have been boy players (Bentley, Profession 134–5). What is true for 16

This Coventry visit is not dated, but occurred between 1 November 1581 and 31 October 1582 (REED Patrons and Performances website). Shakespeare’s marriage took place in late November 1582.


185

these thirty-five players may not have been true for the other 900-odd players active in that era. Thus, Bentley notes, evidence for recruiting apprentices is too sparse “to speak with assurance of any normal procedure” (134) and the ways in which boy actors “came to their profession or later advanced from feminine to adult roles can at present be only conjectured from pitifully few examples” (145). It is thus far from certain that Shakespeare must, as Southworth argues, have been an apprentice. Setting aside Southworth’s questionable methodology and claims about apprenticeship, his argument for Shakespeare’s membership in Worcester’s Men is, essentially, a variation on the theme of convenient timing: the troupe was frequently in Stratford at a time Shakespeare could plausibly have started his theatrical career. Southworth’s use of convenient timing is perhaps more sophisticated than it is in arguments that center on 1587, but with no other solid evidence to support this argument, it is neither convincing nor probable. Moreover, although Southworth does call attention to the possibility Shakespeare got his theatrical start well before 1587, in doing so Southworth ignores the anecdotal tradition, questionable as it may be, that Shakespeare worked for his father, taught, or did something else nontheatrical during these years. While unquestioning acceptance of this tradition is ill-advised, the outright rejection of it is also unsafe. Stratford Proximity: Warwick’s Men Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, kept an active company of players beginning in the late 1550s. This company was frequently in the provinces during the early 1560s and played at court during the 1564–65 holidays, but then disappears from the records for nearly a decade (Astington, English 223; Chambers, Stage iv.143). This disappearance, as Ingram observes, corresponds to Warwick’s withdrawal from public life while recuperating from wounds suffered in 1563 (Business 172). At about the time Warwick was admitted to the Privy Council in 1573, he apparently resumed patronizing a playing company, as Warwick’s Men reappears by 1572–73 (172; Gurr, Companies 171, 181–2). This new Warwick’s Men was the preeminent adult court company between 1574–75 and 1579–80, logging twelve performances over these six seasons (Chambers, Stage iv.150–57; Astington, English 227–30). Records of court payments to Warwick’s during this period indicate that Jerome Savage was the company’s leader; with him, John and Laurence Dutton were also named as payees for the company (Chambers, Stage iv.146–7, 150–51, 155; Gurr, Companies 170–71). It may be that, during this period of court dominance, Warwick’s was based at, or frequently used, the playhouse at Newington Butts, built sometime between 1575 and 1577. Although absolute proof of this possibility has not been found, Ingram demonstrates that various records prove Jerome Savage lived on the property the playhouse occupied. Moreover, when the owners of the land Savage lived on attempted to remove him from the property in 1577, they insinuated Savage plied his trade, acting, on the property in question. Savage’s defense of his rights of occupancy,

186


Ingram notes, was furious enough to suggest he had something more to lose in this case than a dwelling place. Neither Warwick’s Men, nor the playhouse itself, are mentioned in Savage’s wranglings with the landowners, but when one combines the piece of land, the structure known to have stood on it, and the affiliations of its occupant, Savage, it becomes difficult to dismiss the possibility Warwick’s played at Newington Butts (Business 159–74; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 325). If Warwick’s troupe did, indeed, have a London base of operations between 1575 and 1580, this could also explain why the company appears infrequently in the provinces during this period (there are less than 10 provincial notices of Warwick’s between 1575 and 1580—Gurr, Companies 182). If, however, Newington was Warwick’s chief London playing place, it may not have been the only one: a passing reference by Gabriel Harvey in 1579 mentions Warwick’s in connection with the Theatre (Wickham, Berry, and Ingram 341). Warwick’s fall from its position of apparent London dominance in the late 1570s was unusually rapid. The company did not appear at court after the 1579–80 season, and by 1580 Savage was no longer living at Newington Butts (Ingram, Business 174). Moreover, the much-traveled Duttons had left Warwick’s for Oxford’s Men by early 1580, leading some annoyed, poetically-disposed theatregoers to pen verses referring to the Duttons as “camoelians” instead of “comoedians” and to suggest the Dutton coat of arms bear the likeness of a whore (Chambers, Stage ii.98–9). The remaining Warwick’s players took to the provinces, playing at Ipswich in 1580–81 (“Players at Ipswich” 272) and Winchester in 1581–82 (Gurr, Companies 182). Additionally, Gurr suggests a 1582 clash between the Earl of Warwick and the Lord Mayor of London may point to the company’s continued London playing (173–4; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 299–300). After 1582, however, Warwick’s company disappears from the records entirely.17 The Duttons continued on as Oxford’s Men, which may have replaced Warwick’s at Newington Butts (see below); Savage, in the meantime, appears to have left the theatre industry, apparently dying in 1587 and mentioning no theatre fellows in his will (Ingram, Business 178–9). Given Warwick’s Men’s dates of operation, it is easy to see why few scholars have argued Shakespeare belonged to this company. If he did, he would have had to join Warwick’s before 1582, a problem for those who argue Shakespeare left Stratford only after the birth of his twins in 1585. Of course, his career very well could have begun earlier than 1585, and he could have returned to Stratford periodically during the early 1580s to marry and start a family. At any rate, Edmond Malone is the only scholar to have ever suggested Shakespeare joined Warwick’s Men. Malone’s endorsement of Shakespeare’s membership in Warwick’s is weak: he only mentions it as one of three possibilities for which company Shakespeare might

17 An isolated provincial notice of Warwick’s Men appears in an Ipswich record dated 30 March 1592 (“Players at Ipswich” 276). As Warwick died in 1590, this record is of suspect accuracy. Perhaps the company in question traveled with a forged patent, or perhaps the record-keeper entered the wrong name (Gurr, Companies 182; Chambers, Stage ii.99).


187

have first joined. Of these companies, Malone expressed more interest in Leicester’s as Shakespeare’s first company (“Life” ii.166–7). Even so, Malone points out that, like Leicester’s patron, the Earl of Warwick lived near Stratford and had a company of players which “often” visited Stratford (ii.166). This is an inaccurate statement; the only recorded Warwick’s visit to Stratford during Shakespeare’s lifetime was in 1574–75 (Gurr, Companies 182;18 Minutes and Accounts ii.105). However, Warwick did live near Stratford, and because Shakespeare’s father served as a Warwickshire bailiff and alderman, there is clearly a possibility that John Shakespeare would have interacted with Warwick on occasion. As such, young William might even have had the opportunity for direct access to the Earl at some point. Still, the likelihood of such a scenario is negligible, as Warwick’s Men’s lifespan is too early for Shakespeare to have plausibly been one of its members. Even if Shakespeare was a player as early as the late 1570s, the proximity of its patron to Stratford is not enough to recommend Warwick’s Men as a viable option for Shakespeare’s first company. Dramatic Allusions as Biography: Oxford’s Men Groups of players under the patronage of the Earls of Oxfords can be traced back as far a 1492 (Chambers, Stage ii.99); like many of his forbears, Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl, extended his patronage to a company which made its first recorded appearances in 1580. Apparently, de Vere was keenly interested in things theatrical: besides appearing in a Shrovetide “device” in 1579 (Gurr, Companies 307), he was hailed by Francis Meres in 1598 as one of “The best for comedy amongst us” (306), thus indicating he was a playwright at some point. Oxford’s playing troupe was seemingly formed with the help of the Duttons, who were in the company by early 1580; perhaps other former Warwick’s Men also followed them to the new company. Oxford’s played at the Theatre in April of 1580, as testified to by documents concerning a brawl between several of the players (most notably Laurence Dutton) and Inns of Court students in the audience (Gurr, Companies 307; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 342). Oxford’s Men may also have played at Newington in May 1580 in violation of plague inhibition, although the case is not clear (Gurr, Companies 91; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 326–7; Ingram, Business 174–5). From the summer of 1580 until 1585, Oxford’s frequently performed in the provinces, its recorded playing notices numerically rivaling those of other prominent traveling companies (Gurr, Companies 314). After 1585, playing notices pertaining to Oxford’s Men decline sharply. At roughly the same time, a boy company under the Earl of Oxford’s patronage emerged. On 1 January 1584, an Oxford’s company performed at court. The payee for the performance was John Lyly, known to have been writing plays for boy companies during this period (Gurr, Companies 222–3, 314; Chambers, Stage iv.160). 18

Gurr lists the date for Warwick’s Stratford performance as 1576, but the Dugdale Society transcriptions clearly indicate the visit took place in 1574–75.

188


That this Oxford’s was a boy company may be confirmed by a court performance the following court season by “the children of Therle of Oxforde (Chambers, Stage iv.160). Then, on 1 January 1585, court entertainment involved “John Symons and other his fellowes Servantes to Therle of Oxforde” performing “feates of actiuitye and vawtinge” (iv. 161). This could have been the boy company, the adult Oxford’s, still active in the provinces, or even a third troupe consisting of acrobats (Gurr, Companies 309; Chambers, Stage ii.101). Apart from a lone record of a 1594–95 Faversham performance (REED, Kent 562), the last reference to any Oxford’s company before 1602 is an anonymous officer’s letter to Walsingham, dated 25 January 1587, which makes reference to Oxford’s players presence in London (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 90). A wholly new Oxford’s would be established in 1602 and join forces with Worcester’s Men, becoming the third sanctioned London company in 1603 (Gurr, Companies 310; Wickham, Berry and Ingram 109–10). Despite a few gaps in the 1590s, it is evident that Edward de Vere consistently promoted theatrical activity over a twenty-two-year period, ceasing only upon his death. This activity is often cited by those who believe de Vere wrote the plays credited to Shakespeare, so in that regard Shakespeare has frequently been associated with Oxford, if not Oxford’s Men. Some anti-Stratfordians, such as Charlton Ogburn, deny William Shakespeare of Stratford was even an actor (42, 99–105), but most antiStratfordians, especially Oxfordians, concede Shakespeare was a player, although they do not address his company affiliations. In Alias Shakespeare, however, Joseph Sobran speculates Shakespeare was at some point an actor in Oxford’s Men. After “proving” Shakespeare’s plays were written by the Earl of Oxford, Sobran declares the best way to explain Shakespeare’s name appearing as the author of the plays “is that the Earl of Oxford, who died in 1604, was William Shakespeare, and that William Shakspere, a member of his acting company, was fronting for him” (148). As evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in Oxford’s company, Sobran offers the troupe’s 1583–84 Stratford performance (131); after listing the Earl’s other dramatic activities and noting Shakespeare’s role in the foundation of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, Sobran cryptically states “Oxford appears fleetingly and almost furtively in the very theatrical and literary milieu in which Shakespeare thrived, and yet eludes all attempts to pin him down” (136). Without elaborating on this statement, Sobran lays his final “trump card” for demonstrating Shakespeare’s involvement with Oxford’s Men in the following passage: Was Mr. Shakspere one of the actors in [Oxford’s] employ? This seems likely. Mr. Shakspere clearly had some role in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, of which he is named a few years later as a shareholder. That he was directly attached to Oxford also seems probable, since he disappears from the London records for several years after Oxford’s death in June 1604. (221; italics Sobran’s)

So essentially, because Shakespeare was an actor, and because Oxford wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, Shakespeare must have been a member of Oxford’s Men. Sobran’s statement about Shakespeare disappearing from London after Oxford’s death is misleading and inaccurate. First, there are several periods of a year or two


189

between 1595 and 1613 when Shakespeare is not mentioned in any London records, so the year or so after Oxford’s death is not unique in that regard (Schoenbaum, Lives 16–19).19 Second, in 1604, the year of Oxford’s death, Shakespeare resided at the house of Christopher Mountjoy, as demonstrated in a 1612 lawsuit. This lawsuit also demonstrates that Shakespeare was involved in events preceding the marriage of Mountjoy’s daughter Mary to Stephen Belott on 19 November 1604 (Schoenbaum, Compact 261–4). Shakespeare’s involvement in the Belott-Mountjoy courtship strongly suggests he was in London close to the marriage date, thereby placing him in London after Oxford’s June 1604 death, contrary to Sobran’s assertions. The Belott-Mountjoy courtship aside, Shakespeare was in the King’s, not Oxford’s, company in 1604, so even if he did disappear from the London records at this time it would have no significance in terms of a connection to Oxford’s Men. Moreover, it hardly follows that Shakespeare’s supposed disappearance from the London records for a time after 1604 was caused by Oxford’s death. After all, nothing connects these two individuals apart from the implausible assertion Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Furthermore, if Shakespeare and Oxford were so intertwined, one would expect Shakespeare’s name to be associated with the activities of the 1580–87 and 1602 Oxford’s Men, or to find Shakespeare’s plays in the repertory of the company patronized by their “real author.” Neither of these expectations are met when one consults the records of Oxford’s Men’s activities. Given these difficulties with Sobran’s argument, only one reason remains to suspect Shakespeare ever was in Oxford’s Men: the contention that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays. It is not within the scope of this study to delve into this issue and explain in any detail why certain commentators have concluded this was the case, nor to explain why Oxfordians are misguided on so many counts; scholars such as Irvin Matus (Shakespeare IN FACT), David Kathman and Terry Ross (www. shakespeareauthorship.com), Scott McCrea (The Case for Shakespeare), and Alan H. Nelson (Monstrous Adversary) do this adequately and admirably. However, it is worth noting that, quite often, Oxfordian claims are based in large part on the alleged failure of Shakespeare’s biography to match the knowledge and experiences Oxfordians argue the author of the plays “must” have had. Sobran, for example, dedicates a chapter entitled “Disconnections Between the Poetry and the Life” (65–100) to discrediting Shakespeare’s authorship of the works attributed to him, while offering a chapter called “Connections to the Plays” (181–96) in support of the Earl of Oxford’s authorship. In this way, the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Oxford’s Men is quite similar to the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Leicester’s Men, as both attempt to read the author’s biography out of his plays. While it would of course be foolish to argue that the plays and poems tell us nothing about their author, to attempt to extrapolate an author’s biography in any specificity 19

David Bevington notes the great London fire of 1666 destroyed many London records (Complete Works lix), thus perhaps depriving us of other documents about Shakespeare’s London activities during the years in question.


190

from his or her works is a suspect project. For Shakespeare alone, attempts to do so result in such a vast number of competing claims that the use of dramatic allusions for biographical purposes cannot be regarded as at all reliable. Arguably such projects reflect more on the commentators undertaking them than they do on Shakespeare. At any rate, if one strips away Oxfordian claims and assumptions, virtually nothing remains to recommend Oxford’s Men as Shakespeare’s early troupe.20 Personnel Connections: The Admiral’s Men As discussed in Chapter 5, Charles Howard, the Lord Admiral, had sponsored a playing company as early as 1576–77, but the company most associated with his name began to appear in the provinces in 1584–85. It is possible that this Admiral’s company was a continuation of Worcester’s Men, given that (1) Worcester’s last datable performance was in March 1585 (REED, York 418); (2) many of the known 1583–84 Worcester’s players were Admiral’s Men during the late 1580s and early 1590s, and may, accordingly, have become Admiral’s Men in 1585; and (3) the new Admiral’s performed at court during the 1585–86 season, shortly after its first provincial appearances, thus suggesting it was built around already-notable players (Chambers, Stage iv.161; Astington, English 231). The Admiral’s performed often in the provinces from 1585 to 1587, but only two recorded provincial performances occurred in 1587–88 and 1588–89. At the same time, the company performed at court four times over the 1588–89 and 1589–90 seasons (Chambers, Stage iv.162–3; Astington, English 232–3). A 25 January 1587 letter from an anonymous army officer to Sir Francis Walsingham, a 16 November 1587 letter from Philip Gawdy to his father, and a 6 November 1589 letter from the Lord Mayor to Lord Burghley all make mention of the Admiral’s company performing in London (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 90, 93–4, 277). Combined with the paucity of recorded provincial performances during this period, it seems the Admiral’s largely confined its activities to London between 1587 and 1589. The Admiral’s apparent London success in these years was likely due in part to the plays in its repertory, particularly those of Christopher Marlowe. The 1590 published volume of both Tamburlaine plays states they were performed by the Admiral’s (Chambers, Stage iv.382), and it is a virtual certainty that Marlowe also wrote Dr. Faustus for the late 1580s/early 1590s Admiral’s company. Beyond these plays, the Admiral’s repertory also included The Battle of Alcazar and Wounds of Civil War, some version of Greene’s Orlando Furioso, and the now-lost Dead Man’s Fortune (Greg, Dramatic i.12; Gurr, Companies 71, 261). Although plays such as these spurred the Admiral’s London fortunes, by the early 1590s the company had undergone personnel changes and shifted its sphere of operations to the provinces

20

Oxford’s did visit Stratford in 1583–84 (see Chapter 1), so in that regard one could, in theory, use convenient timing to argue Shakespeare joined the company.


191

and beyond. After two possible 1590–91 court performances21 and a documentable stint at the Theatre that lasted at least through the late spring of 1591,22 Robert Browne, Richard Jones, John Bradstreet, and Thomas Sackville—all described as “players and servants” to the Lord Admiral on the warrant authorizing their travel—departed to tour several Netherlandish provinces and Germany (Wickham, Berry and Ingram 258); 23 at roughly this time, Edward Alleyn also left the Admiral’s for Strange’s.24 Despite such departures, the Admiral’s remained active on English touring circuits from 1590 to 1594. In 1594, some configuration of the Admiral’s returned to the Rose from 14 to 16 May, played at Newington with the Chamberlain’s Men from 3 to 13 June, and took up permanent residence at the Rose on 15 June, where it would remain for most of the rest of the decade. Henslowe’s Diary records that, among others, the Admiral’s company at this time included Edward Alleyn, returned from Strange’s; Richard Jones, returned from the continent; and James Tunstall, who Gurr thinks may have led the provincial Admiral’s (Foakes 8, 21–2; Gurr, Companies 237). This group of Admiral’s Men would go on to meet with phenomenal success and is remembered as second only to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men among Elizabethan and Jacobean playing companies. The Admiral’s Men has only infrequently been mentioned as a possible company Shakespeare belonged to before 1594, and then usually in passing. Chambers, for instance, speculates that during the early 1590s Shakespeare “may have been with Pembroke’s, if that was formed by a division of Alleyn’s company, or with the group which travelled as the Admiral’s” (Shakespeare i.60). Chambers bases this position on the assumption Shakespeare first belonged to Strange’s Men, which “amalgamated” with the Admiral’s and created Pembroke’s. However, there was no “amalgamation,” it is almost certain Pembroke’s was not a Strange’s offshoot, and the case for Shakespeare’s membership in Strange’s is not certain. For these or other reasons, Chambers does not elaborate any further on the proposal that Shakespeare belonged to the Admiral’s. Willem Schrickx also connects Shakespeare with the Admiral’s Men via supposed personnel patterns. Schrickx, like many other scholars, equates the names “Sincklo,” “Gabriel,” and “Humfrey” found in 2, 3 Henry VI with John Sincler, Gabriel Spenser, and Humphrey Jeffes and asserts, with Allison Gaw and R.B. McKerrow, that actor names “in basic Shakespearian texts can be attributed to the hand of Shakespeare himself” (121). Schrickx then introduces a document connecting Anthony Jeffes to the group of Admiral’s Men that toured Continental Europe beginning in 1592 (123). Since Anthony apparently was as Admiral’s player, Schrickx declares it “practically certain that his elder brother Humphrey was likewise 21

Strange’s probably actually performed on these occasions; see Chapter 4. See Chapter 4. 23 Chambers doubts this group was under the Admiral’s patronage, but because Howard designates the group’s leaders as “my players and servants,” Greg and Gurr are likely correct in asserting this group was at least a branch of the Admiral’s Men (Chambers, Stage ii.138; Gurr, Companies 232–3). 24 For a fuller discussion of when Alleyn left for Strange’s, see Chapter 4. 22

192


with that company” (126). And because Humphrey appears in the stage directions of 3 Henry VI, “it can be inferred that 3 Henry VI should be linked with the Admiral’s men” (125), not Pembroke’s, as is often inferred from the True Tragedy title page (121). Accordingly, Shakespeare must have been attached to the Admiral’s Men, or the Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation” (120–126, 192–93). Schrickx, it should be noted, does not say that Shakespeare must have acted in the Admiral’s; rather, he must have written 3 Henry VI for it. Still, several objections must be raised to Schrickx’s account. First, like Chambers, Schrickx seems to assume the Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation” helps explain how Shakespeare would have written a play for the Admiral’s. It is doubtful, however, that any such “amalgamation” took place. Second, it does not necessarily follow that where Anthony Jeffes was, Humphrey Jeffes must have been. The two brothers were in the Admiral’s Men together after 1597, but it is hardly certain they would have played in the same company before then. Thus, while Schrickx does document Anthony Jeffes’s presence in the group led by Robert Browne in the 1590s, the absence of Humphrey Jeffes from these documents does not support Schrickx’s claim that Humphrey would have been in the same company as Anthony. Finally, although it is possible, perhaps even plausible, that Shakespeare was responsible for the actor names in 3 Henry VI, it is not a certainty. When these three objections are combined, it becomes difficult to regard Schrickx’s claims about Shakespeare’s affiliation with the Admiral’s Men as more plausible than arguments for Shakespeare’s membership in companies such as Strange’s, Pembroke’s, the Queen’s Men, or even Sussex’s or Leicester’s Men. For both Chambers and Schrickx, one of the chief liabilities in connecting Shakespeare to the Admiral’s Men is the “amalgamation” hypothesis: without it, there is no basis for placing Shakespeare in the Admiral’s company, because his access to the Admiral’s is predicated on the Admiral’s union with Strange’s. To be fair, neither scholar vociferously argues for Shakespeare’s presence in the Admiral’s company. Chambers mentions it as one of a number of possibilities, and Schrickx is more concerned with 3 Henry VI than with its author. John Southworth, in contrast, insists Shakespeare spent time in the Admiral’s (after beginning his career with Worcester’s). Southworth’s evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in the Admiral’s Men is predicated largely on personnel connections, although he also finds evidence for Shakespeare’s Admiral’s connection in the company’s repertory. There are three ways in which Southworth makes use of supposed personnel ties to argue for Shakespeare’s presence in the Admiral’s. First, he believes that, as having previously belonged to Worcester’s, Shakespeare moved with Worcester’s players into the Admiral’s Men in 1585. Second, he argues that actor names preserved in Taming of the Shrew belong to known Admiral’s actors, thus suggesting Shakespeare wrote the play for the Admiral’s Men. Specifically, Southworth says the role of Christopher Sly was played by William Sly, who appears, with John Sincler (presumably the “Sinklo” named in The Shrew) on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot.” As such, both must have acted with Strange’s and the Admiral’s in about 1590. Moreover, the potential actor names “Par” and “Fel” in The Shrew could refer to Thomas Parsons or William Parr


193

and William Felle, respectively, all three of whom were connected to the Admiral’s in the late 1590s or early 1600s (33–6, 313–14).25 Finally, like Schrickx, Southworth asserts that the (potential) appearance of Humphrey Jeffes’s name in 3 Henry VI ties the play to the Admiral’s. Furthermore, Southworth says that the appearance of the names of John Holland and John Sincler in 2, 3 Henry VI and the Sins “plot” mean that all three documents evidence a Strange’s–Admiral’s “amalgamation,” which was made necessary, Southworth argues, when Robert Browne and others left the Admiral’s to play on the continent beginning in 1592. The depletion of the Admiral’s ranks, says Southworth, meant the “amalgamation” essentially became Strange’s Men, but he says it is not certain if Shakespeare switched his allegiance to Strange’s (36–40). Beyond the core of these ostensible connections between Shakespeare and known Admiral’s Men, Southworth argues Shakespeare’s presence in the Admiral’s is verified by the influence the Admiral’s 1585–90 repertory exerted on Shakespeare. Southworth says this repertory included The Spanish Tragedy, both parts of Tamburlaine, and The Jew of Malta, all of which had great influence on Shakespeare’s plays. Southworth rightly notes the publication history of these plays means Shakespeare became familiar with them before they were printed; he could have done so by seeing them performed, but, Southworth argues, “for them to have impressed themselves on his mind in the way they did, how much more probable it is that he had acted in them. And if he had acted in them, he could only have done so as an Admiral’s man” (32). More specifically, Southworth argues that these plays—along with Soliman and Perseda and Arden of Feversham, which Southworth places in the Admiral’s repertory—are recollected in Shakespeare’s plays. Moreover, Southworth comments that the characters of Richard III and Aaron in Titus could be based on Barabas in Jew; that the Ghost in Hamlet could be based on the ghost of Andrea in The Spanish Tragedy which, like Hamlet, includes a play-within-a-play; and that Shakespeare is sometimes thought to have been one of the authors of the anonymous Arden of Feversham (41–8).26 Moreover, following Fleay, Southworth argues a pun in Peele’s Edward I—which he also places in the Admiral’s repertory—demonstrates that Shakespeare played the title role: John Baliol, upon being appointed king of the Scots by Edward I, is enjoined to “Shake thy speres in honour of his name,/Under whose roialtie thou wearst the same” (lines 761–2). Arguing that because the shaking of weapons in Elizabethan drama “is usually taken as a gesture of rejection or defiance” and thus would not be appropriate to the scene in question, Southworth asserts the 25 Southworth, following Dover Wilson, also suggests the character of “Peter” is an actor name, and speculates that this Peter was the same Peter mentioned in a 1593 letter from Henslowe to Alleyn (314). Alleyn, however, was with Strange’s Men in 1593, so even if this Peter 1) was actually Alleyn’s servant, as Southworth asserts (314), and 2) actually acted in The Shrew, he would not have done so as an Admiral’s player. 26 On Shakespeare’s possible authorship of Arden, Southworth states: “It is true that it is quite unlike anything else that Shakespeare was to write; but in a curious way, this may also be taken as an argument in its favour, for how often did Shakespeare ever repeat himself?” (315) Southworth’s logic in this instance is not encouraging.

194


line makes no sense unless it puns on the name of the actor playing Edward I (48, 316). Southworth also expands the Admiral’s repertory to contain Titus Andronicus and The Taming of the Shrew. Both plays have occasionally been dated to before 1592 (see Chapter 3), and Southworth argues that the title role in Titus has the earmarks of a role tailor-made for Edward Alleyn (57–8). Southworth rests his case for Shakespeare’s Admiral’s membership on the Rose season of 1592 when, based on the success of Titus Andronicus (then known as Titus and Vespasian) and the three parts of Henry VI, Shakespeare emerged “into the public arena as player and playwright” (63, 53–63). To conclude his consideration of Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s company affiliations, Southworth summarizes his argument. First, the choice of Worcester’s as Shakespeare’s initial company is “consistent with the Stratford records, the dates of his marriage and subsequent births of his children” (63). Next, Worcester’s affiliation brings Shakespeare into contact with the Admiral’s Men and hence Marlowe and Kyd, who exerted great influence on Shakespeare’s plays. Moreover, the Admiral’s Men connects Shakespeare to Edward Alleyn, a great actor of the day, and a prominent patron, Charles Howard. Finally, the Admiral’s “amalgamation” with Strange’s brings Shakespeare to the Rose in 1592, where his plays appear in Henslowe’s Diary. Southworth proudly asserts that this narrative “disposes once and for all the problem of the ‘lost’” years and rests on the following supposed strengths: It has provided a credible context in which his early plays were written and performed and has gone some way to explaining the nature and extent of the debt he owed to his predecessors. The evidence for it remains circumstantial and may never be proven. I submit that it explains too much that is incomprehensible in other, more traditional accounts of his early life (which, let it be said, are in truth equally conjectural) to be wholly mistaken. (63–4)

Southworth may be convinced by his Worcester’s/Admiral’s hypothesis, but several problematic assumptions undercut his optimistic assessment of his labors. First of all, the logic Southworth sets up at the beginning of his argument is suspect. He asserts that if he can trace a line from an initial choice for Shakespeare’s first company to a point in Shakespeare’s biography where his whereabouts and company affiliations are definitely known, his choice and its implications will be valid. Where documentary evidence is lacking, however, any number of conjectures can be made which result in the same outcome; witness all the arguments and hypotheses considered in this study, all of which safely deposit Shakespeare at the Theatre with the Chamberlain’s Men in 1594. In any case, Southworth’s choice of a definite point in Shakespeare’s biography is unfortunate, because although there is evidence Shakespeare may have been involved with Strange’s at the Rose in 1592, this is not a certainty (see Chapter 6). Moreover, the path Southworth follows to move Shakespeare from Stratford to the Rose is fraught with faulty assumptions. Most importantly, Southworth’s argument requires the demonstrably implausible “amalgamation” hypothesis to get Shakespeare from the Admiral’s of the late 1580s to the Rose. Even if there was an “amalgamation,” Southworth’s attempts


195

to link Shakespeare and the Admiral’s personnel rest on the assumptions that actor names in Shakespeare’s plays are readily identifiable, that the actors those names correspond to are readily identifiable, that Shakespeare himself was responsible for the appearance of those names in the text, that the Sins “plot” is from a performance by the Strange’s-Admiral’s “amalgamation” in about 1590, and that because Anthony Jeffes was among the Continental Admiral’s of the 1590s, Humphrey Jeffes and Gabriel Spenser also must have belonged to that branch. How contentious each of these assumptions is varies; all, however, are far from certain, as demonstrated elsewhere in this study. Southworth also makes the questionable assumption that Shakespeare’s familiarity with several of the Admiral’s plays is best explained by his having acted in them. In the case of the Marlowe plays, Southworth is correct that they exerted great influence on Shakespeare; Marlowe is, as Jonathan Bate says, “the only contemporary whom Shakespeare overtly alludes to rather than subliminally absorbs” (Genius 104, italics Bate’s). But Shakespeare was influenced by, and modified or recollected lines from, many different plays by many different authors performed by many different companies (103–104), and he simply cannot have performed in every play he was influenced by. It was, Bate says, a habit of Shakespeare’s to snap up and use lines from virtually everything he came across (105). Furthermore, the popularity of Marlowe and Kyd in Shakespeare’s early theatrical career would have made them likely primary influences whether or not Shakespeare acted in their plays. And Southworth’s use of recollections to establish Shakespeare’s Admiral’s activities is hampered by the fact that Southworth never defines what constitutes a recollection and what is simply a coincidence. Moreover, the repertory Southworth assigns to the late 1580s/early 1590s Admiral’s Men is suspect: Tamburlaine’s 1590 title page does indicate the Admiral’s performed both parts of the play, but there is neither definite proof nor documentary indication that the Admiral’s played The Jew of Malta or The Spanish Tragedy before 1594. The same is also true of Soliman and Perseda and Edward I. Additionally, if the Admiral’s ever played Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, or 2, 3 Henry VI (or Contention and True Tragedy), one wonders why the title pages of the printed versions of these plays credit companies other than the Admiral’s with performing them. To his credit, Southworth realizes his “evidence” is only circumstantial. Even so, Southworth falls victim to a frequent scholarly tendency. In his own words, his argument “explains too much that is incomprehensible in other, more traditional accounts of his early life” (64). Instead of carefully examining the relevant biographical and evidential problems, Southworth has been too quick to provide a smooth narrative that manages to explain everything along the way. The evidence from which he does this, however, is not adequate to his task. As always, the biographical documentation available for writing Shakespeare’s biography is not always univocal or clear in its implications. At the end of the day, one wonders if it is possible to weave an accurate biographical narrative from these bits and pieces. This circumstance, however, has not, and presumably will not, ever stand in the way of attempts to do so.


Conclusion

The Misguided Mission

After only a few months of existence, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men performed at court on 26 and 28 December, 1594. The following March, the company was rewarded £20 for its “twoe seuerall comedies or Enterludes shewed by them before her Matie” (Chambers, iv.164). The Chamberlain’s payees were “Willm Kempe Willm Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage.” These then were three of the most prominent players in the new company. Such prominence in 1594 almost certainly suggests each of these three had enjoyed some notoriety prior to joining the Chamberlain’s. Kempe had been a notable player for both Leicester’s and Strange’s Men. Burbage cannot be definitely connected to any company before the Chamberlain’s, but he likely played with whatever companies performed at the Theatre before the Chamberlain’s took up residence there in June 1594. But what about Shakespeare? He does not appear in any lists of players before this record, and no family connections tied him to any particular venue. He had written successful plays by this point, but the evidence about which companies performed his plays, and which company repertories he was familiar with, point in several directions: Pembroke’s, Strange’s, Sussex’s, and the Queen’s Men are the most obvious. Certainly Shakespeare must have been in one acting company or another, but which? If we could just read his plays and consider the other available evidence one more time, or put some new spin on the question, perhaps the answer will at last emerge ... This is how the question of Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s company (or companies) has been framed by almost every scholar who has approached the issue. Shakespeare’s company is a problem to be solved by the alignment and realignment of any and all available evidence. This approach, of course, is a reasonable way to frame the issue. Such an approach is biographical, and Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company affiliation is, on one level, a biographical issue. The problem with such an approach is that the lack of sufficient evidence dooms the biographical enterprise to uncertainty, which for most biographers and readers is as bad as failure. All of the available evidence for this problem is circumstantial. It is, moreover, sparse and not always reliable. And many of the arguments applied to this circumstantial evidence are themselves based on circumstantial evidence or problematic assumptions. On such bases one can generate a number of arguments that must be admitted as possibilities; it is even possible to construct arguments that rise to the level of plausibilities. Probability and certainty, however, lie beyond the reach of the circumstantial arguments considered in this study. Not a single one of the arguments laid out in the preceding chapters is without serious liabilities, nor does any particular

198


argument emerge as “stronger” or “more probable” than all the others. To be sure, several of the arguments considered in this study are notably inadequate. And some are embarrassingly foolish. But even the tempting arguments—those in the realm of possibility, even plausibility—are lacking. Who is to judge which of Pembroke’s, Strange’s, and the Queen’s, for instance, has the stronger claim to Shakespeare? Such a question is entirely subjective. In my opinion, any one of these three arguments is plausible. To this category I would add Sussex’s and Leicester’s, with the qualification that the paucity of evidence for either of these companies’ claims to Shakespeare leaves them a step below Pembroke’s, Strange’s, and the Queen’s. Yet none of these arguments is, in its current state, more probable than the others. In this realm, all assertions remain hypotheses grounded in guesswork; the challenge for scholars, as Richard Dutton says, is “to make the guesswork as judicious and wellinformed as possible (William Shakespeare 2). But of course what is “judicious and well-informed” to one person is fatuous and ill-conceived to someone else. *** There seem to be several responses to this state of affairs: 1. One can doggedly pursue one’s favorite argument, treating all evidence, however circumstantial, as elements to be fit into an argument “proving” Shakespeare was a member of that favored acting company. While such a response turns up any number of interesting tidbits, the arguments someone like Honigmann makes in the end reveal more about the individual’s zeal and dedication to the hypothesis than about the validity of the hypothesis itself. And so one ends up with Theseus’s mention of his dogs as evidence for Shakespeare’s presence in Strange’s Men. 2. One could elect to give up and avoid the problem entirely. Perhaps this is part of why Schoenbaum does not bother to posit any definitive explanation of the lost years in Shakespeare’s Lives. One can, after all, carefully document what is known about Shakespeare without devoting much time to the problem of Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company affiliations. However, ignoring or evading an issue does not make it go away. Nor, for that matter, is each of the arguments considered in these pages as good as the next. And giving up is not a legitimate choice where scholarly inquiry is concerned. 3. One can elect to be cautious and tentative about the issue, mentioning alternatives at each turn and offering the occasional assertion and evaluation. Such an approach may be reasonable, even judicious, thereby evoking the apparent authority of the deliberating judge. But even judges as wise as Solomon must reach conclusions, sooner or later. 4. One can elect to reformulate the problem. This is what I have attempted to do in this study. Rather than approaching the issue of Shakespeare’s pre-1594 companies from a strictly biographical point of view, I have, following Schoenbaum, tried to use the issue as a springboard to a discussion of various historiographical

The Misguided Mission

199

problems at stake in the writing of biographies as well as Elizabethan theatre history. In addition to the historiographic point of view, I have argued that while Shakespeare’s early playing company affiliation may be a biographical problem, it also presents an opportunity for discussing, rethinking, and critiquing any number of issues pertaining to Elizabethan theatre studies. In other words, it can be equally, indeed more, rewarding to look beyond Shakespeare to his theatrical milieu when handling biographical “problems” such as the “lost years.” This study has shown, for instance, that while one cannot locate Shakespeare with any degree of certainty or probability, one can illuminate important issues such as the need to revisit the “amalgamation” hypothesis, the authorship, targets, and charges contained in Groatsworth, the importance of provincial playing, the stillvexed relationship of certain quarto and folio texts, publication practices, the flow of literary influence, and the interactions of playing companies and patrons. Ultimately, it seems Shakespeare’s pre-1594 company affiliations present the biographer with a jigsaw puzzle. Yet because this puzzle is missing key pieces, it cannot be fully assembled. Or, more to the point, it can be assembled in a number of different, plausible-yet-incomplete ways. This condition of too many possible worlds may appeal to fiction writers, conspirators, anti-Stratfordians, and futurologists, but for most biographers and theatre historians this condition is unacceptable because it does not meet the standards of the historical method, which demands conclusions based on a logical progression of valid arguments based on accurate, solid premises. Then again, perhaps it is rewarding to look at the individual puzzle pieces and what they have to say about other, different puzzles. These other puzzles may be less glamorous than the one labeled “William Shakespeare,” but they are equally important for expanding the understanding of Elizabethan theatre and the challenges inherent in writing biography. As I suggested in Chapter 5, by confronting all of the arguments for Shakespeare’s pre-Chamberlain’s company, we may lose Shakespeare, but we gain something else: a deeper understanding of the historiographic issues that Shakespeare’s biography by necessity intersects with. It is my hope that in these pages the reader has found this to be the case.


Appendix

Company Itineraries, 1584–1594

Explanation The preceding study has made frequent reference to particular performances by the Queen’s, Strange’s, Pembroke’s, Sussex’s, and the Admiral’s Men; many arguments regarding both Shakespeare’s early playing company and Elizabethan theatre history also make reference to specific performances by these companies. Therefore, the following appendix provides itineraries, as detailed as possible, for these five companies between roughly 1577 and 1594, the years covered by this study. I have included information about the company patrons, as well as the names of known key actors for this time period. With each playing record I have included the following information: Year: When the exact new style year (1 January–31 December) of a playing record can be determined, I have placed the record in that year. Many provincial records, however, are organized according to fiscal years, most of which follow a Michaelmas–Michaelmas calendar year (29 September–29 September), although several follow their own distinctive fiscal year. When a record cannot be assigned to a 1 January–31 December year, I have provided the fiscal year dates in the Record Date column. Record Date: Some playing records have exact performance dates; when this is the case, I organize the record according to that exact date. In provincial records, the listed performance date is not always reliable; nonetheless, I have proceeded according to the assumption that even if the performance date is not accurate, it is at least close to the actual performance date. In some cases, there is no exact performance date, but the record containing the playing notice is dated. In such cases, I have organized the entry according to the record date. Because it is often difficult to tell whether an exact date is for the record or the performance, I have not attempted to distinguish between the two. Again, my operating assumption is that, if there is an exact date for the record, the actual performance date is probably within a week or two of the record date. In many cases, of course, there is no exact date for the record or performance, apart from the fiscal year. In such cases I have simply given the dates of the fiscal year (29 September–29 September, for instance) and arranged these records alphabetically. Since there are towns where records are clearly not arranged chronologically, I have erred on the side of caution and simply assigned all undated records/entries to their fiscal year, even when a particular undated record/entry falls between two dated ones. In some cases, the record or performance is datable to a week, month, or quarter-year; where this is the case, the record is listed accordingly. I have made an effort to arrange these dates chronologically following the fiscal year-only records.

202


Location: There are four categories of playing locations for the purposes of these itineraries: provincial towns, noble’s households, London theatres, and court. In the case of provincial towns, I have not named the specific playing venue, except in the cases of Oxford and Cambridge, where I distinguish between performances in the towns proper and the universities. For performances at noble’s households, I have noted the location as well as the name of the noble family. For London performances, I have included the venue, when known. For court performances, I have included the specific location, when known, in brackets. Payment: When payment amounts are noted in the records, I have included them. When no payment amount is known, I have used a dash. Citation: Here, I note where I found the record. The citation key is as follows: R—found in REED volume or yet-to-be-published REED manuscript G—found in Andrew Gurr’s Shakespearean Playing Companies MS—found in Malone Society Collections M—found in John Tucker Murray’s English Dramatic Companies, 1 volume 2 A—found in John H. Astington’s English Court Theatre 1558–1642 (court only) C—found in E.K. Chambers’s The Elizabethan Stage volume 4 (court only) MM—found in Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean’s The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (Queen’s Men only). DS—found in Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-UponAvon and Other Records, 1553–1620, published by the Dugdale Society (for Stratford records only). F—found in Alan J. Fletcher’s Drama and the Performing Arts in PreCromwellian Ireland (for Dublin records only). Generally, the REED volumes and manuscripts serve as my main source. I have cross-referenced my findings from REED with Gurr’s Shakespearean Playing Companies for purposes of comparison. Those REED entries not found in Gurr are generally attributable to records found since the publication of Gurr’s book in 1996; those entries found in Gurr and not in REED are generally due to Gurr’s inclusion of records not yet cataloged by REED. In the case of Norfolk and Suffolk, REED has not cataloged these records because the Malone Society has already done so. At a later date REED will provide its own volumes on Norfolk and Suffolk. In the 1 Murray’s study is not always reliable, as he often misdates or overlooks performances. When the REED project is completed, Murray’s study will have been superseded. Andrew Gurr’s Shakespearean Playing Companies has superseded Murray’s study when it comes to acting companies which at some point performed in London. At present, however, there are several minor companies for which Murray’s study is the only published, or accessible, tabulation of playing notices in Marlborough. There are also examples of playing notices that Murray tabulates which are not found in the corresponding REED volumes; in such cases Murray is probably in error, but I have noted these records for the sake of thoroughness.


203

case of these provinces, I have cross-referenced Gurr’s itineraries with the Malone Society’s compiled records. Because Gurr does not deal with a number of the strictly provincial acting companies, I have cross-referenced REED and the Malone Society records with John Tucker Murray’s itineraries in such cases. Because John Astington’s English Court Theatre 1558–1642 is one of the most recent and complete treatments of playing at court, I have used his court calendar as my source for court performance dates; however, I have cross-referenced it with E.K. Chambers’s court calendar, found in the fourth volume of The Elizabethan Stage. And because the Dugdale Society’s Minutes and Accounts remains the most thorough compilation of playing notices in Stratford, I have consulted the Minutes and Accounts volumes for the relevant years when dealing with Stratford and cross-referenced the Dugdale Society tabulations with Gurr’s Shakespearean Playing Companies. Fletcher’s volume similarly is the most thorough compilation of performing arts records in pre-Cromwellian Ireland, so I have cited it and cross-referenced it with Gurr. Finally, for the Queen’s Men itinerary, I have drawn chiefly on McMillin and MacLean’s tabulation in The Queen’s Men and Their Plays, although I have supplemented this data with new REED information and cross-referenced it with the court calendars of Astington and Chambers. Given the nature of these many sources, discrepancies inevitably arise. Some discrepancies, such as payment amounts, are relatively minor. Since Murray doesn’t include payment amounts, and since McMillin and MacLean drew their itinerary from REED and the Malone Society, payment discrepancies only occur between Gurr and REED. I have not noted such discrepancies, given their relatively insignificant nature; the payments I have listed are the amounts found in REED. Other discrepancies, however, are more significant. For instance, one source may list a visit as one year, while another source may list the same visit as a different year. In such cases, I have included a footnote detailing the discrepancy. Patron information has been drawn from the appendices found in each REED volume, as well as from Elza C. Tiner, “Patrons and Travelling Companies in Coventry” and “Patrons and Travelling Companies in York,” Janet Ritch, “Patrons and Travelling Companies in Chester and Newcastle Upon Tyne,” and volume ii of E.K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage. Queen’s Men Patron: Elizabeth Tudor (7 Sep 1533–24 Mar 1603); acceeded as Elizabeth I 17 Nov 1558, crowned 15 Jan 1559. Known Key Players: John Adams, John Bentley, Lionel Cooke, John Dutton, John Garland, William Johnson, John Laneham, Tobias Mylles, John Singer, Richard Tarlton, John Towne, Robert Wilson (1583, original twelve); William Knell (1587, killed in that year); Laurence Dutton (1589, payee at Nottingham); John Symons (1588, payee at Nottingham); Francis Henslowe, George Attewell (1594–95, inferred from Henslowe’s loan records); William Smith, John Garland and John Cowper (1598, payees at York); Simon Jewell?


204 Year 82–83

83

83–84

84

84–85

2

Record Date after 24 Jun 1583 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 3–4 Jun 2–24 Jun 24 Jul c. 17 Jun after 25 July 2 Sept 14 Sept 26 Dec 29 Dec 16 Jun–15 Jun 29 Sep–29 Sep 22 Jul–22 Jul 15 Nov–15 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 3 Mar 9 Jul 13–14 Jul Aug 19 Sep 31 Sep 10 Oct 26 Dec 28 Dec 8 Sep–8 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep

Location Abingdon Canterbury Dover Faversham Gloucester Ipswich Shrewsbury Kirtling Manor Aldeburgh Bristol 2 Norwich Leicester Nottingham Rye Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) Bath Cambridge Lydd Marlborough 5 Norwich Saffron Walden Southampton 6 Court (Whitehall) Cambridge 8 Kirtling Manor York Rye Leicester Wollaton Hall Court (Greenwich) London, Leicester House Dover Folkestone

Payment 20s 40s 40s 20s 30s 40s 40s 6d 20s 20s £2 40s 38s 4d 20s 20s 3 £20 4 — 20s 7d 50s 20s 7s 30s 6s 2d £2 7 — 20s 10s £3 6s 8d 20s 15s 8d 12d £10 — 43s 10s

Citation MM R R R R MS R MM MS R R MM MM R A, C A, C R R R MM MM MM MM A, C R R R R R R A, C MM R R

This record indicates that two performances, perhaps on separate occasions, were being compensated. 3 This payment appears to have been for this date, as well as the company’s performances on 26 December and 3 March 1583. 4 See previous note. 5 This visit does not appear in REED, Norwich. 6 This performance may have been a joint performance with Oxford’s Men. 7 See note 3. 8 Kirtling Manor was Lord North’s estate.


85

85–86

86

86–87

9

2 Feb–2 Feb 2 Feb–2 Feb 22 Jul–22 Jul 29 Sep–29 Sep 3 Feb–3 Feb 3 Jan 6 Jan 21 Feb 23 Feb 24 Feb–Jul 21 Apr 20 Nov 26 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep Oct–Oct Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 1 Jan 13 Feb 17–23 Jul 13 Aug 22 Aug 21 Sep 24 Sep 27 Sep 29 Sep 25 Oct 14 Nov 26 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

Hythe Hythe Lydd Norwich York Court (Greenwich) Court (Greenwich) 9 Court Court (Somerset House) Cambidge London, Leicester House London, Leicester House Court (Greenwich) Aldeburgh Bridgwater Coventry Exeter Leicester Maidstone Norwich Oxford Court (Greenwich) Court (Greenwich) Bristol Nottingham Faversham Lydd Dover Canterbury 10 Rye Ipswich 11 King’s Lynn Court (Greenwich) 12 Abingdon Abingdon

10s 20s 20s 30s 40s £10 £10 — £10 26s 8d £5 £5 £10 20s 30s 40s 53s 4d 23s 23s 4d 40s 10s £10 £10 20s 40s 20s 20s 40s 30s 20s 26s 8d £3 10s £10 20s 10s

205 R R R R R A, C A, C C A, C R MM MM A, C MS R R R R R R R A, C A, C R R R R R R MM MS MS A, C R, M?13 R

The revels accounts indicate that the Queen’s Men was invited to play this day, but in the actual event no performance took place, as the Queen did not attend (Chambers, Stage iv.160). 10 This entry does not appear in the corresponding REED volume. 11 Sussex’s Men is also listed in this record; the performance thus may have been joint. 12 There appears to be some confusion regarding the Abingdon visits. The REED manuscript lists a payment of 20s for 1586–87; McMillin and Maclean list this payment for 1585–86 but list a 1586–87 payment of 10s which I did not find in the REED manuscript. I have elected to list both entries here. 13 See previous note.


206

87

87–88

15 Jun–14 Jun 23 Jun–9 Jul 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 17 Dec–17 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 1 Jan 6 Jan 28 Feb 13 Jun 24 Jun 3 Jul 19 Jul 20 Jul 25 Jul 4 Aug 12 Aug 13 Aug 19 Aug 20 Aug 4 Sep 9 Sep Sep Sep 28–29 Oct 16 Dec 26 Dec 15 Jun 87– 18 Jun 88 Dec–Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 22 Jul–22 Jul 22 Jul–22 Jul

Bath Bristol Canterbury Gloucester Hythe Leicester Norwich Saffron Walden Stratford Worcester Court (Greenwich) Court (Greenwich) Court (Greenwich) 14 Thame Cambridge, Trinity College Ipswich Aldeburgh Bristol Southampton King’s Lynn Rye New Romney Dover Nottingham Beverley 15 York Coventry Coventry Kitling Manor Aldeburgh Greenwich, Court Bath

19s 4d £2 20s 30s 20s 24s 36s 8d 6s 8d 20s 10s £10 £10 £10 — 30s 26s 8d 40s £2 40s 40s 20s 20s 45s 2d 13s 4d — £3 6s 8d 20s 20s 13s 20s £10 15s

R R R R R R R MM DS R A, C A, C A, C MM R MS MS R R MS R R R R R R R R R MS A, C R

Coventry Exeter Faversham Hythe Lydd Lydd

40s 20s 12s 2d 20s 20s 10s

R R R R R R

14 This visit is known owing to the report of the death of William Knell, one of the original Queen’s Men, at the hands of John Towne, one of his fellows. 15 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men appeared with players in the “same livery.” The meaning of this record is unclear. Perhaps two companies of Queen’s Men were present; perhaps there was a joint performance.


88

88–89

16

2 Nov–2 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 6 Jan 2 Feb 18 Feb 27 Mar 6 Apr 10 Apr 3 Jun 12 Jul 14–20 Jul 19 Jul 11–17 Aug 14 Aug 6–12 Oct 15 Nov 10 Dec 17 Dec c. 24 Dec 26 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep Nov–Nov Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 25 Mar–25 Mar

Maidstone Plymouth Saffron Walden Worcester Court (Greenwich) Canterbury Court (Greenwich) Canterbury Dover Rye Lyme Regis Gloucester Bristol Bath Bristol Bath 16 New Park 17 Leicester Norwich Ipswich Dover Richmond, Court Canterbury Coventry Coventry Dublin 18 Dublin 19 Faversham Folkestone Hythe King’s Lynn Lyme Regis Maidstone New Romney

20s 10s 3s 4d — £10 20s £10 20s 10s 20s 8s 33s 6d £2 23s 26s 8d 27s — 10s £4 20s 20s £10 30s 20s 20s £4 £4 20s 5s 10s 26s 8d 10s 13s 4d 20s

207 R R MM R A, C R A, C R R R R R R R R R R R R MS R A, C R R R F F R R R MS R R R

New Park was one of the Stanley family’s estates. REED lists the date as 15 November, but McMillin and MacLean list it as 6 November. 18 This record indicates that Essex’s Men was also present in Dublin; perhaps there was a joint performance. 19 McMillin and MacLean omit this REED entry, but list a visit with 20s payment for Folkestone in this year. Since there is no record of a Folkestone visit in REED in this year, I believe that it is a misprint and the entry should read “Faversham.” 17


208

89

89–90

29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 30 Jan 9 Feb 14 Feb 15 Feb 17 Feb 10 Mar 17 Apr 20 May 22 May 30 May 3 Jun 6–10 Jul 2 Aug 23 Aug 25 Aug 2 Sep Sep 7–15 Sep 10–20 Sep 29 Sep–25 Nov 5–11 Oct Oct Nov 26 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec

20

Nottingham 21 Nottingham Oxford Faversham Court (Whitehall) New Romney Lydd Rye Winchester Gloucester 22 Leicester Ipswich Aldeburgh 23 Norwich 24 Lathom House Maidstone Dover Rye Reading Winchester 25 Knowsley Carlisle Chester Bristol Edinburgh Bath Richmond, Court 26 Canterbury Coventry

20s 20s 10s 20s £10 10s 20s 20s 20s 20s 10s 8d 30s 40s — — 20s 40s 20s 20s 20s — — 20s £2 — 15s £10 30s 40s

R R R R A, C R R R R R R MS MS R R R R R R R R MM R R MM R A, C R R

20 This record indicates that this performance was by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by John Symons. 21 This record indicates that this performance was by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. In addition, this record indicates that this company appeared with “others;” perhaps there was a joint performance. 22 This record also notes that the Queen’s appeared with “others;” perhaps there was a joint performance. 23 The payment for this visit appears to be part of the £4 payment noted on the 10 December 1588 visit. 24 Lathom House was one of the Stanley family’s estates. 25 Knowsley was one of the Stanley family’s estates. 26 This record indicates that the Admiral’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. McMillin and MacLean list the year for this entry as 1590–91 and do not note the presence of the Admiral’s Men.


90

90–91

27

29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 28 Oct–27 Oct 22 Jul–22 Jul 15 Nov–13 Nov 25 Mar–25 Mar 29 Sep–29 Sep 16 Jul–10 Jul 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 4 Jan 1 Mar 22 Apr Apr–Oct 1–7 Jun 24 Jul 2–8 Aug 10 Aug 20 Aug 25 Aug before 29 Sep 29 Sep 29 Sep–25 Nov 30 Oct 26 Dec 2 Jan–1 Jan 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

Exeter Faversham Folkestone Gloucester Hythe 27 Ludlow Lydd Marlborough New Romney Oxford Oxford Oxford Winchester 28 Faversham Court (Greenwich) Norwich Nottingham 29 Knowsley Shrewsbury Bristol Canterbury New Romney Rye Aldeburgh Newark Chester Liecester 30 Court (Richmond) Bridgnorth Cambridge University 31 Faversham Folkestone Folkestone Gloucester

26s 8d 20s 10s 30s 20s 10s 20s 10s 16s 10s 20s 10s 20s 20s £10 40s 20s — 20s 32s 20s 20s 20s 40s 20s 20s 10d 40s £10 10s 20s 40s 10s 5s 30s

209 R R R R R R R MM R R R R R R A, C R R R R R R R R MS R R R A, C R R R R R R

McMillin and MacLean date the entry to July. This record indicates that Essex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 29 This record indicates that this performance was by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 30 This record indicates that this performance was by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 31 This record indicates that two performances, perhaps on different occasions, were being compensated. 28


210 29 Sep–29 Sep 22 Jul–22 Jul 22 Jul–22 Jul 2 Nov–2 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec Saffron 29 Sep–29 Sep 25 Dec–24 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 91

1 Jan 2 Jan 3 Jan 6 Jan 11 Jan 23 Jan Feb 14 Feb 14 Feb 28 Feb–6 Mar 25 Mar 15 May 28 May 28 May Jun

32

32

Gloucester Lydd Lydd Maidstone Oxford Walden Shrewsbury Stratford Weymouth-Melcombe Regis 33 Court (Richmond) Maidstone 34 Court (Richmond) 35 Court (Richmond) Canterbury Dover Winchester 36 Court (Greenwich) 37 Southampton 38 Bristol 39 Coventry Ipswich Ipswich Maidstone Winchester

30s 20s 13s 4d 10s 13s 4d 3s 4d 40s 20s 10s

R R R R R MM R MM R

£10 20s £10 £10 20s 10s 20s £10 20s 26s 8d 15s 20s 30s 10s 20s

A R A, C A, C R R R A, C R R R MS MS R R

This record indicates that Sussex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. The February-March 1591 alliance of one Queen’s branch (Laneham’s?) with Sussex’s Men would suggest that this entry is also dateable to February–April 1591, but there is no way to verify this. 33 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by John Laneham. 34 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 35 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 36 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 37 This record indicates that Sussex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 38 This record indicates that Sussex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 39 This record indicates that Sussex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance.


91–92

40

2 Jun c. 7 Jun 9 Jun 20 Jun 23 Jun 29 Jun 9 Jul 27 Jul–29 Sep 18 Aug 24 Aug 1st week Sep 29 Sep–25 Nov 11 Oct 20 Oct 26 Dec before 15 Jan 91 Jun 91–10 Jun 92 Jun 91–10 Jun 92 Jun 91–10 Jun 92 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

Faversham 40 Aldeburgh 41 New Romney 42 King’s Lynn Norwich 43 Southampton 44 Poole Bristol Winkburn Coventry Newcastle Chester Aldeburgh Coventry Court (Whitehall) Aldeburgh Bath Bath 45 Bath Cambridge Cambridge, Trinity 46 College 47 Nov–Nov Coventry Nov–Nov Coventry 8 Sep–8 Sep Folkestone 6 Dec–4 Dec Fordwich 1–7 Dec–1–7 Dec Fordwich 29 Sep–29 Sep Gloucester 29 Sep–29 Sep Leicester

211

10s — 10s £4 40s 20s 9s 30s 40s 30s £5 40s 20s 20s £10 20s 15s 6d 40s 15s 6d 10s 2s 6d

R MS MM MS R R R R MM R R R MS R A, C MS R R R R R

5s 40s 7s 20s 16d 6s 8d 30s 40s

R R R R R R R

The burial of Humphrey Swaine, Queen’s Man, establishes this visit. This entry does not appear in REED. 42 This record indicates that two performances, perhaps on different occasions, were being compensated. 43 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 44 This record indicates that the Children of the Chapel was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. McMillin and MacLean list the payment as 20s and omit the presence of the Children of the Chapel. 45 McMillin and MacLean date the entry to between June and 19 September, 1591. 46 This payment is for one player, so it is unlikely that this entry represents a visit by the entire company, or even one of the branches. 47 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. McMillin and MacLean note this entry, but question if it represents a separate visit from the other Coventry visit in this year. 41


212

92

92–93

93

48

22 Jul–22 Jul 2 Nov–2 Nov 2 Nov–2 Nov 2 Nov–2 Nov 25 Mar–25 Mar 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 25 Dec–25 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 30 Mar 1 May 10 Jun 2–15 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 3 Aug 22 Aug 24 Aug–29 Sep 17 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 4 Dec–3 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 25 Mar–25 Mar 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 25 Dec–25 Dec Feb 25 Feb

Lydd Maidstone Maidstone 48 Maidstone New Romney Nottingham Rochester Saffron Walden Stratford Winchester Worcester Canterbury Ipswich Cambridge University Bristol York 49 York Southampton Bath 50 Cambridge Canterbury Barnstaple Coventry Exeter Faversham 51 Fordwich Ipswich 52 Lyme Regis New Romney Plymouth 53 Reading Stratford Reading Oxford

20s 30s 20s 20s 10s 20s 20s 6s 8d 20s 20s £4 20s 33s 4d 20s £2 £3 6s 8d 20s 40s 14s 9d — 13s 10s 40s 36s 8d 20s 6s 8d 26s 8d 12s 6d 10s 9s 3s 4d 20s 20s 10s

R R R R R R MM MM MM R R R MS R R R R R R R R R R R R MM MS R R R R MM R R

McMillin and MacLean list the year as 1592–93. It is unclear, but this entry may refer to the same visit as the above entry. 50 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. 51 This entry is not in REED. 52 This record indicates that the performance was given by a branch of the Queen’s Men led by the Dutton brothers. McMillin and MacLean date the visit to between 9 December– 26 May. 53 McMillin and MacLean note this entry, but question if it represents a separate visit from the other Reading visit in this year. 49


93–94

94

94–95

54

3 Apr 27 May Summer Jun 20 Jun 28 Jun 3rd week Sep Sep 18 Oct 26 Nov 11 Sep 93–Oct 94 Dec–Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 6 Jan 1–8 Apr 4 Jul Jul 4–10 Aug after 10 Aug 2 Sep 25 Jun Sep/Oct 94– 10 Oct 95 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 22 Jul–22 Jul

213

Bridgwater Norwich Kendal Caludon Castle Leicester 54 Chatsworth Newcastle York Norwich Southampton Bath 55 Bridgwater 56 Canterbury 57 Faversham Gloucester Ipswich Leicester Maidstone Rochester Court (Hampton Court) 58 The Rose Coventry Caludon Castle Bristol Southampton York Norwich Bath

15s 40s 20s £3 24s 20s £3 53s 4d 40s £1 6s 8d 22s 6d £1 20s 30s 40s 26s 8d 10s 20s £1 £10 — 40s 12s 30s £2 20s 30s 18s 4d

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R MS R R MM A, C G R R R R R R R

Canterbury Exeter Folkestone Gloucester Ipswich Leicester Lydd

30s 20s 5s 30s 26s 8d 40s 3s 4d

R R R R MS R R

Chatsworth was the Cavendish family’s estate. McMillin and MacLean list the year as 1594–95. 56 McMillin and MacLean date this entry to 5–25 Dec 1594. 57 This record indicates that two performances, perhaps on different occasions, were being compensated. 58 Henslowe’s Diary indicates that the Queen’s Men and Sussex’s Men were both playing at the Rose on these dates; perhaps the two companies were performing jointly, perhaps on alternating days. 55


214 22 Jul–22 Jul 2 Nov–2 Nov 12 Jul 94– 5 Aug 95 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

Lydd Maidstone Oxford University

13s 4d 20s 20s

R R R

Oxford Wallingford

20s 2s 6d

R R

59

Lord Strange’s Men (Derby’s Men)

Patrons: (1) Ferdinando Stanley (c. 1559–16 Apr 1594); styled Lord Strange from 1572; summoned to Parliament as Lord Strange 28 Jan 1589; succeeded as 14th earl of Derby and lord of the Isle of Man 25 Sep 1593. (2) William Stanley (c. 1561–29 Sep 1642); succeeded as 15th earl of Derby 16 Apr 1594; confirmed in the lordship of the Isle of Man 7 July 1609. Known Key Players: Edward Alleyn, Will Kemp, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, George Bryan (named in 1593 document); George Attewell (court payee, 1590–91); Richard Cowley and Thomas Downton (named by Alleyn when on tour with Strange’s, 1592). Records of a Derby’s or Strange’s company occur as far back as the 1560’s and continue into the 1580’s; it is possible that the company that appeared in Coventry in 1587–88 was distinct from the earlier Strange’s Men, although this is not certain. Strange’s Men Year 77–78 78 78–79

79 80

80–81

59

Record Date 29 Sep–29 Sep 7 Dec 1 Jul–9 Jun Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 11 Feb 15 Jan 20–26 Nov 19 Dec 13 Jun 80– 15 Jun 81

Location Faversham Nottingham Bath Coventry Ipswich Stratford 60 Court Bristol Rye Bath

Payment 6s 8d 6s 8d 5s 2d 10s 13s 4d 5s £10 13s 4d 10s 7s 9d

Citation G, R G, R G, R G, R G, MS DS C G, R G, R G, R

Henry Stanley patronized companies referred to as both Strange’s and Derby’s Men; Ferdinando Stanley’s company was known as Strange’s Men until he became Earl of Derby on 25 September 1593; William Stanley’s company was always known as Derby’s Men. I have elected to present only the itinerary of the companies patronized by Ferdinando and William Stanley. 60 The company is referred to as “tumblers” in the Chamber Accounts (Chambers, Stage iv.156).


81 81–82 82 82–83 83 83–84 84–85 86 87 87–88 89 90 90–91 91

91–92

92

61

29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 22 Jul–22 Jul 26 Mar–1 Apr 28 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 4 Jan 29 Sep–29 Sep 1 Jan 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 9 Jan 28 Dec Dec–Dec 5 Nov 27 Dec late 90–May 91 16 Feb 27 Dec 28 Dec Jun–10 Jun Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 1 Jan 9 Jan 6 Feb 8 Feb 19 Feb–22 Jun

Canterbury Gloucester Lydd Bristol 61 Court Plymouth Nottingham 62 Barnstaple 63 Court Barnstaple Beverley 64 Court 65 Court Coventry London, Cross Keys 66 Court (Richmond) 67 The Theatre 68 Court (Greenwich) Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) Bath Coventry Faversham Folkestone Gloucester Maidstone Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) The Rose

10s 14s 4d 3s 4d 13s 4d £10 10s 6s 8d 2s £10 2s 2s £10 £10 5s — £10 — £10 £10 £10 17s 20s 20s 4s 10s 20s £10 £10 £10 £10 —

215 G, R G, R G, R G, R C G, R G, R G, R C G, R R C C G, R G A, C G A, C A, C A, C G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R R A, C A, C A, C A, C G

The company performed “activities” on this occasion (Chambers, Stage iv.158). The Barnstaple records for 1582–1583 are not included in the published REED, Devon volume. It may be that Gurr transcribed the 1583–1584 record twice. 63 The company performed “activities” on this occasion (Chambers, Stage iv.159). 64 This company appears to have been tumblers, hence Astington’s omission; it is also called “Standleyes Boyes.” 65 This company again appears to have been tumblers; Symons is named as the payee, but the company’s patron is not named. As Symons was a payee for Strange’s tumblers the year before, I have included the entry here. 66 This court performance may have been a joint performance with the Lord Admiral’s Men. 67 See Chapter 4 for details on why the widely-held belief Strange’s played at the Theatre in 1590–91 is likely erroneous. 68 This court performance may have been a joint performance with the Lord Admiral’s Men. 62


216

92–93

93

69

after 22 Jun 24 Jun 13 Jul before 1 Aug Aug–Dec Aug–Dec Aug–Dec 7 Aug Aug 11 Oct 27 Dec c.26–28 Dec 29–31 Dec 31 Dec before 1 Aug 93 29 Sep–29 Sep before 3 Feb 93 29 Sep–29 Sep 1 Jan 1 Jan–1 Feb Apr–May July

Cambridge Town Rye Canterbury 69 Bristol 70 Shrewsbury 71 Chester 72 York 73 Ipswich 74 Bath 75 Oxford Court (Hampton Court) Newington Butts The Rose Court (Hampton Court) 76 Bristol Faversham 77 Shrewsbury Sudbury Court (Hampton Court) The Rose 78 Chelmsford 79 Rye

20s 13s 4d 30s 30s 10s — — 20s 16s 3d 6s 8d £10 — — £10 — 20s 40s 3s 6d £10 — — 13s 4d

G, R R G, R G, R G — — G, MS G G, R A, C G G A, C G, R G, R G, R G, MS A, C G — G

This visit is established by a letter from Edward Alleyn to Philip Henslowe. I have followed Somerset in dating this letter to 1592, although it is also possible that the letter was written in 1593. 70 This visit is not recorded in REED, Shropshire, J.A.B. Somerset, ed., although the visit can be inferred from Alleyn’s letter to Henslowe. 71 Inferred from Alleyn’s letter to Henslowe. 72 Inferred from Alleyn’s letter to Henslowe. 73 Strange’s is listed as Derby’s here, suggesting confusion in the records, or perhaps that Derby’s musicians, known to be traveling at this time, were part of this performance. This record also indicates that the Admiral’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 74 This entry is not recorded in REED; Gurr does not provide a source. 75 Gurr lists the date as 6 October. 76 This visit is not in the Bristol records, however, one of Edward Alleyn’s letters demonstrates that Strange’s was in Bristol at this time. Gurr lists the visit as July. 77 This record indicates that the Admiral’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 78 A letter Edward Alleyn wrote to his wife from Chelmsford is dated 2 May 1593 (Rutter 73). 79 This entry is not recorded in REED.


93–94 94

94–95

Aug 2 Dec Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 May 15–19 May 27 May 15 Sep 20 Sep 29 Sep–Easter

80

Bath 81 Coventry Caludon Castle Leicester Ipswich 82 Southampton 83 Winchester Norwich King’s Lynn, with Morley’s Dunwich

16s 3d 20s 10s 5s 20s £1 6s 8d 20s 20s 5s

217 R G, R R G, R MS G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, MS

Pembroke’s Men Patron: Henry Herbert (after 1538–19 Jan 1601); styled Lord Herbert 1551 until he succeeded as 21st earl of Pembroke and Baron Herbert of Cardiff 17 Mar 1570; lord president Council in the Marches of Wales, 1586–1601. Known Key Players: Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriel Spencer, William Bird, Thomas Downton (1597 Court of Requests suit); Humphrey and Anthony Jeffes (inferred from appearance in Henslowe’s Diary at the same time these other five 84 85 appear) ; Ben Jonson (inferred from the fact that he wrote Isle of Dogs). Year 91–93 92 92–93

80

Record Date after May 91 26 Dec 11 Jun 92– 10 Sep 93

Location 86 The Theatre? Court (Hampton Court) 87 Bath

Payment — £10 16s

Citation G A, C G, R

Gurr lists payment as 12s 3d. The REED entry appears to correspond to the visit Gurr records for June 1592, with payment of 16s 3d. Apparently there is disagreement concerning the dating of this record. 81 Beginning with this performance, Strange’s is known as Derby’s. 82 Gurr lists this entry for 1592–93, but the records for that year are missing, so he may be in error. This record also indicates that Morley’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 83 The company is listed as the Countess of Derby’s on this date. Gurr lists the date as 16 May. 84 However, Anthony Jeffes was definitely in Brunswick as late as December 1596 (see Schirckx). 85 Based on certain assumptions about Pembroke’s repertory, it has been claimed that Gabriel Spencer, John Holland, John Sincler, and Humphrey Jeffes were all Pembroke’s players in 1592–93, but as I have argued in Chapter 2, this assumption is questionable. 86 There is no solid evidence to verify this conjectural London run, but it seems very likely that Pembroke’s played in London during this period, and the Theatre is the most likely venue for the company to have occupied. 87 Pembroke’s was also charged 2s for breaking a “bowe” during the visit.


218

93

93–94

29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 19 Dec–20 Jun 28 Oct–27 Oct 29 Sep–29 Sep Nov–Nov 6 Jan June June July 25 Mar–24 Mar

Ipswich King’s Lynn Leicester Ludlow Shrewsbury Coventry Court (Hampton Court) Caludon Castle York Rye Bewdley

13s 4d 20s 14s 20s 7d 40s 30s £10 40s 40s 13s 4d 20s

G, MS G, MS G, R G, R G, R G, R A, C R G, R G, R G, R

Sussex’s Men Patrons: (1) Thomas Radcliffe (c. 1525 or 1526–9 Jun 1583), styled Lord FitzWalter 27 Nov. 1542–53; succeeded as 8th earl of Sussex and 3rd Viscount and 9th Lord FitzWalter 17 Feb 1557. (2) Henry Radcliffe (before 1533–14 Dec 1593); succeeded as 9th earl of Sussex, 4th Viscount, and 10th Lord FitzWalter 9 Jun 1583. (3) Robert Radcliffe (12 Jun 1573–22 Sep 1629), styled Lord FitzWalter until he succeeded as 10th earl of Sussex and 5th Viscount and 11th Lord FitzWalter 14 Dec 1593. Known Key Players: Richard Tarlton, until 1583 (Tarleton’s Tragical Treatises, 1578, says he is one of Sussex’s players). Year 77

77–78

78

78–79 79

80

88

Record Date 2 Feb 30 May 31 Aug 26 Oct–1 Nov 6 Jun 77– 30 Jun 78 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb 16 Sep 28 Dec 1 Jul–9 Jun 6 Jan 3 Mar 26 Dec 2 Feb

Location Court (Hampton Court) 88 Ipswich Nottingham 89 Bristol Bath 90

Faversham Court (Hampton Court) Rye Court (Richmond) 91 Bath Court (Richmond) Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall)

Payment £16 13s 4d 20s 13s 4d 20s 5s

Citation A, C G, MS G, R G, R G, R

13s 4d £10 10s £10 10s 6d £10 £10 £10 £10

G, R A, C G, R A, C G, R A, C A, C A, C A, C

The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 90 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 91 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 89


80–81 81

81–82

82 82–83 83 84–85 85

85–86

86

86–87

92

16 Feb 27 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb 1 Sep 14 Sep Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep Nov–Nov 6 Jan 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 26 Feb 15 May 22 Jul Nov–Nov Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 19 Feb 5 Mar Jul–Aug May 14 Nov 15 Jun–14 Jun 15 Jun–14 Jun

Court (Whitehall) Court (Whitehall) 92 Norwich Norwich Court (Whitehall) 93 York Nottingham 94 Coventry 95 Ipswich 96 Ipswich Norwich Southampton Coventry Court (Windsor) Gloucester 97 Maidstone Lyme Regis Dover Bath Coventry Coventry Gloucester Nottingham 98 Stratford? Dover Southampton Nottingham Bath 99 King’s Lynn Bath 100 Bath

£10 £10 40s 20s £10 — 10s 6s 8d 13s 4d 20s 10s 10s 10s £10 13s 4d £1 3s 4d 6s 8d 7s 8d 6s 8d 10s 5s 6s 8d 5s 6s 8d 20s 20s 6s 9d £3 10s 10s 8s 10d

219 A, C A, C G, R G, R A, C G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, MS G, R G, R G, R A, C G, R G, R R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R DS G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R R R

The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. This record indicates that Radcliffe’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 94 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 95 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 96 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 97 The company is listed as the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” in this record. 98 The company listed in this record is not named, but Edgar Fripp thinks Sussex’s is likely to have been the company in question. 99 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 100 The company is listed in the entry as “Radcliffe’s.” 93


220

87

87–88

88

88–89

89

89–90

90 90–91

101

29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep after 24 Dec 13–19 Aug Sep 23 Sep 9 Sep–6 Oct Jun–Jun Dec–Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 18 Apr 20 Jun 27 Sep 5 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 17 Feb 1 Mar 8 Mar 2 Sep 5 Oct 19 Nov 22 Jul–22 Jul 25 Mar–25 Mar 29 Sep–29 Sep 17 Feb 28–29 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

Canterbury Exeter 101 Kendal Leicester Southampton 102 Bristol Coventry Ipswich York Bath Coventry Nottingham Southampton Ipswich York 103 Gloucester Canterbury Aldeburgh Exeter Hythe Nottingham Nottingham Leicester Ipswich Norwich Gloucester Faversham Leicester Lydd New Romney Nottingham Ipswich Norwich Exeter Gloucester 104 Gloucester

10s 20s 2s 20s 20s 20s 13s 4d 10s 30s 10s 10d 10s 6s 8d 40s 13s 4d 26s 8d 6s 8d 13s 4d 6s 8d 13s 4d 5s 5s 3s 4d 20s 10s 20s 20s 10s 10s 6s 6s 8d 6s 8d 10s 20s 13s 20s 30s

G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, R G, R G, R MS G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R R G, MS G, R G G, R R

This record indicates that Essex’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 102 Gurr lists the visit as September, 1587. 103 Gurr lists the date as 17 September. 104 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. The February-March 1591 alliance of one Queen’s branches (Laneham’s?) with Sussex’s Men suggests that this entry is also dateable to February–April 1591, but there is no way to verify this for sure.

Company Itineraries, 1584–1594 91

91–92 92 92–93

93

94

14 Feb 17 Feb 28 Feb–6 Mar 24 Mar 5 Jun 11 Aug 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Jan 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 1st wk Sep Aug 7 Dec 27–31 Dec 1 Jan-6 Feb 1–8 Apr

105

Southampton Ipswich 106 Bristol 107 Coventry Norwich Leicester Nottingham Court (Whitehall) Ipswich King’s Lynn Sudbury Newcastle York Winchester The Rose The Rose 108 The Rose

30s £1 26s 8d 15s 20s 33s 4d 5s £10 13s 4d 20s 2s 6d 60s 40s 10s — — —

221 G, R G R G, R G, R G G, R A, C G, MS G, MS G, MS G, R G, R G, R G G G

Lord Admiral’s Men (Nottingham’s Men, Howard’s Men) Patron: Charles Howard (c. 1536–14 Dec 1624); succeeded as Baron Howard 11/12 Jan 1573 and created 10th earl of Nottingham 22 Oct 1597; Lord High Admiral 8 Jul 1585–27 Jan 1619; Lord Chamberlain 1 Jan 1584–Jul 1585. Known Key Players: Edward Alleyn, Richard Jones, Robert Browne (1589 “deed of sale”); John Bradstreet, Thomas Sackville (1592 passport); John Singer, Thomas Towne, Martin Slater, Edward Juby, Thomas Downton, James Tunstall, Samuel Rowley, Charles Massey, Richard Allen (1594–95 Henslowe entry); Edward Dutton (c. 1597, Frederick and Basilea “plot”); Robert Shaw, William Bird, Gabriel Spencer, Richard Cowley, Humphrey Jeffes (1597–98, Henslowe entries). Year 77

105

Record Date 17 Feb 24 Oct 3 Dec

Location 109 Whitehall, Court Ipswich Kirtling Manor

Payment £10 13s 4d 5s

Citation A, C G, MS G

This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 106 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 107 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 108 Henslowe’s Diary indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present at the Rose during these dates; the two companies may have performed jointly or on alternating dates. 109 In this record the company is referred to as Howard’s Men.


222 77–78 78

78–79

82 84–85 85 85–86

86

86–87

110

13 Nov–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 5 Jan 19 Jul 31 Aug–6 Sep 19 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 1 Jul–9 Jun Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Oct Nov–Nov 8 Sep–8 Sep 12 Jun 27 Dec Nov–Nov 8 Sep–8 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 6 Jan 20 Feb 15 July Jun–Jun Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Feb–2 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep

110

Dover 111 Faversham 112 Court (Hampton Court) Rye Bristol Nottingham 113 Aldeburgh 114 Bath Coventry Ipswich 115 Norwich Ipswich Coventry Folkestone 116 Dover Court (Greenwich) Coventry Folkestone Hythe 117 Leicester 118 Court (Greenwich) Ipswich Rye Bath Coventry Exeter Hythe Leicester Norwich Oxford Plymouth

13s 4d 6s 8d £10 6s 8d 10s 5s 3s 3s 6d 10s 15s 5s 10s 20s 5s 20s £10 20s 6s 8d 6s 8d 4s £10 20s 10s 10s 20s 20s 7s 4s 30s 20s 10s

G, R G, R A, C G, R G, R G, R MS G, R G, R G, MS G G, MS G, R G, R G, R A, C G, R G, R G, R G, R A, C G, MS G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R G, R

In this record the company is referred to as Howard’s Men. In this record the company is referred to as Howard’s Men. 112 In this record the company is referred to as Howard’s Men. 113 This record indicates that Roberts’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 114 In this record the company is referred to as Howard’s Men. 115 This record does not appear in REED, Norwich. 116 This record indicates that Hunsdon’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 117 This record indicates that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 118 This record indicates that Hunsdon’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 111

Company Itineraries, 1584–1594 87

87–88 88 88–89 89 89–90

90

90–91

91

91–92 92

after 15 May 26 May 28 May after 27 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 11 Feb 28 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep Dec–Dec 8 Sep–8 Sep 31 Oct–17 Feb 29 Sep–29 Sep 22 Jul–22 Jul 2 Nov–2 Nov 25 Jul 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 3 Mar 23 Jun 26 Jun 9–15 Aug 17 Sept 1 Oct 27 Dec 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep to May 91 29 Sep–29 Sep 16 Feb after 1 Sep 18 Sep Jun–Jun 8 Sep–8 Sep after 15 Jan

Southampton Ipswich Aldeburgh York Oxford Court (Richmond) Cambridge Court (Whitehall) 119 Court 120 Canterbury Coventry Folkestone 121 Ipswich Ipswich Lydd Maidstone Marlborough Oxford Winchester Court (Greenwich) Rye New Romney Bristol Gloucester Faversham 122 Court (Richmond) Gloucester Oxford The Theatre Winchester 123 Court (Greenwich) Southampton Rye Bath Folkestone Aldeburgh

20s 10s 20s 30s 20s £10 10s £10 £10 30s 20s 6s 8d 10s £1 10s 10s 7s 4d 6s 8d 10s £10 13s 4d 20s 30s 20s 10s £10 30s 10s — 20s £10 £1 10s 16s 3d 3s 4d 10s

223 G, MS G, MS MS G, R R A, C G, R A, C C G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, MS G, R G, R G G, R G, R A, C G, R R G, R G, R G, R A, C G, R G, R G G, R A, C G, R G, R G, R G, R MS

119 This record indicates that Paul’s Boys was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. Astington lists only Paul’s Boys as playing on this date, but other sources (Gurr, Chambers, Greg) also list the Admiral’s on this date. 120 This record indicates that the Queen’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. Gurr lists the year for this notice as 1590–91. 121 Gurr lists the date of this entry as 1590. 122 This performance may have been joint, with Strange’s. 123 This performance may have been joint, with Strange’s.


224

92–93

93

93–94 94

94–95

124

7 Aug 29 Sep–24 Dec 19 Dec 29 Nov 92– 29 Dec 93 Nov–Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep 8 Sep–8 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 29 Sep–29 Sep 3 Feb Apr 1st wk May Jul 16 Oct 11 Sep 93–Oct 94 22 Jul–22 Jul 14–16 May 3–13 Jun 15 Jun–31 Dec 28 Dec Oct 94–10 Oct 95 29 Sep–29 Sep 2 Nov–2 Nov 29 Sep–29 Sep

124

Ipswich Congleton Leicester 125 Bridgwater

20s 7s 8s £1

G, MS R G, R G, R

Coventry Faversham Folkestone 126 Ipswich Norwich Shrewsbury 127 Shrewsbury 128 Shrewsbury 129 York 130 Newcastle Rye Lyme Regis 131 Bath Lydd The Rose 132 Newington Butts The Rose Court (Greenwich) Bath Faversham Maidstone Oxford

13s 4d 10s 3s 4d 20s 20s 10s 40s 10s 40s 30s 13s 4d 5s 22s 10d 6s 8d — — — £10 13s 10d 20s 20s 10s

G, R G, R G, R G, MS G, R G, R R G, R G, R G, R G, R R G, R G, R G G G A, C G, R G, R G, R G, R

This record indicates that Derby’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. By “Derby’s,” Strange’s is probably meant; however, it is unclear. Derby’s musicians were touring at this time. 125 Gurr lists the date for this entry as September 1593. 126 This record indicates that Stafford’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 127 This record indicates that Strange’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 128 Gurr lists the year for this entry as 1592. 129 This record indicates that Morden’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 130 This record indicates that Morley’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. 131 This record indicates that Lord Norris’s Men was also present; perhaps there was a joint performance. Gurr lists the payment as 23s 9d. 132 Henslowe’s Diary indicates that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men also played at Newington Butts at this time; the companies may have played jointly or on alternating days.


225

The following is a list of the records from which the preceding itineraries have been drawn. I provide more detailed information on the relevant REED and Malone Society Collections records involved; in other cases, I refer the reader to the other works consulted for these itineraries. Abingdon (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.; will appear in REED, Berkshire. I am grateful to Alexandra F. Johnston for allowing me access to her unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Aldeburgh (MS): Chamberlains’ Accounts (J.C. Coldewey, ed.; appears in Malone Society Collections IX) Barnstaple (R): Receivers’ Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.; appears in REED, Devon) Bath (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Robert J. Alexander, ed.; appears in REED, Somerset) Beverley (R): Town Accounts (Diana Wyatt, ed. I am grateful to Diana Wyatt for allowing me access to her unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Bewdley (R): St. Andrew’s Chapel Accounts, Bridge Warden Accounts (David N. Klausner, ed.; appears in REED, Herefordshire/Worcestershire) Blandford Forum (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C.E. McGee, eds; appears in REED, Dorset/Cornwall) Bridgnorth (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (J.A.B. Somerset, ed.; appears in REED, Shropshire) Bridgwater (R): Water Bailiffs’ Accounts, Town Receivers’ Accounts (James Stokes, ed.; appears in REED, Somerset) Bristol (R): Mayors’ Audits (Mark C. Pilkinton, ed.; appears in REED, Bristol) Caludon Castle (R): Berkeley Household Accounts (Peter Greenfield, ed.; appears in “Entertainments,” REED Newsletter 8.1) Cambridge (R): Trinity College Stewards’ Books, Town Treasurers’ Books, University Audit Book (Alan H. Nelson, ed.; appears in REED, Cambridge) Canterbury (R): City Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Carlisle records pertaining to the Queen’s Men appear in McMillin and MacLean Chatsworth and Hardwick (Cavendish estates) (R): Cavendish Household Accounts (Barbara Palmer, ed.; will appear in REED, Derbyshire. I am grateful to Barbara Palmer and John M. Wasson for allowing me access to their unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto, and note here that the data transcribed do not yet represent the complete Cavendish entertainment records.) Chester (R): Dean and Chapter Accounts (Lawrence M. Clopper, ed.; appears in REED, Chester) Congleton (R): Borough Account Book, Borough Order Book (ed. Alan C. Coman; appears in “The Congleton Accounts,” REED Newsletter 14.1)

226


Court records appear in Chambers, Elizabethan Stage volume iv and Astington, English Court Theatre Coventry (R): Wardens’ Account Book (R.W. Ingram, ed.; appears in REED, Coventry) Dartmouth (R): Receivers’ Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.; appears in REED, Devon) Doncaster records pertaining to companies which played in London at some point appear in Gurr, Companies Dover (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed. appears in REED, Kent) Dublin appears in Fletcher Dunwich (MS): Bailiffs’ Accounts (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds; appears in Malone Society Collections XI) Edinburgh records pertaining to the Queen’s Men appear in McMillin and MacLean Exeter (R): Receivers’ Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.; appears in REED, Devon) Faversham (R): Town Accounts and Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed. appears in REED, Kent) Folkestone (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed. appears in REED, Kent) Fordwich (R): Mayors’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Gloucester (R): Corporation Chamberlains’ Accounts (Audrey Douglas and Peter Greenfield, eds; appears in REED, Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire) Hythe (R): Assembly Book and Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Ipswich (MS): Chamberlains’ Accounts (V.B. Redstone and E.K. Chambers, eds; appears in Malone Society Collections II.III) Kendal (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Audrey Douglas and Peter Greenfield, eds; appears in REED, Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire) King’s Lynn (MS): Congregation Books (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds; appears in Malone Society Collections XI) Kirtling Manor (North’s estate) (R): Roger, Lord North’s Household Accounts (Ann Brannen, ed.) Lathom House, Knowsley, New Park (Stanley estates) (R): Derby Household Book (David George, ed.; appears in REED, Lancashire) Leicester (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Transcribed by the late Prof. Alice B. Hamilton from the Leicestershire Record Office: BRIII/2/45–53 MSS of Chamberlains’ Accounts. Consulted at the Records of Early English Drama Office, University of Toronto.) Leominster (R): Chamberlains’ Account Books (David N. Klausner, ed.; appears in REED, Herefordshire/Worcestershire) London records appear in Gurr, Companies; Foakes; Wickham, Berry and Ingram; McMillin and MacLean


227

Ludlow (R): Bailiffs’ and Chamberlains’ Accounts (J.A.B. Somerset, ed.; appears in REED, Shropshire) Lydd (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Lyme Regis (R): Mayors’ Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C.E. McGee, eds; appears in REED, Dorset/Cornwall) Maidstone (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Maldon records pertaining to companies which played in London at some point appear in Gurr, Companies Marlborough appears in Gurr, Companies; McMillin and MacLean; and Murray. Newark (R): Town Accounts, Alderman’s Memorandum, Chamberlains’ Bill (John Coldewey, ed.; will appear in REED, Nottinghamshire. I am grateful to John Coldewey for allowing me access to his unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Newcastle Upon Tyne (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (J.J. Anderson, ed.; appears in REED, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) New Romney (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.; appears in REED, Kent) Norwich (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts, Clavors’ Accounts, Dean and Chapter Recievers’ Accounts, Mayors’ Account Books (David Galloway, ed.; appears in REED, Norwich) Nottingham (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (John Coldewey, ed.; will appear in REED, Nottinghamshire. I am grateful to John Coldewey for allowing me access to his unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Oxford (R): City Council Minutes, Corporation Accounts, Vicechancellors’Accounts, Chirst Church Disbursements (John R. Elliot, Alexandra F. Johnston, and Diana Wyatt, eds; appears in REED, Oxford) Percy Household (R): Declaration of Account (Robert J. Alexander, ed.; appears in “Some dramatic records,” REED Newsletter 12.2) Plymouth (R): Receivers’ Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.; appears in REED, Devon) Poole (R): Mayors’ Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C.E. McGee, eds; appears in REED, Dorset/Cornwall) Reading (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.; will appear in REED, Berkshire. I am grateful to Alexandra Johnston for allowing me access to her unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Rochester records pertaining to the Queen’s Men appear in McMillin and MacLean Rye (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts (Cameron Louis, ed.; appears in REED, Sussex) Saffron Walden appears in Gurr, Companies; McMillin and MacLean; and Murray Sherbourne (R): St. Mary the Virgin Churchwardens’ Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C.E. McGee, eds; appears in REED, Dorset/Cornwall) Shrewsbury (R): Bailiffs’ Accounts, Town Payment Claims (J.A.B. Somerset, ed.; appears in REED, Shropshire)

228


Smithills and Gawthorpe (Shuttleworth estates) (R): Household accounts of Sir Richard Shuttleworth (David George, ed.; appears in REED, Lancashire) Southampton (R): Book of Fines, Book of Debts (Peter H. Greenfield, ed.; will appear in REED, Hampshire. I am grateful to Peter H. Greenfield for allowing me access to his unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Stratford appears in Minutes and Accounts; Gurr, Playing Companies Sudbury (MS): Court Books (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds; appears in Malone Society Collections XI) Totnes (R): Receivers’ Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.; appears in REED, Devon) Wallingford (R): Borough Bailiffs’ Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.; will appear in REED, Berkshire. I am grateful to Alexandra F. Johnston for allowing me access to her unpublished transcriptions, consulted at the Records of Early English Drama office, University of Toronto.) Weymouth-Melcombe Regis (R): Mayors’ Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C.E. McGee, eds; appears in REED, Dorset/Cornwall) Winchester (R): Chamberlains’ Accounts, Proceedings Book A (Jane Cowling, ed.; appears in REED, “Winchester”) Winkburn records pertaining to the Queen’s Men appear in McMillin and MacLean Worcester (R): City Accounts (David N. Klausner, ed.; appears in REED, Herefordshire/Worcestershire) York (R): City Chamberlains’ Books, York Minster Chamberlains’ Accounts: St. Peters’ Part, House Books (Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson, eds; appears in REED, York)

Bibliography Adams, Joseph Q. A Life of William Shakespeare. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1923. Alexander, Peter. Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. ———. Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929. Alexander, Robert J. “Some dramatic records from Percy household accounts on microfilm.” REED Newsletter 12.2 (1987): 10–17. The Alleyn Papers. London: The Shakespeare Society, 1843. Arber, Edward, ed. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D. New York: Peter Smith, 1950. Reissue of 1875 original. Astington, John. English Court Theatre, 1558–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. ———. “The Red Lion Playhouse: Two Notes.” Shakespeare Quarterly 36.4 (1985): 456–7. ———. “Tarlton and the Sanguine Temperament.” Theatre Notebook 53.1 (1999): 2–7. Aubrey, John. Aubrey’s Brief Lives. Ed. Oliver Lawson Dick. London: Secker and Warburg, 1949. Austin, Warren B. A Computer-Aided Technique for Stylistic Discrimination: The Authorship of “Greene’s Groats-worth of Wit.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. ———. “A Supposed Contemporary Allusion to Shakespeare as a Plagiarist.” Shakespeare Quarterly 6 (1955): 373–80. Bains, Yashdip S. The Contention and The True Tragedy: William Shakespeare’s First Versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI. Rashtrapati Nivas, Shimla, India: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1996. Baker, Oliver. In Shakespeare’s Warwickshire and the Unknown Years. London: Simpkin Marshall, 1937. Bald, R.C. “The Booke of Sir Thomas More and Its Problems.” Shakespeare Survey 2 (1949): 44–61. Baldwin, T.W. William Shakspere’s Petty School. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1943. ———. William Shakspere’s Small Latine & Lesse Greeke. 2 vols. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1944. Barish, Jonas. The Antitheatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Barroll, J. Leeds. “Drama and the Court.” The Revels History of Drama in English. Vol. 3: 1576–1613. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1975: 3–27.

230


Bate, Jonathan. The Genius of Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———, ed. Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 1995. Bawcutt, N.W., ed. The Jew of Malta, by Christopher Marlowe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978. Bearman, Robert. “John Shakespeare: A Papist or Just Penniless?” Shakespeare Quarterly 56.4 (Winter 2005): 411–33. ———. “John Shakespeare’s ‘Spiritual Testament’: a Reappraisal.” Shakespeare Survey 56 (2003): 184–202. ———. Shakespeare in the Stratford Records. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, 1994. ———. “‘Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte?’ Revisited.” Shakespeare Quarterly 53 (2002): 83–94. Beaurline, L.A, ed. King John, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Bennett, H.S., ed. The Jew of Malta and the Massacre at Paris, by Christopher Marlowe. New York: Gordian Press, 1966. Bennett, Paul E. “An Apparent Allusion to ‘Titus Andronicus’.” Notes and Queries 200 (1955): 422–4. ———. “The Word ‘Goths’ In ‘A Knack to Know a Knave’.” Notes and Queries 200 (1955): 462–3. Bentley, G.E. The Jacobean and Caroline Stage. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941–68. ———. The Profession of Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Berek, Peter. “The ‘Upstart Crow,’ Aesop’s Crow, and Shakespeare as A Reviser.” Shakespeare Quarterly 35 (1984): 205–7. Berry, Herbert, ed. The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch 1576– 1598. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979. ———. “The First Public Playhouses, Especially the Red Lion.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40.2 (1989): 133–48. ———. “Where was the Playhouse in which the Boy Choristers of St. Paul’s Performed Plays?” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 13 (2000): 101–16. Bevington, David, ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Updated 4th ed. New York: Longman, 1997. ———, ed. The Jew of Malta, by Christopher Marlowe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. ———, ed. The Spanish Tragedy, by Thomas Kyd. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. Tr. Peter Putnam. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992. Bolz, Norbert. “Are Robert Greene’s ‘Autobiographies’ Fakes?: The Forgery of The Repentance of Robert Greene.” Shakespeare Newsletter 29 (1979): 43.

Bibliography

231

Booth, Stephen, ed. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Born, Hanspeter. “The Date of 2, 3 Henry VI.” Shakespeare Quarterly 25 (1974): 323–34. Bowers, Roger. “The Playhouse of the Choristers of Paul’s, c. 1575–1608.” Theatre Notebook 54 (2000): 70–85. Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to his Plays, his Poems, his Life and Times, and More. New York: Facts on File, 1990. Bradbrook, Muriel. “Beasts and Gods: Greene’s Groats-worth of Witte and the Social Purpose of Venus and Adonis.” Shakespeare Survey 15 (1962): 62–72. ———. The Rise of the Common Player. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Bradley, David. From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre: Preparing the Play for the Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Braunmuller, A.R, ed. The Life and Death of King John, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Brooks, Alden. Will Shakspere and the Dyer’s Hand. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1943. ———. Will Shakspere, Factotum and Agent. New York: Round Table Press, 1937. Brownstein, Oscar. “A Record of London Inn-Playhouses from c. 1565–1590.” Shakespeare Quarterly 22 (1971): 17–24. Bruce, John. “Who was ‘Will, my Lord of Leycester’s jesting player?’” The Shakespeare Society’s Papers. Vol. I (1844): 88–95. (London: Printed for the Shakespeare Society, Frederick Shoberl, Junior. Burkhart, Robert E. Shakespeare’s Bad Quartos: Deliberate Abridgements Designed for Performance by a Reduced Cast. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. Burns, Edward, ed. King Henry VI Part 1. By William Shakespeare. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2000. Butler, Martin. Theatre and Crisis, 1632–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Cairncross, A.S, ed. The First Part of King Henry VI. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1962. ———. “Pembroke’s Men and Some Shakespearian Piracies.” Shakespeare Quarterly 11 (Summer 1960): 335–49. Capp, Bernard. “Playgoers, Players and Cross-Dressing in Early Modern London: The Bridewell Evidence.” The Seventeenth Century 18 (2003): 159–71. Carroll, D. Allen, ed. Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: Bought with a Million of Repentance, attributed to Henry Chettle. Binghampton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994. ———. “For There is An Upstart Crow.” Upstart Crow 15 (1995): 150–53. Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923. ———. Shakespearean Gleanings. London: Oxford University Press, 1944. ———. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.

232


Chandler, David. “‘Upstart Crow’: Provenance and Meaning.” Notes and Queries 240 (Sept. 1995): 491–4. Chapman, William H. William Shakespeare and Robert Greene, The Evidence. Oakland, CA: Tribune Publishing Co., 1912. Chettle, Henry. Kind-harte’s Dreame. 1593. Chillington, Carol. “Playwrights at Work: Henslowe’s, Not Shakespeare’s, Book of Sir Thomas More.” English Literary Renaissance 10 (1980): 439–79. Collinson, Patrick. Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Coman, Alan C. “The Congleton Accounts: Further Evidence for Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama in Cheshire.” Records of Early English Drama Newsletter 14.1 (1989): 3–18. Cook, Ann Jennalie. “Audiences: Investigation, Interpretation, Invention.” A New History of Early English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997: 305–20. ———. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare’s London: 1576–1642. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Cooper, Duff. Sergeant Shakespeare. London: Hart-Davis, 1949. Cox, John D., and Eric Rasmussen, eds. King Henry VI Part 3. By William Shakespeare. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2001. Craig, Hardin. A New Look At Shakespeare’s Quartos. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961. Crupi, Charles W. Robert Greene. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986. Darlington, Ida. St. George’s Fields: The Parishes of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, and St. Mary, Newington. London: London County Council, 1955. Dekker, Thomas. The Non-Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. 5 vols. Ed. Alexander Grosart. New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1963. Doran, Madeleine. Henry VI, Parts II and III: Their Relation to The Contention and the True Tragedy. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1928. Duncan-Jones, Katherine. Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes From His Life. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2001. Dutton, Richard. “Shakespeare and Lancaster.” Region, Religion and Patronage: Lancastrian Shakespeare. Ed. Richard Dutton, Alison Findlay and Richard Wilson. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003: 143–68. ———. William Shakespeare: A Literary Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989. Dutton, Richard, Alison Findlay and Richard Wilson, eds. Region, Religion and Patronage: Lancastrian Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Eccles, Christine. The Rose Playhouse. New York: Routledge, 1990. Eccles, Mark. “Elizabethan Actors I: A–D.” Notes and Queries 236 (1991): 38–48. ———. “Elizabethan Actors II: E–J.” Notes and Queries 236 (1991): 454–61. ———. “Elizabethan Actors III: K–R.” Notes and Queries 237 (1992): 293–303. ———. “Elizabethan Actors IV: S to End.” Notes and Queries 238 (1993): 165–76.

Bibliography

233

———. Shakespeare in Warwickshire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. Edmond, Mary. “Pembroke’s Men.” Review of English Studies 25 (1974): 129–36. Erne, Lukas. “Biography and Mythography: Rereading Chettle’s Alleged Apology to Shakespeare.” English Studies 5 (1998): 430–40. Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Fields, Bertram. Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare. New York: Regan Books, 2005. Fleay, Frederick Gard. A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559–1642. New York: Stechert, 1909. Reprint of 1890 edition. Fletcher, Alan J. Drama and the Performing Arts in Pre-Cromwellian Ireland. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2001. Fliessner, Robert. “The ‘Upstart Crow’ Reclawed: Was it Kemp, Wilson, Alleyn, or Shakespeare?” Upstart Crow 15 (1995): 143–9. The First Part of the Contention Betwixt the two Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster. 1594. Foakes, R.A., ed. Henslowe’s Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Forker, Charles R. “Webster or Shakespeare? Style, Idiom, Vocabulary and Spelling in the Additions to Sir Thomas More.” Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Ed. T.H. Howard-Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 151–70. Fraser, Russell. Young Shakespeare. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Frazer, Winifred L. “Henslowe’s ‘ne’.” Notes and Queries 236 (1991): 34–5. ———. “William Kemp as ‘Upstart Crow’.” Upstart Crow 15 (1995): 140–42. Freeman, Arthur. “Notes on the text of 2H6 and the ‘Upstart Crow.’” Notes and Queries 15 (1968): 129–30. ———. Thomas Kyd: Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Gabrieli, Vittorio and Giorgio Mechiori, eds. Sir Thomas More. By Anthony Munday and Others. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. Gair, W. Reavley. The Children of Paul’s: The Story of a Theatre Company, 1553– 1608. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Gaw, Allison. “Actors’ Names in Basic Shakespearean Texts, with Special Reference to Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 40 (1925): 530–50. George, David. “Shakespeare and Pembroke’s Men.” Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981): 305–23. Godman, Maureen. “‘Plucking a Crow’ in The Comedy of Errors.” Early Theatre 8.1 (2005): 53–68. Gosson, Stephen. Plays Confuted in Five Actions. 1582. ———. The School of Abuse. 1579. Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.

234


Gray, Joseph William. Shakespeare’s Marriage, His Departure from Stratford and Other Incidents in His Life. London: Chapman and Hall, 1905. Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. Greene, Robert [?]. Groats-worth of Witte and The Repentance of Robert Greene. Ed. G.B. Harrison. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1970. Reissue of 1923 E.P. Dutton and Company publication. ——— [?]. Greene’s Visions. 1592. Greenfield, Peter H. “Entertainments of Henry, Lord Berkeley, 1593–4 and 1600–5.” Records of Early English Drama Newsletter 8.1 (1983): 12–24. ———. “Touring.” A New History of Early English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997: 251–68. Greg, W.W. Dramatic Documents From the Elizabethan Playhouses. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931. ———, ed. Henslowe’s Diary. 2 vols. London: A.H. Bullen, 1904–08. ———. Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar & Orlando Furioso. London: Oxford University Press, 1923. Gurr, Andrew. “The Chimera of Amalgamation.” Theatre Research International 18.2 (1993): 85–93. ———. Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1996. ———. The Shakespearean Playing Companies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. ———. The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ———. The Shakespearian Stage, 1576–1642. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ———. “Three Reluctant Patrons and Early Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 44 (1993): 159–74. Halliwell-Phillipps, J.O. Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare. 10th ed. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898. Hamer, Douglas. “Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte?” Review of English Studies 21 (1970): 41–8. Harbage, Alfred. Annals of English Drama, 975–1700. Rev. S. Schoenbaum. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1964. ———. Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions. New York: Macmillan, 1952. ———. Shakespeare’s Audience. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. Harris, Frank. The Man Shakespeare and His Tragic Life Story. London: F. Palmer, 1909. Harvey, Gabriel. Four Letters and Certain Sonnets. Ed. G.B. Harrison. London: Bodley Head Quartos, 1922. Hattaway, Michael, ed. The First Part of King Henry VI, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———, ed. The Second Part of King Henry VI, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Bibliography

235

———, ed. The Third Part of King Henry VI, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Haynes, Alan. The White Bear: Robert Dudley, The Elizabethan Earl of Leicester. London: Peter Owen, 1987. Heywood, Thomas. An Apology For Actors. 1612. Hibbard, G.R, ed. Love’s Labour’s Lost, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Holland, Peter, ed. Love’s Labor’s Lost, by William Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 2000. ———, ed. A Midsummer Night’s Dream, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Honan, Park. 1998. Shakespeare, A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Honigmann, E.A.J. Shakespeare’s Impact on His Contemporaries. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books, 1982. ———. “Shakespeare’s Life.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Margreta de Grazia and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001: 1–12. ———. Shakespeare: ‘the lost years’. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. ———. “The Shakespeare/Shakeshafte Question, Continued.” Shakespeare Quarterly 54.1 (2003): 83–6. Honigmann, E.A.J. and Susan Brock, eds. Playhouse Wills, 1558–1642. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Hook, Lucyle. “The Curtain.” Shakespeare Quarterly 13 (1962): 499–504. Hoster, Jay. Tiger’s Heart: What Really Happened in the Groat’s-Worth of Wit Controversy of 1592. Columbus: Ravine, 1993. Howard-Hill, T.H., ed. Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Hughes, Alan, ed. Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Ingram, William. The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. ———. “The Costs of Touring.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 6 (1993): 57–62. ———. “Henry Lanman’s Curtain Playhouse as an ‘Easer’ to the Theatre, 1585– 1592.” The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch 1576–1598. Ed. Herbert Berry. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979: 17–28. ———. A London Life in the Brazen Age: Francis Langley, 1548–1602. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. ———. “The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal.” Shakespeare Quarterly 21 (1970): 385–98. Ioppolo, Grace. Revising Shakespeare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Irace, Kathleen O. Reforming the ‘Bad’ Quartos: Performance and Provenance of Six Shakespearean First Editions. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1994.

236


Jenkins, Harold. The Life and Work of Henry Chettle. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, Ltd., 1934. Jonson, Ben. Bartholomew Fair. 1614. Jowett, John, ed. Richard III, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit.” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 87.4 (Dec. 1993): 452–86. ———. “Notes on Henry Chettle.” Review of English Studies 45.179 (1994): 384–8, 517–22. Kastan, David Scott. Shakespeare and the Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kathman, David. “Reconsidering The Seven Deadly Sins.” Early Theatre 7.1 (2004): 13–44. Kathman, David and Terry Ross, eds. The Shakespeare Authorship Page. . Visited 26 June 2007. Kay, Dennis. Shakespeare, His Life, Work, and Era. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992. Keen, Alan and Roger Lubbock. The Annotator: The Pursuit of an Elizabethan Reader of Halle’s Chronicle Involving some Surmises about the Early Life of William Shakespeare. London: Putnam, 1954. Keenan, Siobhan. Travelling Players in Shakespeare’s England. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. King, Ros, ed. The Comedy of Errors, by William Shakespeare. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. King, T.J. Casting Shakespeare’s Plays: London Actors and Their Roles, 1590–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Knowles, Ronald, ed. King Henry VI Part 2, by William Shakespeare. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 1999. Knutson, Roslyn Lander. “Evidence for the Assignment of Plays to the Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 63–89. ———. “Henslowe’s Naming of Parts: Entries in the Diary for Tamar Cham, 1592– 3, and Godfrey of Bulloigne, 1594–5.” Notes and Queries 30(228):2 (Apr. 1983): 157–60. ———. “Histrio-Mastix: Not by John Marston.” Studies in Philology 98 (2001): 359–77. ———. Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ———. The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1991. Kreps, Barbara. “Bad Memories of Margaret? Memorial Reconstruction versus Revision in The First Part of the Contention and 2 Henry VI.” Shakespeare Quarterly 51.2 (2000): 154–80.

Bibliography

237

Lee, Sidney. A Life of William Shakespeare. New Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1917. Leggatt, Alexander. “The Companies and Actors.” The Revels History of Drama in English. Vol. 3: 1576–1613. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.: 95–118. Levenson, Jill L, ed. Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Levi, Peter. The Life and Times of William Shakespeare. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988. Loengard, Janet S. “An Elizabethan Lawsuit: John Brayne, His Carpenter, and the Building of the Red Lion Theatre.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34.3 (Autumn 1983): 298–310. Long, William B. “The Occasion of The Book of Sir Thomas More.” Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Ed. T.H. Howard-Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 45–56. Loomis, Catherine, ed. William Shakespeare: A Documentary Volume. Detroit: Gale, 2002. Lull, Janis, ed. Richard III, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Lyly, John. Endymion, the Man in the Moon. 1591. MacLean, Sally-Beth. “Tracking Leicester’s Men: The Patronage of a Performance Troupe.” Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England. Ed. Paul Whitfield White and Suzanne R. Westfall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002: 246–71. ———. “The Players on Tour: New Evidence from Records of Early English Drama.” The Elizabethan Theatre 10 (1988): 155–72. ———. “The Politics of Patronage: Dramatic Records in Robert Dudley’s Household Books.” Shakespeare Quarterly 44 (1993): 175–82. Maguire, Laurie E. Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The ‘bad’ quartos and their contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Malone, Edmond. “Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI.” The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare. 10 vols. London: 1790: vi. ———. “The Life of William Shakespeare.” The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare. Ed. Edmond Malone. 21 vols. London: 1821: ii.1–529. ———. Supplement to the Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays Published in 1778 by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens. 2 vols. London: 1780. Marston, John. The Plays of John Marston. 3 vols. Ed. H. Harvey Wood. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1939. Martin, Randall, ed. Henry VI, Part Three, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. “The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and 3 Henry VI: Report and Revision.” Review of English Studies 53 (Feb. 2002): 8–30. Masten, Jeffrey. “Playwrighting: Authorship and Collaboration.” A New History of Early English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kasten. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

238


Matus, Irvin Leigh. Shakespeare, In Fact. New York: Continuum, 1994. Maxwell, J.C., ed. King Henry the Eighth, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. ———, ed. Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. McCarthy, Penny. Pseudonymous Shakespeare: Rioting Language in the Sidney Circle. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. McCrea, Scott. The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005. McKerrow, R.B. “The Elizabethan Printer and Dramatic Manuscripts.” Library 12.3 (1931): 253–75. McMillin, Scott. “Building Stories: Greg, Fleay and the Plot of 2 Seven Deadly Sins.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 4 (1989): 53–62. ———. “Casting for Pembroke’s Men: The Henry VI Quartos and The Taming of A Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly 23 (1972): 141–59. ———. The Elizabethan Theatre and “The Book of Sir Thomas More.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987. ———. “The Queen’s Men and the London Theatre of 1583.” The Elizabethan Theatre X. Ed. C.E. McGee. Port Credit, Ontario: Meany, 1988: 1–17. ———. “Simon Jewell and the Queen’s Men.” Review of English Studies 27 (1976): 174–7. ———. “Sussex’s Men in 1594: The Evidence of Titus Andronicus and The Jew of Malta.” Theatre Survey 32 (November 1991): 214–23. McMillin, Scott, and Sally-Beth MacLean. The Queen’s Men and Their Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Melchiori, Giorgio. “The Book of Sir Thomas More: Dramatic Unity.” Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Ed. T.H. Howard-Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 77–100. Metz, G. Harold, ed. Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare. New York: Garland Publishers Inc., 1982. ———. Shakespeare’s Earliest Tragedy: Studies in Titus Andronicus. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. ———, ed. Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989. ———. “‘Voice and credyt’: The Scholars and Sir Thomas More.” Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Ed. T.H. Howard-Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 11–44. Miller, E.H. Professional Writer in Elizabethan England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-Upon-Avon and Other Records, 1553–1620. 5 vols. London: Dugdale Society and Oxford University Press, 1921–90. Morris, Brian, ed. The Taming of the Shrew, by William Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1981.

Bibliography

239

Mulryne, J.R., ed. The Spanish Tragedy, by Thomas Kyd. London: A & C Black, 1989. Munday, Anthony. Second and Third Blast of Retrait from Plays and Theatres. 1580. Murray, J.T. The English Dramatic Companies. 2 vols. London: Constable, 1910. Reprint, New York: Russell and Russell, 1963. Nashe, Thomas. Pierce Pennilesse, His Supplication to the Divell. Ed. G.B. Harrison. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1970. Reissue of 1924 E.P. Dutton and Company publication. ———. Strange Newes, of the Intercepting of Certain Letters. In The Works of Thomas Nashe. Ed. R.B. McKerrow. 5 vols. 2nd ed., ed. F.P. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958: i.253–336. Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003. Nosworthy, J.M. “Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More.” Review of English Studies 6 (1955): 12–25. Nungezer, Edwin. A Dictionary of Actors and Other Persons Associated with the Public Representation of Plays in England Before 1642. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & The Reality. McLean, VA: EPM Publications, 1992. Oliver, H.J, ed. The Taming of the Shrew, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. ———. “Introduction.” Henry VI: Critical Essays. Ed. Thomas A. Pendleton. New York: Routledge, 2001: 1–26. Palmer, Barbara. “Early Modern Mobility: Players, Payments, and Patrons.” Shakespeare Quarterly 56 (2005): 259–305. Parry, Glyn. “New Evidence on William Shakeshafte, and Edmund Campion.” Early draft e-mailed to the author on 27 June 2006. Revised version forthcoming in Shakespeare Quarterly. Peele, George. Edward I. 1593. Pendergast, John S. Love’s Labour’s Lost: A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Pinciss, G.M. “Shakespeare, Her Majesty’s Players, and Pembroke’s Men.” Shakespeare Survey 27 (1974): 129–36. Pitcher, Seymour M. The Case of Shakespeare’s Authorship of ‘The Famous Victories’. New York: State University of New York, 1961. “Players at Ipswich.” Ed. V.B. Redstone. Malone Society Collections II.III (1931): 258–84. “Playing Companies at Aldeburgh.” Ed. J.C. Coldewey. Malone Society Collections IX (1971[1977]): 16–23. Pollard, A.W. “Introduction.” Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III, by Peter Alexander. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929: 1–28.

240


———, ed. Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923. Price, Diana. Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Proudfoot, Richard. “The Year’s Contributions to Shakespeare Scholarship.” Shakespeare Survey 26 (1973): 177. Ramsey, Paul. “The Literary Evidence for Shakespeare as Hand D in the Manuscript Play Sir Thomas More: A re-re-reconsideration.” Upstart Crow 11 (1991): 131–55. Records of Early English Drama. Berkshire (forthcoming). Unpublished transcriptions made by Alexandra F. Johnston. Consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to Prof. Johnston for allowing me access to her unpublished research. Records of Early English Drama. “Beverly.” Unpublished transcriptions made by Diana Wyatt. Consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to Diana Wyatt for allowing me access to her unpublished research. Also available in Diana Wyatt, “Performance and Ceremonial in Beverly Before 1642: An Annotated Edition of Local Archive Material,” Ph.D. thesis, University of York (UK): 1983 Records of Early English Drama. Bristol. Ed. Mark C. Pilkinton. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Records of Early English Drama. Cambridge. Ed. Alan H. Nelson. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989. Records of Early English Drama. Chester. Ed. Lawrence M. Clopper. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Records of Early English Drama. Coventry. Ed. R.W. Ingram. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981. Records of Early English Drama. Cumberland/Westmorland/Gloucestershire. Ed. Audrey Douglas and Peter Greenfield. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Records of Early English Drama. Derbyshire (forthcoming). Ed. Barbara Palmer and John M. Wasson. I am grateful to them for allowing me to cite their partial data on deposit at the Records of Early English Drama office in Toronto and note here that those data do not yet represent the complete Cavendish entertainment records. Records of Early English Drama. Devon. Ed. John M. Wasson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Records of Early English Drama. Dorset/Cornwall. Ed. Evelyn Newlyn, et al. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Records of Early English Drama. Herefordshire/Worcestershire. Ed. David N. Klausner. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Records of Early English Drama. Kent: Diocese of Canterbury. Ed. James M. Gibson. 3 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Records of Early English Drama. Lancashire. Ed. David George. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Bibliography

241

Records of Early English Drama. “Leicester.” Transcribed by the late Prof. Alice B. Hamilton from the Leicestershire Record Office: BRIII/2/45–53 MSS of Chamberlains’ Accounts. Consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to Sally-Beth MacLean for allowing me access to this unpublished research. Records of Early English Drama. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. Ed. J.J. Anderson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Records of Early English Drama. Norwich 1540–1642. Ed. David Galloway. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Records of Early English Drama. Nottinghamshire (forthcoming). Ed. J.C. Coldewey. Consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to J.C. Coldewey for allowing me access to his unpublished research. Records of Early English Drama. “North Household Accounts.” Ed. Anne Brannen. Records of Early English Drama. Oxford. Ed. John R. Elliott, et al. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. REED Records of Early English Drama. “Patrons and Performances Web Site.” . 2003–2007. Visited 15 June 2007. Records of Early English Drama. Shropshire. Ed. J. Alan B. Somerset. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Records of Early English Drama. Somerset. Ed. James Stokes. Bath Records Ed. Robert J. Alexander. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Records of Early English Drama. “Southampton.” Unpublished transcriptions by Peter Greenfield. Consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to Peter Greenfield for allowing me access to his unpublished research. These transcriptions will appear in REED, Hampshire (forthcoming). Records of Early English Drama. Sussex. Ed. Cameron Louis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Records of Early English Drama. York. Ed. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Records of Early English Drama. “Winchester.” Ed. Jane Cowling. Also contained in Cowling, Jane. “An Edition of the Records of Drama, Ceremony, and Secular Music in Windsor City and College 1556–1642.” Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton: 1993. These transcriptions will appear in REED, Hampshire (forthcoming). “Records of Plays and Players in Lincolnshire 1300–1585.” Ed. Stanley J. Kahrl. Malone Society Collections VIII (1969[1974]). “Records of Plays and Players in Norfolk and Suffolk, 1330–1642.” Ed. David Galloway (Great Yarmouth and Wymondham) and John Wasson. Malone Society Collections XI (1980/81). Rhodes, Ernest L. Henslowe’s Rose: The Stage and Staging. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1976. Ritch, Janet. “Patrons and Travelling Companies in Chester and Newcastle upon Tyne.” REED Newsletter 19.1 (1994): 1–14.

242


Robertson, J.M. An Introduction to the Shakespeare Canon. London: G. Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1924. Rowe, Nicholas. Some Account of the Life, &c. of Mr. William Shakespear (1709). Los Angeles: Augustan Reprint Society, 1948. Rowse, A.L. William Shakespeare: A Biography. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995. Rutter, Carol Chillington, ed. Documents of the Rose Playhouse. Revised ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Salkeld, Duncan. “The Bell and the Bel Savage Inns, 1576–1577.” Notes and Queries 249 [n.s. 51].3 (September 2004): 242–3. ———. “New Allusions to London ‘Shewes’ and Playhouses, 1575–1605.” Early Theatre 8.2 (2005): 101–7. Sams, Eric. The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years, 1564–1594. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Sanders, C.E. “Greene’s ‘Editors.’” Publications of the Modern Language Association 48 (1933): 392–417. ———. “Greene’s Last Years.” Chicago University Abstracts of Theses Humanistic Series 5 (1926–1927): 487–91. Schlueter, Kurt, ed. Two Gentlemen of Verona, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Schoenbaum, Samuel. Shakespeare’s Lives. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. ———. William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. ———. William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1975. Schrickx, Willem. Foreign Envoys and Travelling Players in the Age of Shakespeare and Jonson. Wetteren: Universa, 1986. Shafer, Elizabeth, ed. The Taming of The Shrew, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Updated 4th ed. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997. ———. Hamlet. 1603. ———. Much Ado About Nothing. 1600. ———. Titus Andronicus. 1594. Shapiro, I. A. “Shakespeare and Mundy.” Shakespeare Survey 14 (1961): 25–33. Sidney, Sir Phillip. The Complete Works of Sir Philip Sidney. Ed. Albert Feuillart. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. ———. Letter to Francis Walsingham. 24 March 1586. Harleian Manuscripts 287, folio one. Microfilm Version. Ed. Michael Hawkins. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1979–89. Skura, Meredith. Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Smith, Helen Pennock. “The Upstart Crow.” Modern Philology 25 (1927): 83–6.

Bibliography

243

Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Sokol, B.J. “Manuscript Evidence for an Earliest Date of Henry VI Part One.” Notes and Queries 47 (245):1 (March 2000): 58–63. Somerset, J.A.B. “‘How Chances it They Travel?’: Provincial Touring, Playing Places, and the King’s Men.” Shakespeare Survey 47 (1994): 45–60. ———. “The Lords President, Their Activities and Companies: Evidence from Shropshire.” The Elizabethan Theatre X. Ed. C.E. McGee. Port Credit, Ontario: Meany, 1988: 93–111. Southworth, John. Shakespeare the Player: A Life in the Theatre. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing, 2000. Spencer, T.J.B., ed. Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980. Spenser, Edmund. Colin Clouts Come Home Again. 1595. ———. Complaints. 1591. Includes Tears of the Muses. Sprong, Andrew. “Bad Habits, ‘Bad’ Quartos, and the Myth of Origin in the Editing of Shakespeare.” New Theatre Quarterly 12:45 (Feb. 1996): 65–70. Stone, Lawrence, ed. “Companies of Players entertained by the Earl of Cumberland and Lord Clifford, 1607–39.” Malone Society Collections 5 (1958): 17–28. Strathman, E.A. “The Textual Evidence for ‘The School of Night.’” Modern Language Notes 56 (1941): 176–86. Streitberger, W.R. “Personnel and Professionalization.” A New History of Early English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997: 337–57. The Taming of A Shrew. 1594. Tarlton’s Jests. 1613. Taylor, Gary. “The Date and Auspices of the Additions to Sir Thomas More.” Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the play and its Shakespearian interest. Ed. T.H. Howard-Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 101–30. ———. “Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 7 (1995): 145–205. Taylor, Michael, ed. Henry VI, Part One, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Thaler, Alwin. “Faire Em (and Shakspere’s Company?) in Lancashire.” PMLA 46.3 (Sep. 1931): 647–58. Thomas, Sidney. “On the Dating of Shakespeare’s Early Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (Summer 1988): 187–94. ———. “The Printing of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte and Kind-Hearts Dreame.” Studies in Bibliography 41 (1988): 196–97. Thompson, Ann, ed. The Taming of the Shrew, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Thoms, W.J. Three Notelets on Shakespeare. New York: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1972. Reprint of 1865 edition.

244


Thomson, Peter. “The True Physiognomy of a Man: Richard Tarleton and His Legend.” Shakespeare and His Contemporaries in Performance. Ed. Edward J. Esche. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000: 191–210. ———. Shakespeare’s Professional Career. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Tiner, Elza C. “Patrons and Travelling Companies in Coventry.” REED Newsletter 21.1 (1996): 1–37. ———. “Patrons and Travelling Companies in York.” REED Newsletter 17.1 (1992): 1–36. The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York. 1595. Urkowitz, Steven. “Good News about ‘Bad’ Quartos.” “Bad Shakespeare”: Revaluations of the Shakespeare Canon. Ed. Maurice Charney. London: Associated University Press, 1988: 189–206. ———. “‘If I Mistake in Those Foundations Which I Build Upon’: Peter Alexander’s Textual Analysis of Henry VI Parts 2 and 3.” English Literary Renaissance 18.2 (Spring 1988): 230–56. Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Waith, Eugene M, ed. Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Wallace, Charles William. The First London Theatre, Materials for a History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1913. Warren, Roger, ed. Henry VI, Part Two, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. “The Quarto and Folio Texts of 2 Henry VI: A Reconsideration.” Review of English Studies 51 (May 2000): 193–207. Wasson, John. “Elizabethan and Jacobean Touring Companies.” Theatre Notebook 42 (1988): 51–7. ———. “Professional Actors in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 3 (1984): 1–11. Weever, John. Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut, and Newest Fashion. 1599. Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare: For All Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor, with John Jowett and William Montgomery. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Wentersdorf, Karl P. “The Origin and Personnel of the Pembroke Company.” Theatre Research International 5 (1979): 45–68. ———. “The Repertory and Size of Pembroke’s Company.” Theatre Annual 33 (1977): 48–61. ———. “Richard III (Q1) and the Pembroke ‘Bad’ Quartos.” English Language Notes 14 (1977): 257–64. ———. “Shakespeares Erste Truppe.” Shakespeare-Jahrbuch 84–86 (1948–1950): 114–30. Werstine, Paul. “A Century of “Bad” Shakespeare Quartos.” Shakespeare Quarterly 50 (1999): 310–33.

Bibliography

245

———. “Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: ‘Foul Papers’ and ‘Bad’ Quartos.” Shakespeare Quarterly 41.1 (Spring 1990): 65–86. ———. “Shakespeare, More or Less: A.W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing.” Florilegium 16 (1999): 125–45. Westfall, Suzanne. Patrons and Performance in Early Tudor Household Revels. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. White, Paul Whitfield. Theatre and Reformation: Protestantism, Patronage, and Playing in Tudor England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Whitworth, Charles, ed. The Comedy of Errors, by William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Wickham, Glynne. Early English Stages 1300 to 1660. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972. Wickham, Glynne, Herbert Berry and William Ingram, eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Widman, R.L. Rev. of A Computer-Aided Technique for Stylistic Discrimination: The Authorship of “Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit. By Warren B. Austin. Shakespeare Quarterly 23 (1972): 214–15. Williams, Gary Jay. Our Moonlight Revels: A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the Theatre. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1997. Willis, Robert. Mount Tabor, or Private Exercises of a Penitent Sinner. 1639. Wilson, Ian. Shakespeare: The Evidence: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Man and his Work. London: Headline, 1993. Wilson, J. Dover. The Essential Shakespeare: A Biographical Adventure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. ———. “Malone and the Upstart Crow.” Shakespeare Survey 4 (1951): 56–68. ———, ed. The Second Part of King Henry VI. By William Shakespeare. Cambridge, 1952. ———, ed. Titus Andronicus, by William Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Wilson, Richard. Secret Shakespeare: Studies in Theatre, Religion and Resistance. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Wood, Michael. Shakespeare. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Wraight, A.D. Christopher Marlowe and Edward Alleyn. Chichester: Adam Hart Ltd., 1993.


Index

Note: Page citations to the bibliography are not included. For the appendix, page citations for acting companies, as well as both actor and patron names are included, but page citations for town names and scholar names are not included. acting companies alleged joint performances of 37, 65, 68, 72, 74–6, 83, 108, 149–50, 152, 155–7, 204–11, 213, 215–17, 219–24 assumption of company continuity 106–7, 117, 130–31, 135, 175, 180 boy companies 55, 58, 61–2, 68, 103–4, 162, 177, 184–5, 187–8, 215, 223 court activities of, see court playing hostility toward 49, 51, 88 legal strictures on 45–6, 70–71, 76 level of competition between 77, 81 London activities of, see London playing mechanics of patronage of 3, 45–6, 49, 70–71, 76, 129–30, 134, 181, 199 recruitment practices of 91–2, 176–7, 183–5 repertories of 47, 74, 82, 95–100, 105–11, 120–24, 132–3, 138–41, 149–50, 175, 190, 193–5 size of 47, 57–8, 70 touring activities of 43–55, 64, 67, 72–3, 89–90, 104, 119–20, 147–8, 173–5, 181–3, 186–7, 190–91; see also provincial playing actor names persons responsible for appearances in playtexts 124, 126, 137–8, 191–2, 195 potentially appearing in plays 123–31, 135, 147, 192–3, 195 Adams, John (player) 88, 147–8, 203 Adams, J.Q. 34, 36, 57, 121, 136–7, 142–3 Admiral’s Men continental tour of 79, 191–2, 195 court performances of 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 79–81, 190, 215, 221–4

generally 2, 7, 85, 90, 106, 108, 120, 173, 181–2, 190–95, 201 involvement with Burbage-Brayne quarrels 77–9, 134 London performances of 4, 57, 59–61, 63, 65–81, 83, 103–4, 134, 149, 190–91, 194, 221–4 personnel of 66, 76, 78, 80–81, 105, 107, 128, 134, 174, 182, 184, 190–95, 221 possible joint performances with Chamberlain’s Men 74–5, 83 provincial performances 52–4, 65–6, 68, 72–4, 135, 190–91, 208, 216, 221–4 repertory of 72, 74, 97, 108, 111, 149–50, 153–5, 190, 192–5 supposed amalgamation with Strange’s Men 3, 67–77, 79, 81, 128–9, 133, 135, 156–7, 191–5, 199 Aesop 20, 33–4 Aldeburgh 51–2 Alexander, Peter 33–4, 110, 121–3, 134, 136, 141, 143 Alleyn, Edward alleged quarrel with James Burbage 77–79, 134–5 correspondence with Philip Henslowe 45, 82, 105–6, 119–20, 132, 193, 216, 221 doubtful identity as “upstart crow” 28, 30–31 generally 58, 67, 82–3, 105, 107, 111, 125, 133, 149, 182, 194, 214 possible transfer to Sussex’s Men 149–50 transfer from the Admiral’s to Strange’s Men 66, 69, 71–2, 76–7, 80–81, 102, 134, 191 Alleyn, John involvement in Burbage-Brayne quarrels 77–9, 134, 182, 183

248


possible membership in the Admiral’s Men 74, 78 transactions involving brother Edward 80–81 “amalgamated” company alleged evidence for 68–9 evidence against 71–7 flawed assumptions underlying 70–71 generally 3, 67–77, 79, 81, 128–9, 133, 135, 156–7, 191–5, 199 anti-Stratfordians 5–6, 20, 188–90, 199 Arundel’s Men 55, 61 Aubrey, John 12–14, 93–4, 160–61, 164, 167–8 audience composition 58, 62–3 Austin, Warren B. 23, 26, 34 Bath’s Men 47, 55 Bearman, Robert 11, 165–9 Beeston, Christopher 107, 167–8 Bel Savage Inn 63, 89 Bell Inn 59, 88–9 Bentley, G.E. 43, 47, 91, 184–5 Bentley, John 46, 88, 90, 127, 203 Berkeley household accounts 46, 51, 225 Berkeley’s Men 15, 48, 51, 53–4, 184 “Bevis” 125, 138 Bewdley 51, 120 Bloch, Marc 5, 32 Borne alias Bird, William 75, 128, 217 Bradley, David 44, 50, 70 Bradstreet, John 76, 191, 221 Brayne, John 59–61, 77–8, 174 Brayne, Margaret 60, 77–8 Bristol 48–51, 65, 76, 130, 147–8 Browne, Robert 76, 80, 106, 174, 182, 184, 191–3, 221 Brownstein, Oscar 59, 89 Bryan, George 105–7, 175, 180, 214 Bull Inn 59, 88–9 Burbage, Cuthbert 60, 77, 133 Burbage, James alleged quarrel with Edward Alleyn 77–9, 134–5 generally 36, 59–61, 66, 69, 89, 133–5, 173–4, 179–80 quarrel with Margaret Brayne 77–9 Burbage, Richard 60, 69, 77–8, 107, 133–4, 157, 180, 197

Burns, Edward 17, 37, 110 Cambridge (Town) 52, 64–6, 89, 104, 202 Canterbury 45, 52, 89, 119, 174 Carroll, D. Allen 18–19, 23–7, 31–3 Cavendish Household 48, 51, 213 Cavendish’s Men 46, 55 Cecil’s Men 46, 55 Chamberlain’s Men court performances of 74–5 formation and personnel of 39, 65, 72, 106, 141–2, 151, 157 inclusion on Titus Andronicus title page 113, 117, 141, 149–51, 155, 157 London performances of 4, 59–60, 67, 73, 76, 83, 191, 194, 197 potential relationship to 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot” 71, 129 Shakespeare’s membership in 1, 6–7, 36–9, 85–6, 103, 108, 136–7, 163, 168, 188, 194, 197 supposed continuity with Leicester’s Men 176, 179–81 supposed continuity with Strange’s Men 106–8, 113, 117, 131 Chambers, E.K. 2, 7, 27, 30, 37–9, 43, 52–3, 59, 62, 64–82, 87–90, 92, 98, 100–101, 103–6, 108, 110–12, 119–21, 124–5, 128–30, 132, 135–7, 140–41, 144, 147–9, 151, 153–5, 157, 159, 161, 163, 168, 173, 175, 179–83, 185–8, 190–92, 197, 202–3 Chandos’s Men 15, 46, 53–4 Chapel Children 55, 108, 211 Chapman, William H. 28–30 Chettle, Henry apology to playwrights offended by Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 6, 22–5, 27, 33–5, 183 identity of playwrights apologized to 27, 33–5, 183 involvement in literary fraud 22, 24–6 involvement in publication of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 21–2, 24–6 potential authorship of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 22, 25–6 Clifford estate 45–6, 51 Clinton’s Men 47, 92

Index Condell, Henry 107, 141, 167, 180 Cook, Ann Jennalie 58, 62–3 Cooke, Alexander 125, 141 Cooke, Lionel 88, 127, 203 Cottom, John 161–2, 164–5, 169 court playing 3, 5, 15, 39, 53–5, 57–8, 62–9, 71, 73–5, 77, 79–82, 87–91, 103–7, 114, 116, 119, 129–32, 134–6, 144, 147–50, 161, 173–7, 180–82, 185–91, 197, 202–3 Coventry 15, 46, 48–9, 65–6, 103–4, 106, 111, 130, 148, 177, 184 Cowley, Richard 105–7, 214, 221 Cross Keys Inn 59, 67, 79, 89, 103 Curtain, The 43, 61, 78, 89 Danter, John 21, 23, 26, 141, 152 Dekker, Thomas 45, 47 Derby household 45, 160 Derby’s Men; see also Strange’s Men court performances of 106 generally 88, 164, 184, 214–17 London performances of 37, 67, 75, 83, 105–6, 108, 120, 136, 140–41, 149, 151–2, 154, 157 provincial performances of 15, 47, 53–4, 67–8, 106 Dover 45, 74, 89 Downton, Thomas 75–6, 105–7, 214, 217, 221 Duncan-Jones, Katherine 2, 14, 26, 57, 87, 92, 94, 96, 98, 110, 176–9, 183 Dutton, John 64–5, 83, 88–90, 131, 148, 185–7, 203, 208–12 Dutton, Laurence 64–5, 83, 89–90, 92, 131, 148, 185–7, 203, 208–12 Dutton, Richard 14, 33–4, 171, 198 Eccles, Christine 61, 150, 156 Eccles, Mark 91, 105, 148 English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 45–6, 52, 59–62, 66–7, 76, 79, 82, 88–9, 105–7, 120, 152, 173–4, 182, 186–8, 190–91 Essex, Earl of 181–2 Essex’s Men 46, 49, 51, 54, 85, 151, 173, 181–2, 207, 209, 220 Essex’s Men, Countess of 15, 53, 81, 181, 184

249

Evelyn’s Men 55, 62 Exeter 103, 174 Fair Maid of Italy, The 74, 149 Famous Victories of Henry V, The 70, 96–7 relationship to 1, 2Henry IV and Henry V 97–101 Faversham 46, 48–9, 72, 188 Felix and Philiomena 97–8 Felle, William 125, 128, 193 Fields, Bertram 5, 20, 60 First Folio 29, 92, 99, 121–3, 126, 128–31, 133, 135, 136–40, 142, 144–5, 147, 179–81, 199 First Part of the Contention, The 28, 33, 35, 50, 70, 110, 120–26, 128, 132, 136, 138–44, 151, 195 Fleay, F.G. 2, 80, 125, 128, 133, 180, 193 Fraser, Russell 34, 57, 91 Frazer, Winifred 28–9, 152 Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay 70, 74, 96–7, 105, 132–3, 149; see also Henslowe, Philip: “friar bacon” Garland, John 88, 203 Gawdy, Philip 66, 190 George, David 37, 58, 65, 68, 75, 82, 112, 123, 132–3, 155–8 Gillom, Fulk 160, 162–3, 170 Globe, The 60, 127, 163 Gloucester 49, 51, 65, 130, 148 Greene, Robert alleged deathbed confessionals 17–23 Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, see Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit Repentance of Robert Greene 20–23, 30–31 Alphonsus of Aragon 97–8 death 18–19, 22–3 generally 12, 17–35, 95–8, 108–9, 116–17, 121, 137, 142–4, 190 James IV 97–8 Looking Glass for London and England, A 97–8, 105, 132–3 Orlando Furioso 70, 97–8, 105, 108, 111, 190 popular contemporary perceptions 18–19

250


Greene’s Funerals 26, 34 Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit allusion to 3 Henry VI or The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York 28–33, 35, 109–10, 137, 142–4 authorship of 23–6, 96, 143 Chettle’s potential authorship of 25–6 incosistencies with Robert Greene’s supposed authorship of 24–5 Nashe’s potential authorship of 21–2, 26–7 content of 19–20, 26–8 generally 6–7, 17–36, 38, 91, 95–6, 109–10, 116–17, 142–4, 199 identity of playwrights addressed in 27, 95, 143 identity of “Shake-scene” and “upstart crow” 6, 19–20, 22–3, 27–32; see also “upstart crow” nature of attack on Shakespeare 32–35, 199 publication arrangements of 22, 25–6 as supposed evidence for Shakespeare’s company affiliations Pembroke’s Men 142–4 Queen’s Men 91, 95–6 Strange’s Men 116–17 Greene’s News Both From Heaven and Hell 24, 26 Greg, W.W. 26, 61, 67–9, 71, 75–8, 80, 104, 110–12, 117, 124–5, 133, 137, 139, 182, 190–91, 223 Greville, Sir Fulke 2, 176–7, 183 Gottschalk, Louis 1, 5–6, 32 Greenblatt, Stephen 15, 35, 87, 159, 165, 170, 181 Gurr, Andrew 2, 36, 43–7, 49, 51, 53, 57–8, 60, 62–3, 65, 67–8, 70–80, 83, 88–9, 92, 103–7, 112, 119–20, 124, 129, 133–6, 142, 144, 147, 149, 156–8, 173–5, 180–83, 185–8, 190–92, 202–3, 215–17, 220, 223–4 Halliwell-Phillips, J.O. 1–2, 7, 57, 103, 135–6, 150–51 Harbage, Albert 62, 68 Harrison, G.B. 17–18, 21, 39 Harvey, Gabriel 18–24, 60, 174, 186 Hathaway, Anne 11, 14, 164, 170

Hattaway, Michael 17, 37, 129 Heminges, John 65, 92, 105–7, 132, 167, 180, 214 Henslowe, Francis 81, 83, 127, 203 Henslowe, Philip correspondence with Edward Alleyn 45, 82, 105–6, 119–20, 132, 193, 216, 221 Diary of 36, 37, 58, 60–61, 67, 71, 74–5, 79, 83, 95–6, 105, 109–11, 117, 127–8, 133, 149, 151–8, 191, 194, 203, 213, 217, 221, 224 “friar bacon” 105, 133, 149 generally 58, 61, 66, 81–3, 104–6, 127, 133, 149, 151–8 “harey the vj” 36, 95, 104–5, 109–11, 117, 129, 132, 139, 142, 151; see also Shakespeare, William: plays: 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, and 3 Henry VI meaning of “ne” 110–11, 151–5, 158; see also Shakespeare, William: plays: Titus Andronicus “tittus & vespacia” 111–12, 139; see also Shakespeare, William: plays: Titus Andronicus Hertford’s Men 55, 62, 135 Hesketh, Thomas 7, 85, 159–64, 167, 170 Hesketh’s Men 55, 159–62, 170, 173, 183 Heywood, Thomas 53, 113 Hoghton, Alexander 7, 85, 159–67, 169–71, 173, 183 Hoghton family 7, 159–66, 170–71 Hoghton, Thomas 159–62 Holland, John 107, 125, 129, 141, 157, 193, 217 Holland, Peter 114–15 Honigmann, E.A. J. 2, 7, 20, 29, 34, 37–8, 48, 99–100, 103, 107–9, 113–17, 152–3, 157, 159–70, 183, 198 Horace 33–4 Hoster, Jay 30–31 Howard, Charles, Lord Admiral 65, 74, 88, 190–91, 194, 221 Howard’s Men 53–4, 221–2; see also Admiral’s Men Hunsdon’s Men 53, 88, 222 Ingram, William 4, 11, 44, 46, 58, 60–61, 65, 81, 120, 174, 185–7, 190 Ipswich 48, 52, 65, 68, 120, 175, 186

Index

251

Jeffes, Anthony 125, 191–2, 195, 217 Jeffes, Humphrey 125, 128, 191–3, 195, 217, 221 Jewell, Simon 45, 49, 125, 127–28, 132–3, 142, 203 John of Bordeaux 105, 133, 149; see also Henslowe, Phillip: “friar bacon” Johnson, Samuel 32, 36, 121 Johnson, William 88, 127, 173–4, 178, 203 Jones, Richard 75–6, 80, 182, 191, 217, 221 Jonson, Ben Bartholomew Fair 37, 109, 155 generally 29, 31, 109, 127–8, 155, 167, 217 Jowett, John 21, 23–6, 38

possible playing in the Low Countries 174–81 provincial playing of 2, 15, 45–8, 53–4, 173–7, 181, 183 Locrine 97–8 London playing 3–4, 7–8, 17, 37, 43–4, 47–8, 54, 57–84, 88–90, 96, 103–6, 108, 119–20, 123, 133–4, 137, 147–50, 154, 156, 174, 181, 184–6, 188, 190 Looking Glass for London and England, A 97–8, 105, 132–3 Loomis, Catherine 11–13 Lyly, John 62, 187 Lyme Regis 51, 131

Kastan, David Scott 26 Kathman, David 71, 78–9, 105, 129, 180, 189 Keenan, Siobahn 43–52 Kempe, William 28–9, 31, 105–7, 124, 174–5, 178–80, 197, 214 Kenilworth 14–15 Kinderton’s Men 55 King Leir 74, 97–101, 149 King’s Lynn 46, 148 Knack to Know a Knave, A 29, 31, 105, 155–6, 180 Knell, William 46, 65, 90–92, 105, 133, 177, 203, 206 Knutson, Roslyn Lander 4, 52, 58, 65, 77, 81, 110, 133, 152

MacLean, Sally-Beth 2, 44, 46, 48, 53, 57–8, 64–5, 81, 87–92, 95–100, 105, 131, 133, 148, 173–5, 202–3, 205, 207–9, 211–13 McMillin, Scott 2, 4, 44, 46, 48, 53, 57–8, 64–5, 71, 81, 83, 87–92, 95–100, 105–7, 113, 122–9, 131, 133–4, 136–8, 141, 148–50, 156–8, 202–3, 205, 207–9, 211–13 Malone, Edmond 1, 7, 12, 32–4, 36, 85, 87, 90–91, 94, 121, 169, 176, 186–7 Marlowe, Christopher doubtful identity as “upstart crow” 28–31 Dr. Faustus 59, 72, 143, 190 Edward II 108, 120, 143 generally 6, 18, 57, 95–6, 121, 142–4, 190, 194–5 Jew of Malta, The 74, 83, 105, 111, 132–3, 149–50, 154, 193, 195 Massacre at Paris, The 70, 138 Tamburlaine 72, 108, 111, 143, 190, 193, 195 Martin Marprelate controversy 58, 61–2 Master of the Revels 46, 49, 53, 55, 87, 112 Matus, Irvin 28, 189 memorial reconstruction 121–4, 126, 136, 139–40, 145, 155–6 Meres, Francis 29, 39, 187 Miles, Robert 60, 78 Morley’s Men 53–4, 217, 224 Murray, John Tucker 49, 68, 103, 107, 180, 202–3 Mylles, Tobias 88, 90, 203

Lancashire 7, 14, 85, 159–71, 173 Laneham, John 64–5, 83, 88–90, 126, 130–32, 148, 173–4, 203, 210, 220 Langley, Francis 75, 120 Lanman, Henry 61, 78 Lee, Sidney 2, 36, 57, 93, 103, 107, 121, 176, 179 Leicester 47–9, 52, 73–4, 182 Leicester, Earl of 14, 45, 53, 134, 173–8, 180–81, 187 Leicester’s Men court performances of 81, 173 generally 1, 7, 85, 92, 103, 173–81, 187, 189, 192 London performances of 59–60, 64, 174 personnel of 59, 88, 92, 105, 173–6, 178–81, 197–8

252


Nashe, Thomas alleged authorship of Greene’s Groatswoth of Wit 21–2, 26–7 challenge to Harvey’s account of Greene’s death 22–3 generally 18, 25, 95–6, 117 Pierce Pennilesse 7, 17, 21, 109, 114 potential allusions to Shakespeare as playwright 17, 109, 116–17 probable allusion to in Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 27, 95–6, 116, 143 Strange News 22–3 New Romney 45, 174 Newington Butts Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s Men at 60, 74, 83, 191 generally 43, 60, 152 possible Oxford’s Men’s connection with 60, 186–7 Strange’s Men at 60, 67, 104 Warwick’s Men’s probable connection with 60, 185–6 Norwich 46–9, 51–2, 88, 148, 182 Nottingham 89, 147 Ogburn, Charlton 20, 188 Ogle’s Men 48, 55 Oxford 66, 73, 91, 202 Oxford, Earl of 2, 6, 187–90 Oxford’s Men court performances of 103, 187–8 generally 2, 7, 85, 88, 92, 173, 181, 187–90 London performances of 76, 186–8 merger with Worcester’s Men 76 personnel of 88, 92, 103, 186–7 provincial performances of 15, 46, 53–4, 60, 187, 190, 204 Palmer, Barbara 44–8, 51–2, 93 Parry, Glynn 165, 167 patronage 3, 45–6, 48–9, 70–71, 76, 129–30, 133–4, 181, 199 Paul’s Boys 61–2, 223 Paul’s playhouse 61–3 Peele, George Battle of Alcazar, The 105, 108, 190 Edward I 70, 95, 108, 143, 193–5

Looking Glass for London and England, A 97–8, 105, 132–3 Old Wives Tale, The 95, 97, 108 Peele, George 18, 121, 142–3 possible collaborator on Titus Andronicus 153–4 probable allusion to in Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 27, 95–6 Pembroke, Earl of 119, 130–31, 134, 167 Pembroke, Lady 127, 133–4 Pembroke’s Men bankruptcy of 46, 82, 119–20, 130, 132, 157–8 court performances of 62, 82, 119, 129–31, 134–5, 144 disputed origin of 128–45 generally 1–2, 7, 57–8, 77, 85, 119–46, 173, 191–2, 197–8, 201, 217–18 London performances of 63, 75–6, 81–3, 119–20, 133–5 personnel of 49, 107, 124–9, 129–3, 137–8, 141–2 actor names seemingly in plays in 124–6, 129–31, 137–8 possible union with Admiral’s Men 75–6, 120 provincial playing of 46, 49, 76, 119–20, 137, 144, 158 relationship to 2 Seven Deadly Sins “plot” 107, 129, 131–2 repertory of 37, 70, 82, 108, 120–24, 128, 131, 136–40, 143–4, 175 supposed status as a provincial company 82, 128–9, 135 Titus Andronicus performed by 37, 75, 108–110, 120, 128, 130, 136, 140–41, 149–52, 154, 156–7 Phillips, Augustine 105–7, 180, 214 Pinciss, G.M. 65, 68, 82, 87, 97–9, 124, 130–31, 136, 142–3 plague closures 37, 43, 48–9, 51, 61, 63, 67, 72–3, 81–4, 104–5, 108–10, 119, 126, 128–9, 137, 148, 151, 156–7, 187 playwriting practices 98, 153–4, 158 Pollard, A.W. 87, 95–6, 110, 113, 116 Pope, Thomas 105–7, 175, 180, 214 provincial playing conditions between 1577 and 1588 53–5

Index daily conditions of 43, 46–53 generally 3, 12, 43–55, 57, 64–70, 72–3, 76, 79, 82, 84, 88–90, 103, 106, 114, 119–20, 122–3, 128, 130–32, 135, 144, 147–9, 173–6, 181–2, 185–8, 190–91, 199, 201–24 payments for 46–7 playing spaces for 50–51 playscripts for 47, 50 restrictions on 45–6 sources for 44–5 tour planning 48–9 transportation for 47–8 views of playing companies towards 43–4, 46 Queen Elizabeth 6, 14–15, 80, 87–8, 114, 129, 133, 178, 192, 197–8, 201–14, 219–21, 223 Queen’s Men court performances of 62, 64, 88–90, 130–32 formation of 53–4, 87–8, 174, 177 generally 1, 2, 7, 85, 87–101, 173 London performances of 57–61, 64–5, 74, 81, 83, 88–90, 148–50, 154, 157 personnel of 65, 88, 90, 92, 94, 105, 127, 132–3, 148, 174, 177 provincial performances of 45–52, 54–5, 64–5, 88–94, 131–2, 148 repertory of 70, 95–101, 107–8, 111, 116, 133, 143 split branches of 64, 90–91, 129, 131, 142 Duttons’64–5, 83, 89–90, 131, 148, 208–12 Laneham’s 64–5, 83, 89–90, 126, 130–32, 148, 210, 220 visits to Stratford of 15, 91–4, 176, 181 Radcliffe’s Men 55, 219 Ranger’s Comedy, The 74, 149–50, 154 Records of Early English Drama (REED) 44–53, 65–6, 68–9, 72–4, 76, 88–9, 98, 103, 106, 119–21, 123, 130–31, 147–8, 174, 177, 179, 182, 184, 188, 190, 202–5, 207, 211–12, 215–17, 222 Red Lion, The 59, 174 “rhetoric of accumulation” 6, 113, 117

253

Rich’s Men 55, 60, 174 Rose, The Admiral’s Men at 60, 66, 74–6, 81, 83, 120, 149, 154, 191 generally 43, 58, 61, 69, 72, 82 Queen’s Men at 61, 64–5, 74, 83, 90, 99, 130, 149 Strange’s Men at 61, 67, 72–3, 77, 79, 81–2, 95–6, 104–6, 129, 134, 136, 141, 149–50, 155, 194 Sussex’s Men at 61, 65, 74, 82–3, 90, 99, 109, 111, 116, 130, 141, 148–50, 153–8 Rowe, Nicholas 12–14, 36, 93, 166 Rowse, A.L.14, 136 Rye 89, 119 Sackville, Thomas 76, 191, 221 Sams, Eric 2, 36, 57, 87, 92–4, 97, 99 Sanders, C.E. 21, 23–7, 29–30 Savage, Jerome 60, 185–6 Savage, Thomas 163–4 Schoenbaum, S. 2, 11–15, 20, 34, 36, 39, 68, 91, 93, 110, 115–16, 168, 178–9, 188–9, 198 Second Part of the Seven Deadly Sins “plot” alleged evidence for the “amalgamated” company 69, 71, 125, 129, 132, 192–3 dating of 69, 71, 79, 105, 129, 180, 195 generally 70, 97, 125, 131, 133 supposed connection to Strange’s Men and the Theatre 69, 78–9, 105 Shakeshafte, William 159–67, 170 Shakespeare, Hamnet 11, 183–4, 186 Shakespeare, John alleged Catholicism 161–2, 168–9 financial difficulties of 13, 161–2, 168–9 generally 11–15 legal proceedings involving 11, 13 occupation of 12–14, 93, 164, 168, 170, 183, 185 political stations 12–13, 15, 176, 187 “spiritual testament” of 162, 169 Shakespeare, Judith 11, 183–4, 186 Shakespeare, Susanna 11, 161–2, 169, 183–4 Shakespeare, William as actor 1–4, 12, 14, 16, 19–20, 29, 31–3, 35, 63, 85,87, 90–96, 101, 103,

254

Shakespeare’s Companies 106, 109, 141–2, 150–51, 162, 164, 176–7, 183–4, 187–8, 193–4, 197 authorship Controversy 5–6, 20, 188–90, 199 character 5, 34, 166–7, 178 chronology of early dramatic works 35–9 early life arrival in London 1, 7, 12, 14, 16–18, 36–8, 43, 50, 57–9, 84, 91–4, 142, 163–4, 168, 183–4 departure from Stratford 2, 6–7, 12. 14–16, 38, 43, 91–4, 160–62, 164, 167–8, 170, 176–7, 181–8, 190, 194 education 5, 12–13, 34, 109, 162, 177 exposure to theatre 14–16 marriage 11–12, 14, 17, 92–3, 183–4, 186, 194 occupation 12–14, 36, 160, 162, 164, 167–8, 178–9 family 11–15, 93, 161–2, 164, 168–70, 176, 183–7, 194 “Lancashire connection” 7, 14, 85, 159–71, 173 literary works as biographical evidence 5–6, 165, 178–9, 181, 188–90 plays As You Like It 97 Comedy of Errors 35, 37–8, 112 Hamlet 35, 45, 50, 53, 74, 94, 97–8, 180, 193 1 Henry IV 97–9, 101 2 Henry IV 97–9, 101 Henry V 97–9, 101 1 Henry VI 17, 28, 31, 35–8, 70, 109–10, 117, 129, 132, 138–9, 142–3, 194 2 Henry VI 28, 33, 35–8, 50, 70, 110, 115, 117, 121–6, 128–9, 132, 136–9, 141–4, 191, 193–5 3 Henry VI 20, 28, 30–31, 33, 35–8, 50, 70, 95, 109–10, 115, 117, 121–6, 128–9, 132, 136–44, 191–5 King John 38, 97–101 King Lear 97–101 Love’s Labour’s Lost 38–9, 114, 116 Midsummer Night’s Dream 97, 114–15

Much Ado About Nothing 107, 124, 138 Richard III 37–8, 70, 97–101, 113, 138–40, 151, 193 Romeo and Juliet 25, 38–9, 139–40 Taming of the Shrew 37–8, 70, 121, 124–6, 128, 136, 153, 192–5 Titus Andronicus 31, 37–8, 70, 74–5, 83, 105, 108–13, 117, 120, 128–30, 136, 138–41, 144, 149–58, 193–5 Two Gentlemen of Verona 37–8, 97 poems Venus and Adonis 29, 35, 37 Rape of Lucrece, The 37, 154 sonnets 1, 29, 39, 163, 167 possible authorship of anonymous plays Arden of Faversham 193 Locrine 97–8 Sir Thomas More 112–13, 117 possible collaborations 17, 35, 98, 112, 154, 158 possible playing company affiliations Admiral’s Men 191–6 Essex’s Men 181–2 Leicester’s Men 175–81 Oxford’s Men 188–90 Pembroke’s Men 135–45 Queen’s Men 90–101 Strange’s Men 106–17 Sussex’s Men 150–58 Warwick’s Men 186–7 Worcester’s Men 182–5 possible work as play reviser 33, 36, 111, 121, 136–7, 142, 151, 154, 157 probable identity as “upstart crow”, see “upstart crow” religious loyalties 1, 164, 167–9 supposed allusions to Stanley family 113–17, 164, 168 topical allusions used as biographical evidence 33–4, 113–17, 178–9, 187–90 verbal parallels used as biographical evidence 97–8, 100–101, 138–40, 143–5, 165, 193–5, 199 Shaw, Robert 75, 128, 217, 221 Sheffield’s Men 53–4 Shoreditch 24, 59, 61, 133, 135

Index Shrewsbury 49, 51, 68, 73, 177 Shuttleworth estates 45, 51 Sidney, Phillip 1, 177–9, 181 Sincler, John 107, 125, 129, 141, 157, 191–3, 217 Singer, John 46, 88, 203, 221 Sir Thomas More date of composition 105, 112–13 generally 70, 117 original playing company 105, 112–13 Sly, William 107, 125, 129, 141, 157, 178, 192 Sobran, Joseph 2, 28, 30, 188–9 Southampton 47, 49, 64–5, 106, 130, 148 Southwark 58, 60 Southworth, John 2, 14, 57, 110, 112, 125, 182–5, 192–5 Spanish Tragedy, The 105, 109, 111, 153–5, 193, 195 Spencer, Gabriel (aka Spenser) 75, 125, 128, 191,195, 217, 221 Spenser, Edmund Colin Clout’s Come Home Again 115–16 Tears of the Muses 115–16 Stafford’s Men 15, 53–4, 224 Stanley family and estates 45, 51, 113–17, 164, 168, 170, 207–8 Stanley, Ferdinando 1, 53, 66–7, 103, 106, 113–17, 165, 214, 224 Stanley, William 67, 106, 114, 214 Steevens, George 12, 32 Strange’s Men boy company 103–4, 215 court performances of 61, 63, 66–8, 71, 73, 77, 79–81, 103–5, 129, 191, 215–16, 223 generally 1–3, 7–8, 85, 90, 103–17, 142, 150, 164, 173, 192, 197–8, 201 London performances of 8, 48, 57, 59– 61, 67, 69, 72–3, 75, 77–9, 81–3, 96, 103–4, 106, 109–12, 128–9, 131–4, 148–50, 155, 164, 194, 215–16 personnel of 69, 71–2, 76–8, 80–82, 90, 103–5, 107–8, 128–9, 134–6, 141, 150, 157, 175, 180–81, 191–3, 197, 214 possible performance of Titus Andronicus 75, 105, 107–9, 111–13, 120, 128, 136, 141, 151, 154, 156–7

255

provincial performances of 15, 43, 48, 53, 66–8, 72–3, 81–2, 103–5, 158, 181, 184, 214–17, 224 relationship to Pembroke’s Men 128–9, 131–3, 149, 156–7, 191 repertory of 75, 95–7, 100, 104–5, 107–13, 116–17, 120, 128–9, 132–3, 136, 139, 141–2, 149–51, 153–7 supposed amalgamation with the Admiral’s Men, see “amalgamated” company supposed continuity with Chamberlain’s Men 106–8, 117, 131 supposed presence at The Theatre in 1590–91 69, 72, 77–9, 134, 215 Stratford-upon-Avon generally 5–7, 12, 17, 38, 43, 55, 84, 142, 160–62, 164, 169–70 local theatrical entertainments 14, 16, 176–7 visits by playing companies 14–16, 48 Essex’s Men 15, 181–2 Leicester’s Men 2, 15, 175–6, 181 Oxford’s Men 15, 188, 190 Queen’s Men 15, 91–4, 176, 181 Warwick’s Men 15, 187 Worcester’s Men 15, 181–5, 194 Sussex, Earl of 1, 54, 82, 147–8, 151, 218 Sussex’s Men court performances of 62, 82, 147–8, 150, 218–21 generally 1–2, 7, 77, 85, 107, 133, 145, 147–58, 173, 192, 197–8, 201, 205, 210 London performances of 47, 57, 61, 65, 74–5, 81–3, 90, 99, 106, 108–10, 130, 140–41, 147–58, 213, 218–21 personnel of 88. 147–8, 150 possible joint performances with Queen’s Men 61, 65, 74, 83, 90, 99, 130, 148–9, 154, 205, 210, 213, 219–21 provincial performances of 15, 47–9, 53–4, 65, 83, 130, 147–8, 176, 181, 205, 210, 218–21 repertory of 37, 74–5, 82–3, 108–10, 140–41, 147, 149–58, 175 Titus Andronicus performed by 37, 75, 83, 108–10, 140–41, 149–58

256


Swan, The 75–6, 81–2, 120 Symons, John (aka Simons) 62, 92, 103–4, 188, 203, 208, 215

“ur-Hamlet” 116–17

Taming of A Shrew, The 37, 74, 120–21, 124–6, 136, 141, 144, 151, 153 Tarlton, Richard 29, 57, 61, 64, 88–90, 94, 147–8, 203, 218 Taylor, Gary 17, 35, 37–8, 100, 108, 113, 140, 157 Thame 46, 58, 90–91 Theatre, The Admiral’s Men at 60, 66, 69, 77–9, 134, 191 generally 2, 36, 43, 59–61, 69, 72, 81, 83, 134, 174, 180, 194, 197 lawsuits involving 60, 77–9 Oxford’s Men at 60, 187 possibility of Leicester’s Men at 59–60, 174 possibility of Pembroke’s Men at 2, 134, 144 possibility of Warwick’s Men at 60, 174, 186 Queen’s Men at 60, 89 Thoms, W.J. 1, 178–9 Thomson, Peter 57, 89, 103 Tilney, Edmund 53, 87–8, 112 Tooley, Nicholas 125, 141 Towne, John 46, 88, 90–92, 203, 206 Troublesome Reign of King John, The date of composition 99–101 relationship to King John 97–101 True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, The generally 70, 128, 132, 140, 151, 195 possible allusion to in Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 28, 30–31, 33, 35, 109–10,120, 142 relationship to 3 Henry VI 28, 33, 35, 50, 121–4, 126, 132, 136–9, 142–4, 192 True Tragedy of Richard III, The date of composition 99, 101 generally 70, 97 relationship to Richard III 97–9, 101 Tunstall, James 76, 78, 80–81, 182, 191, 221 Tyrwhitt, Thomas 32

Wallace, C.W. 60, 77–8 Walsingham, Francis 53, 66, 87–8, 177, 188, 190 Warwick, Earl of 48, 176, 181, 185–7 Warwick’s Men court performances of 185–6 generally 1, 7, 85, 173, 181, 185–7 London performances of 60, 64, 174, 185–6 personnel of 60, 92, 185–6 possible connection to Newington Butts 60, 64, 185–6 provincial performances of 15, 48, 53, 186–7 Warwickshire 48, 176, 178, 187 Wasson, John M. 46–7 Weever, John 163–4 Wells, Stanley 20, 34, 37–8, 100, 108, 140, 157 Wentersdorf 58, 65, 123–6, 128, 130–31, 136, 138, 140, 142 Werstine, Paul 6, 113, 117, 122 Willis, Robert 51–2 Wilson, Ian 14, 103, 180–81 Wilson, J. Dover 20, 33–5, 121, 125, 134, 136, 154, 157, 183, 193 Wilson, Richard 159, 165, 170 Wilson, Robert 28, 30–31, 88, 97, 173–5, 203 Wolfe, John 23, 26 Wood, Michael 20, 34, 36 Wraight, A.D. 30–31 Wright, William 19, 21, 25–6 Worcester, Earl of 76, 182–3 Worcester’s Men apparent personnel transfer to the Admiral’s Men 80, 182, 190 generally 2, 7, 85, 128, 173, 182–5, 192 London playing of 76, 106, 188 merger with Oxford’s Men 76, 188 personnel of 80, 174, 182–3 provincial playing of 15, 47–9, 51, 53–4, 131, 181–5, 194

“upstart crow” 6, 19–20, 22–3, 27–35, 95–6, 117, 142

Vaux’s Men 60, 174

Shakespeare's Companies (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Shakespeare's Companies (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Working Subjects in Early Modern English Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Marian Moments in Early Modern British Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Radical Comedy in Early Modern England (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England

Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era (Studies in Modern Capitalism)

Documents of Performance in Early Modern England

Constructing 'Monsters' in Shakespearean Drama and Early Modern Culture

Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama

Early Modern England and Islamic Worlds (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance

The Politics of Performance in Early Renaissance Drama

The Politics of Performance in Early Renaissance Drama

Prologues to Shakespeare's Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern Drama

Performance: Practical Examinations in Speech and Drama

Seizures of the Will in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture)

Drama: Between Poetry and Performance

World-Wide Shakespeares Local Appropriations in Film and Performance

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume IV (Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy)

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume IV (Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy)

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy Volume IV (Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy)

Early Modern Tragicomedy (Studies in Renaissance Literature)

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy: Volume 3 (Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy)

Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy: Volume 3 (Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy)

London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment

Intertextual loops in modern drama

Shakespeare's Companies (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)