ELIZABETHAN ACTING COMPANIES, 1588-1594: RECEIVED NARRATIVES AND HISTORIOGRAPHIC PROBLEMS

A Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Master of Arts in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Terence G. Schoone-Jongen, B. A.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University 2003

Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Thomas Postlewait, Adviser

Dr. Alan Woods d~~~G Adviser Department of Theatre Copyright by Terence Guy Schoone-Jongen 2003 ABSTRACT

Over the last century, the major studies of Elizabethan acting companies have all tended to operate under a variety of problematic assumptions. These assumptions are particularly evident in E. K. Chambers and W. W. Greg’s “amalgamation” hypothesis

(which states that from 1590 to 1594 the Lord Strange’s and Admiral’s Men were joined as one company) and the various accounts of Pembroke’s Men. In this work, I have sought to mobilize all available evidence in an attempt to reconsider the received narratives about these companies, as well as the assumptions present in those received narratives.

In the case of the “amalgamation,” a close study of the evidence reveals that there is little or no support for such a hypothesis, save that the hypothesis, if true, would support a number of traditional assumptions about provincial touring and acting company size. In fact, the surviving evidence actually appears to directly contradict the possibility of an “amalgamated” company. To date, the most thorough critique of the

“amalgamation” hypothesis is Andrew Gurr’s “The Chimera of Amalgamation,” but here too several questionable assumptions are at work. I have identified some of these assumptions; I have also brought to bear other evidence and several considerations which

Gurr’s argument does not deal with.

The histories that have been written about Pembroke’s Men present a slightly different problem. Here, there is concrete evidence that such a company existed, but that evidence has been interpreted in many different ways. I have examined the various histories of Pembroke’s Men and pointed out the many assumptions that operate in each of these accounts. In identifying these assumptions, it becomes clear that, while scholars have become more and more sophisticated in their use of evidence, they have not become any more careful about their employment of assumptions.

As a final component of this study, I have, based on the available evidence, compiled detailed itineraries for the acting companies active between 1584 and 1599. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I with to thank my adviser, Thomas Postlewait, for his encouragement, guidance, and enthusiasm, all of which made this project possible, as well as his editting and proofreading, which made the end result bearable.

Thanks is due to several people for offering feedback and encouragement on early versions of this thesis. Andrew Gurr offered several comments on an early draft of the paper which became my first chapter; Sally-Beth MacLean gave me a number of helpful hints while I was compiling what has become Appendix A; and Alan Woods suggested a number of useful emendations and clarifications.

I owe particular 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.

I would like to 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 graciously gave me permission to cite their unpublished REED transcriptions.

lV This project was made possible in part by a PEGS grant from the Ohio State

University Department of Theatre.

v VITA

August 24, 1978 ...... Bom--Pipestone, Minnesota

2001 ...... B. A., Communications Arts and Sciences,

Calvin College

2001-present...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio

State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Theatre

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iv Vita ...... vi

Chapters:

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. An Imagined Company: The Problem of the "Amalgamation" ...... 6

2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 The "Amalgamation" Hypothesis ...... 9 2.3 Against the "Amalgamation" Hypothesis ...... 16 2.4 The Evidence: Playing Notices ...... 21 2.5 The Evidence: Suggestions of an "Amalgamation" ...... 27 2.6 The Evidence: In Opposition to the "Amalgamation" ...... 33 2.7 A Further "Amalgamation" Difficulty: The Itineraries ...... 40 2.8 Possible Precendents for an "Amalgamation" ...... 45 2.9 The Feasibility of the "Amalgamation" ...... 54 2.10 Conclusion: Strange's and the Admiral's Men, 1589-1594 ...... 55

3. Pembroke's Men, 1592-93 ...... 59

3.1 Pembroke's Men: The Surviving Evidence ...... 59 3.2 An Early Conjecture: Frederick Fleay ...... 72 3.3 Ghosts of the "Amalgamation" ...... 78 3.4 An Alternative Account: G. M. Pinciss and the Queen's Men ...... 94 3.5 A Turning Point: Simon Jewell's Will ...... 98 3.6 Syntheses I: Karl Wentersdorf and the Queen's ...... 103 3.7 Syntheses II: David George and Strange's ...... 113 3.8 Conclusion ...... 122

Vll Appendices:

A. Company Itineraries, 1584-1599 ...... 128

B. Potential "Amalgamations" ...... 177

C. Ten Arguments for the Pembroke's company of 1592-93 ...... 179

Bibliography ...... 181

vm CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Beginning with Edmond Malone and continuing up to the present, scholarship on theatre in Renaissance England has focused almost exclusively on London, with only occasional mention of provincial playing. In many ways, Frederick G. Fleay's A

Chronicle History ofthe London Stage 1559-1642 (1890) set the terms for the study of

Renaissance English theatre. Although Fleay's contemporaries and successors, particularly W.W. Greg and E. K. Chambers, devoted a great deal of their work to correcting his errors and assumptions, Fleay's focus on London playing remained virtually unquestioned. In particular, E. K. Chambers's The Elizabethan Stage offered a much more meticulous and accurate history of Renaissance English theatre, but, like

Fleay, Chambers focused almost exclusively on London playing. Displacing Fleay, The

Elizabethan Stage became the work which set the tone and terms for the study of

Renaissance English theatre and remained so for years.

In recent decades, primarily due to the Records of Early English Drama (REED) project, theatre activities outside London have received increasing attention. REED was launched in the mid-1970s; its goal has been to gather, compile, and publish all records of theatre activity throughout England from roughly the late medieval period to 1642. By extending the focus beyond London, REED provides a growing documentary record of provincial playing. Consequently, the historical significance and purpose of provincial

1 touring and playing is being reconceived by scholars. This trend is discernible not only in scholarship of each of the editors for the REED volumes, which are listed in my bibliography, but also in the work of several other scholars, including Peter H.

Greenfield's "Touring" (1997), Andrew Gurr's The Shakespearian Playing Companies

(1996), and Siobhan Keenan's Travelling Players in Shakespeare's England (2002).

Increasingly, recent scholarship on Elizabethan theatre, even when focused on

London, has investigated the activities of playing companies, including their touring records. Attending to the playing companies is of course not a new development. In the twentieth century, various scholars carried out major scholarship on the acting companies: J. T. Murray's The English Dramatic Companies, 1558-1642 (1910),

Chambers's The Elizabethan Stage (1923), G. E. Bentley's The Jacobean and Caroline

Stage (1941-68) and The Profession ofPlayer in Shakespeare's Time, 1590-1642 (1984),

Muriel C. Bradbrook's The Rise ofthe Common Player (1962), and Andrew Gurr's The

Shakespearian Playing Companies (1996) are especially notable. Gurr's The

Shakespearian Playing Companies is particularly important, as it makes major headway in writing the history of the English Renaissance theatre from a perspective which privileges the acting companies. Thus, scholarship today no longer keys only on the playwrights (a frequent and persistent bias), just as it no longer limits itself to London playing.

For example, Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean's The Queen's Men and

Their Plays (1998) is particularly devoted to "studying the repertories of the companies with the kinds of critical and textual attention that are normally reserved for the canons of the playwrights" (xi). In other words, McMillin and MacLean advocate a methodology which brings theatre history (the companies) and textual studies (the plays) together.

However, in constructing the repertory of a given company, it is of course necessary to

2 have an accurate history of the company, since not all plays are immediately attributable to a particular company. To that end, refining the current understanding of company histories is a vital part of establishing company repertories, as well as a valuable project in its own right. In either case, examining the histories of the acting companies can reveal particular assumptions, narratives, and conjectures. Such assumptions, narratives, and conjectures must be investigated and questioned if a truly accurate view of the company histories is to be arrived at.

This project, then, is meant to contribute to the process of expanding the focus of

Renaissance English theatre history. Although I will chiefly remain in London for this particular study, I have drawn extensively upon the REED publications and manuscripts, bringing this body of evidence to bear whenever possible. As for placing acting companies and their repertories at the center of English Renaissance theatre history, I have chosen two companies, one imagined and one real, to investigate. In my first chapter, I will consider the possible "amalgamation" of two companies in the years between 1590 and 1594: Lord Strange's Men and the Lord Admiral's Men. This

"amalgamation" has often been accepted as fact and has often figured prominently in arguments about company personnel and repertory. It is my goal to demonstrate that this

"amalgamation" hypothesis is untenable. In doing so, however, I also want to focus on the underlying narratives and assumptions which motivated the formation of this hypothesis in the first place. My second chapter will consider Pembroke's Men, specifically in its early years, c. 1592-93. Although this company was short-lived, it performed a number of plays during this time period. The surviving evidence available for constructing the history of Pembroke's Men, however, is limited and far from complete. Even so, the evidence that does survive is tantalizing, and therefore further speculation about the company's history is inevitable. Many different scholars have

3 endeavored to construct (or infer) the origin, history, personnel, and repertory of this

company. I will survey a number of these constructions in an attempt to separate fact

from conjecture, but also again to identify the narratives and assumptions that have gone

into the processes of writing histories of these companies, identifying their repertories,

and compiling their personnel lists.

As a third part of this study, I have assembled a large appendix in which I attempt to compile all of the itineraries of all the active playing companies between 1585 and

1600. In a few cases, I extend a company's itinerary back before 1585 or forward beyond

1600, but for the most part I have limited myself to this decade-and-a-half. This is meant to be a reference tool for the reader, since particularly in my first chapter I frequently refer to company itineraries, but it is also provided for the sake of giving a wider context for the time period I am dealing with. I want to show just how much theatrical activity was taking place, and I also want to show how much of it was outside of London. I have not separated court, London, and provincial notices, as many historians have done. Instead, I present the full range of activities of a given company in a given year. It is also my hope that this record of the itineraries might, by limiting the coverage to a particular range of years, highlight particular trends or patterns that have not yet been noticed; to my knowledge, there has been no attempt since Murray in 1910 to compile a list of all notices of all acting companies (save, of course, REED, which does not, at this point, trace the activities of specific companies), especially not a list confined to a few key years. It is my hope that such a framing device will prove beneficial in some way.

Thanks are due to several people who have helped me greatly on this project. Dr.

Thomas Postlewait taught two classes for which I wrote the papers which were the forerunners of this current project. Since then, Dr. Postlewait has served as my thesis advisor, keeping me on track and offering invaluable advice and editing suggestions. Dr.

4 Alan Woods has served as my thesis reader and he too has offered important editing advice. I owe particular thanks to Dr. Sally-Beth MacLean and all of the good people at

REED, who not only allowed me to visit their offices and examine their yet-to-be­ published manuscripts, but also offered encouragement and particularly helpful advice on my itineraries. I would also like to thank Dr. Andrew Gurr, who read a very early version of my first chapter and encouraged me to visit REED and develop my arguments more fully.

5 CHAPTER2

AN IMAGINED COMPANY: THE PROBLEM OF THE "AMALGAMATION"

2.1 INTRODUCTION

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 (volume ii). The idea that these two companies shared some sort of link was hardly 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 (as well as

Pembroke's Men, which will be dealt with in more detail in the next chapter). 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 gave the hypothesis his endorsement 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 (Hens/owe 's Diary ii.71). Since these pronouncements by Chambers and Greg, the "amalgamation" hypothesis has been near­ orthodoxy for the study of Elizabethan theatre history. Recently, however, the hypothesis has come under some fire from Andrew Gurr, who has labeled the "amalgamation" hypothesis a "chimera." In this chapter, I will survey the evidence both for and against the "amalgamation," and I will attempt to posit a resolution to this debate. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, I will use this debate as a way of identifying several key

6 assumptions, issues, and narratives at work in the various historical approaches to the

"amalgamation" problem. Identifying, and in many cases challenging, such assumptions and issues may very well supply the evidence which allows for a potential resolution of the "amalgamation" debate; at the very least, this process will hopefully serve to refine our understanding of the situation of the acting companies between 1588 and 1594.

The accounts given by Chambers and Greg of the "amalgamation" have yet to be superseded, at least among supporters of this theory. Although Chambers's account is the one generally cited, Greg's is actually the older of the two, at least in terms of its appearance in a major book. Their separate accounts are in many ways similar--they draw the same sorts of conclusions from the same evidence, but there are differences between each scholar's formulation, and there are even some discrepancies within their own mentions of the "amalgamation."

Before approaching these two arguments for an "amalgamation," a word about terminology is in order. The historical argument addressed and reassessed in this chapter is elsewhere frequently referred to as the "amalgamation," but not uniformly so. This is probably due to the fact that Chambers and Greg differ in their definitions of what constitutes an "amalgamation." Chambers uses "amalgamation," or "amalgamated" company, to designate the supposed joint arrangement between the Admiral's and

Strange's Men to join together for London playing, without officially merging into one company. This still allowed the "amalgamated" company to break into its constituent parts when touring. Greg, by contrast, reserves the term "amalgamation" for situations in which companies became so thoroughly integrated that their component companies were no longer distinguishable. Given these usages, what Chambers labels an "amalgamation"

Greg refers to by terms such as "joint," "connection," or "union," although quite often the two scholars are referring to more or less the same phenomenon. As it happens, the

7 scholarship which has dealt with or touched on this phenomenon almost always uses

Chambers's terminology. For this reason, as well as for uniformity's sake, I will also use

the terms "amalgamation" and "amalgamated" company when addressing this

phenomenon. However, because these terms are not universally agreed upon, I have

elected to keep "amalgamation" and "amalgamated" in quotation marks.

It is also necessary to say a word here about dates. Many of the records I have

dealt with use the "old" style calender, which sets 25 March as the beginning of a new

numerical year. Thus, for instance, a document which a sixteenth-century record keeper

dated to 20 February 1590, would be reckoned as 1591 in the "new" style calender, which

uses 1 January as the beginning of the numerical year. Throughout this study, I have used the "new" style calendar for reckoning dates and have converted any "old" style dates

accordingly. For many provincial records, no precise date is listed; instead, the fiscal year

is noted. Fiscal years varied from community to community in Renaissance England, but

in general, fiscal years began and ended on 29 September (Michaelmas). When I deal with a provincial record which can only be dated to a fiscal year, I simply list the numerical years which the fiscal year covered; for instance, a record dated between 29

September 1591 and 29 September 1592 I list as "1591-92." In appendix I, in which I have compiled detailed acting company itineraries, I note the actual fiscal year dates for

each record. Finally, a word about court seasons. The typical court season began on 26

December and lasted until February. When I refer to a court season, for instance that of

1590-91, I am referring to the season which began on 26 December 1590 and lasted until

February 1591, "new" style.

8 2.2 THE "AMALGAMATION" HYPOTHESIS

Chambers's theory of an "amalgamated" company appears in the second volume of his The Elizabethan Stage (1923), in the section on the various playing company histories. In his section on Strange's Men, Chambers reveals the primary evidence on which he based the "amalgamation" hypothesis. During the court season of 1590-91, the

Privy Council records include warrants for two performances by the Lord Admiral's Men, on 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591, respectively. However, the payments for these performances, found in the Pipe Rolls, list one "George Ottewell" as the payee, and his company is referred to as Strange 's Men. Since there are several provincial notices which appear to indicate joint performances of Strange' s and the Lord Admiral's Men, and since Edward Alleyn, despite appearing with Strange' s, is known to have retained the

Lord Admiral's livery, Chambers decided that the apparent confusion in the court records was not confusion at all, but simply a case of the performing company being split into its constituent parts for the records, for one reason or another. Besides noting the supplemental evidence from provincial records and Alleyn's livery, Chambers also cited the so-called "plot" of The Seven Deadly Sins as possible evidence for a Strange's-Lord

Admiral's "amalgamation." This "plot" is a document, found among Edward Alleyn's

Dulwich papers, which provides an unusually complete list of the players performing a play called The Second Part ofthe Seven Deadly Sins (hereafter referred to as 2 Seven

Deadly Sins). The "plot" is undated and the company unnamed, but a number of the players named are known. From other information about the known players named on the "plot," many scholars have attempted to assign a date and company to the

9 performance this document represents. However, a persistent problem has been that the information provided by the plot is open to interpretation, and scholars have not been able to agree about its date or company. One of the more favored opinions has assigned the

"plot" to Strange's Men, sometime before 1592, but certain names on the list led

Chambers to suspect that the company performing 2 Seven Deadly Sins was a joint

Strange's-Admiral's company. A final piece of evidence presented by Chambers is a letter written by Alleyn to Henslowe while the former was on tour. In this letter, Alleyn makes the comment "till my Lord Stranges players com." According to Chambers, this comment shows that Alleyn appears to be waiting for Strange's to join him in Shrewsbury

(ii.120-126).

Having set forward this evidence, Chambers speculated that the "amalgamation" may have begun as early as 1588-89, and was decidedly a fact by 1590-91, from whence it lasted until 1594. In this account, Chambers passes over the fact that the company appeared in court as "Strange's Men" in the 1591-92 and 1592-93 court seasons and casts the Lord Admiral's Men as the senior partners in the venture, as is evident from his description of the initial merger: "A year later [1589-90], the Admiral's were with

Burbadge at the Theatre, and there I conceive that the residue of Strange's, deserted by

Symons, had joined them" (ii.120). Chambers figured that the two companies were joined while in London, either at court or one of the public theatres, but that they 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. Such splitting for touring was further evidenced by a complaint made by the company (listed as Strange's) in 1591 or 92 which characterized touring as a large company as "intollerable" (ii.121 ). In

London, the combined company played first at the Theatre (or Curtain), and then at the

10 Rose, with a possible stint at Newington Butts. The association ended during or just before the summer of 1594, when a major reshuffling resulted in the Lord Admiral's-Lord

Chamberlain's duopoly (ii.120-125). This five-page account of the "amalgamation" is often the one cited (for example, Gurr, "Chimera" 87, Shakespearean 34-41,

Shakespearian 233-234) when mentioning Chamber's theory thereof.

There is, however, a second and slightly different version of the "amalgamation" presented by Chambers within the same volume of The Elizabethan Stage. This account is given in his company history of the Lord Admiral's Men. The same evidence is once again presented for the "amalgamation"--the 1590-91 court records, provincial notices,

Alleyn's livery, and the 2 Seven Deadly Sins plot--but in contrast to the earlier

"amalgamation" account, Chambers writes here that "Technically, it would seem that it was the Admiral's who were merged in Strange' s men. It is the latter and not the former who generally appear in official documents during this period" (ii.136). Chambers's casting here of Strange's as the dominant company in the "amalgamation" goes even further, suggesting that once the companies were merged, "so far as the Admiral's continued to exist at all for the next few years, it was almost entirely in and through him

[Edward Alleyn] that it did so" (ii.138). Although this account begins to imply that the

"amalgamation" was basically a case of one player, Alleyn, joining Strange's, Chambers, intentionally or otherwise, blunts this possible implication by immediately noting that "It is not possible to say which, other than Alleyn, of the members of the 1592-93 Strange's and Admiral's company, whose names have been preserved, came from each of the two contributing sources" (ii.13 8). At any rate, this version of the "amalgamation" hypothesis is clearly distinct from that which appears barely ten pages earlier. It is this second version which is very close to, and essentially supported by, W.W. Greg's own considerations of a joint Strange's-Admiral's venture.

11 Greg's first speculation on a possible joining of Strange's and the Lord Admiral's

Men appeared in the commentary which comprises the second volume of his edition of

Henslowe's Diary (1908), although the term "amalgamation" is never actually employed.

Like Chambers, Greg cites the Pipe Rolls/Privy Council records discrepancy as the main evidence for some sort of"union" (Diary ii.71). Greg similarly finds other indications of cooperation between the two companies in the provincial records, in Edward Alleyn's retention of the Admiral's livery while in Strange's, and in the 2 Seven Deadly Sins

"plot." In addition, he presents the 1594 joint Lord Chamberlain's and Lord Admiral's tenure at Newington Butts as evidence of a continuation of the Strange's-Admiral's connection (Diary ii. 72, 85). 1 Despite noting all of these possible connections and using the term "close union" to describe the association of the two companies, Greg stops short of proclaiming an "amalgamation," saying that "no actual amalgamation took place"

(Diary ii. 72). He notes that, despite all of the evidence of a close connection, the company is consistently described as Strange's. Alleyn's presence therein, Admiral's livery and all, does not clearly indicate that any other members of the Admiral's Men joined him, although there are indications that at least two others may have (Diary ii.72).

The precise nature of the association, Greg argues, was one of apprenticeship and supercession. For reasons which will be noted later, Greg believed that, in the 1580's,

Strange's was a company of boy tumblers which, in the late 1580's, became associated with the Admiral's. Around 1591, perhaps just after the joint court performances inferred from the discrepancy in the records, the Admiral's more or less dissolved with a few of

1 Greg, along with many others, believed that the Lord Chamberlain's company was a later and more or less unaltered incarnation ofStrange's. This is characteristic of what I call the assumption of continuity, whereby it is assumed that most companies remained together, although patron and hence name changed. This assumption will be dealt with in more detail in the next chapter. For this particular example, it is sufficient to note that Gurr had demonstrated that, although there were many players in the Chamberlain's who were in Strange's, the two groups should not be considered equivalent (Shakespearian 69-73, 279; "Three Reluctant" 174).

12 their members, including Alleyn, moving into Strange's company, whose members had now reached maturity (Diary ii.71-72). The Admiral's company of 1594, for Greg, is not a continuance of the early company of that name, except perhaps for the presence of

Edward Alleyn (and again maybe one or two others). Despite claiming the dissolution of the Admiral's in 1591, Greg seems unable to set aside the idea of a joint Strange's­

Admiral's company entirely, as he refers to just such a possible joint company touring in

1593 (Diary ii.71-72, 85). Thus, although the evidence that leads to this account of things may be the same evidence that Chambers used, Greg's actual construction of the

Strange's-Admiral's relationship is rather different from Chambers's.

Greg's 1931 Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses contains a slightly different version of events from his account in the 1908 Diary, insofar as he does not disavow a joint Strange's-Admiral's company, although once again he avoids terming it an "amalgamation." In Dramatic Documents Greg is less concerned with individual company histories than he was in the Diary; instead, he describes and interprets playhouse documents and, as such, focuses on analyzing the "plot" of 2 Seven Deadly

Sins. In discussing the "plot," Greg mentions a possible "fusion" between Strange's and the Admiral's, and he speculates that the two companies played "in conjunction" at the

Theatre or Curtain prior to 1590-91 (Documents i.111 ). However, the "plot" itself he assigns to Strange's, speculating that the company played it at the Curtain in 1590

(Documents i.113). None of this account is in direct contradiction to his previous description of the relationship between Strange's and the Admiral's, but one does get the distinct impression that Greg is now more receptive to the idea of a joint venture, along the lines of Chambers's "amalgamation" hypothesis; and, in fact, Greg would later use the term "amalgamation" as a possibility for the Strange's-Admiral's association (Bald

52).

13 These varying accounts of the "amalgamation" would seem to indicate that the hypothesis never completely cohered in an integrated manner. Even Chambers's account is inconsistent within a single volume. It is safe to say that, based on certain pieces of evidence, Chambers believed that there was an "amalgamation," but he was at least unsure of, and at worst inconsistent about, what the precise nature or dynamic of that

"amalgamation" was. Greg, on the other hand, despite being cited as one of the founders and proponents of the "amalgamation" hypothesis, never actually commits to it, preferring to speak vaguely of fusions, close unions, and possible joint ventures. He clearly hints at the possibility of an "amalgamation" (although not usually under that term), but for one reason or another holds back from completely embracing this notion.

Nonetheless, one or another of these versions of the "amalgamation" has made its way into the work of many scholars over the years, right up to the present. Some, such as

Alexander Leggatt in 1975 (101), have followed Chambers's first account in presenting a company in which the Admiral's was the senior partner, while others, such as Park Honan in 1998 (130-131 ), have favored Strange's in that regard. The list of other scholars who have accepted the "amalgamation" in one form or another covers many possible spectrums, from long past to recent, specialized to popular, and theatre history giants to less well-known names. This list includes, but is not limited to: Alfred Harbage in 1941

(352), I. A. Shapiro in 1955 (102), Mary Edmond in 1974 (9), G. M. Pinciss also in 1974

(134), David George in 1981 (322), Charles Boyce in 1990 (4, 616), Andrew Gurr in

1992 (24-40), T. J. King also in 1992 (14, 27-32), W.R. Streitberger in 1997 (346-347), and Mark C. Pilkinton in his Bristol volume for Records of Early English Drama (REED) in 1997 (145).

14 Although the hypothesis appears to concern only two acting companies for a few years, the question of whether or not there was an "amalgamation" has a great deal more bearing on Elizabethan theatre history than it might at first seem. Depending on the situation, the existence of the "amalgamation" can complicate or simplify questions of authorship, personnel, and overall company structure. In the case of debating the identity of the various authors and hands in The Booke ofSir Thomas More, the "amalgamation" theory plays a role in determining who the possible candidates may or may not be (Bald

51-52, Shapiro 102). Whether or not there was an "amalgamation" also has a serious impact on the interpretation of the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot." If there was an

"amalgamation," it might explain where the "plot" came from (as it does for Chambers), and thus in turn solidify a number of propositions about who was with what company when. However, if there was no "amalgamation," the interpretation of the "plot" is less obvious and the implications for what it might mean radically different from what have become the standard interpretations of Greg and Chambers (see Chambers, Elizabethan ii.225 for one version, McMillin, "Building" 53-62 for another). With names such as

Alleyn, Burbage, Kempe, Heminges, and Shakespeare definitely or potentially involved in the interpretation of this "plot," the "amalgamation," or lack thereof, has a definite bearing on several key biographies. In the case of Shakespeare, the interpretation of the

"plot" can directly or indirectly have an effect on arguments about the chronology of his playwriting career, which in turn can speak to the overall history of playwriting trends and innovations. Finally, if there was an "amalgamation," there are serious implications for the history of companies and company structure. On the one hand, the door is open to speculation about other possible, and large-scale, "amalgamations." At the same time, the implications the "amalgamation" has for touring, such as the splitting up of London companies when on tour in the provinces, must inevitably influence the way theatre

15 scholars regard and talk about touring, and also has a bearing on the history of several of the other important acting companies of the time, notably Pembroke's Men (see George;

Pinciss; and Chambers, Elizabethan). If, on the other hand, there was no

"amalgamation," much of what has been said about acting companies, and indeed the

Elizabethan theatre scene in general, since the 1930's needs at least some reassessment.

Such reassessment, of course, depends on someone mounting an effective argument against the "amalgamation." To date, only Andrew Gurr has made such an attempt.

2.3 AGAINST THE "AMALGAMATION" HYPOTHESIS

In 1993, Gurr published an article tellingly titled "The Chimera of

Amalgamation." In this article, Gurr identifies several assumptions made by Chambers in his construction of the "amalgamation" theory, assumptions which Gurr attempts to dismantle. Gurr points out that there are two main assumptions at work in the

"amalgamation" theory, namely 1) that the "amalgamation" was somehow necessary in order for the large-cast plays2 of the late 1580's and early 1590's to be effectively staged in London and 2) that, 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 ("Chimera" 85-86). These assumptions, besides playing a role in the formation of the theory, have also been used to justify it. Besides being guilty of the obvious charge of circular logic, these assumptions are, Gurr argues, demonstrably problematic. In the case of the large-cast argument, there are at least four companies known to have performed such plays (Strange's, the

2 Those plays considered "large" vary from scholar to scholar, but a tentative list includes the following: The Wounds ofCivil War; Edward l fl III; I Henry VI; 2 Henry VI (and thus also The Contention); 3 Henry VI (and thus also The True Tragedy ofRichard Duke of York); Sir Thomas More; Titus Andronicus; 2 Seven Deadly Sins; The True Tragedy ofRichard III; The Famous Victories; Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay; The Massacre at Paris; and The Taming ofthe Shrew (Gurr, "Chimera" 88, Shakespearian 59-60).

16 Admiral's, Pembroke's, and the Queen's). Even if one were to argue that Strange's and

the Admiral's did their large-cast plays in combination, Pembroke's and the Queen's still

appear to have been capable of doing these plays without any "amalgamation."

Moreover, most of the large-cast plays are known to have been staged by the Admiral's

Men by themselves after 1594, once again suggesting that an "amalgamation" was not in

any way necessary for the performance of these plays ("Chimera" 85-86). As for the

second assumption that the ability of the "amalgamation" to split into its constituent

parts, thanks to its retention of both licenses, made touring easier, Gurr notes that there

are strong arguments, particularly those advanced by David Bradley and T. J. King, which

call into question the idea that companies pared themselves down for touring. Reducing numbers for touring is, then, at any rate, not an unequivocal fact. Moreover, Gurr points

out, a single company keeping two licenses would be a violation of 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. After all, authorities would be angry at the misuse of the licenses, and the company patrons would likely be annoyed at the careless handling their names would receive under such a situation ("Chimera" 86-87).

These arguments are directed at the reasons for, rather than the fact of, the

"amalgamation," but Gurr also attacks the theory on factual bases. Gurr first addresses the use of the 2 Seven Deadly Sins plot, which, he argues, can and has been interpreted in several ways, all of which seem equally viable. Gurr notes that Scott McMillin's 1989 interpretation is a viable alternative to that offered by Chambers (and Greg, for that matter). This contention is not totally convincing, since Gurr's own interpretation of the

"plot" is almost identical to Greg's (Shakespearian 71, 261), while McMillin's, although intriguing and valuable as a counterpoint to other interpretations, avoids a completely

17 thorough analysis of the "plot." In the case of the 1590-91 court records discrepancy, where the Admiral's company is named on the Privy Council warrant but Strange's company is listed on the Pipe Rolls payment account, Gurr argues that this was the result of confusion, as had been assumed prior to Greg and Chambers (Shakespearian 234,

"Chimera" 87). Gurr does not elaborate any further on this point, but there are several possibilities which satisfactorily explain such a mistake, as will be discussed below. A third problem Gurr raises is 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, at court, in official records, and, most tellingly, in Henslowe's Diary and correspondence. 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). Gurr also raises an objection to Chambers's interpretation of

Alleyn's letter to Henslowe, in which Chambers claimed Alleyn was waiting for

Strange's to join him. Gurr notes that the letter does not in fact indicate that Alleyn is waiting for Strange's Men, but instead sets out the future itinerary of Alleyn's company, so that Henslowe and his daughter (Alleyn's wife) know where to send any messages for

Alleyn. In this case, the letter is actually an example of Alleyn identifying himself as a

Strange's man ("Chimera" 88, 90). Gurr's final attack on the "amalgamation" theory comes from examining the repertoire. 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

Tamburlaine and Dr. Faustus, two of the most successful plays of the late 1580's (which also happened to belong to the Admiral's), would almost certainly have been staged at least once. However, neither play appears in the performance log Henslowe kept during this time, suggesting that the Admiral's company was not involved with the company at the Rose, despite Alleyn's retention of the Admiral's livery and the presence of one or

18 two other former Admiral's men ("Chimera" 90-91). Gurr does allow that the two companies may have joined forces on an occasion or two while touring the provinces, but even here, he argues, the provincial records are not clear, and the apparent joint tour performances may merely mean that the two companies were in the same town at the same time ("Chimera" 90).

Gurr thus constructs a revisionist analysis of the relationship between Strange's and the Admiral's. What appears to have occurred, as near as can be inferred from Gurr's account, is that although the Admiral's company was one of the major acting companies during the late 1580's, something happened to it around 1590 or 1591 which resulted in

Alleyn, and possibly others, leaving it for Strange's. Alleyn, owing to some sort of personal allegiance, opted to keep the Admiral's livery, but this marked him as an

Admiral's servant, not an actor in the Admiral's Men. Alleyn's livery may be what caused the confusion in the records during the court season of 1590-91, since this would have been around the time that Alleyn first joined Strange's. The Admiral's, or what was left of it, went to the provinces and stayed there for the next several years; presumably, this company retained Tamburlaine and Dr. Faustus, and possibly other Admiral's plays which do not show up in Strange's 1591-94 repertoire. Strange's, in the meantime, became the preeminent London playing company for the next several years, playing first at the Theatre and then at the Rose, although in the spring of 1594 they disintegrated, whereupon Alleyn returned to a rejuvenated or reconstituted Admiral's and many of the rest of the former members of Strange' s company became players in the Lord

Chamberlain's men ("Chimera" 91-93).

Gurr's well-argued attack on the "amalgamation" hypothesis raises a number of objections which, if not completely devastating, certainly put in doubt the arguments of

Chambers and Greg. Although it is tempting to agree with Gurr's assessment, there are

19 several factors and pieces of evidence which he does not take into account, or does not make full use of, and, like any scholar, he also is operating under several assumptions which may be questioned. In the first place, Gurr relies heavily on single examples to prove his point about the assumptions that support the "amalgamation" hypothesis.

Although the King/Bradley analysis of touring and Scott McMillin's consideration of the

2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot" provide alternative readings of the facts which may in tum question previous assumptions, these investigations represent, especially in the case of

McMillin, an argument which is just as good as, rather than better than, the previous one.3

McMillin may very well be correct in his interpretation of the "plot," but in this case he doesn't prove that the previous interpretation is wrong or faulty, but based on unproven hypotheses instead of safe generalizations, as McMillin himself admits ("Stories" 58).

Therefore, Chambers and Greg's interpretation of the "plot" could very well still be the correct one. Gurr, drawing on McMillin, points out here that, since one interpretation of the "plot" is as solid as another, it is not a good foundation on which to base a larger argument. Instead, perhaps, the "plot" should be brought to bear later, to see if it fits an already formed interpretation of the facts. Gurr seems to want to argue that the "plot" should be set aside entirely until more evidence is uncovered to shed light on it, but this, I would argue, is humanly impossible, given the tantalizing nature of the "plot," a difficulty which McMillin also acknowledges ("Stories" 53). And there is the problem that, for his part, Gurr reaches almost exactly the same conclusions about the date and company of the

"plot" as Greg does (Gurr, Shakespearian 71, 261; Greg, Diary 113). Gurr's second main assumption is that the evidence he offers against the "amalgamation" is adequate for disproving the hypothesis. Although compelling, other interpretations of the evidence

3 McMillin's argument is that, if one looks only at the actor names on the "plot" and the other places these names appear, the most obvious conclusion is that the "plot" represents a performance by the Lord Chamberlain's Men in or about 1594 ("Building" 53-63).

20 Gurr uses against the "amalgamation" might still point to the existence of the

"amalgamation." Gurr merely assumes, as of course all historians (myself included) do,

that his interpretation of the evidence is correct, or at least the best. What interpretation is

"best" is generally a subjective determination, so perhaps a reexamination of Gurr's

evidence may yield other possible or plausible interpretations which Gurr does not take

into account.

Like Greg and Chambers, Gurr is operating under several assumptions which may

or may not be correct. Although his argument is, on the whole, stronger than Chambers

or Greg's arguments, it does not take everything into account which can, or should, be

considered in discussing the existence, or lack thereof, of the "amalgamation." For that reason, I would like to propose a return to the evidence for and against the

"amalgamation," describing the pieces of evidence briefly mentioned above, and then

bringing to bear some other potentially helpful evidence not touched on by any of the

scholars mentioned thus far.

2.4 THE EVIDENCE: PLAYING NOTICES

As a starting point for surveying all of the available evidence, I will begin with the history of Strange's and the Admiral's prior and up to the confusion in the court records.

This, of course, is in and of itself a difficult proposition because of partial evidence, but at

least a few definite facts about the careers of these two companies can be set out.

Strange's Men, which became one of the dominant companies of the early 1590's, is difficult to trace with certainty before about 1588-89 because it is unclear (1) ifthe

Strange's company mentioned earlier in the decade has continuity with Strange's of 1588-

89 or (2) if Strange's tumblers were also players. At any rate, beginning in 1580 a

company under the patronage of Ferdinando Stanley, lord Strange, appeared at court with

21 some frequency. "Strange's tumblers" appear on 15 January 1580; and on 9 January 1586

"Mr Standleys boys," led by one John Symons, performed as tumblers ("Standley" must mean Stanley, the Lord Strange). A boy company led by Symons was again at court on

28 December 1587, but the patron is not named in the records, and given Symons's mobility as an actor it is not certain which company this might be. What appears to be an adult Strange's company played on 28 December 1581 and again on 1January1583 (with

Symons as payee), performing "feats"4 A recognizably adult Strange's (they are referred to as players instead of boys) next appeared at court on 27 December 1590 and then on 16

February 1591. These two performances are the foundation of the "amalgamation" theory, because the Admiral's are listed in the Privy Council warrants for those days, while Strange's, represented by George Ottewell, are listed as the payees. After these dates, Strange's became a court favorite, performing six times during the 1591-92 court season (27, 28 December 1591, 1, 9 January and 6, 8 February 1592) and then three times during the 1592-93 season (27, 31 December 1592 and 1 January 1593), after which they ceased to appear at court (Chambers Elizabethan ii.119-120, iv.156-164; Greg, Diary 71;

Gurr, Shakespearian 274).

Beginning in 1589, we have a rough idea of Strange's playing places in the city of

London. A 6 November 1589 letter from John Harte, Lord Mayor of London, records that Strange's company was playing at the Cross Keys inn. It seems that on 5 November,

Harte had spoken with the Admiral's and Strange's Men, ordering them to stop playing.

The Admiral's obeyed, but Strange's played that very afternoon. Strange's appears to have played at the Theatre during 1590-91, about which time they were joined by Edward

Alleyn (Gurr, Shakespearian 259-260; Wickham, Berry, Ingram 94-95). Strange's

4 John Astington, in his appendix to English Court Theatre, I 558-1642, omits all of these entries; as near as I can tell, this is because he has not dealt with companies he thinks were tumblers.

22 presence at the Theatre is confirmed by a 1592 lawsuit. Based on the depositions relating to this case, it appears that in May 1591 James Burbage and Alleyn had a nasty quarrel which resulted in Strange's relocation (Chambers, Elizabethan ii.120; Shakespeare i.42-

44; Wickham, Berry, Ingram 361-362). Henslowe's Diary records that Strange's opened a season at the Rose on 19 February 1592 and played there until June 22 (Foak:es and

Rickert 16-19). At the end of 1592 it appears that they played briefly at Newington Butts before returning to the Rose on 29 December (Greg, Diary i.73; Chambers, Elizabethan ii.121). Their second run at the Rose was cut short on 1February1593, when plague closure forced them to tour (Foak:es and Rickert 19-20). On 6 May they were given a special Privy Council license which allowed them to play anywhere seven miles or further from London, so long as the playing-place was plague-free. The order granting the license lists the following sharers or principle players: "Edward Allen, servaunt to the right honorable the Lord Highe Admiral, William Kemp, Thomas Pope, John Heminges,

Augustine Phillips, and Georg Brian, being al one companie, servauntes to our verie good the Lord the Lord Strainge" (Chambers, Elizabethan ii.123). In September of 1593 their patron, Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, became earl of Derby, and the company accordingly became Derby's. Ferdinando Stanley died on 16 April 1594, leaving the company patronless, although there is a reference to the Countess of Derby's players performing on 16 May 1594. By that time, the Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain had established the "duopoly," whereby many former Strange's players ended up in the Lord

Chamberlain's men; thus, it is unclear what, if any, continuity existed between the

Countess of Derby's company and the previous Strange's/Derby's company. A Derby's company continues to appear in the provincial records well beyond 1594, but again it is unclear if this company is in any way descended from the earlier company (Gurr,

Shakespearian 265).

23 Provincial notices of visits by a Strange's company are frequent, beginning in

1583. There is a gap between 1585 and 1588 during which no company named Strange's is recorded as touring, although this is about the time during which Strange's tumblers were performing at court. Once again, it is difficult to tell if there is any continuity between these early mentions of a Strange's company and the Strange's this study is particularly concerned with. Greg seems to think there is continuity, while Gurr thinks not. At any rate, beginning in 1588 a Strange's company again appeared intermittently in the provinces, and then frequently appeared outside London from 1591-94, which were lean years for London playing (Gurr, Shakespearian 274-276). Several letters sent back and forth between Edward Alleyn and Henslowe during these tours establish that Thomas

Downton and Richard Cowley were also in the company, in addition to those players named in the 1593 license order. Alleyn also refers to one "Pig" in the correspondence, who may have been one of the boy actors in the company (Foakes and Rickert 274-282).

Thus, during the period of roughly 1590-94, Edward Alleyn, William Kempe, Thomas

Pope, Augustine Phillips, John Heminges, George Brian, and George Ottewell (or

Attewell) can all be safely located in Strange's Men, along with Richard Cowley, Thomas

Downton, and "Pig." This list could be expandable, depending on what exactly the "plot" of 2 Seven Deadly Sins represents; this problem will be dealt with presently.

The Lord Admiral's Men date back to around 1576, the year they first played at court. After a performance during the 1577-78 court season, the Admiral's company appears only in provincial records until the 1585-86 court season, when it performed twice, first on 27 December 1585 and then on 6 January 1586. The second of these performances is interesting because the company appears to have performed that day in combination with the Lord Chamberlain's (Hunsdon's) company (Gurr, Shakespearian

253-254). Although very active in the provinces, the Admiral's did not appear at court in

24 1586-87, nor in 1587-88. This may be because during a November 1587 performance in

London there was allegedly a mishap in when a gun misfired on stage, killing a child and a pregnant woman, and injuring a third man (Gurr, Shakespearian 232; Wickham, Berry,

Ingram 277). Despite this mishap, the Admiral's returned to court for the 1588-89 season, performing "feats" on 29 December 1588 and reappearing on 11 February 1589.

The company appeared twice in 1589-90 (28 December and 3 March), and then perhaps twice in 1590-91, although these are the dates when the Admiral's is listed as playing and

Strange's is listed as getting paid. After this, the Admiral's company was not at court until the 1594-95 season, after which they, with the Lord Chamberlain's, were the exclusive court invitees for a number of years (Gurr, Shakespearian 253-254; Chambers,

Elizabethan iv.151-165; Astington 228-234).

The London career of the Admiral's Men is not entirely clear prior to 1594, but the company was in town in 1587 according to the story about the gun and a report made by one of Francis Walsingham's spies (Wickham, Berry, Ingram 90-91). The company must have been in London again in 1589, when it was one of the companies summoned by the Lord Mayor and ordered not to play. Unlike Strange's, the Admiral's obeyed the decree. The Admiral's appears to have played at the Theatre in 1590-91, as the aforementioned depositions made by John Alleyn (Edward's brother and a member of the

Admiral's at the time) indicate. This tenure began sometime before November 1590 and terminated in May 1591, although the last date marks when Edward Alleyn, not necessarily the Admiral's Men, left the Theatre (Gurr, Shakespearian 232-233). If an

"amalgamation" between the companies occurred, then the Admiral's did leave, with

Strange's, in May 1591. However, if there was no "amalgamation," then the Admiral's company must have left at least some weeks prior to May 1591, allowing Strange's to occupy the playhouse, which it apparently did (assuming Alleyn had joined Strange's

25 prior to his fight with Burbage). If an "amalgamation" occurred then, like Strange's, the

Admiral's next London playhouse was the Rose in 1592, with a short tenure at

Newington Butts at the end of that year and then a month-long stint at the Rose in 1592-

93, before the plague closure. If no "amalgamation" occurred, the Admiral's players must have left London after their time at the Theatre, returning only after the formation of the duopoly in May 1594. At any rate, the Admiral's, with Alleyn, returned to the Rose in 1594 and would remain there until the company moved into Henslowe's new Fortune in 1600 or 1601 (Gurr, Shakespearian 237, 242).

Beginning in 1589-90, there are frequent notices of an Admiral's company appearing in the provinces. "Amalgamation" or no, it is clear that the Admiral's was very active as a touring company up until 1593-94, when the company was reconstituted at the

Rose (Gurr, Shakespearian 254-255). It is notable that the spike in touring activity for the Admiral's began at least two years before Strange's became highly active in the provinces, as can be seen in a comparison of the itineraries in Appendix A.

It is difficult to construct who precisely was in the Admiral's from 1588-1594, since it is clear that at least at one point during these years there was a major change in the personnel, unless of course there was simply a big "amalgamation." Edward and John

Alleyn were clearly Admiral's Men at the beginning of this period, and Richard Jones and

Robert Browne almost certainly were. In 1589 or 1590, Browne left to tour the continent, and in 1592 undertook a second European tour. On this second tour, he was joined by

Jones, as well as John Bradstreet and Thomas Sackville, who may also have been

Admiral's players before 1592; all four are named in a passport from the Lord Admiral permitting them to tour Friesland, Holland and Zeeland (Riewald 176; Brennecke 3).

Chambers believed that the Lord Admiral did not issue this passport in his capacity as patron; more recently J. G. Riewald (1984) and Willem Schrickx (1986) have argued

26 otherwise (Schrickx, Foreign 184). If the Lord Admiral was acting as patron, then

Bradstreet and Sackville must have been in the Admiral's company as well as Jones and

Browne. James Tunstall was definitely an Admiral's player, and he may have followed

Edward Alleyn to Strange's in 1591, assuming there was no "amalgamation," in which case all these players (save those who went to Europe) would likely have gone to

Strange's, or else gone on tour in the provinces. (Gurr, Shakespearian 234).

2.5 THE EVIDENCE: SUGGESTIONS OF AN "AMALGAMATION"

Besides court, London, and provincial playing-dates, numerous other pieces of evidence can be mobilized for weighing the possibility of an "amalgamation." In the first place, we have the pieces of evidence advanced as proof, or at least as a suggestion, of the

"amalgamation." The prime documents here are the Privy Council and Chamber Account records from 1590-91. The Privy Council records in question are dated 5 March 1591

(several weeks after the second of the performances in question) and approve payment

"unto the Lord Admyralle's players for shewing and presenting before her Majestie two severall plaies," the dates of these plays being 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591.

The Chamber Accounts, dated 7 March 1591, record the approved payment to "George

Ottewell and his companye the Lorde Straunge his players" for performances on the same dates (Gurr, Shakespearian 233). As we have seen, Chambers, and Greg to an extent, resolved this contradiction by deciding that both records were in fact correct. Gurr, on the other hand, has remained skeptical and explained this discrepancy as simply a mistake. There are various explanations for how this mistake might have occurred; such explanations are only useful (and necessary), however, in the event that the

"amalgamation" never happened.

27 The second major piece of evidence is the "plot" of 2 Seven Deadly Sins. What exactly this piece of paper is, or means, remains in doubt. It is clear that it is a tiring­ house paper which contains the outlines of scenes in this play and the names of most of the performers. It may be that the play outlined is part of Richard Tarleton's Seven

Deadly Sins. Whatever company performed the play included the players Thomas Pope,

Augustine Phillips, George Brian, Richard Burbage, Richard Cowley, John Duke, Robert

Pallant, John Sinkler, Thomas Goodale, William Sly, John Holland. Besides these actors, who are known from other mentions, actors identified as Harry, Kitt, Vincent, Saunder,

Nick, Robert, Ned, Will, and T. Belt also appeared in the production the "plot" represents. It has been widely speculated that William Kempe and Edward Alleyn were also in this company, but are not named (and there are lead roles without an actor's name attached to them, suggesting that this list is not of all the players involved in the production); the fact that the "plot" was in the Dulwich papers also strongly suggests, though it does not prove, that Alleyn was in the production. Although specific names are given, and many of them can be connected with previous or subsequent company allegiances, the "plot" does not state what company performed this play, where it was performed, or when it was performed. Chambers and Greg connect this document with a performance at the Theatre in 1590-91, probably by an "amalgamated" Strange's­

Admiral's company. This interpretation makes sense, but Scott McMillin has offered an alternative and equally plausible interpretation which dates the play to 1593 or June 1594

("Stories" 53-61). Of course, plausibility is inevitably tied to conjectural matters; as such, this document is troublesome for anyone trying to use it to prove anything. Then again, if a strong case could be made for or against the "amalgamation," independent of any use of this document, it might then be possible to interpret the "plot" in light of that case.

28 Another piece of evidence used in arguing for the "amalgamation" is the issue of

Edward Alleyn's livery. It is clear that Alleyn retained his Admiral's livery, despite being in a company often referred to as Strange's. The May 1593 approval of a traveling license clearly names Strange's as the company, yet Alleyn is noted as a servant to the

Lord Admiral (Gurr, Shakespearian 264). Although no other players in this company are identified as wearing the Admiral's livery, some still may have done so, assuming there was an "amalgamation." Yet it is also possible, as Gurr argues, that Alleyn may have had some personal or political reasons for retaining the Admiral's livery which had nothing to do with a merger of his former company and Strange's. As per the discrepancy in the court records, there are possible, even plausible explanations for why Alleyn might have done this.

Yet another area of evidence mobilized for an "amalgamation" is the correspondence of Edward Alleyn and Henslowe, his father-in-law. Chambers, as well as other scholars (most recently Mark C. Pilkinton--see Bristol 145), have taken one of

Alleyn's letters to mean that he was waiting to be joined by Strange's; this supposedly proves that Alleyn was in a company other than Strange' s, the Admiral's being the most likely candidate (Elizabethan ii.124). It is evident, however, from the letter itself that

Chambers misread the letter. The letter actually describes the intended itinerary of

Strange's men, which it appears Alleyn was identifying himself as a member of. In this letter, Alleyn tells his wife that further letters for him should be sent "by the cariers of shrowsbery or to west chester or to york to be keptt till my lord stranges players com"

(Foakes and Rickert 276). Furthermore, Henslowe's letters to Alleyn invariably address him as a Strange's man, ifHenslowe refers to any company at all (Foakes and Rickert

29 274-282). Any argument for an "amalgamation" would have to abandon this particular claim of Chambers's, and in fact the correspondence clearly supports an anti­

"amalgamation" argument, if it supports any particular argument at all.

In addition to all this evidence, Chambers lists several provincial notices of

Strange's and the Admiral's playing together as evidence for the "amalgamation." The notices of such "amalgamated" performances Chambers lists are Shrewsbury, 1591-92, and Ipswich on 7 March 1594 (Elizabethan ii.120n). But Chambers modified both of these dates from their initial recordings. The notice of "my 1. Stranges and my 1.

Admyralls players" from Shrewsbury is listed in the town records as a 1592-93 performance, but Chambers for whatever reason thought the entry had been transposed and actually belongs to 1591-92 (most other scholars, and the editor of the Bath REED collection, have not followed his example and keep the record date as 1592-93)

(Elizabethan ii.120n). As for the Ipswich date, in the records it appears as 7 March 1592, and refers to "therlle of Darbys players and [... ] the Lorde Admirals players, the ij amongst" (Redstone and Chambers 270) Chambers changed the date to 1594 for two reasons: first, Strange's did not become Derby's until late 1593, so presumably this record should come after that date ifthe company really was called Derby's, and second, a joint performance on 7 March 1592 would conflict with the fact that Strange's was, according to Henslowe's Diary, playing 1 Henry VI at the Rose that day (Elizabethan ii.120n). Naturally, believing in an "amalgamation," Chambers would have regarded this date as wrong, but ifthere was no "amalgamation," then this date could be correct and would in fact be proof that there was no "amalgamation." As it happens, however,

Chambers had misread the date in the records. The date should actually read 7 August

1592, in which case this conflict evaporates. Chambers would later correct this mistake and accept the 7 August 1592 date in William Shakespeare, although he still noted that

30 the listing of Derby's rather that Strange's as the company performing with the Admiral's suggested a possible error in the record (i.45). Although Chambers used these two cases ofjoint playing while on tour as evidence for the "amalgamation," it is not clear how these records really support such a theory. As it is, other occasional "amalgamations" between companies on tour appear in the provincial records (see Appendix B), and these notices generally are not used to argue for a longer, more permanent "amalgamation."

These all seem to have been one-time events, with the exception of a Queen's-Sussex's jointure in 1590-91 (Gurr, Shakespearian 184, 208, 215). At any rate, the two apparent joint performances of Strange' s and the Admiral's are open to other interpretations. The

Ipswich date, on the one hand, in referring to the companies as "the ij amongst," does not necessarily indicate a joint performance--both companies may simply have been in

Ipswich at or around the same time. The Shrewsbury date, on the other hand, contains no qualification like "the ij amongst" and thus may represent a true joint performance, but then again it has never been demonstrated that an entry containing the names of two companies means that they played jointly (although there are cases where two patron names are listed, but specified as "all in one company" or the like) (Gurr Shakespearian

235-236). A further complication is that many provincial records were inscribed sometime after the performances in question actually took place (although it is possible to determine on a town-to-town basis if this sort of issue comes into play or not). This may mean that the dating of a given performance is imprecise, or that two companies listed in a single record were actually in the town on different days, but were actually recorded some time later on the same day. It should be noted that Chambers fully acknowledged these problems, but he also thought that any dating errors that resulted from such considerations were inconsiderable (Elizabethan ii.2-3).

31 A final piece of evidence used to suggest an "amalgamation" company is a brief run at Newington Butts in 1594 which featured both the Lord Chamberlain's and Lord

Admiral's companies (Greg, Diary ii.72, 85). The run only lasted from 3 to 13 June, after which the Chamberlain's took up residence at the Theatre and Admiral's returned to the

Rose. The nature of this brief association at Newington Butts is not entirely clear, as it is hard to tell ifthe playing was joint or ifthe performing company alternated from day to day. The plays performed during this run can, to an extent, be assigned to one or the other company. The plays listed during this run are Hester and Ahasuerus (3 and 10

June), The Jew ofMalta (4 and 13 June), Titus Andronicus (5 and 12 June), Cutlack(6

June), Belin Dun ("ne" on 8 June), Hamlet (9 June), and The Taming ofA Shrew (11

June) (Foakes and Rickert 21-22). Of these seven plays, Titus and A Shrew were almost certainly Chamberlain's plays; Belin Dun and Cutlack subsequently appear as Admiral's plays. The Jew ofMalta may have been personally owned by Henslowe, as it was performed by whatever company occupied the Rose from 1592 on. Since Hester never appears in Henslowe's records after 13 June 1594, it is reasonable to assume that it was a

Chamberlain's play. Thomas Lodge mentions Hamlet at the Theatre in 1596, definitely locating it in the Chamberlain's repertory, in addition to the fact that this appears to be the inspiration for the later, greater Hamlet, also a Chamberlain's play (Gurr, Shakespearian

279-280). If the companies did not play jointly, and if each company performed the plays which they would take with them after 13 June, there isn't much of an intelligible pattern of alternation. This may suggest that the companies did in fact play jointly, but it is difficult to say with any certainty what the playing arrangement was for these ten days.

Even if the companies did play jointly, this only really supports a continuation of the

"amalgamation" arrangement ifthe Chamberlain's is construed as a continuation of

Strange's/Derby's. Although there is a core of about five players which appears to have

32 moved from Derby's to the Chamberlain's in 1594, several others came from Sussex's or

Pembroke's, or Pembroke's via Sussex's, and the presence of old Queen's plays in the

Chamberlain's repertory suggests that at least one or two Queen's players also formed the original Chamberlain's company (Gurr, Shakespearian 279; "Reluctant" 264-267). There has been a tendency among many scholars to assume continuity between acting companies, but the example of the formation of the Queen's men in 1583, as well as this duopoly formation of 1594, seems to indicate that it is not safe to assume such a smooth narrative of companies simply changing names. It is very possible that companies were formed from whatever players were available, and that when a company disbanded the players dispersed to whatever companies could absorb them. It is notable, however, that this collaboration may serve as a precedent for an "amalgamation," a point which will be addressed shortly.

2.6 THE EVIDENCE: IN OPPOSITION TO THE "AMALGAMATION"

Having looked at, and to some extent analyzed, the evidence used for an

"amalgamation," I now turn to examining the evidence Gurr uses to attack the theory not addressed in the discussion of pro-"amalgamation" evidence. The main body of evidence not touched on already is the inexplicable absence of several plays from the known repertoire of the allegedly "amalgamated" company. Dr. Faustus and Tamburlaine were well-known plays by 1589 or 1590, and they were also recent plays. If Henslowe's Diary is taken as an example of the general way in which plays were phased in and out of the repertoire, these two plays would have still likely been in demand in 1592, given their huge popularity. However, neither play appears during either of Strange's seasons at the

Rose, for which Henslowe kept a detailed performance log. Gurr argues that there is no good reason why these plays would have been withheld from production, had they been

33 available. They are known to have been Admiral's plays in the late 1580's (1and2

Tamburlaine, published in 1590, list the Admiral's as the company ofrecord on the title page), so ifthe Admiral's was connected with Strange's, these plays should have been available for production while Strange's was at the Rose. As two of Alleyn's showpieces, it is even more difficult to believe that a company which included Alleyn would have withheld them from production ("Chimera" 91; Shakespearian 237). The inference to be drawn then is that these plays were not available to Strange's during its

Rose seasons, which would in turn suggest that the Admiral's had either lost control of the plays or was not connected with Strange's. Henslowe's Diary records the return of

Tamburlaine on 28 August 1594, and Dr. Faustus also returns to the repertoire on 30

September 1594 (Foakes and Rickert 23-24). The availability of these plays to the post-

1594 Admiral's would seem, in light of the other evidence, to support the idea that another company had these plays between c. 1591and1594. Although this other company could have been one of any number, a separate, non-"amalgamated," touring

Admiral's seems like the strongest choice, since the possession of these plays by any other company would presuppose that the Admiral's had to give them up, and it is difficult to believe that they would have done so willingly. The 1590 publication of the

Tamburlaines might indicate a loss of these plays, but their reappearance as Admiral's in

1594, and the existence of a touring Admiral's from 1590-94, suggests that the plays may have been sold for publication, but still belonged to the Admiral's. The plays were the

Admiral's in 1590 and again in 1594; the only reason one would have for looking for them elsewhere during the intervening years is the "amalgamation" company's lack of these plays. Remove the "amalgamation," and one removes the need to speculate on where the plays were. Accordingly, the only explanation here which keeps the

"amalgamation" hypothesis intact is that the Admiral's did in fact lose these plays to

34 another company prior to 1592. If they were joined with Strange's prior to May of 1591, then the loss would have to occur before that date as well. If 1590, the date of the

Tamburlaine publications, is taken as a possible time this could have happened, the only other major companies operating during that time, besides Strange's, were the Queen's and Sussex's; both of them later appeared at the Rose in 1594, but again neither of these plays were performed (Foakes and Rickert 20-21). If there was an "amalgamation," whichever company had these plays was sitting on them, or else was a company which only played in the provinces. It is highly unlikely that a provincial company would have been able to procure these plays from the Admiral's; thus, the choice is between a company possessing, but not performing, these acclaimed plays or no "amalgamation" at all.

A further examination of the known repertory of the "amalgamated" company yields further difficulties with the "amalgamation" hypothesis. Faustus and the

Tamburlaines may have been absent from this repertoire, but there was no shortage of plays at the disposal of whatever company was at the Rose in 1592 and 1593. Twenty-six plays were staged at the Rose by the company Henslowe lists as Strange's between 19

February 1592 and 1 February 1593. Nineteen of these plays were apparently revivals of older plays: Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (7 Performances); Muly Muloco (14);

Orlando Furioso (I); The Spanish Comedy (7); Sir John Mandevell (11); Henry of

Cornwall (4); The Jew ofMalta (13); Cloys and Orgasto (I); Pope John (l); Bendo and

Ricardo (3); Four Plays in One (I); A Looking Glass for London (4); Zenobia (I); The

Spanish Tragedy (16); Constantine (l); Jerusalem (2); Brandymer (2); 1 Tamar Cham

(4); and Comedy ofCosmo (2). A further seven plays are listed as "ne," which may mean that they were, in some way, shape, or form, new plays, perhaps written for the company playing at the Rose: Henry VI (17); Titus and Vespacia (1 O); 2 Tamar Cham (2); The

35 Tanner ofDenmark (1 ); A Knack to Know a Knave (7); The Jealous Comedy (1 ); and

Tragedy ofthe Guise, apparently the same play as Marlowe's Massacre at Paris (1)

(Foakes and Rickert 16-20). Of these twenty-seven plays, only six (The Jew ofMalta,

Friar Bacon, The Spanish Tragedy, 1and2 Tamar Cham, and Tragedy ofthe Guise)

reappear in the Admiral's repertory after the formation of the duopoly.s In addition,

Friar Bacon may reappear in Henslowe' s records in December 1602, when he, through

Thomas Downton, commissioned Middleton to write a prologue and epilogue for "the

playe of bacon for the corte" (Foakes and Rickert 207). Gurr considers this Friar Bacon

to be the same play as the earlier entry ("Chimera" 93), but it should be noted that, as

Scott McMillin points out, there were in fact two Friar Bacon plays (one of which is now

known as John ofBordeaux) ("Stories" 56), so it is not a foregone conclusion that the

1592 Friar Bacon is the same as the later one (Foakes and Rickert 16-31). At least one of

these six, The Jew ofMalta, appears to have been personally owned by Henslowe, as it

appears in the repertory of every company which acted at the Rose

(Strange's/"amalgamation" 1592-93, Sussex's 1593, Queen's and Sussex's, 1593-94,

Admiral's 1594, Admiral's and Chamberlain's 1594, Admiral's 1594-1600). Of the

remaining five, only one, Tragedy ofthe Guise, appears in the reconstituted Admiral's

company before May of 1596 (Foakes and Rickert 22, 36, 47, 55, 207).

At first glance, these figures appear to bolster the anti-amalgamation argument. If there really was an "amalgamation," why is it that less than a quarter of the plays in their

repertoire end up in the Admiral's, and why is it that only two of the seven ostensibly new plays written for them remain with the Admiral's? Surely ifthere was an

"amalgamation" the division of assets when it split up would have been more equitable.

5 Gurr omits 2 Tamar Cham from this list, but 2 Tamar Cham was clearly played by Strange's on 28 April 1592 and several times thereafter and revived by the Admiral's on 11 June 1596.

36 Furthermore, four of the plays which remained with the Admiral's don't even show up in

Henslowe's records until almost a year (or more) after the "amalgamation" would have split up. At least one of these four plays, The Spanish Tragedy, was so popular when

Strange's played it at the Rose in 1592-93, and then when the Admiral's began playing it after 1596, that it is hard to believe that the Admiral's would not have played it had they had it during the first year of the duopoly. If Strange's and the Admiral's had actually been "amalgamated," one would assume that the Admiral's would have had immediate access to more than one of the plays they shared (The Jew ofMalta, being Henslowe's personal possession, is not included here).

Upon further consideration, however, this evidence against the "amalgamation" may not be so clear cut as it first appears to be. To begin with, many of the plays performed by whatever company was at the Rose in 1592-93 were not particularly successful, and there would have been little or no reason to revive them later on. Of the twenty-six total plays performed by the Rose company (not counting The Jew ofMalta), the number of plays that could be reasonably expected to appear in revival shrinks to no more than sixteen, and possibly as few as ten. 6 In this case, the six plays that later appear in the Admiral's repertory seem like a much more reasonable number for the Admiral's to have if the "amalgamation" assets were divided when the constituent companies parted ways. It still seems odd that four of these six plays were withheld from production for a year or more, but it is true that a number of newer plays became bankable successes right at the beginning of the duopoly, thereby reducing the need for immediate revival of older favorites.

6 I arrive at the higher figure by looking at which plays had more than two performances under Strange's, adding Tragedy ofthe Guise and 2 Tamar Cham, which recieved two or less performances but were still revived, and Orlando Furioso, which, althogh recieving only one performance, was popular enough elsewhere that it may still have been revived. The lower figure is arrived at by subtracting those plays with four or less performances.

37 The four not-immediately-revived plays (Friar Bacon, The Spanish Tragedy, and

1and2 Tamar Cham) have a certain ambiguity about them that defies easy analysis and could either strengthen or weaken the "amalgamation" hypothesis. Although the

Admiral's run at the Rose began on 15 June 1594, these four plays which once were

Strange's, or "amalgamation," plays, resurface almost two years later: 1 Tamar Cham on

6 May 1596, 2 Tamar Cham on 11June1596, The Spanish Tragedy on 7 January 1597, and Friar Bacon in late 1602 or early 1603 (Foakes and Rickert 22, 36, 47, 55, 207). 1

Tamar Cham and The Spanish Tragedy did very well in revival, which makes it odd that, if they were in fact in the Admiral's stock in June of 1594, they would have been withheld from production for such a long time. Yet where else could these plays have been? If there was an "amalgamation," and ifthe Chamberlain's Men does not represent a continuation of Strange' s/Derby' s, it might be possible that Derby's players kept these plays after the split. Later, after losing many of their key players to the Chamberlain's, and being forced to tour for over a year, they sold the plays back to Alleyn, their old partner. The same could be true ifthere was no "amalgamation," except in that case

Derby's would have sold the plays back to their one-time leader's current company.

Neither of these scenarios is particularly satisfying, nor are they any more satisfying than the idea that the Admiral's simply sat on the plays for more than a year. It could be possible that the plays went from Strange's to the Chamberlain's, who then later sold the plays back to the Admiral's, but here one wonders why the Chamberlain's would have willingly parted with, at the very least, The Spanish Tragedy, or why the Admiral's would have been willing to buy 1and2 Tamar Cham, when they already had the two

Tamburlaine plays, which the Tamar Cham plays may have been mimicking in the first place (Gurr, Playgoing 142). A further possibility is that politics played a role in the divvying up of plays. Gurr has noted that it appears that Howard and Carey, Lord

38 Admiral and Lord Chamberlain, purposely divided up what stock there was among the major companies in 1594, leaving the Admiral's with Marlowe's plays and Edward

Alleyn, while the Chamberlain's got Shakespeare, his plays, and Richard Burbage

("Reluctant" 172-173). The scenario seems plausible enough, but it too does little to suggest an answer to the question of why these three plays, as well as Friar Bacon, didn't appear for so long. The possibility, however remote, may exist that the Admiral's did have all of these plays all along, but simply didn't perform them. This could then be a possible justification for the non-appearance of Tamburlaine and Dr. Faustus in the

"amalgamation's" repertoire while at the Rose, assuming there was an "amalgamation."

All this speculation is further, and perhaps irretrievably, complicated by the fact that the initial revival performance of three of these four plays receives the designation "ne" in

Henslowe's Diary (Friar Bacon only reappears after the daily performance entries cease).

All three of them had appeared in the diary several years earlier, so "ne" in this case can hardly mean brand new, as in written for the company, which in turn must vex the preceding discussion of what plays were written for Strange' s or the "amalgamation" while the company was at the Rose in 1592-93. It could be that "ne" means "newly acquired," in which case the question of where these three plays were between 1594 and

1596 returns in force. Although Henslowe's Diary is certainly a wonderful source of information and evidence, this problem, among others, serves as a reminder that it is hardly an unambiguous document. For the purposes of this study, the slightly ambiguous parts of the diary, combined with other evidence, demonstrate that there may be other interpretations which can get around Gurr's argument and explain, or find precedent for, how an "amalgamated" company, with the Admiral's men, would sit on Dr. Faustus and

39 Tamburlaine. That having been said, it is notable that these other interpretations involve

stretching the evidence further, and relying on many more unproven hypotheses, than

Gurr's.

2.7 A FURTHER "AMALGAMATION" DIFFICULTY: THE ITINERARIES

A more direct, and perhaps unambiguous, contribution to an anti-"amalgamation" argument can be made by the comparison of the itineraries of Strange's and the Admiral's

Men. With the massive amount of work done over the last 25 years by Records of Early

English Drama (REED), it is increasingly possible to construct fuller itineraries than in the past. Thanks to the generosity and helpfulness of the people at REED, I have been able to construct, on a limited scope, itineraries for all of the companies active during

1588-1594. I have included my itineraries in Appendix A at the end of this study, and cross-referenced them, to the best of my ability, with the itineraries compiled by Gurr in his Shakespearian Playing Companies (1996), and with those compiled by Murray in his

English Dramatic Companies (1910), volume two, which deals with the smaller companies Gurr excludes.7 My itineraries are more limited than Gurr's or Murray's in that they do not go back further than 1584 or extend beyond 1599 or 1600, but within these 15 years I think they are the most complete itineraries to date, although with future

REED findings they will undoubtedly be supplemented in some details.

A comparison of the Admiral's and Strange's itineraries from 1584-1599 yields at least two observations which raise problems for the "amalgamation" hypothesis. The first, already alluded to, is the fact that there is a major discrepancy between the number of provincial notices of the two companies beginning in 1589-90 fiscal year. At this

7 In addition, my itineraries include the court records from Astington's English Court Theatre, 1558-1642 (1999), which I have cross-referenced with Chambers's court calendar in The Elizabethan Stage, volume iv.

40 time, according to Chambers, the "amalgamation" was finalized. If this was the case, one must wonder why the Admiral's receives 12, and maybe 13, provincial notices while

Strange's receives none. If the two companies were joined, why would one of them clearly have taken a tour in a year when there was no plague (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.347)? Although the data is not quite as extreme, there is a similar discrepancy for

1590-91, when Strange's receives only one provincial notice to six for the Admiral's. In this year, Strange's one notice is for Faversham, which suggests they did not stray far from London, while the Admiral's range from Faversham to Oxford and Winchester, suggesting a much more mobile year. There is no evidence in these records which directly disproves the "amalgamation" hypothesis, but there is decidedly a suggestion that these two companies had distinctly different operational styles, one touring frequently and the other hardly touring at all.

Moreover, the 1591-92 and 1592-93 touring years appear to present some evidence which directly contradicts the "amalgamation" theory. To briefly recap what is known of Strange's activities during this time: the company was playing at the Theatre until May of 1591, when a quarrel between Alleyn and Burbage resulted in the termination of that playing arrangement. After the company left the Theatre, it is difficult to trace where exactly Strange's was for a time. The company may have gone on tour, or it may have found a temporary playing place in London. After two court appearances in

December (27 and 28), two in January (1 and 9), and an additional two in February (6 and

8), Strange's opened its first season at the Rose on 19 February and played there until 22

June, when plague closure forced it to go on tour. During this tour the company played at

Canterbury (13 July), Bristol (July), Ipswich (7 August, where they are listed, peculiarly, as Derby's and apparently played with the Admiral's), and Oxford (early October). There are several other towns Strange's was most likely in during this tour, but for these no

41 precise date can be fixed, since many town records only list that a company visited in the course of a year. At any rate, in late December of 1592 Strange' s was perhaps playing in

Newington Butts, and by 29 December was back at the Rose. During this time, the company played at court twice in December (27 and 31) and once in January (1 ). The second season at the Rose lasted until 1 February 1593, when plague once again forced the players onto the road. In September Strange's became Derby's Men, but never regained its dominant position at court or in London. The company remained on tour through early 1594, but then disappeared for about a year, no doubt due to the culling of its best players for the duopoly.

If there was an "amalgamated" company, its itinerary would look very similar to this one, although the touring notices would of course be different, since the companies generally split up for purposes of touring. In London, however, they were playing together, or at least that is an underlying presupposition of the hypothesis. There are, however, several provincial notices for the Admiral's company which, ifthe dates are more or less correct, create trouble for this view. In the first place, the Admiral's players are reported to have been in Leicester on 19 December 1592 (Gurr, Shakespearian 254).

Strange's Men, however, played at court on 27 December; moreover, Strange's probably played at Newington Butts at least three times prior to 29 December (Gurr, Shakespearian

260, 274), when it opened at the Rose, meaning the first of these dates would have to be

26 December at the latest. If Henslowe's Diary from the summer of 1594 provides a precedent for a company moving from Newington Butts to the Rose, there would likely have been a day off in between (Foakes and Rickert 22), meaning that 25 December is the latest start date for Strange's at Newington Butts, and this assumes that the three performances there took place on consecutive days. This means that the Admiral's would have had to get from Leicester on 19 December (and it is probably safe to guess they

42 would not have left until the morning of 20 December) to London in time to play

Newington Butts on 25 December in conjunction with its London partners. It might not have been impossible for a company to make the journey in three or four days--Leicester is about 100 miles from London, and it has been estimated that Renaissance travelers could cover somewhere between 20 and 30 miles a day (McMillin and MacLean, 39-41).

Even so, if the assumption is correct that companies tended to remain around London during the holiday season in hopes of being summoned to perform at court (for an example of this assumption, see Gurr, Shakespearian 232), it would seem odd that a company with a very good chance of being called to court would be in Leicester as late as

19 December.

A second date which conflicts with a London "amalgamation" is either from 1592 or 1593, but in either case causes problems. The Admiral's is reported to have been in

Shrewsbury on 3 February 1592 by Chambers and Gurr (Elizabethan ii.120n;

Shakespearian 254). Strange's, however, played at court on 9 January and again on 6

February (Greg, Diary ii.335). Quite apart from the difficulty in moving an entire company from Shrewsbury to London in time to receive the call to court (Shrewsbury is slightly under 150 miles from London, near the Welsh border), one must wonder why on earth the companies would have gone on tour at all between 9 January and 6 February, in the midst of the court season, unless they didn't get a call to perform at court. Chambers figured that there must have been an error in the dating of the notice, which there may well have been, but then again it would conveniently serve the "amalgamation" hypothesis ifthere was an error, so Chambers's judgment is not entirely unbiased here.

Still, his point is well taken that Shrewsbury record keepers rarely included precise dates with company visits, although there is at least one other example, a visit by the Queen's in 1589-90 (Somerset 245). Pushing the date back might resolve the problem to some

43 extent, but the visit would have to come well before 27 December 1591 (Strange's first court performance that year), and the record keeper would likely have been able to tell the difference between a pre- and post-Christmas visit. Moving the date forward would not help the problem much, since Strange's was at the Rose until 22 June, and the record keeper certainly would have been able to tell the difference between a February and a summer visit.

J. A. B. Somerset, however, lists this date not as 3 February 1592 but the same date in 1593 (277).8 Somerset has spent several years specifically immersed in the records of this locality, and as such I tend to trust his judgment, although ifhe is correct it means the Admiral's visited Shrewsbury three time between 29 September 1592 and 29

September 1593, which is an unusually high number of (recorded) visits for a single year, although the Queen's men seem to have done this on several occasions. If 1593 is the correct year for this visit, and 3 February is the correct date, then an even bigger problem emerges for the "amalgamation," as Strange's was playing at the Rose until 1 February

(Foakes and Rickert 20). Since the company left the Rose due to plague closure, it is unlikely that it was completely prepared to leave the next day for the provinces. Even if

Strange's was prepared to tour on such short notice, it seems extremely unlikely that the company would go to Shrewsbury first, and it is even more unlikely that it could have covered the 150 miles to Shrewsbury in time to perform on 3 February. Given all of the possible stopping points between London and Shrewsbury, I would hazard to say that it is impossible that the Admiral's, if it was "amalgamated" with Strange's while playing in

London, would have been in Shrewsbury on 3 February. Even if this date is wrong, pushing it back earlier would not solve much, since Strange's was playing in London by

8 This may be an issue of"old" versus "new" style calendars, but since all three of these scholars all well­ versed in this issue I cannot tell for certain if this is what has led to this disagreement.

44 about 25 December 1592. While moving the date of the visit forward could resolve the difficulty, it would be necessary to move it quite a ways forward, since the companies probably didn't leave London until it was clear that the plague closure would be a long one, and furthermore would have had many stopping points between London and

Shrewsbury which would have slowed their progress. Even if the date is off by a month, the same problem applies, and once again the record keeper probably could remember if the visit was before or after Christmas, or if it was in February as opposed to the early spring.

Still, the possibility of error in the dating of records certainly exists, and it must be kept in mind that exact dates in the records may be the date the record was made, rather than the date of the visit. If this is the case for the Shrewsbury date, a wide range of possible explanations open up, thereby snatching the "amalgamation" hypothesis from the jaws of defeat; for instance, the record was made on 3 February 1592 or 1593, but referred to a visit from the previous autumn. With such an argument, the problem posed by the itinerary conflict disappears. Be that as it may, the mounting evidence does seem to suggest that for the "amalgamation" hypothesis to remain tenable, one must engage in a complex series of apologetics and explanations which, taken together, begin to make the whole thing seem a little far-fetched. There is, however, one last consideration which, although perhaps not enough to turn the tide back in favor of the "amalgamation," merits serious consideration.

2.8 POSSIBLE PRECEDENTS FOR AN "AMALGAMATION"

Gurr mentions in his questioning of the "amalgamation" hypothesis that there are infrequent examples of provincial "amalgamations" which are sporadic enough to be anomalies rather than precedents ("Chimera" 91). This is a fair statement. In cataloging

45 well over 1000 provincial entries for the 1584-1599 period alone, I have found only 22

records which suggest potential provincial "amalgamations" (see Appendix B), and even

among these, many are questionable as to what they really document. What is notable,

however, is that nine of these involve the Admiral's, and of these nine, seven of them

take place during the 1589-1594 period. Two of these are clearly joint performances-­

Newcastle in May of 1593 (with a "Morley's" company) (Anderson 90) and Ipswich in

1592-93 (with Stafford's Men) (Redstone and Chambers 277). If"Morley's" company is the same as "Norris's" and "Morden's," which some scholars argue (but is by no means

certain), two more of these records can be regarded as probable joint performances--Bath

in 1593-94 (with "Norris's" company) (Stokes 17) and York in 1593 (with "Morden's"

company) (Johnston and Rogerson 455). The fifth of these records indicates a connection

between the Admiral's and the Queen's in Canterbury in 1589-90 (Gibson 226); the

Queen's were apparently joined with Sussex's shortly thereafter (they played together

four times during 1590-91, and one of these performances is clearly joint). The Queen's

also possibly joined with several other companies for single performances during this time (Gurr, Shakespearian 215). The remaining two records of possible joint

performances by the Admiral's involve the company it was allegedly "amalgamated" with

in London. The Admiral's was at Shrewsbury with Strange's in 1591-92 or 1592-93

(depending on the source) and at Ipswich with Derby's on 7 August 1592. Neither of these two records clearly indicates a joint performance, and in the case of the Ipswich notice the phrase "the ij amongst" appears in the record, perhaps indicating the presence

of two companies at the same time, but not necessarily a joint performance. At any rate, there is clearly something wrong with the Ipswich record, since it lists a "Derby's"

company two years before there should have been such a company. Chambers dealt with

this problem by assigning the date to 1594 (Elizabethan ii.120n), while Gurr speculates

46 that there may have been a separate "Derby's" company in 1592, sponsored by the Earl of

Derby who preceded Ferdinando Stanley. Gurr identifies several notices of a "Derby's" company showing up between 1591 and 1594 and says that it is not possible to tell for certain if this company is the same as Strange's (Shakespearian 265, 275-276). Most of the Derby's entries Gurr lists are, however, compatible with the Strange's/Derby's company, since the dates of the records could fall after the date the company name was changed. There are only three notices listed which come into conflict with the name change date, but of these Gurr is in error on two.9 The remaining record of discrepancy is the Ipswich one. Assuming that the year is correct, several explanations may account for a "Derby's" being listed before there was a playing company by this name. It could simply be a matter of deceit, a company lying about its name; it could be that an error was made in the records and the company is actually another, perhaps Darcy's; or, and I think this at least plausible, it could be that "Derby's," despite the record naming it as such, is not a group of players at all but a group of musicians. There are records of Derby's musicians, presumably sponsored by the then-earl, appearing around this time, such as

Shrewsbury in 1590-91 (Somerset 248) and Nottingham in 1591-92 (Coldewey,

Nottinghamshire 5). This, of course, raises the possibility that the other companies the

Admiral's performed in conjunction with were not players per se, but musicians or tumblers. This would not be the case with the Queen's or Strange's, but it could be with

Norris's-Morden's-Morley's. Whether or not this is the case, it certainly is notable that the Admiral's company, suspected of London joint performing, was apparently one of the most likely companies to perform in combination on the road during the time of the purported "amalgamation."

9 Gurr lists 1591-92 notices of Derby's in Gloucester and Shrewsbury (Shakespearian 276). The Gloucester records, however, clearly name Strange 's as having visited in this fiscal year (Douglas and Greenfield 312), and Shrewsbury lists a Darcy's, but not Derby's (Somerset 276).

47 More pertinent than any provincial precedents are potential London

"amalgamations" besides the possible Strange's-Admiral's venture. Despite the fact that all of the reasons for the "amalgamation" can be questioned, and that much of the supposed "evidence" needs clever interpretation to keep the "amalgamation" hypothesis plausible, the potential London precedents for such an "amalgamation" must at least be considered. And precedents there are--as many as five. In the first place, during the court season of 1585-86, there was what appears to be a joint performance on 6 January involving the Chamberlain's (Hunsdon's) and none other than the Admiral's (Gurr,

Shakespearian 253). If Hunsdon's company is the same as the "Chamberlain's" noted in several provincial records that year (of which there is no guarantee), this association may have lasted beyond this performance, incidentally accounting for the last two examples of the Admiral's playing jointly on the road (Gibson 477; Hamilton 65). This court performance hardly constitutes anything resembling a long-term "amalgamation," even if the provincial dates are figured in, since provincial "amalgamations" appear to be rather incidental in nature. Henslowe's Diary, however, contains two examples of possible

London "amalgamations." In the first place, beginning on 1 April 1594 Henslowe records performances of"the Quenes men & my lord of Susexe to geather." Perhaps this represents two companies alternating their performances, but like the Admiral's and

Chamberlain's Newington Butts stint, the order of plays given and the company connections of those plays do not neatly fit an alternating pattern. The phrase "to geather" is also hard to ignore, as is the fact that the Queen's and Sussex's had apparently had a touring "amalgamation" during 1590-91. 10 Assuming this venture was in fact an

"amalgamation," it was rather short-lived, lasting only until 8 April 1594 (Foakes and lO Gloucester, 1590-91 (Douglas and Greenfield 312); Southampton, 14 February 1591 (Greenfield, Hampshire 56); Bristol, 28 February-6 March 1591 (Pilikton 140); and Coventry, 25 March 1592 (Ingram 332).

48 Rickert 21). A third London "amalgamation" may have existed during 1597-98, in the wake of Francis Langley's Swan venture and the Isle ofthe Dogs fiasco. The daily entries in Henslowe's Diary abruptly stop during February 1597, which corresponds to the emergence of the Swan. Several Admiral's actors (Richard Jones and Thomas

Downton at the least) are known to have left the Rose to join Pembroke's Men, the company playing at the Swan (Gurr, Shakespearian 239). The Swan venture ended in late July of that year seemingly due to the playing of The Isle ofthe Dogs, and several of

Pembroke's players were imprisoned in August (Gurr, Shakespearian 108). During the late summer and early autumn, several of the Admiral's defectors begin to reappear in the

Diary (Jones on 6 August and Downton on 6 October), but new names also appear, names known to have been attached with Pembroke's (Robert Shaw on 6 August,

William Borne alias Bird on 10 August, and Gabriel Spencer by 25 March 1598, when he is already witnessing Henslowe's contracts) (Chambers Elizabethan iv.152-153). A number of other new players, perhaps one-time members of Pembroke's, perhaps not, also appear in the Diary during this time. Then, on 11 October 1597, daily entries resume for "my lord admirals & my lord of penbrockes men" (Foakes and Rickert 60). There are no indications of separate accounts for the two companies, and indeed a few entries for purchases made by Henslowe for the players list both companies as the recipients, clearly indicating joint payments; moreover, even when the two names appear, the company is referred to in the singular (Greg, Diary ii.91-92). Purchase entries indicate that the company was still "amalgamated" on 23 October and 5 November, but after this date all entries again refer to only the Admiral's, although there is a list of receipts which begins on 21 Oct 1597 and runs until 4 March 1598 whose heading says that it is a list of payments from Pembroke's and the Admiral's to Henslowe (Foakes and Rickert 71-73).

On 27 December 1597, the Admiral's appeared at court with no other company named, as

49 it did on 28 February 1598 (Gurr, Shakespearian 253). This most likely means that the association was finished by 27 December or that the "amalgamation" was so thorough that there was little reason to use two names for the same company. The actors who were known to be in Pembroke's during the Swan run continue to appear in the Diary, along with several plays they likely brought with them from the Swan. This would seem to indicate that a thorough Admiral's/Pembroke's "amalgamation" had taken place, although a company known as Pembroke's was still touring in the provinces, particularly during the 1598-99 financial year (Greg, Diary ii.91-92). The provincial records actually complicate the presence of Pembroke's at the Rose. After the closure of the Swan, at least part of Pembroke's seems to have gone on tour, appearing in Bristol twice between

28 August and 10 September (Pilikton 150). This group must have been without Shaw or

Jones, who already were contracted to the Admiral's, and without Spencer, who was in prison until 3 October (Gurr, Shakespearian 109). Borne and Downton might possibly have been with this company, although their appearance in the Diary on 6 October would mean that Pembroke's tour was very short and could not have consisted of much more than this Bristol performance. It is far more likely that Borne and Downton were still about town between 6 August and 6 October, in which case the company at Bristol must have been something of a remnant. What makes the situation particularly problematic is that 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. These complications may be resolvable, but they still demonstrate the unusual character of the events surround this apparent "amalgamation." All of this aside, the

"amalgamation" of Pembroke's and the Admiral's at the Rose began on 11 October 1597 and could not have lasted far beyond 8 December, when Henslowe once again refers only to the Admiral's. Thus, Pembroke's was either gone or entirely subsumed by the

50 Admiral's by this time. The fourth "amalgamation" has already been dealt with at some length, that being the short tenure of the Admiral's and Chamberlain's at Newington

Butts from 3 to 13 June 1594. This joint tenure may have featured joint performances, although it is not possible to tell for certain. The final potential "amalgamation" is really nothing more than speculation, but is at least worth mentioning at this point, since it will come up again in the next chapter. The title page of the 1594 quarto of Titus Andronicus announces that it was played "by the Right Honourable the Earle of Darbie, Earle of

Pembroke, and the Earle of Sussex their Seruantes" (George, "Shakespeare" 315). 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 the 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 this is not the case at all, but that the title page lists a combined company which performed the play (George, "Shakespeare" 316-317).

Although this interpretation is dubious in light of other evidence (namely the addition of the Chamberlain's Men to the title page in the later printing), it does nevertheless serve as another possible precedent for a London "amalgamation," one which must have been quite brief if it ever happened and perhaps did not last beyond this single performance.

All five of these joint arrangements would seem to provide some precedent for a

Strange's-Admiral's "amalgamation," and it is particularly notable that the Admiral's, already prone to provincial "amalgamations," was involved in two of these London

"amalgamations." These precedents, however, ultimately do not help the case of the

Strange's-Admiral's "amalgamation" and actually work against it on several levels. In

51 the first place, only two of these "amalgamations" are definite facts, or at least as definite as facts from this period can be. The Strange's-Pembroke's-Sussex's "amalgamation" is based far more on speculation than fact, and the natures of the Queen's-Sussex's and

Admiral's-Chamberlain's joint ventures in 1594 are unclear. It is reasonable to conclude in the latter two cases that there was joint playing, but the lack of clarity about these arrangements does require a good deal of caution. This leaves only the Admiral's-

Hunsdon's court performance in 1586 and the Admiral's-Pembroke's 1597

"amalgamation" as clear-cut precedents. These two cases might still be adequate, since they do establish joint playing both at court and in London. A second consideration, however, leaves the value of these precedents in further doubt: in all four of these cases the joint arrangements were temporary, or at the very least short-lived. There is no evidence to suggest that the Admiral's-Hundon's 1586 alliance began before or lasted beyond their one court appearance, save for a 12 June 1585 appearance in Dover which, like many joint provincial notices, is unclear as to whether the playing was joint or not. I I

The Titus Andronicus "amalgamation," if it ever existed, could not have lasted more than a performance or two and must have been a desperate measure. The Queen's-Sussex's combination only lasted for a week; perhaps it was intended to last longer, its tenure cut short by plague or a decision by Henslowe. The Admiral's-Chamberlain's joint tenancy at Newington Butts fared only slightly better, ending after ten days, and it is very unlikely that this arrangement was conceived as anything more than temporary, perhaps allowing time for proper licenses, arrangements, and preparations to be made at the Rose and the

I I There is an additional notice in from Leicester in 1585-86 which mentions an appearance by the Admiral's and Chamberlain's, but at that time Howard was just moving from Chamberlain to Admiral, meaning that this entry could very well simply name both of his positions, rather than two separate companies; also, the payment listed for this date is only 4s, which seems unusually small for company rewards and may indicate that the record is dealing with musicians instead of playing companies (Hamilton 65).

52 Theatre. The Admiral's-Pembroke's "amalgamation" may have lasted as long as two or three, or even five, months, but is only documentable for one month. None of these arrangements suggest anything like Chamber's and Greg's argument for the three-to-five year "amalgamation." Even so, it is true that all but one of these five precedents shows up after the Admiral's-Strange's "amalgamation" was supposedly established, so it could be that these other joint ventures were inspired by it but failed to repeat its success. Such a proposition begins to strain credibility, however, especially since it uses the theory to justify the precedents that justify it. A final, and inescapable, way these precedents call the "amalgamation" into question is the fact that, in each of these cases, the component companies are named together in single records. The Chamber Accounts of payments in

1586 name both the Admiral's and Chamberlain's as payees (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.161); the Titus title-page lists all three of companies involved in that conjectured production; and Henslowe names both the Queen's and Sussex's in his diary, as he does for both the Chamberlain's-Admiral's Newington Butts season and the Pembroke's­

Admiral's 1597 jointure. Thus, in the Chamber Accounts there is a precedent for naming both companies in a joint performance as "payees," something which does not happen in the case of the alleged Admiral's and Strange' s joint performances. Even more damning are the three clear cases ofHenslowe's naming both companies involved in a joint venture. In light of this, if Strange's and the Admiral's were jointly playing at the Rose, it seems hard to believe that Henslowe would not have made mention of both companies.

As it is, he names only Strange' s, which, combined with all of the other evidence we have seen, suggests that this, in fact, was the only company at the Rose at that time.

53 2.9 THE FEASIBILITY OF THE "AMALGAMATION"

Although it is clear by now that there is little evidence involved in this case which is not ambiguous, it is also clear that the interpretations of the evidence needed to maintain the "amalgamation" hypothesis strain plausibility to the breaking point. An extremely remote possibility may exist that there was in fact a Strange's-Admiral's

"amalgamation," but this theory should certainly not be as uncritically accepted as it has been, and it certainly should not be a part of any standard accounts of London theatre history. Perhaps it deserves a footnote, but nothing else. This does not necessarily mean that Chambers and Greg should be thought of poorly for advancing the hypothesis in the first place, however. After all, their own formulations of the hypothesis clearly express certain misgivings about it, particularly Chambers's second formulation in The

Elizabethan Stage, which suggests that the "amalgamation" may have been little more than Edward Alleyn joining Strange's. This makes it all the more frustrating that, despite these clear misgivings, Greg, and especially Chambers, insisted on presenting the

"amalgamation" elsewhere as established fact when they knew it was not. This has particular implications for the construction of the history of Pembroke's men, a project rife with ideas and theories predicated on the "amalgamation." Gurr, then, is almost certainly correct to label the "amalgamation" a "chimera," although his own arguments are not entirely satisfactory for proving this point. At any rate, the "amalgamation" almost certainly never happened, unless one considers the transfer of one or two players from one company to another an "amalgamation." Given the transitory and ever­ changing lineup of the London companies at the time, such a changes would hardly be considered earth-shattering, remarkable, or otherwise special, save that Edward Alleyn was one of

54 the players involved. This is hardly different from a major trade in professional sports, and one would hardly say that the Boston Red Sox amalgamated with the New York

Yankees when Bath Ruth changed teams.

2.10 CONCLUSION: STRANGE'S AND THE ADMIRAL'S MEN, 1589-1594

It is not possible to close this chapter without addressing two particular issues and presenting my own version of the events between 1589 and 1594. The discrepancies in the court records and Edward Alleyn's retention of the Admiral's livery demand some sort of explanation. The court records might still possibly represent two joint performances by two companies allied for only these performances; however, because the court records clearly list the 1586 Hunsdon's-Admiral's performance as a joint performance, this explanation is unlikely. Instead, just one of these two companies actually appeared in these performances. Although the Admiral's had numerous court appearance up to 1589-90, I think it more likely that Strange's was the company which actually played at court on these dates, with Alleyn among its number. If Alleyn was with

Strange's by this time, he would have only recently left the Admiral's, which was apparently playing at the Theatre as late as November 1590. Because Alleyn was already famous and had played his great roles as an Admiral's player, and because he was still wearing that livery, it is possible that the records became confused over this point.

Whoever inscribed the Privy Council warrant recorded the performing company as the

Admiral's; this may have been due to confusion over Alleyn's livery, or it may have been a simple slip-up, brought about through thoughts of "Alleyn's company" which until recently had been the Admiral's. The Chamber Accounts, on the other hand, correctly name Strange' s as the payee, since whoever was disbursing the payments actually had to deal with George Attewell (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.163), who certainly was aware of

55 what company he was in, and wore Strange's livery. Such an explanation is purely conjectural, but it is arguably as sound as the "amalgamation" explanation. At any rate,

Alleyn's new company and old livery certainly introduce the possibility of confusion into the records. As for Alleyn's retention of the Admiral's livery, many explanations are possible, but they all boil down to personal loyalty or financial considerations. Alleyn may also have entertained notions of rejoining the Admiral's earlier than he ultimately did, or may have foreseen the eventual reconstitution of the Admiral's as a major London company (Gurr, "Chimera" 91). At any rate, we know that the Admiral's Men's activities did not cease at this point, nor did Howard's close interest in the careers of the players who wore his livery ("Chimera" 92-93; Schrickx, Foreign 184). Perhaps Howard himself saw opportunities in having the most famous and popular actor of the time wearing his livery.

What, then, actually happened during this five year period? This is one possible sketch; I acknowledge there are many others that would also work within the broad

"there-was-no-amalgamation" framework, but this seems as likely as any other. After

1589-90, for whatever reason, the fortunes of the Admiral's company began to decline.

This may have been precipitated by Alleyn's departure (the date of which is not clear, although since his presence in Strange's seems to be the cause of the 1590-91 court confusion it seems likely that 1590 is the date). Of course, it is equally possible that

Alleyn's departure was precipitated by the Admiral's decline. At any rate, sometime during 1590 or early 1591 Alleyn, possibly with one or two others, left the Admiral's for

Strange's, which replaced the Admiral's at the Theatre. The Admiral's may have played somewhere else in London, but more likely departed for the provinces, quite possibly with Dr. Faustus and Tamburlaine in stock (Gurr, Shakespearian 237), and remained on tour until 1594. During this time, several of the remaining members of the Admiral's

56 Men broke away to tour Europe (Schirckx, Foreign 184), leaving the provincial

Admiral's a mere shadow of what it once had been, removing any incentive for it to remain in London, since a court call was unlikely at that point (unless it did stay in

London, playing at one of the inns when plague permitted). The sudden loss of many of its key players perhaps accounts for the Admiral's unusual willingness to combine with other companies during this time. Strange's, on the other hand, bolstered by the addition of Alleyn and any Admiral's players that may have followed him, immediately received two court calls in 1590-91 and made such a splash that it was invited back six times the following season. In 1592 Strange's began its run at the Rose, but was later forced on tour due to the plague. The company returned to the Rose in late 1592 and played there through 1 February 1593, when once again it was ousted by the plague. In September

1593 Strange's Men became Derby's Men with the ascension of its patron to that title.

Things perhaps began to unravel during late 1593 and early 1594, when the company was not called to court, and when another company occupied the Rose; Sussex's tenancy may be a sign that things were already coming unglued for Derby's before that time, perhaps due to the long tour, but equally possibly due to other factors. By May, Derby was dead, which perhaps led Alleyn and at least several others to return to London, where by June the duopoly was founded and the other companies culled. The touring Admiral's Men, which had perhaps been led by Tunstall, returned to London with whatever stock, plays, and properties it had retained while on tour and was joined by Alleyn and perhaps some new faces from the other companies. Most of the rest of Derby's key players transferred to the new Chamberlain's Men, along with most of their stock, although a remnant remained and toured the provinces under the new earl, perhaps with some of the earlier

57 Strange's stock which never reappears elsewhere. The Admiral's and Chamberlain's dominated the London scene for the next number of years, until Worcester's established itself in London at the very end of Elizabeth's reign.

With the "amalgamation" hypothesis effectively discarded, it is even more important that the assumptions Gurr identifies and questions ("large" cast plays, the distastefulness of touring, the supposed practice of paring down or splitting into smaller groups for touring) be even further questioned and interrogated, if not rejected. In addition, those arguments and theories which have been built around, or made use of, the premise of an Admiral's-Strange's "amalgamation" must also be reevaluated and adjusted accordingly. Such arguments and theories include, among others, many of the arguments about the date and authorship of Sir Thomas More, interpretations of the 2 Seven Deadly

Sins "plot," and the various arguments made about Pembroke's Men. The various hypotheses about Pembroke's Men, like the "amalgamation" hypothesis, turn out to be quite a repository of assumptions and as such merit their own thorough treatment, which I now turn to.

58 CHAPTER2:

PEMBROKE'S MEN, 1592-93

3.1 PEMBROKE'S MEN: THE REMAINING EVIDENCE

Unlike the "amalgamated" company, there definitely was a Pembroke's company.

At issue here, then, is not the existence of Pembroke's Men, but rather the nature of this apparently short-lived, yet important, group of players. Numerous arguments have been advanced over the last century about where this company came from, what actors and plays were connected to it, and what ultimately happened to it. These hypotheses all are forced to utilize a relatively limited, yet incredibly tantalizing, body of evidence. The pieces of evidence have been assembled in many different ways, like so many pieces of a far-from-complete jigsaw puzzle, supplemented by numerous hypotheses which the evidence may or may not warrant.

The first definite mention of Pembroke's Men appears in the court records for the holiday season of 1592-93. On 11March1593, court records indicate a payment of £20 to 'the servantes of the Erle of Pembroke' for playing on 26 December 1592 and 6

January 1593 (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.164; Astington 234). This record is intriguing on at least two counts. First, this is the first time, since an isolated 1575-76 provincial record, any indication is given of a company of players under the patronage of Henry

Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Andrew Gurr has noted that this is particularly odd in light of the fact that Herbert, in 1592-93, was getting on in years and was also in rather ill health

59 ("Three Reluctant" 171 ). Why he would have chosen, or agreed to, take on a company of players at this point in his life remains a mystery, but an issue which intersects with the question of the nature of that company that bore his name. Second, the two 1592-93 court performances of this company are intriguing for the simple fact that there is no prior record of Pembroke's playing in London. It is generally assumed that in order to get a summons to court, an acting company had to have some sort of prior reputation. Thus, there must have been something about Pembroke's Men to warrant their being summoned to play not once, but twice in a court season which saw only one other company,

Strange's Men, performing at court. What that "something" was inevitably intersects with the question of Pembroke's personnel.

For whatever reason, Pembroke's Men never performed at court again. However, two other sources supply additional information about other Pembroke's appearances. In the first place, the provincial accounts record a large number of Pembroke's performances. During the 1592-93 fiscal year, Pembroke's is recorded as visiting

Leicester, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, King's Lynn, Ipswich, Rye, Coventry, and Bath. During the summer of 1593 the company played at Caludon Castle and York. After this initial spurt of activity, which coincided with the London plague closure, provincial notices decline sharply. During 1593-94 Pembroke's is recorded only in Bewdley, and in 1594-

95 only in Ipswich. Notices pick up again slightly in 1595-96, when it appeared in

Oxford and Ipswich, and in 1596-97, when the company performed twice in Bristol and once in Bath. In 1597-98 it appeared only in Bristol, but then in 1598-99 visited Dover,

Norwich, Bristol, Leicester, Bath, Bewdley, King's Lynn, and Coventry twice, as well as

Newcastle-on-Tyne in October of 1599. Notices remain frequent in 1599-1600, with appearances in Marlborough, York, Bristol, Leicester, and Hardwick, but thereafter the company disappears entirely from the provincial records. In London, however, playing

60 notices of Pembroke's show up in Henslowe's Diary both in late 1597 and again in 1600.

The late 1597 run has already been described in some detail in the preceding chapter:

Henslowe's records state "the ij of octobe be gane my lord admerals & my lord of penbrockes men to playe at my howsse 1597" (Foakes and Rickert 60). A list ofreceipts which begins on 21 October and runs until 4 March 1598 still lists both companies (71); however, court records for the 1597-98 holiday season only list Nottingham's (that is, the

Lord Admiral's) and the Lord Chamberlain's companies, with no mention of Pembroke's

(Chambers, Elizabethan iv.165; Astington 235). This would suggest that by this point

Pembroke's had either left Henslowe or been subsumed under the Admiral's company.

Given the provincial record, it would seem likely that Pembroke's left the Rose, although other evidence suggests that at least some of Pembroke's players remained with

Henslowe as Admiral's Men. Other Diary entries, dated 23 October and 5 November

1597, still list both Pembroke's and the Admiral's. But by an 8 December entry only the

Admiral's is mentioned (Foakes and Rickert 72). This suggests that the union of the two companies, or the departure of Pembroke's, occurred prior to this date. Pembroke's Men reappears one last time in the Diary: it is listed as performing plays entitled Like Unto

Like and Roderick on 28-29 October 1600 at the Rose (Foakes and Rickert 164). This, incidentally, the last known notice of any company called Pembroke's Men.

The entries in Henslowe's Diary cannot be fully analyzed without making reference to another important item of Pembroke's evidence: Francis Langley's adventure at the Swan and the ensuing lawsuits. The entire situation, discussed in several Court of

Requests documents, was unknown before C. W. Wallace discovered the documents less than a century ago. In these documents, detailing a lawsuit which lasted from November

1597 to May 1598, five of the parties concerned name themselves as Pembroke's players.

They are Richard Jones, Gabriel Spencer, William Bird (alias Borne), Robert Shaw, and

61 Thomas Downton. These five, and presumably others in a company for which they were perhaps the sharers, signed a contract with Francis Langley, whereby they agreed to play at the Swan for twelve months, each depositing £100 with Langley as surety. The run appears to have begun in February of 1597, but was cut short in late July, apparently

(although not necessarily)12 by the scandal caused by the production of Jonson and

Nashe's Isle ofDogs (Chambers, Elizabethan ii.131-132). Following the inhibition of28

July, the five players subsequently appear in Henslowe's Diary; by October 1597 all five were playing at the Rose. Shortly thereafter, Langley brought a suit against these players, on the grounds that they had broken their bond by playing at a different house before their year-long contract had been fulfilled. The accused got the case transferred to the Court of

Requests and argued that they owed Langley no obligation on several counts. First, they argued that it had been their playing that made Langley any money in the first place; second, the pointed out that Langley had "procured" two of their associates (i.e., he had had them arrested), making it impossible for them to continue playing and thus make the money he was demanding; and third, they noted that other players were still putting on shows at the Swan (Wickham, Berry, Ingram 442-446). The five further explained that they had left the Swan because, following the July 1597 playing injunction, it was not licensed for playing, while the Rose was; in other words, they had feared for their livelihood by remaining at the Swan (444-445). Although these five Pembroke's players had left the Swan to play at the Rose, certain comments of theirs in the lawsuit suggest that other Pembroke's members who had been at the Swan prior to Isle ofDogs

12 Gurr points out that the dating of the documents concerning the Privy Council's inhibition of playing, usually attributed to the Isle ofDogs, seems to suggest that the inhibition was actually ordered before the Privy Council knew anything about that play. The matter remains unclear, at least (Shakespearean 43; Shakespearian 107-109).

62 were still playing there, a fact corroborated by Langley, who mentions that other

"fellows" of his adversaries were still playing at the Swan at the time of the suit (433;

Chambers, Elizabethan ii.133).

The result of these proceedings is unknown, although there are indications in

Henslowe's Diary that he loaned several of the concerned players some money, which perhaps was needed to pay off Langley (Chambers, Elizabethan ii.133). This whole episode gives some solid evidence about the personnel of at least one incarnation of

Pembroke's Men: Spencer, Shaw, Jones, Downton, and Bird were all decidedly in the company at this time. Also, the playwrights Nashe and Jonson had at least some connection with the company, since they wrote Isle ofDogs for it. Perhaps their connection with Pembroke's extended beyond this single instance, but there is no evidence to corroborate such a conjecture. In addition to these players, there are others who appear for the first time in Henslowe' s records after this incident, namely Humphrey

Jeffes and his brother Anthony (133). The evidence for placing them in Pembroke's is circumstantial; some further details, which will be discussed shortly, strengthens the possibility that Humphrey at least was in Pembroke's. Anthony, on the other hand, is known to have been in the German states as late as Christmas 1596, which mitigates against his presence in the 1597 Pembroke's Men (Schrickx, "English" 157; Schlueter

244). At any rate, these five to nine players give a somewhat detailed picture of who was playing in Pembroke's in 1597, although some of unnamed players (alluded to in the lawsuit) who did not leave Swan for the Rose may have also been key players in

Pembroke's company. These names of players in the 1597 Pembroke's Men do not, however, give a picture of the earlier members of Pembroke's. Jones and Downton, at least, were in the Admiral's Men from 1594-97 (Gurr, Shakespearian 237); Jones was on the Continent in 1592 (Schrickx, "English" 154), while Downton was in Strange's Men in

63 1592-93 (Gurr, Shakespearian 264). These affiliations make it extremely unlikely either of these players was in the Pembroke's company of 1592-93. Of the other three players named in the suit, there is no previous record, although the gaps in our knowledge of the early Pembroke's personnel leaves open the possibility that these three players were in the original company. At any rate, the five named in the suit are the only names that can be associated with Pembroke's players without additional conjectures and hypotheses. It is almost impossible, however, to refrain from such conjectures and hypotheses when constructing the history of Pembroke's Men.

A further mention of Pembroke's Men made by Henslowe does shed some light on the company's early days. In the Dulwich papers there is a letter from Henslowe to

Edward Alleyn, dated 28 September 1593. It was written while Alleyn was on tour with

Strange's, during the long plague closure of 1592-93. In the letter, Henslowe makes the following statement: "As for my lorde a Penbrockes wch you desier to knowe wheare they be they ar all at home and hausse ben this v or sixe weackes for they cane not saue ther carges wth trauell as I heare & weare fayne to pane ther parell for ther carge"

(Chambers Elizabethan ii.128). Much has been made of this brief mention: it has been used as evidence for the perils of touring; it has been used to argue the connection between the "amalgamation" and Pembroke's, and it has been used to argue that

Pembroke's Men disbanded after this bankruptcy and thus that the 1597 Pembroke's company was a completely different entity. Clearly Pembroke's Men had a tough time of touring during 1592-93, given that they had to pawn some stock to offset their losses, but beyond this it is difficult to get any more information out of this piece of gossip. Given the plague closure, in effect until about late December 1593 (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.348-349), it seems unlikely that Pembroke's was doing much in the way of playing during this time, but this does not mean that the company had completely disbanded. It is

64 safe to say, however, that this document reveals that, after achieving major success during the 92-93 court season, Pembroke's Men quickly fell on hard times while on tour and spent the late summer and fall of 1593 back in London, attempting to recoup their losses by selling some of their holdings.

One final piece of concrete evidence concerning Pembroke's Men may just represent some of the stock the company was forced to sell in 1593. Four title-pages of published playtexts name Pembroke's as the company which acted the plays--Titus

Andronicus (which also credits Derby's and Sussex's), The Taming ofA Shrew, Edward

II, and The True Tragedy ofRichard Duke of York (Chambers, Elizabethan iv.383-385).

One further play, The First Part ofthe Contention Betwixt the Two Famous Houses of

York and Lancaster, does not name the playing company on the title page, but because it is clearly a sequel to True Tragedy, this play almost certainly also belonged to

Pembroke's (Gurr, Shakespearian 269). Perhaps these plays were part of the stock sold off by Pembroke's to pay for their financial collapse in 1593, given that they all found their way to the publishers at roughly the same time: The Contention was entered in the

Stationers Register on 12 March 1594; True Tragedy was published sometime in 1595

(Chambers, Elizabethan iv.7); A Shrew appeared in the Stationers Register on 2 May

1594 (iv.48), Edward II on 6 July 93 (ii.128), and Titus Andronicus on 6 February 1594

(ii.95). If they were in fact sold at the time of Pembroke's main difficulties, some of them, like Edward II, may have gone directly to the printers, while others may have passed through other companies first, as apparently happened with Titus Andronicus, which is perhaps the same play that was performed by Sussex's and the Queen's at the

Rose as late as 6 February 1594, the same day it was entered in the Stationer's Register

(Foakes and Rickert 21).

65 The titles of these five plays immediately demonstrate why such intense interest has focused on Pembroke's Men: one of the plays is by Marlowe (Edward JI), one by

Shakespeare (Titus Andronicus), and the remaining three all bear some relation, albeit murky, to other Shakespeare plays. The quartos of 1 Contention, True Tragedy, and A

Shrew all correspond to the texts of 2, 3 Henry VI and The Taming ofthe Shrew in the

First Folio. The unmistakable similarities these quarto texts bear to the texts in the First

Folio have led many scholars to also assign 2, 3 Henry VJ and The Taming o/The Shrew to Pembroke's Men. Although such an attribution is common, it is nevertheless still based on the assumption that, because the quarto and Folio texts are related, they must have belonged to the same company. Unfortunately, this assumption has often been treated as fact. That having been said, two much-discussed hypotheses make this attribution plausible: 1) Shakespeare's texts in the First Folio are revisions of the earlier quarto plays, or 2) the quarto texts are derived from Shakespeare's texts in the First Folio.

The former hypothesis was the settled opinion for more than a century and can claim, among others, Malone and Chambers as its proponents. This hypothesis, however, presupposes a chronology which cannot be proven (namely, that 2, 3 Henry VI were written before late 1593, a likelihood, but not a certainty). Moreover, under textual scrutiny, this hypothesis is weaker than the second; furthermore, it ultimately rests on a bit of Shakespeare legend, namely that Shakespeare was a "play-patcher" before he began composing plays solely his own. The second hypothesis, which argues that the quartos are derived from the texts in the First Folio, inevitably connects to the "bad" quarto theory. Building on the work ofW. W. Greg, Peter Alexander and A. W. Pollard concluded, based on strong textual evidence, that the quartos of, among other plays, 1

Contention and True Tragedy were "bad" texts, derived versions of the plays in the First

Folio. Alexander demonstrated that certain passages in a given quarto text had to have

66 been written with the corresponding First Folio text in mind (Werstine 31 O; Kreps 155).

This hypothesis was the settled opinion from the 1930's on, although recently it has been increasingly questioned. If one agrees that the quarto texts were derived from the texts in the First Folio, a double assumption (beyond this initial one) is needed to locate the First

Folio plays in Pembroke's Men: a) one must assume these texts were memorial reconstructions made for the purpose of touring, and b) that the original First Folio texts were in fact held by the company that was reconstructing them for touring purposes.

Assumption a) is necessary to explain why a company with the original folio version would then make a second version; it is often assumed that when on tour, playbooks would be left behind to save space, so if a play was to be revived on tour, the actors would have to reconstruct it from memory if it wasn't in the current repertory.

Furthermore, it is assumed that the supposed difficulties of touring would necessitate textual adjustments to the original plays, and the quartos certainly are full of adjustments.

Assumption b) is obviously necessary if one wants to locate both plays in the same company.

The problem, not surprisingly, is that scholars do not agree on any one of these assumptions. In the first place, each of the initial assumptions about the relationship of the texts in the First Folio to the quarto texts is speculation and nothing more. Although the speculation that the Folio texts are revised versions of the quarto texts has lost the preeminence it once enjoyed, the speculation that the quarto texts are "bad" or revised versions of the texts in the First Folio has hardly gone unchallenged, particularly in recent years. Paul Werstine's "A Century of 'Bad' Shakespeare Quartos" (1999), Barbara

Kreps's "Bad Memories of Margaret?" (2000), and Janette Dillon's "Is there a

Performance in this Text?" (1994) have actively questioned this "bad" quarto hypothesis.

Even among those who agree that the texts in the Folio came first, and that the quartos are

67 memorial reconstructions of these texts, there is no agreement on the further assumptions needed to locate the texts from the First Folio in Pembroke's company. Alexander, for one, regarded the quartos as spurious piracies, made by some company which vaguely knew the original texts and wanted to cash in on them; other scholars such as A. J.

Cairncross have followed this line of thought (Kreps 158; Cairncross 335).13 Others, such as Madeleine Doran, have argued that the quartos are acting versions of the original plays, not piracies (Kreps 158). Textual evidence seems to support this hypothesis, insofar as the quarto texts have detectable patterns of doubling of roles; such patterns are absent in the texts in the First Folio. However, if the versions in the First Folio and quarto texts belonged to the same company, why is an acting version necessary? The usual answer to this question is that the quarto versions were needed for touring, either, as already noted, because the original versions had been left behind in London, or else because the structure of the company had been altered for touring in such a way that adjustments had to be made to keep the texts actable. But the differences between the quarto texts and texts in the First Folio are often inexplicable, to a point where certain scenes that make sense in the Folio plays no longer do in the quartos. It is odd that the actors would so thoroughly misremember the original Folio text when making the quarto version, given the prowess of memory they needed to be able to act different plays every day, as we know they did from London records; at any rate, it is a debatable proposition.

Scholars have often accepted the argument that companies needed to be reduced in size

13 If this were the case, Pembroke's obviously would not have had the text from the First Folio, but instead would have been trying to capitalize on the fame of the Folio texts by coming up with its own versions (hence "piracies"). Then again, perhaps Pembroke's did have the original Folio versions, while the quarto versions, in claiming they were played by Pembroke's, were trying to present themselves as the original versions in order to sell more copies. This, however, is a case of manipulating evidence--a manipulation which will be dealt with later.

68 for touring, thus necessitating the quarto texts, but this is another assumption which has

been questioned by, among others, Andrew Gurr and David Bradley (Gurr,

Shakespearian 42-43; Bradley 58-74).

Thus, all arguments for Pembroke's stock containing both the texts in the First

Folio and quarto versions of these plays are based on a set of assumptions, some of which are more likely than others, but all of which can be challenged. Although there may be reasons to think that both versions of these plays were in the same company, I would argue that there is at least as good a chance that the different versions belonged to different companies. It is still possible, and perhaps plausible, that the texts in the First

Folio were a part of Pembroke's stock, but the set of hypotheses and assumptions involved in this claim should at least serve as a caution to anyone prepared to declare it a probability or certainty. For the purposes of this chapter, I will take the position Paul

Werstine takes towards the quarto texts: "when we look at 'bad' quartos, we don't know what we see" (330). I will concede that the quartos are related to the texts in the First

Folio, but again, this relationship is not clear. Since this relationship is at least unclear, I will assume that the claims of the quarto title-pages can be taken at face value as accurate records of what company performed them. This, of course, is another assumption open to challenge, but it only depends on one assumption, whereas assuming that the title-pages ascriptions are not reliable depends on several assumptions.

In summary, a small body of evidence about Pembroke's Men has survived. This information consists of a notice of two court performances, numerous notices of provincial playing, several mentions in Henslowe' s Diary which indicate that the company twice played at the Rose, Henslowe's letter to Alleyn, which mentions the company's financial difficulties, the lawsuit documents, which name five 1597

Pembroke's Men, and four title-pages which name Pembroke's as the playing company.

69 From this evidence the following loose outline of the career of Pembroke's Men can be drawn: Pembroke's Men was playing by late 1592. There must have been something special about this apparently new company, since it was twice invited to court during the

1592-93 holiday season. When plague hit, the company went on the road, but met with difficult times and was forced to return to London in the late summer of 1593. During this time four, perhaps five, of Pembroke's plays fell into the hands of the printers. From the published plays, it appears that both Christopher Marlowe (Edward II) and William

Shakespeare (Titus Andronicus, and perhaps A Shrew, 1 Contention, and True Tragedy) wrote for the company during these early years. After infrequent provincial documentation of the company from late 1593 until early 1597, Pembroke's reappeared in

London and agreed to play for one year at the Swan. During this time, Gabriel Spencer,

Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Thomas Downton, and William Bird were all members of

Pembroke's company. The presence of Richard Jones and Thomas Downton, Admiral's

Men in 1594, indicates that some members ofthis Pembroke's incarnation had left the

Admiral's at the Rose in order to join Pembroke's at the Swan. When the Isle ofDogs scandal occurred, all of these named players, and perhaps others of their fellows, went over to Henslowe, though perhaps other unnamed players remained at the Swan. During this time Thomas Nashe and Ben Jonson apparently wrote Isle ofDogs for Pembroke's.

Those Pembroke's players who went to the Rose were absorbed into the Admiral's around December 1597; those who apparently remained at the Swan must have eventually gone on tour. Pembroke's remained in the provinces from 1597 to 1600, but in 1600 it once again appeared in London, playing at the Rose in late October. This is the last mention of Pembroke's Men in any of the extant documents.

70 This summary of the activities of Pembroke's Men raises many more questions than it answers. What is the origin of the company? Why, despite having been apparently formed in late 1592, did the company have enough of a reputation to warrant two court visits in 1592-93? What was its membership in the early days? Might the company's membership help explain why it succeeded immediately? Why were two of the greatest English dramatists of all time writing for it so early in its career? Was

Shakespeare an actor in this company? Does Pembroke's known repertory suggest other plays that may have been in its possession? What precipitated the 1593 collapse? Did the company disband in 1593, or did it continue to perform between 1592-93 and 1597?

If the 1593 company did disband, what happened to the players and the stock? Who else was a company member during the Swan incident? Was Jonson an actor in, as well as a playwright for, this incarnation? What hints do Henslowe's Diary and the Langley lawsuit give us about the makeup of Pembroke's in 1597, or in 1593, for that matter? All of these questions, and more, have invited speculation on the nature and makeup of

Pembroke's Men. The proliferation of different explanations of Pembroke's players is rather remarkable, given the limited evidence and short lifespan of the company.

Although the scope of this chapter does not allow a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of every argument that has been set forward about Pembroke's Men, I will attempt to take the measure of the important hypotheses about this company. My purpose is to note some of the stronger and weaker arguments about Pembroke's Men, and also explain what makes a particular hypothesis strong or weak. Necessarily, this study will touch on several important issues involved in writing the history of an Elizabethan acting company.

71 3.2 AN EARLY CONJECTURE: FREDERICK FLEAY

The first systematic attempt at constructing the history of Pembroke's Men was undertaken in 1890 by Frederick Garde Fleay. Although A Chronicle History ofthe

London Stage, 1559-1642 is severely outdated and oftentimes resembles more of a flight of fancy than a scholarly argument, it is important not just because it is the first major analysis of the company, but because it raises a set of pressing issues which will come back again and again in all attempts to construct the history of Pembroke's Men.

The origin of Pembroke's Men, Fleay argues, is to be found in the demise of

Worcester's Men in 1589. Fleay notes that William Somerset, Early of Worcester, died on 22 February of that year. Just before this, however, Edward Alleyn is known to have bought all of the company's stock on 3 January. Fleay claims that this purchase was made for Leicester's Men, because, according to Fleay, Alleyn was in that company at this time. Given that Alleyn and two other Worcester's Men were in the Admiral's Men of 1594, Fleay believes that at least some members of Worcester's ultimately joined the

Admiral's. However, Fleay doubts that this happened directly; instead, after Worcester's death, the company found a new patron in the Earl of Pembroke (87). At this time, the company began playing at the Curtain, displacing Oxford's Men (86), and had in their employ Marlowe, Kyd, and Dekker (73). The evidence for Pembroke's 1589 appearance is 1) the disappearance of a major company, Worcester's Men, and 2) the reference Fleay detects to Pembroke's Men in Nashe' s Address to Greene's Menaphon, published 15 89

(87). In 1592, Marlowe stopped writing for Pembroke's, thereby greatly reducing the company's importance (74). During these early years, Fleay credits Pembroke's with having several plays. He claims that Marlowe's Edward II is the only play definitely attributable to a known author, but names the following "anonymous" plays as also belonging to Pembroke's: 3 Henry VI (he appears to make no distinction between it and 1

72 Contention and True Tragedy), Edward III (he speculates it was a Marlowe play), The

Taming ofa Shrew (he believes Dekker and Kyd were the authors), and Titus Andronicus

(he thinks it was a Marlowe play that came to Pembroke's from Sussex's). With less certainty, Fleay also assigns Hamlet (the Ur-Hamlet, that is), ostensibly by Kyd, and

Hester and Ahasuerus to Pembroke's. During the 1593 bankruptcy, Pembroke's sold all of these plays to Derby's, who, under their new patron, the Lord Chamberlain, acted A

Shrew, Titus Andronicus, Hamlet, and Hester and Ahasuerus at Newington Butts in 1594

(134, 137). In 1597, Pembroke's left the Curtain for the Rose, where they acted with the

Admiral's Men from 11October1597 to 4 March 1598 (137).14 After leaving the Rose,

Pembroke's appears to have been unable to remain in London, although a Privy

Councillor's 1598 letter to Edmund Tilney, then the Master of the Revels, indicates that

Pembroke's may have tried to remain in London. The Privy Councillor speaks of"a third company, who of late have by way of intrusion used likewise to play, having neither prepared any play for Her Majesty, nor are bound to you ... " (158). Fleay believes the mentioned company is "almost certainly" Pembroke's (158). Fleay thinks that

Pembroke's was joined by some major players between 1598 and 1600. He notes that during this time the Lord Chamberlain's Men left the Curtain for the Globe, but that Will

Kempe, John Duke, Christopher Beeston and Robert Pallant did not remain with their former company. Fleay concludes that they must have joined Pembroke's Men, which appeared at the Rose in October 1600. Fleay says that Kempe, Duke, Beeston, Pallant and Monday are all listed in the Diary as members of Worcester's in 1602; therefore, it must be that the Worcester's Men of 1602, which soon thereafter became Queen Anne's

Men, was a continuation of Pembroke's Men (138-139).

14 Elsewhere (101) Fleay lists 5 November as the end of the joint arrangement.

73 This account provides a rather smooth-running narrative which manages to explain the genesis of Pembroke's, names a number of key players, plays, and playwrights, manages to locate the company's London playing places, and even describes what happened to the company after it disappears from the records. Unfortunately there are major problems with Fleay's account, especially his assumptions. In the first place,

Fleay is guilty of accepting the assumption of continuity. His history of Pembroke's Men, and indeed just about every company history he constructs, is fatally laced with this assumption. Besides assuming that Worcester's became Pembroke's without major changes in 1589, and that Pembroke's again became Worcester's without major changes in 1600-02, Fleay assumes that Leicester's, Strange's/Derby's, and the Lord

Chamberlain's Men all are the same company under different names. While there are a few players who appear to have been in each of these three companies, it does not follow that the companies were in fact continuances of one another. Operating under this assumption, Fleay reaches the rather absurd conclusion that Edward Alleyn was in

Leicester's in 1589, a claim based entirely on Alleyn's presence in Strange's in 1593. As far as the supposed continuity between Pembroke's and Worcester's is concerned, there is nothing at all to suggest that Worcester's became Pembroke's--no names, no plays, no mentions, only the belief that companies had continuity and that a change of name was more likely than a reorganization. The only evidence for this continuity is that in 1589

Worcester's disappeared and Pembroke's emerged, or so Fleay says. That date is hardly unproblematic, however, as it relies entirely on identifying an allusion to Pembroke's

Men in a vague passage ofNashe's Address to Greene's Menaphon. This passage mentions a company which, once a mere "strolling" company, was in 1589 able to rival the Queen's Men (Murray i.59). To identify this company with Pembroke's Men is highly problematic, as there is no mention of Pembroke's until 1592. A further problem

74 with Fleay's account is his claim that Worcester's dissolved in 1589. A glance at the provincial records suggests otherwise. In the first place, there is no mention of

Worcester's Men between 1585 and 1589-90. In 1589-90, however, Worcester's company reappears and over the next decade has numerous provincial notices. These provincial records suggest that an older Worcester's Men disbanded around 1585, and that a new Worcester's company began in 1589-90, not, as Fleay claims, that Worcester's disbanded in 1589. This claim actually rests on the assumption that records of Alleyn's

1589 purchases indeed refer to Worcester's company, and there is no evidence whatsoever for this assumption, save that Alleyn was once in Worcester's.

Fleay's account of Pembroke's Men suffers from two other major problems beyond his assumption of company continuity. In tracing company histories, Fleay says,

Much confusion has been produced on this subject by the importation of notices of acting in provincial towns into the general history of the stage, and the consequent enormous apparent increase in the number of companies. These notices, unless when connected with some point of general interest, I have carefully eliminated" (6).

Had Fleay paid closer attention to those notices not "connected with some point of general interest," he might have noticed that his conjecture about Pembroke's origin was impossible, but his obvious bias to the London stage blinds him to the fact that the

London stage is in fact intimately connected to touring. Most scholars since Fleay have not repeated this mistake of completely ignoring provincial records. But there is an assumption which underlies Fleay' s decision to ignore provincial records that his successors have not been immune to: that history neatly fits into narrative patterns. Many scholars, like Fleay, have operated under this assumption and, as a result, have detected patterns where there are none and developed methodologies which accordingly assume narratives. Even otherwise meticulous scholars can, and often do, fall into the same sorts

75 of patterns Fleay exhibits. Fleay himself, unwittingly, sums up the problem in the

following statement:

[... ] I distinctly claim, firstly, that this is the first treatise that has any just right to be called a history of the Shakespearian stage; and, secondly, that in no stage history whatever are so many intricate problems solved and critical difficulties removed, with such apparently slender resources, as this one (9).

Laying aside the first exultant claim, Fleay's second claim sets out a pattern that scholars

follow again and again: evidence, particularly evidence which is not complete, or in conflict with other evidence, is treated as a problem or a difficulty which must be solved.

More often than not, the desire to tell a story is what casts the evidence as "problems" and

"difficulties" that need solving. Furthermore, in Fleay' s case, as Scott McMillin notes, a privileging of authorship is at work ("Building" 60). This at least partly accounts for

Fleay's tendency to assign plays and authors to companies--for instance, assigning

Dekker and Kyd to Pembroke's, along with Edward 111--without any real evidence for doing so. Fleay could have elected to let the evidence speak for itself, but instead he imposed ideas about authorship and narratives on it. As a result, problems were created whenever the evidence and the imposed narratives did not line up, and these problems accordingly needed to be solved. Not surprisingly, the solutions to these problems often required further hypotheses or assumptions. In the case ofFleay's history of Pembroke's

Men, the result is typical of most of his theatre history work: a veritable house of cards is built on what Fleay himself notes are "apparently slender resources." Thus, almost as if by magic, Fleay finds the origin of Pembroke's Men, expands the company's repertoire from four or five plays to ten or eleven, states with conviction its London playing places and playwrights in its employ, constructs an almost complete list of the 1599 sharers, and explains what happened to the company after 1600. Most of the immediately post-Fleay

scholars, such as E. K. Chambers, W.W. Greg, and J. T. Murray, spent a good deal of

76 their time correcting Fleay's flagrant factual errors, yet oftentimes they themselves fall victim to the same sorts of assumptions and narrative-building tendencies so evident in

Fleay.

For example, Murray was almost as determined as Fleay to find continuity among the various acting companies. In his 1910 English Dramatic Companies 1558-1642, he does not argue for continuity between Worcester's and Pembroke's Men, but he does assume, for instance, that after Leicester's death his company continued under another

(unknown) patron; also, like Fleay, he assumes that Strange's/Derby's Men are the same company as the Lord Chamberlain's Men (i.36, 91). Scott McMillin details how the otherwise careful W.W. Greg let the desire to tell a story get the better of him when he completely accepted Fleay's interpretation of the "plot" of 2 Seven Deadly Sins, an error

Chambers also repeated ("Building" 60-61). For that matter, Chambers's and Greg's

"amalgamation" hypothesis is another example of the narrative-building tendency.

Scholars since Greg, Chambers, and Murray have not necessarily fared much better when it comes to privileging a particular aspect of Elizabethan theatre or resisting the urge to tell a story. The debate over quarto and First Folio texts, as outlined above, involves the same sort of narrative-building; furthermore, both sides in that debate tend to privilege certain notions of authorship and textual integrity. Thus, despite the fact Fleay has been completely superseded in just about every possible way, scholarship since Fleay has remained attached to the sorts of presuppositions he was operating under. The various attempts to construct the history of Pembroke's Men since Fleay are evidence for the persistence of these patterns.

77 3.3 GHOSTS OF THE "AMALGAMATION"

Fleay's version of Pembroke's Men was quickly challenged and discredited, largely on the grounds I have laid out above. The lack of evidence of Pembroke's before late 1592, as well as the provincial record of Worcester's Men, utterly discredited Fleay's version of the origin of Pembroke's Men, and his wild speculation about the makeup of the 1599 Pembroke's company was similarly dismissed as unquantifiable. Several of

Fleay's conjectures have found some subsequent support, such as his claims that Hamlet and Hester and Ahasuerus were Pembroke's plays and that the "intruder" company mentioned in the 1598 Privy Councillor's letter was in fact Pembroke's. Fleay's theory of the origin of Pembroke's Men, however, has not, to my knowledge, found any supporters.

In its place, two hypotheses of origin have sprung up. The first argues that Pembroke's origin was tied to the activities of Lord Strange's Men in the early 1590's; Chambers,

McMillin, David George, and Gurr, among others, present versions of this argument. The second argues that Pembroke's Men originated among the several branches of the

Queen's Men that were operating in the early 1590's. The most determined proponents of this hypothesis have been G. K. Pinciss and Karl Wentersdorf. Some of these scholars, particularly Wentersdorf and George, use both hypotheses in constructing their versions of Pembroke's. In analyzing these various arguments, I will first consider the arguments which look to Strange's as the origin of Pembroke's. I will then examine Pinciss's hypothesis, which locates Pembroke's origin among the branches of the Queen's Men, before briefly discussing the will of Simon Jewell, which has served as something of a touchstone for arguments about Pembroke's history and personnel. Finally, I will analyze the arguments ofWentersdorf and George; both of them represent attempts to synthesize all previous arguments and information.

78 The possibility that Pembroke's company in some way or another was a product of Strange's Men finds its first solid formulation in Chambers, although several observations made by Murray, with the aid of further observations by Greg, hint at such a formulation. Greg's 1908 commentary on Henslowe's Diary provides some early speculation about Pembroke's company that has remained important for the various arguments about the membership of that company. Greg noticed that there are several names in 3 Henry VI's stage directions which appear to be the names of actors: "Gabriel" appears in I.ii; "Sinklo" and "Humfrey" appear in III.i. Greg argues that "the actors thus designated were John Sinkler, Humphrey Jeffes, and Gabriel Spenser," adding that these identifications "[have] never been questioned, nor is there any reasonable ground for doing so now" (ii.91). The characters in question are rather nondescript and otherwise would not call for such distinctive character names, so it is very probable that the names are actor names. These ostensible actor names are very distinct--Humphrey Jeffes and

Gabriel Spencer are the only known actors in the Elizabethan period with these first names, and there is no other actor with a last name approximating Sinkler. Still, the identification of the alleged actor names in 3 Henry VJ with Jeffes, Spencer, and Sinkler is an assumption--there may have been other actors with these names not otherwise known to us.

Having made these identifications, Greg argues that "the play [3 Henry VJ] 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.91-92). This familiar assumption thus serves Greg's contention that both plays were held by Pembroke's Men. Gabriel Spenser, it will be remembered, is known to have been a 1597 Pembroke's player, and Anthony

Jeffes may very well have also been a 1597 Pembroke's member, as his first appearance in Henslowe's records corresponds to the arrival of other Pembroke's Men. Greg notes

79 that his brother, Anthony Jeffes, is unknown before his appearance in Henslowe's Diary, but since "it may be reasonably conjectured that he came in company with Humphrey"

(ii.92), Greg also lists him as a Pembroke's player.15 Thus, if one is willing to agree to the hypothesis that 3 Henry VI, like its relative True Tragedy, was a 1592-93 Pembroke's play, it is for the first time possible to say anything about the early Pembroke's personnel, as well as establish some continuity between the 1593 and 1597 companies. Of course, this conjecture hinges on accepting that the stage direction names are in fact actor names, that there weren't many, or any, other actors named Gabriel, Humfrey, or Sinklo, and that

3 Henry VI was indeed a Pembroke's play.

In his discussion of the history of Pembroke's Men, J. T. Murray takes up this detective work of Greg's and expands on it in an attempt to paint an even fuller picture of the early life of Pembroke's Men. Murray notes that the actors apparently mentioned in 3

Henry VI are about all that is known about the membership of Pembroke's company prior to 1594, but points out a difficulty in these identifications. Murray assumes "that the

True Tragedie is a preliminary sketch of the 3 Henry VI," adding "that both plays have been worked in part by Shakespeare" (i.61). Murray says, however, that Shakespeare was never associated with Pembroke's Men; this being the case, why would Shakespeare have worked on a play for Pembroke's? Murray approaches this difficulty in the following manner. First of all, Strange's Men is known to have acted a play entitled "henry the vj" at the Rose in 1592, according the Henslowe's Diary (Foakes and Rickert 16-20). With varying degrees of confidence, scholars have believed this play is Shakespeare's 1 Henry

15 It will be remembered, however, that Anthony Jeffes was in the German states in December of 1596 (Brunswick, in particular), and may have been there as early as 1592. If one is determined to assume that the two brothers were always in the same company, it is possible that Humphrey was also touring the Continent between 1592 and 1596, casting doubt on the presence of these two actors in the 1592-93 Pembroke's, as well as the 1597 incarnation (Schrickx, Foreign 123-127). Of course, brothers can also go their separate ways as opportunities allow.

80 VI The title page of Titus Andronicus also lists Derby's (Strange's) as the first company that played it. From this evidence, Murray, like many others, infers that Shakespeare was in Strange's company in the early 1590's. Murray constructed a history whereby

Strange's Men, after undergoing the name change to Derby's Men in late 1593, passed under the Lord Chamberlain's patronage in 1594 without undergoing any real personnel change, and of course Shakespeare was one of this company's chief playwrights.

Therefore, since Shakespeare was apparently among Strange's in 1592, there is no reason why he would have left this company between that time and its 1594 conversion into the

Lord Chamberlain's Men. So then, in Murray's words, is "How comes it that

Shakespeare touched up the True Tragedy for the Earl of Pembroke's men[ ...] and what was the connection of Gabriel Spenser, Humphrey Jeffes, and John Sinkler with

Shakespeare's company and the Earl of Pembroke's men?" (i.61-62).

Murray answers this question by positing a "close connection" between the

Strange's-Chamberlain's, Pembroke's, and Admiral's, as all of these companies, he says,

"were all, more or less, connected with the Henslowe-Alleyn theatrical ventures" (i.62).

Murray lists several items as evidence for this connection: Strange's played at the Rose in

1592-93; Alleyn, in the Admiral's livery, accompanied Strange's on its 1593 tour; when on this tour Alleyn inquired about Pembroke's, and Henslowe reported about its difficulties; the Admiral's and Chamberlain's both performed at Newington Butts in

1594; and Pembroke's and the Admiral's played at the Rose in 1597 (i.62). Having set out this list, Murray argues that "the relationship of these companies being thus intimate, frequent transfers of players and plays from one company to the other would be very probable" (i.62). Even so, Murray remains troubled by two items: first, Sinkler, known to be a Strange's player in 1592 and most probably in that company until 1604, appeared in a Pembroke's play; and second, Shakespeare's hand is present in a Pembroke's play

81 (i.63). Murray resolves these issues in the following way: he argues that, given the

"friendly relations" he detects between the companies, Shakespeare simply touched up

True Tragedie for Pembroke's in 1592. This accounts for his hand in its composition, as

well as for the play's presence in Pembroke's repertoire (i.65). As for Sinkler's presence

in a Pembroke's play, Murray thinks that this can be accounted for by the plague years.

He argues that, when Pembroke's collapsed while on tour in 1593, Strange's obtained the

play, as well as the players Spenser and Jeffes. Shakespeare at this time revised the play

into its First Folio version, and this is when the actor names crept into the text, all three

actors being in the same company at this time. Since the play was popular, the publishers

were anxious to get their hands on it, but somehow Millington, the publisher in question,

only managed to get True Tragedy. Since it was originally a Pembroke's play, Millington

listed that company on the title-page. Murray then argues that Pembroke's dissolved completely in 1593 or 1594, because "there is nothing to show that [the 1597] company

contained any of the actors of the former Pembroke's company" (i.67-68).

This account is of course built on a number of assumptions. On the one hand, there is the possible assumption that the stray names in 3 Henry VJ are actor names. On the other hand, there are several improbable assumptions at work, the prime among them the assumption that 3 Henry VI is based on True Tragedy, but also the assumptions of company continuity, and of a close connection among Strange's, Chamberlain's,

Admiral's, and Pembroke's. While all these assumptions are problematic, the last is particularly so, since it hinges on an unproven continuity between Strange's and the

Chamberlain's Men which may actually be a dubious proposition (Gurr, "Three

Reluctant" 164-167). This assumption furthermore makes a great deal of Alleyn's inquiry about Pembroke's while he was on tour. The fact that the leader of one major acting company might ask about the fortunes of another hardly implies a close

82 connection, and the fact that Henslowe knew about Pembroke's misfortunes simply indicates that he was up on all the current gossip, which is hardly remarkable for anyone

(let alone anyone connected to the world of the theatre). Even so, this idea of a "close connection" between Pembroke's, Strange's, and the Admiral's persists and directly fuels

E. K. Chambers's account of Pembroke's Men, particularly the origins thereof.

If one assumes that there was a close connection between Pembroke's, Strange's, and the Admiral's, it is only a short jump to argue that Pembroke's origin might very well have been located in that connection, and this is exactly what E. K. Chambers does in The

Elizabethan Stage. Chambers, of course, believed that the Admiral's and Strange's companies were so closely connected that they were, during the early 1590's, a single

"amalgamated" company when in London. Chambers also operated under a set of assumptions about touring, namely that companies pared down their membership in order to go on tour. Since the "amalgamation" was such a large company, it would most likely have to break into its constituent parts in order to tour. In support of this assumption,

Chambers offers a petition Strange's Men sent to the Privy Council around the summer of

1592 in which they allege that touring is "intollerable" and would force "division and separacion" upon the company (Elizabethan ii.121)

In examining the available evidence for Pembroke's Men, Chambers, like Murray, noted potential evidence that suggests that Pembroke's and Strange's were in some way connected. In the first place, four of the five known plays of Pembroke's (A Shrew, 1

Contention, True Tragedy, and Titus Andronicus) "seem to have been worked on by

Shakespeare" (ii.129). A repertory connection is further suggested by the fact that both

Pembroke's and Strange's are listed on the title page of Titus Andronicus. In the second place, these plays seem to have "ultimately became part of the stock of the Chamberlain's men" (ii.129). Chambers, like Murray, thought that the Chamberlain's Men were more or

83 less a continuation of Strange' s/Derby' s Men, although in Chambers's case the continuity

is not assumed to have been so complete. At any rate, the presence of two Pembroke's

plays in the Chamberlain's early stock (Titus and A Shrew) suggests that the other two

may have also passed into that company. Based on these ties between Pembroke's and

Strange's and the apparent need for a large company to divide while touring, Chambers

conjectures (his word) "that the origin of Pembroke's men is to be explained by the

special conditions of the plague years 1592-3, 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" (Elizabethan ii.129). The formation of a third company would have allowed

still another warrant for traveling, and given the tumultuous theatre scene during 1592-93,

it might have been very advantageous for the "amalgamation" to tour in as many parts as

possible (Shakespeare i.49).

If this version of events is in fact true, it is rather easy to explain the connection

between Pembroke's and Strange's repertoires: for instance, upon the formation of

Pembroke's, Strange's gave that company Titus Andronicus, perhaps in an unrevised

form (Chambers thought that maybe the "titus & vespacian" listed in Henslowe's Diary

was the forerunner of the more famous play--Elizabethan ii.130), thus explaining the

presence of both companies on the 1594 title page. Similarly, Strange's may have given

Pembroke's 1 Contention and True Tragedy, thus explaining why two parts of the Henry

VJ trilogy belonged to a different company from the first part of the trilogy (ii.129). This

explanation of Pembroke's origin also allows Chambers to give at least one new

contribution to the speculations on the membership of the company. The presence of plays that Shakespeare worked on in Pembroke's repertoire might suggest that the author

was also in the company, although this evidence alone is insufficient. However, many

Strange's names are known for the 1590-93 period, and Shakespeare's name is not one of

84 them. It is particularly telling that Shakespeare does not appear in a 1593 list of Strange's

Men, but in 1594 he is already a prominent Chamberlain's player. Ifhe was so prominent in 1594, it seems unlikely that he would not have been named had he been in Strange's in

1593 (ii.129-130). If Shakespeare was not in Strange's during this time, there is a good chance that he was, with his plays, in Pembroke's Men.

Chambers further expands Pembroke's membership by pointing out that, just as several actor names appear in 3 Henry VI, two more appear in 2 Henry VI. These names are "Bevis" and "John Holland;" both are in the stage directions for IV.ii (Shakespeare i.50). John Holland is known to have been an actor, as he is also listed in the 2 Seven

Deadly Sins "plot," while "Bevis" also shows up in 1 Contention's stage directions (i.50).

"Bevis" may then be one concrete link that suggests both 1 Contention and 2 Henry VI were in fact played by the same company. Chambers points out that, along with John

Holland, John Sinkler also was in the 2 Seven Deadly Sins company, which Chambers believes was the Strange's-Admiral's "amalgamation," or Strange's before the

"amalgamation." In either case, these two names serve as further evidence that

Pembroke's was in some way created from the "amalgamation."

Having thus expanded the possible membership of Pembroke's by three actors,

Chambers next expands the possible repertoire by one play. Chambers is positive that

Shakespeare's Richard III"must have been written about 1592-4" (ii.131). If

Shakespeare was in fact in Strange's company, this play would in all likelihood appear in

Henslowe' s Diary, for "they would surely not produce a new play in the country" (ii.131 ), and it appears that they were in fact in the country following their second recorded run at the Rose. Thus, Richard III must have been written for some other company during this time. Sussex's Men is recorded as performing a play entitled Buckingham during their run at the Rose, as well as Titus Andronicus. Since it appears that Sussex's had at least

85 one of Shakespeare's Pembroke's plays (Titus Andronicus), it would not be surprising for that company to have others, and so if Buckingham is in fact Richard III, it is just possible that it too was originally a Pembroke's play (ii.130-131 ). This, of course, is very loose speculation which is based solely on the fact that the Duke of Buckingham plays a major role in Richard III; although this is an interesting conjecture, it is not one of

Chambers's stronger speculations.

Chambers's version of Pembroke's Men as a whole has some major difficulties.

The chief difficulty is, of course, the untenable "amalgamation" theory which Chambers uses to explain Pembroke's genesis. Even if there was an "amalgamation," the historical economy that creates three traveling companies out of two joined for London playing is problematic and susceptible to questioning. One might argue that scrapping the

"amalgamation," but retaining Strange's, as the genesis for Pembroke's solves the problem, but the problems of division for touring still persist; furthermore, the only thing that links Pembroke's to Strange's in this case is the 2 Seven Deadly Sins plot, which is hardly an unambiguous piece of evidence--the playing company is not even safely identifiable as Strange's. Once again, too, the problem of the relationship between quartos and the Folio texts comes to bear--one name, "Bevis," is the only evidence that suggests the same company played both the quarto and the Folio version. Even so, that is one more piece of evidence than previous scholars have offered. Once more, however, the question has to be raised: are these names in the stage directions in fact certainly and decisively the names of actors in the playing company? Furthermore, and this question

Chambers himself raises, if these are actor names, how do we know when they entered the text? They may represent the original playing company, or they may represent the

86 company named on the title page (if the title page company is not in fact the original playing company), or they could represent a company that staged some later revival

(Shakespeare i.50).

Despite all of these questions, the idea that Pembroke's origin is related to

Strange's Men and the disorderly circumstances of 1592-93 has caught on and has been expanded upon. Scott McMillin offers the most developed account of Pembroke's Men; he too identifies Strange's company, or perhaps a Strange's-Admiral's company, as the origin for Pembroke's. In his 1972 "Casting for Pembroke's Men: The Henry VI Quartos and The Taming of A Shrew," McMillin undertakes the first completely systematic attempt to use the various Pembroke's plays (those named as such and those assumed to have been such) to form at least a working list of Pembroke's players. McMillin draws on the detective work already outlined by Greg, Murray, and Chambers, but offers a more sophisticated analysis of the key play texts than any of those scholars; McMillin is also the first scholar we have encountered who subscribes to the "bad" quarto hypothesis.

First, McMillin lists the known repertoire of Pembroke's Men, the familiar litany of A Shrew, True Tragedy, 1 Contention, Titus Andronicus, and Edward 11 McMillin notes that ifthe quarto texts (A Shrew, True Tragedy, and 1 Contention) are derived from the more familiar texts in the First Folio, the likelihood is that Shakespeare himself was involved with Pembroke's Men. McMillin does not explain why Pembroke's possession of the quartos suggests their possession of the Folio versions; nevertheless, he makes this assumption, and it guides the rest of his argument. Also, like so many others, McMillin accepts the theories of Peter Alexander and Madeleine Doran that the quarto texts (A

Shrew, True Tragedy, 1 Contention) are memorial reconstructions of the texts in the First

87 Folio, made by actors from the company who also possessed the original text. These questionable assumptions in place, McMillin is able to make great headway in figuring out who may have been in Pembroke's company (141-142).

McMillin notes that the available information on Pembroke's Men is unsatisfying; as such, scholars have used the plays attributed to Pembroke's Men to try and stretch

Pembroke's repertory. Thus, as Chambers did, many scholars have used the presence of 2 and 3 Henry VI (the quarto versions, that is) to argue that 1 Henry VI and Richard Ill were also held by Pembroke's, or Pembroke's predecessor, ifthere was one. McMillin also touches on an important trend which has not yet been dealt with here: the attempt to find "echoes" and borrowings from other Elizabethan plays present in the Pembroke's quartos. The argument is that the echoes and borrowings in the quarto texts point to other plays with which the actors doing the memorial reconstruction were familiar. Thus,

Alfred Hart has found echoes of Arden ofFaversham, Soliman and Perseda, and The

Massacre ofParis in A Shrew, True Tragedy, and 1 Contention while A. S. Cairncross has also found echoes of 1 Henry VI, Richard III, The Spanish Tragedy, and Romeo and

Juliet in these three plays (142-43). McMillin sets this issue aside to treat the question of why the quarto versions were made. This issue has already been dealt with to some extent: Peter Alexander argued that the quarto texts were piracies, put together to make a quick profit, whereas Madeleine Doran argued that they were modified acting versions of the original Folio versions. McMillin throws his support behind Doran's hypothesis, after demonstrating that there is little to recommend the piracy theory (144). The idea that the quartos are acting versions, however, is suggested by the fact that they "seem theatrically consistent and intentional," at least moreso than the Folio texts (144). This leads

McMillin to the heart of his argument: "If [a quarto text] records the plays which

Pembroke's men were performing in 1592-93, the texts should contain evidence about the

88 specific theatrical practices of the company" (144). If, in studying 1 Contention, True

Tragedy, and A Shrew in relation to 2, 3 Henry VI and The Shrew, "coherent patterns of evidence" emerge, "we should be able to learn something about the company" (145).

In beginning this search for patterns of evidence, McMillin first tries to establish the close relation between the Folio and the original authorial text, citing the inclusion of actors' names in the Folio texts as a strong indication that this is the case. McMillin acknowledges that this is an assumption, and that intervening revisions could mean that it is an incorrect assumption. Having made that qualification, McMillin examines the variations between the quarto and Folio texts, looking especially at how they differ in their ordering of events. The assumption has often been that these were mistakes of memory, but McMillin thinks that this is not the case: the variations are intentional. Of the five major variations McMillin identifies between 2, 3 Henry VI and 1

Contention/True Tragedy, one is clearly a case of increasing dramatic effectiveness, and three seem to have to do with the economy of casting, as well as stage movement (146-

14 7). The fifth variation is problematic, since the quarto variation is more incoherent than the Folio text, but here once again it appears that the reason the scene is so rocky is to allow doubling within the scene to cut down on the number of adult actors needed for that scene (147-148). Thus, the variations appear to be not memorial accidents, but motivated changes, particularly aimed at keeping the number of principle adult male actors needed in any given scene to around eleven (149). As it happens, A Shrew also has exactly eleven separate roles for adult actors. Although 1 Contention and True Tragedy, taken as a whole, have far more than eleven distinct roles, McMillin demonstrates that eleven adult actors could double roles in such a way that both plays could be done, even in sequence, by eleven adult actors (149-150). In fact, McMillin argues, most of the odd things about the history quarto texts (1 Contention and True Tragedy), usually ascribed to

89 memory lapses, actually keep the doubling pattern intact (for instance, speeches are lengthened to allow an actor to go offstage and switch roles) (150-151 ). This pattern is so consistent that McMillin is actually able to provide a chart which offers doubling possibilities across all three of the quarto plays which give each actor roughly the same amount oflines in each play. For instance, in 1 Contention an actor would double as

Warwick and Cade (268 lines total), in True Tragedy he would play Warwick only (368 lines), and inA Shrew he might play Ferando (263 lines) (151). This pattern is remarkably consistent and shows ingenious detective work on McMillin's part.

Furthermore, the pattern is flexible. As McMillin notes, it could be rearranged in several different ways and still work--five of the eleven principle actors are capable of playing lead roles, while the other six play lesser roles of about one hundred lines ( 152). This pattern also seems to hold for the boy roles--A Shrew calls for four boy actors, as do 1

Contention and True Tragedy (152). Even the number of hired men needed seems consistent: the largest scene in 1 Contention calls for a total of twenty characters on stage; subtract the eleven principles and four boys and the hired men must have numbered about five. This holds true for True Tragedy, whose largest scene calls for nineteen people to be onstage. What is remarkable here is that, when compared to the Folio texts, the quarto texts sometimes call for less actors in a given scene, while other times they call for more; however, the limit is always about twenty, suggesting that the quarto texts make a special effort to make use of all available actors (153 ).

McMillin is thus able to add some new information to what is known of

Pembroke's: it was a company of about twenty actors total: eleven principle actors, four boys, and about five hired men. This, McMillin notes, does not jibe well with the traditional assumption that the quartos are plays stripped down for touring--the number of players and costumes required remains quite large (154). Such an observation puts in

90 doubt Chambers's belief that Pembroke's was created specifically for the purposes of touring. Still, the company size suggested by the quarto texts is slightly smaller than that of the average company of the 1590's, with eleven instead of thirteen principle roles, and the boys' parts are somewhat curtailed. While this does not suggest a company stripped down for touring, it does suggest a company of curtailed resources, which would make sense in light of the unsettled London theatre situation of 1592-93, when Pembroke's first appeared (154). At any rate, the numbers suggest that Pembroke's was "probably a normally-constituted London company" and not a group of pirates or a company created solely for touring (155).

McMillin concludes by embarking on his own attempt to identifying the players in

Pembroke's Men. Operating under the assumption Pembroke's acted the Folio texts, he begins with the usual five apparently named in 2, 3 Henry VI: John Holland, Bevis, John

Sinkler, Humphrey (Jeffes) and Gabriel (Spencer). McMillin then notes that the quartos also appear to contain the names of actors, but this fact has been overlooked by most scholars (save Doran and, of all people, Fleay). First of all, A Shrew has a character named "Sander," but this name also appears affixed to one of the players in the induction.

A "Sander" also appears in 1 Contention, as it happens; this may be a coincidence, but at least in the case of A Shrew an actor is apparently being named (156). In 1 Contention, there are two scenes in which a set of smaller roles are addressed as "Robin, Will and

Tom," in that order. As it happens, the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot" names "Ro. Pallant,"

"Will," and "Tho. Goodale," as well as a "Saunder," John Holland, and John Sinkler.

Furthermore, three other small roles in 1 Contention are named Nick, George and Harry; the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot" similarly lists "Nick," "George Brian," and "Harry." If this is in fact a pattern, and not coincidence, McMillin wonders if the character "Slie" in

A Shrew, whose surname is not used until the very end of the play, might not also be an

91 actor's name; not surprisingly, there is a "Will Sly" named as a 2 Seven Deadly Sins actor. The correspondence between "George" and George Brian is unlikely, since the latter was a leading player in the Sins company, but McMillin notes that in the folio text, where "Bevis" also appears, there is an indication that his first name is George (156). All of this information taken together suggests that there were nine Pembroke's actors who also were in 2 Seven Deadly Sins: John Holland, John Sinkler, Robin Pallant, Thomas

Goodale, William Sly, "Harry," "Saunder," "Nick," and "Will." In addition, Gabriel

Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and George(?) Bevis appear in the Pembroke's texts, but not the "plot" (157). McMillin notes that those actors who appear in the Sins company appear to have been younger or less-experienced, given the roles they were playing; most of them were still playing small roles in Pembroke's, although Saunder and Sly seem to have moved on to larger roles (157).

McMillin claims that the "plot" can be connected to Strange's in the early 1590's, but none of the names on the "plot" which also show up in Pembroke's texts are named appear in the 1593 list of Strange's Men. From this evidence, McMillin concludes that the Sins company split up in the early 1590's, with the younger actors moving to

Pembroke's--thus, Pembroke's was indeed an offshoot of Strange's, as suggested by

Chambers. The main discrepancies between the texts from the First Folio and the quarto texts all seem to indicate that the quarto texts were made for a new company of young performers: fewer principle performers, smaller boys parts, and slightly less elaborate poetry all suggest this. Of course, it isn't a foregone conclusion that Pembroke's resulted from a neat split in Strange's--the times were unsettled, after all. So, the transition may have been rockier, and it could be that players from other companies, like the Admiral's, also were present in the new Pembroke's company (158).

92 McMillin concludes with two considerations. First, 2 Seven Deadly Sins was an old-fashioned morality play, while the plays associated with Pembroke's Men were of the new chronicle history variety. This suggests a company willing to take risks and experiments. Second, the experiment Pembroke's apparently undertook in the early

1590's worked, since Shakespeare's histories ended up in the Chamberlain's repertoire.

It wasn't the old moralities that the Chamberlain's performed, but the new histories, and

Pembroke's had been one of the first companies to embrace not just history plays, but

Shakespeare's history plays, which were a major accomplishment. Thus, Pembroke's

Men was a company which helped usher in a new wave in drama (158-159). This is a far cry from the shadowy Pembroke's that appears in other accounts: suddenly perhaps a majority of the names of Pembroke's Men is known, and the company itself has been positioned as one of the major movers and shakers of Elizabethan drama. Although the arguments McMillin makes here are stronger and better-founded than those that Fleay makes, this account, particularly the final considerations, evidences the tendency to construct narratives and tell stories. Furthermore, there are a myriad of underpinning assumptions to this argument, any one of which threatens to collapse the entire structure, or at least a good chunk of it. While McMillin raises important issues and possibilities, many questions remain: first of all, is 2 Seven Deadly Sins attributable to Strange's in the early 1590's (elsewhere McMillin rethinks this assumption--see

"Building" 54, 61 )? Do the names in the texts actually identify specific actors? Is it safe to hold much confidence in identifying the common names in the Pembroke's quartos with the common names in the 2 Seven plot? Tom, Harry, and George are hardly distinct names, after all. And, once again, does Pembroke's possession of the quarto texts really provide a basis for thinking that this company also had the Folio texts? And, for that matter, is it so clear that we are dealing with memorial reconstructions or even

93 performance texts? McMillin may successfully questions several received ideas here, but he also leaves many assumptions unquestioned. At any rate, his conclusion that

Pembroke's origin is in Strange's Men, or at least the 2 Seven Deadly Sins company, is not adequately proven, given the stretches necessary to match names which are common, and also given the date and company of the "plot." This is not the last attempt made to identify Strange's as the origin of Pembroke's, but before looking at some of the more recent attempts, I turn now to G. M. Pinciss's hypothesis about Pembroke's origin.

3.4 AN ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT: G. M. PINCISS AND THE QUEEN"S MEN

Beginning with Chambers and continuing with McMillin, the settled opinion was that Pembroke's owed its existence, in one way or another, to Strange's Men (or

Strange's in combination with the Admiral's). In 1974, however, an alternative emerged.

G. M. Pinciss's "Shakespeare, Her Majesty's Players and Pembroke's Men," influenced by earlier musings by Karl Wentersdorf, advances the argument that Pembroke's origin is to be found not in Strange's Men, but in the Queen's Men. The bulk of this article enumerates the apparent connections between Shakespeare's plays and the repertory of the Queen's Men in an attempt to provide substance to the hypothesis that Shakespeare was once a Queen's player. At the end of the article, Pinciss muses about Shakespeare's activities after the Queen's Men began to slip in status in the late 1580's/early 1590's.

In 1589-90, the Queen's performed twice at court. The Admiral's Men also performed twice; this marked the first time since the Queen's formation that another company had matched its court appearances (133). The payment records for 1589-90 list

John Laneham and John Dutton as Queen's payees, suggesting they were co-leaders of the company in that year. In 1590-91, the Queen's Men performed at court five times.

For four of these dates, John and Lawrence Dutton were paid and noted as "her mates

94 players & their companye," but for the fifth performance a separate payment was made to

John Laneham for "his companye her mates players" (134). These payment records suggest that by 1590-91 the Queen's Men, one company in name, had actually split up into two branches, one led by the Duttons, the other by Laneham. Provincial records provide some support for this hypothesis: the Dutton branch appeared in the provinces with some frequency.1 6 The Laneham branch is never specifically mentioned in the provincial records, but there are certain notices which may refer to it. For instance, on 14

February 1591, the Dutton branch was at court, while on that same day another Queen's company is reported as playing with Sussex's Men in Southampton (McMillin and

MacLean 180-181). Pinciss assumes that the company which appeared with Sussex's on this date was Laneham's branch of the Queen's Men; he also assumes that the other provincial records around this time which record joint visits by the Queen's and Sussex's similarly refer to the Laneham branch (134). After one court appearance in 1591-92, for which no payee is named, the Queen's Men did not appear at court at all in 1592-93

(134).

1592-93 happens to be the year that Pembroke's Men first appears; the company also performed at court twice during that court season. Pinciss, echoing Chambers, surmises that, "With the theatres closed by the plague, Pembroke's was probably an offspring of a large company formed for touring" (134). This assumption has at least one of the same difficulties Chambers's account of Pembroke's Men does: as McMillin's analysis of Pembroke's known repertoire shows, there is no reason to believe that the company was created specifically for touring purposes. Regardless, Pinciss notes that, if

16 Nottingham, 1588-89 (Coldewey, Nottinghamshire 35); Knowsley, June 1590 (George, Lancashire 182) Southampton, 29 June 1591 (Greenfield, Hampshire 57); Coventry, 1591-92 (Ingram, Coventry 336); Cambridge University, August-September 1592 (Nelson 338); Lyme Regis, 1592-93 (Hay and McGee 217);

95 Pembroke's was the offspring of a larger company, the whereabouts of all the major companies in 1592-93 can be accounted for, with the exception ofLaneham'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 that the two branches of the Queen's would have been in direct competition, and the patronage of the Earl of Pembroke, who recently had been appointed Lord President of Wales, would have meant the possibility of large rewards in the Welsh Marches towns. "The rewards," Pinciss says, "clearly were not so lavish as the players had hoped, for their royal name was resumed 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 argues that if Pembroke's is indeed an extension of the Queen's, certain pieces of information begin to make sense. For instance, Greene's attacks on

Shakespeare in Groats-worth of Wit become more intelligible. In the attack, Greene addresses Nashe, Peele, and Marlowe, implying that they all were involved with

Shakespeare's company. Marlowe's Edward II was a Pembroke's play, Nashe "may well have penned a satiric comedy for the Queen's players during the Marprelate controversy"

(135) and Peele wrote Edward I, which "is generally assigned either to the Queen's or

Pembroke's" (135). If the Queen's and Pembroke's are different incarnations of the same company, all these playwrights can be found in the same company. Pinciss argues for

Shakespeare's presence in Pembroke's on the usual basis, namely that four plays which are his, or connected to him, are known to have been in this company's repertoire: True

Tragedy, 1 Contention, A Shrew, and Titus Andronicus (135). Pinciss feels that his argument helps explain the Titus title-page ascriptions: if Pembroke's was descended from Laneham's Queen's, there was already a 1590-91 connection when the Laneham's and Sussex's toured together. They might have played Titus then, or else in 1594 when

96 they were both again at the Rose (136). Pinciss surmises that, after 1594, Shakespeare, as well as the Pembroke's/Queen's plays, passed to the Lord Chamberlain's Men (136).

Although intriguing, Pinciss's argument is shaky on several counts. First of all, his only real basis for claiming Pembroke's came from the Queen's is the disappearance ofLaneham's branch of the Queen's. This line ofreasoning is similar to Fleay's argument that Pembroke's came from Worcester's because the former company emerged about the time the latter disappeared. Fleay' s hypothesis is demonstrably wrong, since

Worcester's did not in fact disappear in 1589; similarly, Pinciss's claim that Laneham's

Queen's disappeared in 1592-93 is open to question. The fact of the matter is that the court performance of 1590-91 which establishes the existence ofLaneham's branch is its only mention as a separate company. It is true that there also was a Queen's company separate from the Duttons' branch performing with Sussex's in 1590-91, but it does not necessarily follow that the branch in question was Laneham's Queen's. For instance, there is a Symons's Queen's mentioned in the provinces in 1588-89 (Coldewey,

Nottinghamshire 33); perhaps this is the Queen's company that played with Sussex's in

1590-91. Whether or not this is the case, there is insufficient evidence to clearly date

Laneham's branch after early 1591, and Pembroke's does not appear until late 1592, so the matter is fuzzier than Pinciss admits. Pinciss's assertion that Pembroke's reverted to its old name after the 1593 bankruptcy is even more dubious; even more doubtful is the possibility that Elizabeth would have allowed her patronage to be handled so cavalierly

(although the existence of different branches of the same company may indicate otherwise). In any event, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Pembroke's completely disappeared in 1593, nor does anything, save perhaps the presence of Titus

Andronicus in the Queen's repertory, suggest any connection between Pembroke's and the Queen's company at the Rose in 1594. Pinciss is merely assuming that because

97 Laneham's Queen's played with Sussex's in 1590-91, the Queen's company that played with Sussex's at the Rose in 1594 is the same branch. In summary, Pinciss's argument rests on three major assumptions: 1) Laneham's Queen's was the branch that played with

Sussex's in 1590-91; 2) this branch became Pembroke's, suggested by the rough correspondence ofLaneham's Queen's 1591 disappearance and Pembroke's 1592 emergence; and 3) after its 1593 bankruptcy, Pembroke's reverted back to its old name and then played at the Rose with its old partners. The entire argument seems motivated by a desire to construct a smooth narrative (in support of an argument about

Shakespeare), but the narrative that is actually built rests on too many assumptions to be acceptable.

Even so, Pinciss does provide a lively alternative to the opinion that Pembroke's was some sort of outgrowth of Strange' s or the "amalgamation." He raises the possibility that there is some sort of connection between the echoes of certain Queen's plays in

Shakespeare's work and the presence of certain Shakespeare plays in the repertoire of

Pembroke's Men. Although far from convincing here, this potential Pembroke's-Queen's connection deserves further consideration, and further consideration it has received. This potential connection, however, is complicated by an event that took place just after the publication of Pinciss's article: the discovery of the will of Simon Jewell, a previously unknown player.

3.5 A TURNING POINT: SIMON JEWELL'S WILL

"It is pleasing to be able to report the discovery of an unnoticed registered will of

1592 which not only reveals a hitherto unknown actor in Shakespeare's London, but at last gives substance to the shadowy company of Pembroke's Men, long supposed to have been formed in that year" (Edmond 129). So begins Mary Edmond's "Pembroke's Men,"

98 the 1974 article which first introduced Simon Jewell, an actor who died in 1592. His will is dated 19 August 1592 and was proved on 23 August of the same year. From the will it is clear that Jewell was a player, as he mentions his share in the apparel of his company, and bequeaths several items only a player would bequeath. Among other things, Jewell says that he is owed money for his share in "horses waggen and apparrell newe boughte," suggesting that his company was in the process of preparing for a tour. Jewell lists a number of names, some of which must have been fellows in his company: Mr. Brookes,

Mr. Cooke, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Welshe, Mr. Iohnson, Mr. Smithe, Richard Fletcher,

William Belcher, Thomas Vincent, Robert Scott, and Roberte Nicholls are all candidates for Jewell's fellow-players. The will ends with the following statement: "Item my share of such money as shalbe givenn by my ladie Pembrooke or by her meanes I will shalbe distributed and paide towardes my buriall and other charges by Mr Scott and the said Mr

Smithe" (129-130).

Edmond believes that the last reference to Lady Pembroke "strongly suggest[ s] that Jewell and his 'fellows' were in fact the original Lord Pembroke's men" (130).

Edmond also argues that the will "strongly supports Chambers's conjecture that the company owed its origin to the disastrous outbreak of plague in the latter half of 1592 [..

.] and to a division 'for traveling purposes' of the large London company formed by the amalgamation of Strange's and the Admiral's" (130). Edmond furthermore argues that

Shakespeare's absence from the will suggests he was not in fact one of Pembroke's Men.

Because most of the payments Jewell owes to his fellows are supposed to be divided into six parts, the will seems suggests that the company in question had six full sharers, which

Edmond says matches what we know of the typical touring company17. As the company in question had six sharers and recently-acquired "horses waggen and apparrell," Jewell

17 Of course, this is the assumption which Andrew Gurr and David Bradley have emphatically challenged.

99 and his fellows must have been a touring company, or a company planning to go on tour

(131). Edmond demonstrates that several names on the will may correspond to known

Elizabethan players: "Robert Nicholls" may be the "Robard nycowlles" who witnessed a

1595 loan from Henslowe to his nephew Francis; another witness of that loan was "wm smyght player," perhaps the "Mr Smith" in Jewell's will; and "Thomas Vincente" is the same name of a man who eventually became a bookkeeper/prompter at the Globe. In addition to these three players and Jewell, Edmond speculates that Richard Fletcher and

William Belcher may constitute the original six sharers in Pembroke's Men (131).

Edmond also attempts to make one more identification: "The man, to whom the six actors owe £13. 6. 8d, is 'Mr Iohnson'; the thought that he may have been young Ben Jonson is irresistible" (133). Edmond thinks that Jonson, if in Pembroke's, would have been too young to have been a sharer, but the amount owed him is an unusually large amount to owe a hireling. Since Jonson was unlikely to be in a position to lend money in 1592, it may be that he is owed money for services--of a literary kind, no doubt. Edmond says that "A sum of thirteen pounds of so might represent payment for several pieces of work"

(134). Jonson appears to have been a member of the 1597 Pembroke's, which might suggest some continuity between the two incarnations (134).

Edmond thus provides a rather different account of Pembroke's Men--all of the men she identifies as principal sharers in the 1592 company are virtually unknown. She makes no attempt to identify where Pembroke's came from, save that it was formed during the unsettled circumstances of 1592. Only one possible Pembroke's player--Ben

Jonson--is well known, and he alone suggests continuity between the 1592-93 and 1597

Pembroke's companies. Edmond makes little or no effort to utilize the will in the context of the other evidence for Pembroke's Men, but this does not appear to be a weakness.

Edmond's account does, however, conflict with both Pinciss and McMillin's versions of

100 Pembroke's Men, since Shakespeare is omitted as a possible player in the company.

Unlike most of the previous Pembroke's hypotheses, Edmond avoids the problematic quarto-Folio issue, which may be a strength. However, she fails to explain why, ifhe was not in the company, Shakespeare appears to be connected to several known Pembroke's plays. The attempt to identify "Mr Iohnson" as Ben Jonson seems a bit far-fetched, but that argument aside Edmond seems to present a fresh and intriguing treatment of

Pembroke's history and membership.

The usefulness of Edmond's account, however, hinges on the correct identification of Jewell's company as Pembroke's. While the mention of"my ladie"

Pembroke may suggest that Jewell's company was Pembroke's Men, this assumption has been questioned. Not long after the publication of Edmond's article, Scott McMillin's

"Simon Jewell and the Queen's Men" (1976) offered an alternative reading of the will. In this article, McMillin argues that the presence of "my ladie Pembrooke" is not conclusive proof for the identification of Jewell's company, since Mary Herbert, Lady Pembroke, was generally a benefactress in her own right in the early 1590's; thus, she may have aided Jewell independent of his company patron. Instead of accepting the mention of

Lady Pembroke as proof of the company's identity, McMillin suggests analyzing the other names in the will and seeing if this analysis suggests a likely candidate for Jewell's company (175).

First of all, McMillin considers Robert Scott, Jewell's "Land lorde" and a prover of the will. The same Robert Scott is mentioned as a friend in the will of John Bentley, who was one of the original Queen's Men. McMillin next speculates about "Roberte

Nicholls" and "Mr. Smithe." Like Edmond, he thinks that these are likely the same as the

"Robard nycowlles" and "wm smyght" who witnessed Philip Henslowe's 1595 loan to

Francis Henslowe for a half-share in an unnamed company. In 1594 loan, however,

101 Francis Henslowe is specifically mentioned as a Queen's Man. Smith and Nicholls did not witness this loan, but it does seem somewhat unlikely that Francis Henslowe would have purchased a share in a different company only a year after he was in the Queen's. It is possible that in 1595 his witnesses, Smith and Nicholls, were fellows in his company

(175-176). Unlike Edmond, McMillin doubts that "Mr Iohnson" was Ben Jonson. For one thing, the amount owed him, according to the will, is the same amount listed as the value of Jewell's share in the company's apparel. This suggests that the money owed

"Mr Iohnson" was not for a service, but because he was a sharer who had withdrawn from the company. McMillin says that there is only one candidate for a leading actor named

Johnson who was likely to have retired around 1592--William Johnson, an original

Queen's Man, still definitely with that company in 1588. In addition, the "Mr. Cooke" mentioned in the will may correspond to Lionel Cooke, again a Queen's Man. None of these identifications are conclusive, 18 but they decidedly suggest that the company in question here is not Pembroke's, but the Queen's Men (176).

Other evidence from the will supports the conjecture that the Queen's Men is being dealt with: in 1592, the Queen's was almost exclusively a touring company, which fits well with the horses and wagons the will mentions, as well as the small company size it indicates. The Queen's plays published in 1594-95 are obviously cut and adjusted to fit a small troupe, which is not something that can be said of the Pembroke's plays that were published in 1594-95 (177). In addition to these arguments, little evidence actually suggests that Pembroke's was a company specifically created for touring purposes--that claim is mere conjecture, going back to Chambers. Jewell's will would be the only real evidence to suggest that this was in fact the case, and this would directly contradict the

18 McMillin elsewhere concedes that the names are fairly common, but argues that they nevertheless "form a cluster" which stongly suggests that players in the Queen's Men are the names in the will (McMillin and Maclean 29).

102 casting evidence McMillin demonstrated in "Casting for Pembroke's Men." But for the

mention of Mary Herbert, nothing in Jewell's will suggests that Pembroke's Men is the

company in question. Even so, McMillin acknowledges that her presence in the will does

not strengthen the argument that Jewell was a Queen's player. Of course, Pinciss argued

that Pembroke's was descended from the Queen's. Could this explain Jewell's will?

McMillin concedes that this may make some sense, but he feels that the argument is

"ultimately too insubstantial a possibility to be conclusive" (177). Moreover, Pinciss's argument is not particularly adept, or sophisticated. With the introduction of Jewell's

will and the use of more sophisticated arguments, a new argument for the Queen's as the

origin of Pembroke's Men might be possible, and just such an argument is offered by

Karl Wentersdorf. The question, of course, is if that argument manages to escape the usual sorts of problems and assumptions that have shown up again and again in the various accounts of Pembroke's Men.

3.6 SYNTHESES I: KARL WENTERSDORF AND THE QUEEN'S

As early as 1949, Wentersdorf argued in Shakespeare Jahrbuch that Pembroke's was descended from the Queen's Men, but little was made of the argument at the time.

With the resurgence of interest in Pembroke's Men in the 1970's, and the discovery of

Jewell's will, Wentersdorf returned to this hypothesis in his 1979 "The Origin and

Personnel of the Pembroke Company," taking into account the recent observations, discoveries, and arguments of McMillin, Edmond, and Pinciss. As such, W entersdorf s article is not just another argument about Pembroke's origin and personnel, but an attempt to synthesize all previous arguments.

Wentersdorf s article initially follows a familiar path. First of all, four title-page

ascriptions form the known Pembroke's repertory: Titus Andronicus, Edward II, A Shrew

103 and True Tragedy; furthermore, it is "plausible" that 1 Contention was also part of

Pembroke's repertory ( 46). What follows, of course, is the declaration that it is also

"plausible" that the "good" Shakespearean versions of the quarto plays (A Shrew, True

Tragedy, and 1 Contention) were also Pembroke's plays. Once again, the logic behind this "plausibility" is not set out in any detail. 19 Based on the actor names in 2, 3 Henry VJ,

Wentersdorf identifies Humphrey Jeffes (and by family connection Anthony Jeffes),

Gabriel Spencer, John Holland, John Sinkler, and "Bevis" as Pembroke's Men. Unlike most previous accounts, Wentersdorf spends some time explaining why it is likely that these actor names are from the original performing company. Wentersdorf provides some very strong evidence that these names are in fact actor names.20 However, his argument that these actor names are from the company which originally performed the play rests on a complex set of questionable assumptions about printing practices ( 46-4 7).

Having identified these actor names in 2, 3 Henry VI, Wentersdorf notes that The

Taming ofthe Shrew also contains three previously-overlooked actor names: "Nicke"

(III.i.82); "Par" (IV.ii.71); and "Fel" (IV.iii.62). Wentersdorf suggests that "Nicke," a somewhat unusual name, is Nicholas Tooley, and that "Par" and "Fel" are William Parr and William Felle, both later Admiral's Men (48-49). With these nine names of

Pembroke's Men extrapolated from the Folio texts, Wentersdorfturns to actor names in the quarto texts identified by McMillin: "Robin," "Will," "Tom," "Nick," "George,"

"Harry," "Sander," and "Slie" (48). Wentersdorf notes that many ofMcMillin's

19 Wentersdorf does give a citation for what makes the presence of"good" and "bad" versions of these plays in Pembroke's Men plausible, but the citation (Chambers, Shakespeare i.49) does not actually discuss these plays at all. Perhaps Wentersdorfmeant i.288-289, although here Chambers, now converted to Alexander's "bad" quarto theory, simply assumes that the quarto and folio versions belonged to the same company without providing any sort of explanation.

20 For instance, the 1600 quarto edition of Much Ado About Nothing occasionally refers to Dogberry and Verges as Kemp and Cowley (or variations thereof) in stage directions and speech-prefixes ( 4 7).

104 identifications for these names, as well as the names from the Folio texts, also appear on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot," which led McMillin to conclude that Pembroke's was an

offshoot of Strange' s, the company he believed was responsible for the "plot" (49).

Wentersdorf agrees that the "plot" shows that some of Pembroke's Men must have come from the 1590 Strange's Men, but he does not think it "even probable that the bulk of the

Pembroke troupe came from Strange's" (50) for two reasons. First, of the six uncommon actor names in quarto texts and the texts in the Folio (Sander, John Holland, John Sinkler,

Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and Bevis), only three--Sander, Holland, and Sinkler-­ are in the Sins "plot." The other actor names are too common "for us to feel any confidence in identifying them with the similarly named actors" in the "plot" (51).

Second, McMillin argued that Pembroke's was the "younger element" of Strange's company, but if this is so it is difficult to explain why it was invited to play at court so early in its career. Perhaps some of Pembroke's actors came from Strange's Men, but these actors do not appear to have been the leading actors, and W entersdorf argues that it was the identity of these leading actors which led to Pembroke's invitation to play at court in 1592-93 (51-52).

Wentersdorf suggests that two of these leading actors may have been Richard

Burbage and William Shakespeare. Burbage is unaccounted for between his 1590 appearance in Sins and his emergence in 1594 as a leading Chamberlain's player.

Because Burbage was apparently not in Strange's between 1591 and 1594, "It is natural to look for such a talented young man with one of the other leading companies" (54).

During this time, the other leading companies were Pembroke's and the Queen's; since the Queen's was "in decline" about this time, Pembroke's is the most likely option. It is also notable that, upon Burbage's death in 1619, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke, son of Henry

Herbert, patron of Pembroke's Men, wrote that he was saddened "by the loss of my old

105 acquaintance Burbadg" (54). As for Shakespeare, Pembroke's repertoire suggests he was

an active member. The quarto texts, which Wentersdorf assumes are memorial

reconstructions, echo and quote each other, as well as a pool of several other plays--Arden

ofFaversham, Soliman and Perseda, Massacre at Paris, 1 Henry VL Richard !IL and

Romeo and Juliet.21 Wentersdorf assumes that these echoes constitute proof that

Pembroke's Men also had these plays and thus asserts that Pembroke's Men had "no less

than six or seven" plays by Shakespeare (Titus Andronicus, 1, 2, 3 Henry VL Taming of

the Shrew, Richard !IL and Romeo and Juliet). This would tend to suggest that

Shakespeare was in Pembroke's Men, although W entersdorf leaves the possibility open that Shakespeare was not necessarily acting in the 1592-93 season (54-55).

In order to find more of Pembroke's leading actors, Wentersdorfturns to his old theory that Pembroke's, far from being a "younger element" from Strange's, was an

established troupe of actors that had previously operated under another name--the

Queen's Men. Like Pinciss, he argues that Pembroke's had originally been one of the two Queen's branches operating in the early 1590's (55). Wentersdorf claims that the

Duttons' branch "was artistically the superior group," since in 1590-91 they had four court appearances times to Laneham's branch's one. After the 1590-91 court season, an unspecified Queen's group performed once in 1591-92; in 1592-93 no Queen's court performances are listed, but Pembroke's suddenly appears, performing on dates the

Queen's Men had historically played on. Furthermore, after 1592 there is no provincial evidence that the Queen's remained divided. Thus, in 1592-93 one Queen's branch disappears, while Pembroke's appears and fills the dates usually reserved for the Queen's

Men at court; this suggests that Pembroke's was a continuation of one of the Queen's

21 For a more thorough explanation of the echoes see, for example, Wentersdorf, "The Repertory and Size of Pembroke's Company."

106 branches. The Duttons' branch, not recorded in the provinces after 1592, was the more successful of the two branches between 1590 and 1592, so most likely this branch became

Pembroke's, with John and Lawrence Dutton continuing as two of the company's leading actors (56). If Pembroke's was a continuation of one of the branches of the Queen's Men, and if Shakespeare was in fact a Pembroke's player, this explains why Shakespeare's play have "echoes" of certain Queen's plays. However, if Pembroke's company was created from Strange's, then the reason for Shakespeare's familiarity with Queen's Men's plays is less obvious and calls for more detailed and speculative explanations (58-59).

Wentersdorfnext turns to the issue of Simon Jewell's will. Edmond, of course, had cited the mention of Lady Pembroke as evidence that Jewell was a Pembroke's player. Wentersdorf, however, agrees with McMillin's argument that the names in the will are most readily identified as Queen's players, and so Jewell's company was probably one of the Queen's branches (62-63). Returning to the issue of actor names in published texts, Wentersdorf notes that there is a previously overlooked actor name in quarto of A Shrew: "Simon." Wentersdorf allows that this actor name may tie everything together, as it suggests Jewell was in both the Queen's and Pembroke's Men (63).

However, Wentersdorfthinks this is unlikely. Instead, he proposes the following scenario: The Taming ofthe Shrew once belonged to the unified Queen's Men. When the company split into two branches, the Duttons' branch obtained the good copy of The

Shrew. Laneham's, the other, smaller branch, to which Simon Jewell belonged, then patched together the spurious A Shrew to perform while on tour. Later, when this text was published, the publisher attributed the play to Pembroke's Men (previously the

Duttons' Queen's), who possessed the better, more famous version. Wentersdorf generalizes this hypothesis to all three of the quarto texts attributed to Pembroke's (63-

64).

107 Wentersdorf concludes by examining the known personnel of the 1597

Pembroke's. Of the five actors (Spencer, Shaw, Jones, Downton, and Bird) known to have been members of this company, two, Jones and Downton, were definitely Admiral's

Men before 1597. Two others, Bird and Shaw, cannot be traced prior to 1597. Spencer, however, was apparently in Pembroke's already in 1592-93, according to the actor names in 3 Henry VI. Furthermore, Humphrey Jeffes, possibly a 1597 Pembroke's player, also shows up in 3 Henry VJ, and his brother, Anthony, most likely shared his affiliations.22 If

Spencer and the Jeffes can be traced from the 1597 Pembroke's back to the 1592-93 company, it is similarly possible that Shaw and Bird were also among the 1592-93

Pembroke's. Henslowe's Diary mentions that Spencer and Bird each had a "man" in

1598-99: Richard Bradshawe and William Pelle, respectively. Both were likely to have followed their mentors, and this further points to Bird's presence in the 1592-93

Pembroke's Men, since Pelle is apparently named in The Shrew, as was William Parr, who surfaces in the Diary as an Admiral's player in 1603 but "probably joined the company at the same time as the other Pembroke players" (64).

From all of this, Wentersdorf is able to identify no less than sixteen Pembroke's players (see appendix III.8 for full list), accounting for all the principle adult players and supemumeraries--only the boy actors are unaccounted for. Thus, through this synthesis,

Wentersdorf manages to provide a nearly complete list of all of Pembroke's Men of

1590-93, pinpoint c. 1591-92 as the year of Pembroke's emergence, establish that

Pembroke's was a continuation of the Dutton branch of the Queen's Men, expand

Pembroke's repertoire by a number of plays, most of them by important authors

22 Wentersdorfis unaware that, once again, Anthony Jeffes was in the German states at the end of 1596 and therefore might not have been in the 1597 Pembroke's company (Schrickx, Foreign 123).

108 (Marlowe, Shakespeare, Kyd), and explain the "bad" quartos as well as Simon Jewell's will. Only one previously examined account even comes close to having such sweeping explanatory power: F. G. Fleay's.

At first Wentersdorfs account appears to be far more careful than Fleay's, but upon closer inspection one begins to suspect that the logical leaps and assumptions

Wentersdorf makes are no more sound than Fleay's and perhaps, consciously or not, serve a preexisting narrative. Wentersdorf clearly admits that he is managing to fit new evidence to a hypothesis he first proposed three decades before; one wonders if he was determined to make the evidence fit from the outset. Whether or not this is the case, a number of assumptions undermine Wentersdorfs account and ultimately make it self­ contradictory. From the outset of his article, Wentersdorf assumes a particular relation between the "good" folio and "bad" quarto texts, and his constant use of the word

"spurious" in reference to the quarto texts shows that he is convinced that they are piracies. This assumption leads to a flagrant manipulation of evidence: Wentersdorf ends up claims that the quarto texts are the result of spurious memorial reconstruction conducted by a company other than Pembroke's Men. In making this claim, he has taken what little concrete evidence is available for Pembroke's repertory and used it to

"demonstrate" that these plays were not in Pembroke's repertory. This maneuver is an interesting displacement: Wentersdorf uses the quarto title-pages to argue that the texts in the First Folio also belonged to Pembroke's Men. This, as I have frequently stated, is an unproven assumption which is not even particularly well-justified. However,

Wentersdorfthen argues that the presence of the Folio texts in Pembroke's repertory, combined with the "spurious" nature of the quarto texts, suggests that Pembroke's did not

109 actually have the quarto texts. Instead, he argues that the publication of the quarto texts was just an attempt by another company to capitalize on the popularity of the Folio texts, which Pembroke's did have.

Wentersdorfs account is riddled with other problems. First and foremost, he depends on the assumption of continuity--the assumption that when one company disappeared, another took its place. Wentersdorf, of course, argues that the disappearance ofDuttons' Queen's branch coincides with the emergence of Pembroke's Men, but this statement is not quite accurate. Wentersdorf says that, although there certainly was a

Queen's company after 1592, no evidence survives which specifically mentions

Laneham's or the Duttons' branches of the Queen's. He cites the last mention of

Laneham's branch as 1591 and the last mention of the Duttons' as 1592 (55-56).

W entersdorf is correct in saying Laneham' s last mention is 15 91, but he is in error about the last mention of the Duttons' branch. A provincial notice in Lyme Regis in 1592-93 states a visit by "Queens the duttons" (Hays and McGee 217). Lyme Regis, like all of

Dorset, operated on the Michaelmas to Michaelmas fiscal year, so at the earliest this visit was on 29 September 1592. As it happens, the Lyme Regis records are somewhat more consistent than other town accounts in listing the specific dates of playing company visits.

Of fifteen entries between 1584 and 1596, ten are given exact dates, an unusually high percentage (215-218). The 1592-93 visit is undated, but the entry for this visit falls between two dated visits--Worcester's on 9 December 1592 and Mounteagle's on 26 May

1593 (217). This timeframe for the Duttons' branch visit is extremely problematic for

Wentersdorfs theory. Pembroke's appeared at court on 26 December 1592, so the

Duttons' branch must have passed under Pembroke's patronage before this date. Because the dates in the Lyme Regis records appear to be more or less reliable, there is little

110 reason to doubt that this visit by the Duttons' took place after 9 December 1592, and this cripples Wentersdorfs theory.23 Furthermore, McMillin and MacLean, current experts on the Queen's Men, argue that there actually is evidence for a divided company until at least 1594, and possibly up to 1597, compounding the difficulty with the argument that either branch of the Queen's became Pembroke's Men (65).

Wentersdorfs assignment of the quarto texts to Laneham's Queen's is a second point where he uses the available evidence in a contradictory way. Wentersdorfhad, in his 1977 "The Repertory and Size of the Pembroke Company," used the quarto texts to argue for the inclusion of Soliman and Perseda, Massacre at Paris, Richard !IL and

Arden ofFaversham (as well as 1 Henry VI and Romeo and Juliet) in Pembroke's repertoire. The basis of this argument is that these previously unattributed plays call for the same size cast as the quarto plays. Wentersdorf repeats this argument in "The Origin and Personnel of the Pembroke Company" (54-55), but having done so turns around and says that the company that produced the quarto texts was not in fact Pembroke's Men.

Even so, he still uses Romeo and Juliet and 1 Henry VI, whose presence in Pembroke's is inferred from the quartos, to argue for Shakespeare's presence in Pembroke's Men, and he still locates these plays, as well as Massacre at Paris, Arden ofFaversham, Soliman and Perseda, and Richard III in Pembroke's repertory. In this argument, then,

Wentersdorf infers Pembroke's size from plays he claims the company never played, and he uses this inferred size to expand Pembroke's repertoire; this expanded repertoire he uses to argue for Shakespeare's presence. Once again, Wentersdorfs assumptions are compounded by a contradictory use of evidence.

23 In all fairness, the Lyme Regis records were likely not available to Wentersdorfin 1979. The Dorset records were published in 1999, although Andrew Gurr's 1996 Shakespearian Playing Companies already incorporated these notices.

111 Besides these factual errors and problematic uses of evidence, Wentersdorf labors under many already-identified assumptions; these assumptions place his argument on a shaky foundation before it even gets to the highly problematic arguments outlined above.

Some of these operating assumptions are: 1) the odd names in the quarto texts and texts in the First Folio are readily-identifiable actor names; 2) the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot" is datable to 1590 and represents a performance by Lord Strange's Men; 3) certain "echoes" from Queen's plays in Shakespeare's plays are best explained by Shakespeare's presence in the Queen's Men; 4) "echoes" in the quarto texts can be safely used to construct

Pembroke's repertory; and 5) actor names in the quarto and Folio texts, as well as the presence of the plays of an author in a given company constitute "direct evidence" for the company's membership. Within this framework of assumptions, Wentersdorf does succeed in questioning the assumption that Pembroke's came from Strange' s, but his argument depends on so many other assumptions that it is debatable how useful this synthesis actually is. Ultimately, Wentersdorfs theory hinges on yoking together a number of questionable assumptions, which are in turn based on other questionable assumptions. He then builds inconsistent and contradictory arguments on this less-than­ firm foundation. Perhaps Wentersdorf manages to offer a few valuable insights or to make some new observations about Pembroke's Men, but ultimately this structure collapses under its own weight. In the end, his problematic use and manipulation of evidence raises just as many questions as it solves. Wentersdorfs account is not as colossally problematic as Fleay' s, but it still falls into the same sorts of patterns.

112 3.7 SYNTHESES II: DAVID GEORGE AND STRANGE'S

For whatever reason, a flurry of activity surrounding Pembroke's Men began in

1972 with McMillin and with the articles of Pinciss, Edmond, and Wentersdorf continued

through 1979. This decade of Pembroke's activity finally draws to a close with David

George's 1981 article "Shakespeare and Pembroke's Men." Although intended as a

discussion for whether or not Shakespeare was in Pembroke's, this article enters the

debate about Pembroke's repertoire and personnel and offers a totalizing picture of all

acting company activity between 1590 and 1594.

George begins by considering the published quarto texts. He alleges that these are

"touring texts," "cut, altered, and corrupted versions of longer texts, and they may have

been reconstructed from memory" (306). From the outset, several of the assumptions

about quartos texts I have been tracking are apparent in George's work: the quartos must be 1) memorial reconstructions 2) made for the purposes of touring. Although the quartos were, in George's opinion, derived from the Folio versions, the fact that

Pembroke's sold the quarto texts to the publishers (an assumption, incidentally) indicates that Pembroke's did not own the originals. George "imagine[s] that they [Pembroke's]

surrendered the full versions after they had made shortened touring versions, and they even possibly had to turn their cut texts to someone on going bankrupt" (306). This imagined possibility, once stated, is turned into a definite fact, and "From this circumstance it would appear that someone controlled Pembroke's Men in 1593" (306).

This someone "must have been Strange's Men, who owned one part of Henry VI, and one of whose members--the company's leader--was inquiring about Pembroke's Men in

1593" (306). George says that the usual assumption is that Pembroke's was an offshoot of the large Strange's Men of the early 1590's, created for the purposes of touring, and this assumption George accepts. George feels that the implication of this Pembroke's

113 origin is that Shakespeare was never in that company, because had he been "he could certainly have helped them produce better texts than they did" (307).

Despite having set aside the assumption that the quarto texts and Folio texts were in the same company, the foundations of George's argument are already on shaky ground.

George assumes that the quarto texts are memorial reconstructions, and he emphasizes their literary problems without addressing their value as performance texts. The quirks of the quartos thus are errors of memory, rather than intentional changes for performance reasons; this being the case, Shakespeare cannot have been a Pembroke's player, or else he could have helped his fellows produce better texts. Besides these questionable assumptions, George has argued, based on Pembroke's possessing quarto texts similar to the First Folio's 2, 3 Henry VI and The Shrew, that Pembroke's was an offshoot of, and controlled by, Strange's. In doing so, George has made three major assumptions: 1) because Strange's run at the Rose in 1592-93 included a popular play entitled "harey the vj," Strange's must have controlled the entire Henry VI trilogy in its Folio form; 2) because Edward Alleyn asked about Pembroke's, he must have had a stake in their fate; and 3) the only way the quarto texts can be accounted for is if Pembroke's Men at some point had access to the originals, and that this access is best explained through Strange's lending them their Henry VI plays. All three assumptions are questionable, if not dubitable. First, there is no way to positively identify Henslowe's "harey the vj" with

Shakespeare's play(s) of that name. Scholars have gone around on this point for many years, and although the identification is plausible, and perhaps even probable, other explanations have been suggested (McMillin, "Stories" 61). Even if "harey the vj" is 1

Henry VI, as is most commonly argued, there is no basis beyond this identification for assuming Strange's possessed the entire trilogy. Second, Alleyn may have asked

Henslowe about Pembroke's simply because they were a fellow acting company. It is

114 hardly remarkable that someone would take an interest in the goings on of others involved in his profession, be they friends, enemies, colleagues, competitors, or a bit of each. Third, it should be abundantly clear by this point that it is difficult to say with any certainty what exactly the quarto texts represent, let alone how they were made. There is no evidence or precedent to suggest that one company would create, control, and share their plays with another. There are notices of joint playing, and it does appear that the

Queen's split into two branches for a time, but this does not mean that one company created the other, controlled it, or otherwise supplied it with capital and stock. There is certainly no precedent for a company supplying or controlling a company under another patron. Thus, George's claim that Pembroke's was controlled by Strange's has no basis whatsoever.

From this shaky starting point, George attempts to figure out Pembroke's personnel. Believing that the Folio texts were not controlled by Pembroke's men, George quickly dispatches with the notion that any Pembroke's names are found in 2, 3 Henry VI or The Shrew, and elects to use Jewell's will as his starting point. George unquestioningly accepts the reference to Lady Pembroke in the will as proof that Jewell was a Pembroke's player. From the will, it is evident that Jewell's company had six sharers, of which he was one. George claims that this is about the right size for a normal company at the time; he declares that six sharers to nine nonsharers is "certainly the right proportion" (308), although he does not report where this certainty comes from. George believes Mary Edmond's identifications of names in are plausible, so he to argues that

"Thomas Vincente" is the Thomas Vincent listed on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot" who later was a bookkeeper at the Globe and that "Mr Smith" and "Roberte Nicholls" are the same Smith and Nicholls who witnessed Philip Henslowe's loan to Francis Henslowe in

1595 and were in all likelihood Queen's Men. George feels that Edmond's identification

115 of"Mr Iohnson" with Ben Jonson is extremely unlikely; McMillin's proposition that this was William Johnson, a known Queen's player, is a far more promising option. George identifies "Cooke" as Lionel Cooke, again a Queen's player. A 1598 entry in the York records lists "William Smyth" as a payee for the Queen's Men; this record allows George to strengthen the argument that the witnesses to Francis Henslowe's 1595 loan were

Queen's players. This suggests that two of the three witnesses to the 1595 loan were

Queen's Men, so George surmises that the third witness, George Attewell, was also a

Queen's player; since all three were concerned with money matters, they were perhaps all important members of the company. Attewell, a known Strange's player in 1590, could have passed from Strange's through Pembroke's and onto the Queen's, since Pembroke's was an offshoot of Strange's, and Pembroke's bankruptcy would have given him reason to move on. Since his two 1595 colleagues, Smith and Nicholls, are named in Jewell's will as Pembroke's Men, Attewell probably was also in that company (307-310).

George argues that the seven Pembroke's players deduced from Jewell's will must have been sharers. In order to find the names of the minor Pembroke's members, George turns to the actor names in the quarto texts. Since these shorter quarto texts were made especially for Pembroke's, he argues, it is possible that the preparer of the text inserted the actor names; moreover, since the quartos are supposedly memorial reconstructions, the copyist doing the reconstruction was more familiar with the actor names than character names. A Shrew and 1 Contention yield the following actor names: Tom,

Sander, Will, Slie, Harry, Robin, Nick, and Bevis, which George cross references with the

"plot" of 2 Seven. This cross-referencing yields Thomas Goodale, Alexander Cooke,

Will, William Sly, Harry Condell, Ro. Pallant, and Nicholas Tooley as possible

Pembroke's members. To this list George adds John Shank, later a great King's actor, who in 163 5 told the Earl of Pembroke that he "first serued yr noble father" (312), Henry

116 Herbert, patron of Pembroke's Men. In the early 1590's, Shank would have been a boy

(311-312). George thus arrives at a list of fifteen players (see appendix III.9 for the full

list), which he claims is "about the right number for a company off on tour" (312),

although it is unclear where he draws this claim from. Since at least half of this number

appear in Strange's, or the "amalgamation," in 1590 (assuming that is the 2 Seven Deadly

Sins date), it appears that Strange's and Pembroke's had a connection. This size of this

company works with McMillin's figuring that the quartos call for a company of no more than twenty actors (313).

Besides the obvious assumptions that factor into constructing this list, there is a problem in the company size. George says that fifteen players is "about the right number"

(312) for a touring company, but bases this claim on the fact that this number fits the number needed to perform the quarto texts. However, the quarto texts are not necessarily touring texts; George has merely assumed that they are. George argues that Pembroke's didn't take any supernumeraries on tour, but this argument still assumes that the texts analyzed for casting numbers are touring texts. McMillin argued that the quartos were not touring texts, so using McMillin's numbers when one thinks that Pembroke's was specifically a touring company is problematic and inconsistent. Moreover, it is sheer conjecture on George's part that the company didn't take supernumeraries with them, electing instead to recruit local help; there is no evidence for this practice. Furthermore,

George ignores the possibility that the minor actors named in the quarto texts may have been supernumerary actors.

Having identified fifteen Pembroke's players, many of whose names confirm a close connection to Strange's Men, George examines the relationship between

Pembroke's Men and the Queen's Men, the other company which seems to figure prominently in Pembroke's personnel. George discusses how in the late 1580's two

117 branches of the Queen's appear. He says that after 1592 Laneham's branch disappeared, while the Duttons' continued in the provinces and presumably was the Queen's which acted at the Rose with Sussex's in 1594. George speculates that the Queen's must have gone bankrupt after their Rose tenure, as a number of their plays fell into publishers' hands about that time. George speculates that an additional bankruptcy took place in

1592, when Laneham's disappeared, because a number of Queen's plays had made their way into Strange's repertory by the time that company's 1592 Rose season began.

George notes that the disappearance ofLaneham's Queen's and appearance of

Pembroke's Men do broadly coincide, but he doubts Pinciss's argument that Laneham's

Queen's became Pembroke's Men. Instead, he argues that, upon the bankruptcy ofLaneham's

Queen's, their plays, as well as a number of their players, joined Strange's, who were in the process of creating Pembroke's. The Queen's plays, as well as some players, among them John Heminges, remained in Strange's, while a number of the other ex-Queen's players, such as Jewell and those mentioned in his will, played only briefly with Strange's before joining Pembroke's (313-315).

Once again, this portion of George's argument is full of assumptions and speculations. In the first place, the evidence for the branches of the Queen's Men is vague and limited. Laneham's branch is recorded only in 1590-91, and the Duttons' is mentioned only between 1588 and 1593. In neither case does this mean that the branch disappeared, and as McMillin and MacLean argue, the available evidence perhaps suggests that the Queen's was split into two branches as early as 1583 and as late as 1594 or 1597. Furthermore, the two Queen's bankruptcies George hypothesizes recapitulate the narrative of the rapid decline of the Queen's after Tarleton's death in 1588. This narrative, which assumes that the Queen's was a third-rate company by 1594, can also be

118 challenged, since it appears that the Queen's Men did quite well for itself in the provinces. It may have shifted its playing focus from London and the court to the provinces, but this does not necessarily mean disaster had struck. Thus, the bankruptcies

George theorizes are not particularly likely. The fact that a few Queen's plays show up in

Strange's 1592 repertoire might be significant, but nothing is known of Strange's repertoire before 1592, so these plays may very well have been in Strange's repertory several years prior to the Diary entries. At any rate, because it is unclear that Laneham's actually disappeared before 1592, and because it is not a foregone conclusion that these plays actually passed to Strange's in that year, there is little foundation for the claim made by George that Laneham's was absorbed by Strange's, who then channeled many of these former Queen's Men into the new Pembroke's company.

George's final consideration is the title-page of Titus Andronicus. This title-page alleges that three companies performed this play: Derby's, Pembroke's, and Sussex's.

This title-page is the only place where Pembroke's is recorded as owning a play by this name. George attaches some significance to this fact, but the same is true of Pembroke's other three title-page attributions (A Shrew, Edward II, and True Tragedy). At any rate, this is also the only evidence which connects this play to Derby's Men, by which

Strange's must be meant. Strange's played a Titus and Vespasian; Chambers thought this might be related to, or even the same as, Titus Andronicus, but there is no way to verify this conjecture. Sussex's, however, is associated with Titus Andronicus elsewhere, in

Henslowe's Diary, which records several performances of the play by Sussex's. The company debuted the play on 24 January 1594 and played it several other times; by June of that year, however, the play was owned by the Chamberlain's Men, who played it at

Newington Butts (315-316).

119 It has generally been assumed that the title-page names the companies in the

sequence that they owned the play, but George challenges this assumption, maintaining that these three companies played Titus Andronicus jointly. In order to defend this

argument, George tries to establish the date of the play' s composition using the 1594

quarto of A Knack to Know a Knave, which seemingly references Titus Andronicus. The

Knack quarto is notoriously incoherent, and George argues that this is because it was a memorial reconstruction made quite some time after the reconstructers' last contact with the original play (317). Without explaining his line of reasoning, George conjectures that a company must have done this reconstruction of A Knack for Sussex's Men in 1594.

George argues that this company was Pembroke's Men, since the A Knack quarto contains echoes and imitations of plays which belonged to the Queen's, Pembroke's, and

Strange's Men. According to George's hypothesis about Pembroke's creation,

Pembroke's was the only company which had access to these three repertoires (317-318).

The problem with this speculation is that there is no evidence to connect the A Knack quarto to Sussex's Men, apart from the apparent reference it contains to Titus Andronicus, and even this reference is not particularly clear, since it refers to deeds of Titus's which

Titus Andronicus never mentions. Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence to connect the A Knack quarto to Pembroke's, besides these supposed echoes. At any rate, from this evidence, such as it is, George posits the following sequence of events. After its 1593 bankruptcy, the remnants of Pembroke's Men joined Sussex's, who had made arrangements to play at the Rose. As Strange's had invested money in Pembroke's in

1592, they decided to help this Sussex's-Pembroke's joint venture by having Shakespeare provide the combined company with some new material. He gave them Titus

Andronicus, which the joint company played, along with a few Strange's Men who may or may not have been acting with their company's knowledge (318-321). While this

120 scenario might explain how Titus Andronicus 's title-page evidences a joint performance of the three companies, there is no evidence whatsoever for a single piece of this argument. In the first place, there is no real reason to believe Pembroke's was an offshoot of Strange's, especially not one controlled by Strange's. There is no evidence that

Strange's invested money in Pembroke's, and there is no precedent for this sort of move.

There is no evidence that Pembroke's joined Sussex's; in fact, far less is known of

Sussex's than is known of Pembroke's, so no personnel lists or actor names in plays even hint at such a merger. There is no evidence that either Sussex's or Pembroke's Men ever had any connection to A Knack to Know a Knave, and in any case it is unclear how this evidence aids George's argument. And there is no evidence that Strange's directed

Shakespeare to help a rival company out.

George apparently has fallen victim to the urge to make all of the evidence fit into a coherent story. In this case, that story is that the London companies from 1590-1594 were all connected and were all offshoots of the "amalgamation," or a large Strange's company. First of all, the "amalgamation" has been discredited and should be discarded entirely. Second, there is no evidence that Strange's was ever a large company in need of splitting or branching. Finally, although there are a few records of occasional joint performances, most of them in the provinces, there is no evidence to suggest that in

London the companies were so willing to accommodate each other. This was an age of economic competition, and this must have affected theatrical ventures at some level.

Companies were competing for audiences, court appearances, plays, and money. It may not have been a cutthroat sort of business, but it was probably not a matter of one company completely dominating the London scene with no other companies attempting to compete with it. Strange's may have been the dominant company, but to see Sussex's, the Queen's, and Pembroke's, its most likely competitors during this era, merely as

121 extensions of Strange's seems somewhat far-fetched. It seems as though George is trying to make the evidence all fit together, even when this requires far-fetched explanations.

This, however, is nearly impossible in any historical project. George's is a smooth story, but it makes less sense than many that have come before. It tries too hard to make all the pieces fit, and the result is that it needs all sorts of assumptions and speculations to hold it together. These assumptions and speculations are so legion, however, that, like

Wenterdorf s argument, the entire structure collapses under its own weight.

3.8 CONCLUSION

Since Fleay's initial conjectures in 1890, arguments about Pembroke's Men have progressively become more sophisticated, intricate, and complicated. Also, an increasingly wide variety of sources has been identified and analyzed. Nevertheless, several trends, first set by Fleay, continue to weave through the historical analyses, argument after argument.

The first trend is the tendency of most scholars to seek a certain sort of company continuity. Fleay argued that Pembroke's came from Worcester's, given that the latter company disappeared when the former first emerged. Although this argument is demonstrably false, scholars have continued to assume that this sort of continuity can be used as a basis for locating Pembroke's origin. Those scholars who argue that

Pembroke's was a continuation of one of the Queen's Men's branches are particularly susceptible to this assumption. While it is theoretically possible that a company could switch patrons, there is no example of this definitely happening until 1603, when the royals intervened in the patronage system. This, however, was an exceptional moment.

Those scholars who do not thing Pembroke's was a continuation of one of the Queen's branches have tended to argue that Strange's was the genesis of Pembroke's--that

122 Pembroke's was some sort of offshoot from this large company. This argument is problematic because it essentially rests on the 2 Seven Deadly Sins "plot." The assumption present here is very specific: that we know not only what this plot represents, but also what company performed this play. In turn, we can presumably determine the year in which the performance took place. These are all assumptions that have never been satisfactorily demonstrated, and the fact of the matter is that 2 Seven Deadly Sins can be interpreted in more than one viable way, something which is often true of any given piece of evidence. Stated another way, there is an assumption that the interpretation of a given piece of evidence can be definitely fixed.

The attempts to construct a personnel list for Pembroke's intersect with this tendency to assume that a give piece of evidence can be fixed. Many scholars make their personnel lists by looking for what are allegedly actor names in the plays which have been attributed to the Pembroke's company. Some of these purported actor names are convincing, but most are possible without always being plausible. This assumption, that stray names in plays attributed to Pembroke's Men are names of actors in that company, is compounded by two further assumptions: first, that these names represent the names of actors in the original performing company; and second, that these often one-word "actor names" can readily be identified with known actors. Although making these assumptions can lead to intriguing conclusions, none of them is particularly safe. McMillin advocates a safer proposition which involves looking at the known Pembroke's texts for casting information. This proposition seems safe: regardless of whether quarto texts are piracies, acting texts, or something else, they are the plays that were performed by Pembroke's

Men and thus, when analyzed for casting patterns, can yield a reliable picture of company size. Other evidence used for casting Pembroke's Men consists of Jewell's will and the organization of the 1597 Pembroke's company. The McMillin/Edmond debate has

123 shown that Jewell's will is open to interpretation, and that interpretation makes all the

difference when it comes to identifying Pembroke's personnel: if Jewell was in fact a

Pembroke's player, a core of Pembroke's principal players can be established; if Jewell

was a Queen's player, the will has very little to say about Pembroke's personnel. As for

the 1597 Pembroke's company, it can perhaps yield some evidence about the earlier

company, but this depends on drawing a number of inferences and then projecting these

conjectures back in time. It appears that the 1597 personnel list has a name or two that

lines up with other possible personnel evidence; however, the 1597 list taken by itself is not particularly helpful. Most other personnel evidence rests on following leads

suggested by these several sources; while these leads may result in intriguing conjectures, one must always keep the fact in mind that most of these sources yield personnel names only through one or more assumptions. These assumptions vary in how sound they are,

but all are at least questionable.

The arguments for Pembroke's repertoire almost immediately open up a can of worms, since three of the five plays that were decidedly Pembroke's are what have come to be known as "bad" quartos. In other words, it has been the settled opinion since the

1930's that these three plays are memorial reconstructions, made for touring purposes.

This was not always the settled opinion, nor is it any longer. There is no evidence that these plays were made for touring purposes; they are shorter and call for slightly fewer actors than their First Folio counterparts, but this alone is not evidence that they served as touring texts. As for the memorial reconstruction hypothesis, it has come under increasing fire as scholars realize that, given authorial and non-authorial revision, as well as company changes and publishing practices, the situation is more complex than has often been acknowledged. Barbara Kreps, in discussing the relationship of 1 Contention to 2 Henry VL notes that memorial reconstruction is a hypothesis which is "unprovable,"

124 and that the "good" text-"bad" quarto relationship "is more complex than either side

admits" (179). Paul Werstine echoes this sentiment, referring to memorial reconstruction

as "undemonstrable" (330). Janette Dillon even goes so far as to question the assumption

that the quarto texts represent good performance versions, emphasizing the intangible

factor of publishing practices, which means that we don't know now printed texts relate

to what was performed (74-86). Still more problematic is the assumption, related to the

question of Pembroke's repertory, that, because Pembroke's possessed the quarto texts,

they also had what we have come to know as the First Folio versions. This speculation is undemonstrated, and probably undemonstrable, as it is based on the assumption that the

quartos are adaptations, "bad" or otherwise, of the First Folio versions. All of these plays might possibly have been in Pembroke's repertory, but this is not a certainty; nor should it be, since we are dealing with "bad" quartos. And when we look at "bad" quartos, says

Werstine, "we don't know what we see" (330).

All of these assumptions, of course, are part of the larger urge to construct narratives. This urge is natural enough, since human beings tend to think in terms of stories and narratives. However, problems arise when these narratives take on lives of their own, and they do take on lives of their own when scholars forget that they are dealing with narratives that have been imposed on the evidence. Because Pembroke's

Men went bankrupt in the provinces, there has been a tendency to view it as a touring company, and also to see touring as a ruinous activity to be avoided if at all possible.

These narratives are possible interpretations of partial data, but other evidence suggests other narratives that are equally possible. A narrative is a powerful thing, however, and even when identified, it is difficult to break a narrative's hold. It is easy to look back at

Fleay and see how determined he was to make Elizabethan theatre history fit a smooth narrative, yet many of the narratives he employs still remain powerful today. Present-day

125 scholars are perhaps somewhat more careful about their handling of evidence and of narratives, just as Fleay was more careful than his forbears in his handling of evidence.

But the same problems are still there--if a fact is missing, most scholars are all to willing to theorize its existence and then treat the theory as if it were true. This tendency among scholars to create whatever evidence they need for a particular argument may not be ethically problematic in the way J.P. Collier's outright forgeries were, but it seems to me that the same sort of impulse to create whatever evidence is not forthcoming remains alive and well.

At this point one wonders if it is even possible to construct a history of

Pembroke's Men without playing into problematic assumptions or making logical leaps.

Perhaps it is not possible to write such a history; after all, much of the history of

Elizabethan theatre is fraught with incomplete evidence and questionable assumptions.

That having been said, there are pieces of arguments which do manage to avoid assumption and advance what can be said about Pembroke's.24 It may be that simply putting together a new argument is beneficial, because it opens up possibilities. Even if, upon inspection, these possibilities prove ill-founded and the argument collapses, the inspection process itself is valuable since it can pinpoint particular assumptions which the next account can try to avoid. In this way, Pembroke's Men may have a dual

24 For instance, Andrew Gurr provides an argument in his Shakespearian Playing Companies which I have not dealt with here which avoids the assumption of company continuity by suggesting that Pembroke's Men was formed completely anew in 1591, when Strange's Men left the Theatre for the Rose. James Burbage then set up Pembroke's Men as a competitor to Strange's and an occupant for his playhouse. Richard Burbage and Shakespeare may have been two of the players in that company. Since Strange's and Pembroke's were the only companies at court in 1592-93, and Strange's was at the Rose, Gurr says it stands to reason that Pembroke's would have occupied one of the northern houses managed by Burbage, and it would stand to reason that Burbage's son would be in that company. While some other assumptions are at work here, Gurr still dodges many assumptions identified in this study, although he does fall into the usual pattern of assuming that Pembroke's also had the Henry VI and The Shrew texts, as well as the quartos. From this he moves on to the usual argument about actor names in texts, but at least he acknowledges that this is all a "farrago of speculative assignments" (270). Still, much of this account is extremely careful and perhaps even a model account (Shakespearean 266-273).

126 significance. While this company was significant in its own time, and thus merits historical attention, Pembroke's Men also is important as a test case for how to write history, particularly Elizabethan theatre history. Similarly, Pembroke's company, and what has been said about it, can serve as a study of what assumptions, issues, and narratives seem to recur in the writing of this history. Studying this company can serve as a reminder of what we now do better than those who came before us, but can also remind us of those traps that seem to recur regardless of how progress we have, or have not, made.

127 APPENDIX A

COMPANY ITINERARIES, 1584-1599

EXPLANATION

The following pages contain itineraries, as detailed as possible, for all of the active acting companies, named by patron, between roughly 1584 and 1599. In a few cases, I have extended an itinerary backwards or forwards a year or two, but in general I have restricted the itineraries to this fifteen-year period. I have included information about company patrons, if known, and the names of key actors for this time period, again if known. 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. Thus, when a record cannot be assigned to a 1 January-31

December year, I have left it in its fiscal year, noting the fiscal year dates; but once again, when the record can be pinpointed to a new style year, I have placed it in that new style year.

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

128 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 made an attempt to distinguish between the two in the itineraries. 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). In some cases, an undated record in a town's accounts may fall between two dated records; some scholars assume that the undated record must fall between the two dated records. While in some cases this appears to be a safe assumption, there are towns where it is clear the records are not arranged chronologically and so such an assumption is not safe. I have elected to err on the side of caution, and therefore all undated records/entries I simply assign to their fiscal year. So, where there is an exact date (or range of dates), either for the performance date or the record date, I have listed the record according to that date. Where there is no date apart from the fiscal year, the record is listed according to the fiscal year. 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.

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

129 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; for court performances, I have included the specific location.

Payment: When payment amounts are noted in the records, I have included them.

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 Shakespearian Playing Companies

MS--found in Malone Society Collections

M--found in John Tucker Murray's English Dramatic Companies, 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).

Generally, the REED volumes and manuscripts serve as my main source. I have cross­ referenced my findings from this source with Gurr's Shakespearian Playing Companies, partly for purposes of comparison, but also because there are times when Gurr records an entry I could not find in REED, or vice versa. Those REED entries not found in Gurr are generally attributable to records found since the publication of Gurr's book; 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 at this point cataloged these records, since the Malone Society has already done so. In the case of these provinces, I have cross-referenced Gurr's itineraries with the Malone Society's compiled records. Since 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. Since John Astington's English Court

130 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. Finally, for the Queen's Men itinerary, I have drawn chiefly on

McMillin and MacLean's itinerary in The Queen's Men and Their Plays, although I have supplemented this itinerary 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.

In arranging the order of the itineraries, I have first listed the companies I have been principally concerned with in this study (Strange's, Admiral's, Pembroke's,

Queen's, and Sussex's). The remaining itineraries I have ordered by the number of company mentions between 1584 and 1599, beginning with the most mentions and progressing to the fewest.

131 Lord Strange's Men (Derby's Men) Patron25 (to April 1594): Ferdinando Stanley (c. 1559-16 Apr 1594); styled Lord Strange from 1572; summonded to parliament as Lord Strange 28 Jan 1589; succeeded as 14th earl of Derby and lord of the Isle of Man 25 Sept 1593. Patron (after April 1594): William Stanley (c. 1561-29 Sept 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).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 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.

1584-85 29 Sept-29 Sept Beverly26 2s G,R 1586 9 Jan Court27 £10 c 1587 28 Dec Court2s £10 c 1587-88 Dec-Dec Coventry 5s G,R 1589 5Nov London, Cross Keys G 1590 27Dec Richmond, Court29 £10 A,C 1590-91 after 6 Dec 90 Faversham30 20s G,R late 90-May 91 Shoreditch, The Theatre G 91 16 Feb Greenwich, Court3I £10 A,C 27Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 28 Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C

25 Patron information is taken from Chamber, Elizabethan Stage, volume ii, and Tiner.

26 The small payment amount, combined with the fact that a Derby's musicians appeared in Coventry the preceding year, suggests that this visit might be by musicians, rather than an acting company.

27 This company appears to have been tumblers, hence Astington's omission.

28 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.

29 This court performance may have been a joint performance with the Lord Admiral's Men.

30 Gurr lists the year as 15 91-92.

31 This court performance may have been a joint performance with the Lord Admiral's Men.

132 91-92 Jun-10 Jun Bath 17s G, R Nov-Nov Coventry 20s G, R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 4s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 10s G, R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 20s R 92 1 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 9 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 6Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 8 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 19 Feb-22 Jun Southwark, The Rose G after 22 Jun Cambridge Town 20s G, R 24Jun Rye 13s 4d R 13 Jul Canterbury 30s G, R before 1 Aug Bristol32 30s G, R Aug-Dec Shrewsbury33 10s G Aug-Dec Chester34 Aug-Dec York35 7 Aug Ipswich36 20s G, MS Aug Bath37 16s 3d G 11 Oct Oxford38 6s 8d G, R 27Dec Hampton Court, Court £10 A, C c.26-28 Dec Newington Butts G 29-31 Dec Southwark, Rose Theatre G 31 Dec Hampton Court, Court £10 A, C 92-93 before 1 Aug 93 Bristol39 G,R

32 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.

33 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.

34 Inferred from Alleyn's letter to Henslowe.

35 Inferred from Alleyn's letter to Henslowe.

36 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.

37 This entry is not recorded in REED; Gurr does not provide a source.

38 Gurr lists the date as 6 October.

39 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.

133 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 20s G,R before 3 Feb 93 Shrewsbury, with Admiral's 40s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Sudbury 3s 6d G,MS 93 1 Jan Hampton Court, Court £10 A,C 1 Jan-I Feb Southwark, Rose Theatre G Apr-May Chelmsford 40 July Rye4t 13s 4d G Aug Bath42 16s 3d R 2Dec Coventry43 20s G,R Dec Caludon Castle 10s R 93-94 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s G,R 94 8May Ipswich 20s MS 15-19 May Southampton, with Morley' s44 £1 G,R 27May Winchester45 6s 8d G,R 15 Sept Norwich 20s G,R 20 Sept King's Lynn, with Morley's 20s G,MS 94-95 29 Sept-Easter Dunwich 5s G,MS 95-96 11 Oct 95-14 Oct 96 Bath 14s6dG,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Canterbury 18s G,R Dec-Dec Coventry I Os G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Dunwich 5s G,MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 20s G,R 96 11-24 Jul Bristol 30s G,R 30 Sept York, with Darcy's 10s G,R 96-97 15 Oct-14 Oct Bath 13s 4d G, R Dec-Dec Coventry I Os G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester46 20s R 97 26Mar Ipswich I Os G,MS

40 A letter Edward Alleyn wrote to his wife from Chelmsford is dated 2 May 1593 (Rutter 73).

41 This entry is not recorded in REED.

42 Gurr lists payment as l2s 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.

43 Beginning with this performance, Strange's is known as Derby's

44 Gurr lists this entry for 1592-93, but the records for that year are missing, so he may be in error.

45 The company is listed as the Countess of Derby's on this date. Gurr lists the date as 16 May.

46 Gurr lists this entry as 1595-96.

134 24 Apr-14 May Bristol 10s G,R 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry (possibly twice) 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Kendal 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leominster 10s G,R 98 after 9 Jan Leicester 10s G,R 98-99 before 22 Jun Leicester 10s R 99 16 Oct Leicester 20s G,R Provincial notices continue until 1620.

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 Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 Nov-Nov Coventry 20s G,R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 5s G,R 85 12 Jun Dover, with Hunsdon's 20s G,R 27Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 20s G,R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 6s 8d G,R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester, with Lord Chamberlain's 4s G,R 86 6 Jan Greenwich, Court, with Hunsdon's £10 A,C 20 Feb Ipswich 20s G,MS 15 July Rye 10s G,R 86-87 Jun-Jun Bath 10s G,R Nov-Nov Coventry 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 20s G,R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 7s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 4s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Plymouth 10s G,R 87 after 15 May Southampton 20s G,MS 26May Ipswich 10s G,MS 28May Aldeburgh 20s MS 135 York 30s G,R 87-88 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 20s R 88 29Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 88-89 29 Sept-29 Sept Cambridge 10s G,R 89 11 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 28 Dec Court, with Paul's Boys47 £10 c 89-90 29 Sept-29 Sept Canterbury, with Queen's48 30s G,R Dec-Dec Coventry 20s G,R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 6s 8d G,R 31 Oct-17Feb lpswich49 10s G,MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich £1 G,MS 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s G,R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 10s G,R 25 Jul Marlborough 7s 4d G 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Winchester 10s G,R 90 3 Mar Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 23 Jun Rye 13s 4d G, R 26 Jun New Romney 20s R 9-15 Aug Bristol 30s G,R 17 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R 1 Oct Faversham 10s G,R 27Dec Richmond, Court50 £10 A,C 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 10s G,R to May 91 Shoreditch, The Theatre G 29 Sept-29 Sept Winchester 20s G,R 91 16 Feb Greenwich, Court5 I £10 A,C after 1 Sept Southampton £1 G,R 18 Sept Rye 10s G,R 91-92 Jun-Jun Bath 16s3dG,R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 3s 4d G,R

47 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.

48 Gurr lists the year for this notice as 1590-91.

49 Gurr lists the date of this entry as 1590.

50 This performance may have been joint, with Strange's.

51 This performance may have been joint, with Strange's.

136 92 after 15 Jan Aldeburgh 1Os MS 7 Aug Ipswich, with Derby's52 20s G, MS 29 Sept-24 Dec Congleton 7s R 19 Dec Leicester 8s G, R 92-93 29 Nov 92-29 Dec 93 Bridgwater53 £1 G, R Nov-Nov Coventry 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 1Os G, R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 3s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich, with Stafford's 20s G, MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 20s G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury 1Os G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury, with Strange's 40s R 93 3 Feb Shrewsbury54 10s G, R Apr York, with Morden's 40s G, R 1st wk May Newcastle, with Morley's 30s G, R Jul Rye 13s 4d G, R 16 Oct Lyme Regis 5s R 93-94 11 Sept 93-0ct 94 Bath, with Lord Norris's55 22s lOdG, R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s 8d G, R 94 14-16 May Southwark, The Rose G 3-13 Jun Newington Butts, with Chamberlain's G 15 Jun-31 Dec Southwark, The Rose G 28 Dec Greenwich, Court £ 10 A, C 94-95 Oct 94-10 Oct 95 Bath 13s lOdG, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 20s G, R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 20s G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 1Os G, R 95 1 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A, C 1 Jan-26 Jun Southwark, The Rose G 6 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A, C 25 Aug-31 Dec Southwark, The Rose G 95-96 11 Oct 95-14 Oct 96 Bath 14s 2d G, R December Coventry 10s G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20s G, R

52 By "Derby's," Strange's is probably meant; however, it is unclear. Derby's musicians were touring at this time.

53 Gurr lists the date for this entry as September 1593.

54 Gurr lists the year for this entry as 1592.

55 Gurr lists the payment as 23s 9d.

137 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20d R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s 4d G, MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 1Os G, R 96 1 Jan-27 Feb Southwark, The Rose G 1 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A ,C 4 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A, C 21 Feb Faversham 10s G, R 22 Feb Whitehall (?), Court £ 10 A, C 24 Feb Whitehall(?), Court £10 A, C 12 Apr-28 Jul Southwark, The Rose G 19-26 Aug Dunwich 5s G, MS 27 Oct-31 Dec Southwark, The Rose G 97 1 Jan-12 Feb Southwark, The Rose G 3 Mar-16 Jul Southwark, The Rose G 4th wk Apr Newcastle 20s G, R 27 Aug Ipswich 10s G, R 11 Oct-160056 Southwark, The Rose G 27 Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 98 27 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 27 Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 99 6 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 18 Feb Richmond, Court £10 A, C Sept-Dec Bristol 30s G, R Oct Leicester 18s 8d G, R 27 Dec Richmond, Court £10 A, C 28 Dec Coventry 1Os G, R This company continues to appear until 1603, when it passes under royal patronage and survives under various names (Prince's, Palatine's, Palsgrave's) until 1624.

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

56 Beginning with this set of records, Henslowe's Diary becomes less meticulous in recording performances. There may still have been some breaks in the Admiral's tenure at the Rose before their move to the Fortune in 1600. For example, in 1599 there are provincial notices of the Admiral's Men.

138 from appearance in Henslowe's Diary at the same time these other five appear)57 ; Ben Jonson (inferred from the fact that he wrote Isle ofDogs). 58

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 91-93 Shoreditch, The Theatre? G 92 26Dec Hampton Court, Court £10 A,C 92-93 11 Jun 92-10 Sept 93 Bath59 16s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s 4d G, MS 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 20s G,MS 19 Dec-20 Jun Leicester 14s G,R 28 Oct-27 Oct Ludlow60 20s 7d R 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury 40s G,R 93 6Jan Hampton Court, Court £10 A,C June Caludon Castle 40s R June York 40s G,R July Rye 13s 4d G, R November Coventry 30s G,R 93-94 25 Mar-24 Mar Bewdley 20s G,R 95 7 Apr95 Ipswich 10s G,MS 95-96 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s 4d G, MS 5 Aug-17 Jul Oxford 10s G,R 96-97 15 Oct-14 Oct Bath 20s G,R 97 c. 20 Feb-c. 28 Jul Soutwark, Swan Theatre6I G 28 Aug-10 Sept Bristol (twice) £2 G,R 98 25 Jun-8 Jul Bristol 30s G,R 7 Oct Dover 10s G,R 12 Dec Coventry 10s G,R 22 Dec Bewdley 20s G,R 98-99 14 Oct-13 Oct Bath 14s 2d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 10s MS

57 However, Anthony Jeffes was definitely in Brunswick as late as December 1596 (see Schirckx).

58 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 two, this assumption is questionable.

59 Pembroke's is also charged 2s for breaking a "bowe" during the visit.

60 Gurr lists the payment as 32s.

61 Several phrases in the Court of Requests suit involving Langley and the ex-Pembroke's Men at the Rose suggest the possibility that other, unnamed Pembroke's Men may have continued playing at the (now unlicensed) Swan until early 1598. There is no other evidence, however, to verify this possibility.

139 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester62 13s 4d G, R 99 11-12 Apr Norwich G,R 4 July Coventry 10s G,R 2-15 Sept Bristol 30s G,R Oct Newcastle 52s 4d G, R 99-00 Marlborough 8s G 00 18 Jan York 40s G,R May-Mar Bristol 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 17s G,R 15 Feb Hardwick 3s 4d G,R 28-29 Oct Southwark, The Rose G

Queen's Men Patron: Elizabeth Tudor (7 Sept 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 Tarleton, 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?

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 3 Mar Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 13-14 Jul Kirtling Manor (North's estate) 10s R Aug York £3 6s R York 40s R 31 Sep Leicester 15s 8d R 10 Oct Wollaton Hall 12d R 26Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 28 Dec London, Leicester House MM 84-85 8 Sep-8 Sep Dover 43s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 10s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 10s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 20s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R Norwich 30s R 85 3 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A, C

62 Gurr lists the payment as 8s 6d.

140 6 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 23 Feb Somerset House, Court £10 A,C 24 Feb-Jul Cambidge 26s 8d R 21 Apr London, Leicester House £5 MM 20Nov London, Leicester House £5 MM 26Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 85-86 29 Sep-29 Sep Al de burgh 20s MS Oct-Oct Bridgwater 30s R Nov-Nov Coventry 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 53s 4d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 23s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 23s 4d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Norwich 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 10s R 86 1 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 13 Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 17-23 Jul Bristol 20s R 13 Aug Nottingham 40s R 22Aug Faversham 20s R 21 Sep Lydd 20s R 24 Sep Dover 40s R 27 Sep Canterbury 30s R 29 Sep Rye63 20s MM 25 Oct Ipswich 26s 8d MS 14Nov King's Lynn, with Sussex's £3 10s MS 26Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 86-87 Abingdon64 20s R Abingdon 10s R 15 Jun-14 Jun Bath 19s 4d R 23 Jun-9 Jul Bristol £2 R 29 Sep-29 Sep Canterbury 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 30s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 24s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Norwich 36s 8d R Saffron Walden 6s 8d MM 17 Dec-17 Dec Stratford 20s MM

63 This entry does not appear in the corresponding REED volume.

64 There appears to be some confusion regarding the Abingdon visits. The REED manuscript lists a payment of20s 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.

141 29 Sep-29 Sep Worcester 10s R 87 1 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 6Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 28 Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 13 Jun Thame65 MM 24 Jun Cambridge, Trinity College 30s R 3 Jul Ipswich 26s 8d MS 19 Jul Al de burgh 40s MS 25 Jul Southampton 40s R 4Aug King's Lynn 40s MS 12Aug Rye 20s R 19Aug Dover 45s 2d R 20Aug Nottingham 13s 4d R 4 Sep Beverly R 9 Sep York, with players in "same livery" £3 6s 8d R Sep Coventry 20s R Sep Coventry 20s R 28-29 Oct Kitling Manor 13s R 16 Dec Al de burgh 20s MS 26Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 87-88 15 Jun 87-18 Jun 88 Bath 15s R Dec-Dec Coventry 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham 12s 2d R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 20s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 20s R 29 Spe-29 Sep Plymouth 10s R Saffron Walden 3s 4d MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Worcester R 88 6Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 2 Feb Canterbury 20s R 18 Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 27Mar Canterbury 20s R 6Apr Dover 10s R lOApr Rye 20s R 3 Jun Lyme Regis 8s R 12 Jul Gloucester 33s 6d R

65 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.

142 14-20 Jul Bristol £2 R 19 Jul Bath 23s R 11-17 Aug Bristol 26s 8d R 14Aug Bath 27s R 6-12 Oct New Park, Stanley estate R 15Nov Leicester66 10s R 10 Dec Norwich £4 R 17 Dec Ipswich 20s MS c. 24 Dec Dover 20s R 26Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 88-89 29 Sep-29 Sep Canterbury 30s R Nov-Nov Coventry 20s R Nov-Nov Coventry 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Dublin £4 R 29 Sep-29 Sep Dublin, with Essex's £4 R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham67 20s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 5s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep King's Lynn 26s 8d MS 29 Sep-29 Sep Lyme Regis 10s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 13s 4d R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Nottingham, Symon's branch 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Nottingham, Duttons' and "others" 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 10s R 89 30 Jan Faversham 20s R 9 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 14 Feb New Romney 10s R 15 Feb Lydd 20s R 17 Feb Rye 20s R lOMar Winchester 20s R 17 Apr Gloucester 20s R 20May Leicester, with "others" 10s 8d R 22May Ipswich 30s MS 30May Al de burgh 40s MS 3 Jun Norwich68 R

66 REED lists the date as 15 November, but McMillin and MacLean list it as 6 November.

67 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."

68 The payment for this visit appears to be part of the £4 payment noted on the 10 December 1588 visit. 143 6-10 Jul Lathom House, Stanley estate R 2Aug Maidstone 20s R 23 Aug Dover 40s R 25Aug Rye 20s R 2 Sep Reading 20s R Sep Winchester 20s R 7-15 Sep Knowsley, Stanley estate R 10-20 Sep Carlisle MM 29 Sep-25 Nov Chester 20s R 5-11 Oct Bristol £2 R Oct Edinburgh MM Nov Bath 15s R 26Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 89-90 29 Sep-29 Sep Canterbury, with Admiral's69 30s R Dec-Dec Coventry 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 26s 8d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham 20s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 30s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 20s R 28 Oct-27 Oct Ludlow70 10s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 15 Nov-13 Nov Marlborough 10s MM 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 16s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 10s R 16 Jul-10 Jul Oxford 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Winchester 20s R 90 4 Jan Faversham, with Essex's 20s R 1 Mar Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 22Apr Norwich 40s R Apr-Oct Nottingham 20s R 1-7 Jun Knowsley, Stanley Estate, Duttons' R 24 Jul Shrewsbury 20s R 2-8 Aug Bristol 32s R lOAug Canterbury 20s R 20Aug New Romney 20s R

69 McMillin and MacLean list the year for this entry as 1590-91 and do not note the presence of the Admiral's Men.

70 McMillin and MacLean date the entry to July.

144 25 Aug Rye 20s R before 29 Sep Al de burgh 40s MS 29 Sep Newark 20s R 29 Sep-25 Nov Chester 20s lOd R 30 Oct Leicester 40s R 26Dec Richmond, Court, Duttons' £10 A,C 90-91 2 Jan-lJan Bridgnorth 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Cambridge University 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham (twice) 40s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 10s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 5s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 30s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester, with Sussex's7l 30s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 13s 4d R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 13s 4d R Saffron Wal den 3s 4d MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Shrewsbury 40s R 25 Dec-24 Dec Stratford 20s MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Weymouth-Melcombe Regis 10s R 91 1 Jan Richmond, Court, Laneham's £10 A 2 Jan Maidstone 20s R 3 Jan Richmond, Court, Duttons' £10 A,C 6 Jan Richmond, Court, Duttons' £10 A,C 11 Jan Canterbury 20s R 23 Jan Dover 10s R Feb Winchester 20s R 14 Feb Greenwich, Court, Duttons' £10 A,C 14Feb Southampton, with Sussex's 20s R 28 Feb-6 Mar Bristol, with Sussex's 26s 8d R 25Mar Coventry, with Sussex 15s R 15 May Ipswich 20s MS 28May Ipswich 30s MS 28May Maidstone 10s R Jun Winchester 20s R 2 Jun Faversham 10s R c. 7 Jun Aldeburgh72 MS

71 The February/March 1591 alliance ofone 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 for sure.

72 The burial of Humphrey Swaine, Queen's Man, establishes this visit.

145 9 Jun New Romney73 10s MM 20Jun King's Lynn (twice) £4 MS 23 Jun Norwich 40s R 29 Jun Southampton, Dutton branch 20s R 9 Jul Poole, with Children of the Chapel74 9s R 27 Jul-29 Sep Bristol 30s R 18Aug Winkburn 40s MM 24Aug Coventry 30s R 1st week Sep Newcastle £5 R 29 Sep-25 Nov Chester 40s R 11 Oct Alde burgh 20s MS 20 Oct Coventry 20s R 26Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 91-92 before 15 Jan 91 Al de burgh 20s MS Jun 91-10 Jun 92 Bath 15s 6d R Jun 91-10 Jun 92 Bath 40s R Bath75 15s 6d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Cambridge I Os R 29 Sep-29 Sep Cambridge, Trinity College76 2s 6d R Nov-Nov Coventry, Dutton branch77 5s R Nov-Nov Coventry 40s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 7s R 6 Dec-4 Dec Fordwich 20s 16d R 1-7 Dec-1-7 Dec Fordwich 6s 8d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 30s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 40s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 2 Nov-2Nov Maidstone 30s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 20s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 78 20s R

73 This entry does not appear in REED.

74 McMillin and MacLean list the payment as 20s and omit the presence of the Children of the Chapel.

75 McMillin and MacLean date the entry to between June and 19 September, 1591.

76 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.

77 McMillin and MacLean note this entry, but question if it represents a separate visit from the other Conventry visit in this year.

78 McMillin and MacLean list the year as 1592-93.

146 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney I Os R 29 Sep-29 Sep Nottingham 20s R Saffron Walden 6s 8d MM 25 Dec-25 Dec Stratford 20s MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Winchester 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Worcester £4 R 92 30Mar Canterbury 20s R 1 May Ipswich 33s 4d MS 10 Jun Cambridge University 20s R 2-15 Jul Bristol £2 R 24 Jul York £3 6s 8d R 24 Jul York79 20s R 3 Aug Southampton 40s R 22Aug Bath 14s 9d R 24 Aug-29 Sep Cambridge Univesity, Dutton branch R 17Nov Canterbury 13s R Rochester 20s MM 92-93 29 Sep-29 Sep Barnstaple 10s R Nov-Nov Coventry 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 36s 8d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham 20s R 4 Dec-3 Dec Fordwich80 6s 8d MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Lyme Regis, Dutton branch8I 12s 6d R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Plymouth 9s R Reading 20s R Reading82 3s 4d R 25 Dec-25 Dec Stratford 20s MM 93 25 Feb Oxford I Os R 3 Apr Bridgwater 15s R 27May Norwich 40s R Summer Kendal 20s R Jun Caludon Castle £3 R 20Jun Leicester 24s R

79 It is unclear, but this entry may refer to the same visit as the above entry.

80 This entry is not in REED.

81 McMilling and MacLean date the visit to between 9 December-26 May.

82 McMillin and MacLean note this entry, but question if it represents a separate visit from the other Reading visit in this year.

147 28 Jun Chatsworth, Cavendish estate 20s R 3rd week Sep Newcastle £3 R Sep York 53s 4d R 18 Oct Norwich 40s R 26Nov Southampton £16s8d R 93-94 11 Sep 93-0ct 94 Bath 22s 6d R Dec-Dec Bridgwater83 £1 R 29 Sep-29 Sep Canterbury84 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham (twice) 30s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Ipswich 26s 8d MS 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 10s R 2 Nov-2Nov Maidstone 20s R 94 6 Jan Hampton Court, Court £10 A,C 1-8 Apr Southwark, The Rose, with Sussex's G 4 Jul Coventry 40s R Jul Caludon Castle 12s R 4-10 Aug Bristol 30s R after 10 Aug Southampton £2 R 2 Sep York 20s R 25 Jun Norwich 30s R Rochester £1 MM 94-95 Sep/Oct 94-10 Oct 95 Bath 18s 4d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Canterbury 30s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 20s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 5s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 30s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Ipswich 26s 8d MS 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 40s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 3s4d R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 13s 4d R 2Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 20s R 12 Jul 94-5 Aug 95 Oxford University 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 20s R Wallingford 2s 6d R 95 22 Feb Rochester 20s MM 3 Apr Winchester 20s R 15 Apr Lyme Regis 15s 4d R 29Apr Bridgwater £1 R

83 McMillin and MacLean list the year as 1594-95.

84 McMillin and MacLean date this entry to 5-25 Dec 1594.

148 21 Jul King's Lynn 20s MS 4Aug Londesborough, Clifford Household 3s 4d MM 8Aug York £3 6s 8d R 23 Aug Dover 20s R 29Aug Coventry 20s R 95-96 10 Dec-10 Dec Bridgwater £1 R Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R Dec-Dec Coventry 40s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Exeter 13s 4d R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 6s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester 33s 2d R 29 Sep-29 Sep King's Lynn 20s MS 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester lls R 28 Oct-27 Oct Ludlow85 20s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 15s R 5 Aug 95-17 Jul 96 Oxford I Os R 29 Sep-29 Sep Ipswich 26s 8d MS Saffron Walden I Os R 96 3 Apr Rochester I Os MM 24Apr Rye 20s R 30Apr Faversham 20s R Jul York 40s R 8-21 Aug Bristol £2 R 5-11 Sep Hardwick, Cavendish estate 20s R 12 Oct Leominster 20s R York 20s R 96-97 15 Oct-14 Oct Bath 31s IOd R 2 Jan-I Jan Bridgnorth 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Cambridge University 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Cambridge 20s R Dec-Dec Coventry 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham 20s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 6s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Leicester 30s R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 20s R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney86 I Os R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford I Os R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford I Os R

85 McMillin and MacLean list the year as 96-97.

86 McMillin and MacLean give 28 April 1595-96 as the record date.

149 29 Sep-29 Sep Shrewsbury 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Weymouth-Melcombe Regis 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Winchester 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Weymouth-Melcombe Regis 10s R 97 12 Mar Rye 16d R before 20 Mar Canterbury87 R 22Mar Dover 12s R 19 Apr Ipswich 20s MS 5 May-16 Jul Dunwich 6s MS 24 Jun Saffron Walden 3s 4d MM before 2 Jul Oxford 10s R c. 8 Jul Nottingham R 17 Jul-13 Aug Bristol £2 R 29 Sep-24 Dec Congleton 20s R 29 Sep-24 Dec Congleton88 20s R 6Nov-25 Dec Bristol £2 R 9Dec Bridgwater89 20s R 97-98 15 Oct-13 Oct Bath 10s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Dover90 13s 4d R 29 Sep-29 Sep Faversham £1 R 13 Dec-15 Dec Marlborough 20s MM 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney91 10s R Saffron Walden 6s 8d MM 29 Sep-29 Sep Sherbourne 2s R Worcester R 98 9Jan Leicester 14s 6d R 10 Jun Ipswich £16s 8dMS 27 Jun Norwich 20s R Aug York 40s R 98-99 Chelmsford 10s MM

87 This visit is inferred from a 20 Mar 1597 jury presentment which records an attack on one of the "Queenes plears."

88 This second entry is not recorded by McMillin and MacLean. It might be that this entry refers to the same visit as the preceding one.

89 The date for this entry may also be 9 Dec 1598.

90 McMillin and MacLean list the date for this record as 8 April 1598.

91 This entry appears in the 1597-98 records, but the entry is for a reimbursement for a payment made during an earlier year. McMillin and MacLean appear to have assigned this entry to an earlier year, but I am not sure which.

150 29 Sep-29 Sep Dartmouth92 10s R 8 Sep-8 Sep Dover 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Dunwich 6s 8d MS 8 Sep-8 Sep Folkestone 6s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Ipswich £16s8dMS 6 Jan-6 Jan Mal don 10s MM 18 Jul-17 Jul Oxford University 25s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Oxford 10s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Plymouth 6s 8d R Reading 20s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Sherbourne 2s R 29 Sep-29 Sep Shrewsbury 20s R 99 after 14 Feb Faversham 20s R 3 Mar Winchester 20s R 12 Sep York 40s R York93 40s Notices continue until 1603.

Sussex's Men Patron: Henry Radcliffe (before 1533-14 Dec 1593); succeeded as 9th earl of Sussex, 4th Viscount, and 10th Lord FitzWalter 9 Jun 1583. Known Key Players: Richard Tarleton, until 1583 (Tarleton 's Tragical Treatises, 1578, says he is one of Sussex's players).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 13s 4d G, R 2Nov-2 Nov Maidstone £1 G,R 85 26Feb Lyme Regis 3s 4d R 15May Dover 6s 8d G,R 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 6s 8d G,R Nov-Nov Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 5s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 6s 8d G,R 86 19 Feb Dover 6s 8d G,R 5 Mar Southampton 20s G,R Jul-Aug Nottingham 20s G,R May Bath 6s 9d G,R 86-87 15 Jun-14 Jun Bath 10s R 15 Jun-14 Jun Bath94 8s lOd R

92 McMillin and MacLean list this entry as 8 Nov 1598.

93 McMillin and MacLean do not record this entry; perhaps it refers to the same visit as the preceding entry.

151 29 Sept-29 Sept Canterbury 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Kendal, with Essex's 2s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 20s G,R after 24 Dec Southampton 20s G,R 87 13-19 Aug Bristol95 20s G,R Sept Coventry 13s 4d G, R 23 Sept Ipswich 10s G,MS York 30s G,R 87-88 Jun-Jun Bath 10s lOdG, R Dec-Dec Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Southampton 40s G,R 88 18 Apr Ipswich 13s4d G, MS 20Jun York 26s 8d G, R 27 Sept Gloucester96 6s 8d G,R 5 Dec Canterbury 13s 4d G, R 88-89 29 Sept-29 Sept Al de burgh 6s 8d MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 13s 4d G, R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 5s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 5s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 3s 4d G,R 89 17 Feb Leicester 20s G,R 1 Mar Ipswich 10s G,MS 8Mar Norwich 20s G,R 2 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R 5 Oct Faversham 10s G,R 19Nov Leicester 10s G,R 89-90 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s G,R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 6s 8d R 90 17 Feb Ipswich 10s G,MS 28-29 Feb Norwich 20s G,R 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 13s G 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R 29 Sep-29 Sep Gloucester, with Sussex's97 30s R

94 The company is listed in the entry as "Ratcliffe's," so another company may be referred to here.

95 Gurr lists the visit as September, 1587.

96 Gurr lists the date as 17 September.

152 91 14Feb Southampton, with Queen's 30s G,R 17 Feb Ipswich £1 G 28 Feb-6 Mar Bristol, with Queen's 26s 8d R 24Mar Coventry, with Queen's 15s G,R 5 Jun Norwich 20s G,R 11 Aug Leicester 33s 4d G 91-92 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 5s G,R 92 2 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s 4d G, MS 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 20s G,MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Sudbury 2s 6d G,MS 93 1st wk Sept Newcastle 60s G,R Aug York 40s G,R 7Dec Winchester 10s G,R 27-31 Dec Southwark, The Rose G 94 1 Jan-6 Feb Southwark, The Rose G 1-8 Apr Southwark, The Rose, with Queen's G

Worcester's Men Patrons: (I) William Somerset (c. 1527-21Feb1589); styled Lord Herbert until he succeeded as 8th earl of Worcester 26 Nov 1549. (2) Edward Somerset (c. 1550-3 Mar 1628); styled Lord Herbert until he succeeded as 9th earl of Worcester and Baron Herbert 21Feb1589. Known Key Players: Robert Browne, James Tunstall, Edward Alleyn, William Harrison, Thomas Cooke, Richard Jones, Edward Browne, Richard Andrews (1584, Leicester altercation); Will Kemp, Christopher Beeston, John Duke (about 1600, Henslowe's Diary)

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 Mar York 10s G,R 84-85 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 5s G,R 85 Mar York 10s R 89-90 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 6s 8d G,R 90 20Mar Ipswich 13s 4d G, MS 24 Oct York 20s G,R 6Dec Faversham 10s G,R 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester I Os G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s G,R

97 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.

153 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 6s 8d G,R Marlborough 3s 4d G 29 Sept-29 Sept Plymouth, with Derby's musicians 23s 8d G 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury, with Derby's musicians 23s 8d G, R 91 31 Mar Norwich 20s G,R 2 Jun Coventry 10s G,R 26 Jun Leicester 33s 4d G, R 24 Jun-28 Sept Congleton 3s 4d R 1st wk Sept Newcastle 40s G,R 11 Nov Southampton 20s G,R 91-92 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 10s G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 5s G,R 92 15 Apr Norwich 20s G,R 10 Sept Bridgwater 13s 4d G, R 9Dec Lyme Regis 5s 4d R Plymouth 5s G 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s4d G, MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 20s G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Plymouth 5s G,R 93 4th wk Aug Newcastle £3 G,R May York 30s G,R after July Rye 13s 4d G, R 18 Oct Southampton £1 G,R 93-94 11 Sept-10 Sept Bath lls G,R 11 Sept-10 Sept Bath 6s lOd G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 20s G,R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 10s G,R 94 lOMar Ipswich 10s G,MS 30Mar Norwich 20s G,R early Sept Rye 10s G,R 7 Sept 94 Southampton £1 G,R 94-95 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 30s G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s G,R 95 1 Jul York 20s G,R 7-12 Sept Rye 10s G,R 3 Dec Ludlow 6s 8d G,R 95-96 11 Oct 95-14 Oct 96 Bath 8s lOd G, R 96 1 Aug Leicester 6s 8d G,R

154 96-97 Dec-Dec Bridgwater98 10s G, R 98 17-29 Sept Bristol 26s 8d G, R 98-99 Nov Coventry 10s G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 10s G, MS 99 28Mar York 30s G, R Apr York 30s R Playing notices continue until 1603, when the company passes under royal patronage and survives until 1625 under various names (Queen Anne's Men, Red Bull/Revels Company).

Essex's Men Patron: Robert Devereaux (19 Nov 1566-25 Feb 1601); styled Viscount Hereford until succeeded as 19th earl of Essex, 6th Lord Ferrers, and 9th Lord Bourchier 22 Sept 1576; beheaded Feb 1601. Known Key Players: "Lake" (1589 Coventry payee).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 Mar York 20s R Jul Ludlow 13s 4d G, R Sept Bristol 20s G,R 3 Nov Faversham 5s G,MS 84-85 16 Jun-16 Jun Bath 7s 4d G,R 8 Sept-8 Sept Dover99 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 13s 4d G, R 85 12-26 Jun Norwich 10s G,R 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 2s 6d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 5s G,R before 22 Aug 86 Ipswich100 20s G,MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 20s G,R 86 17 Feb Oxford R 5 Mar Dover 10s G,R 23 Mar Southampton 20s G,R 26 Mar-2 Apr Bristol 26s 8d G, R Apr Ludlow 16s G,R 86-87 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 15s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 5s G,R

98 Gurr lists the date as February 1597

99 Gurr lists the entry as November 1583.

100 Gurr lists the entry as 1586.

155 29 Sept-29 Sept Kendal, with Sussex's 2s R Stratford 5s G 87 27 Feb York 30s G,R 19 Jun-7 Aug Shrewsbury 20s G,R 16 Jul Leicester 10s G,R 87-88 Dec-Dec Coventry 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 6s 8d G,R 1-7 Dec-1-7 Dec Fordwich 6s 8d G,R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich101 13s4d G, MS 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 10s G,R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 6s 8d R 24 Oct Nottingham 12d G,R 88 25 Jan Leicester 10s G,R Feb York 30s R 28 Sept Dover 20s G,R 1 Oct Rye 13s 4d G, R 31 Oct Al de burgh 13s 4d MS 88-89 Jun-Jun Bath 10s 9d G, R Nov Coventry 2s G,R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe102 6s 8d G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Lyme Regis 2s 6d R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 8s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Reading 10s G,R 89 Summer Dublin 10s G,R 31 Aug-13 Sept Knowsley, Stanley estate G,R 31 Oct Ipswich £1 G,MS 17Nov Maidstone 10s G,R 21 Nov Faversham 10s G,R 89-90 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 10s R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 15s G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 4s 6d R 90 4 Jan Faversham, with Queen's 20s G,R 5-11 Jul Bristol 30s G,R

101 Gurr lists the entry as 1588.

102 Gurr lists the entry as 1588.

156 2nd wk Nov Newcastle (tumblers) 40s R 91 22Apr King's Lynn 20s G,MS 24 Sept King's Lynn 26s 8d MS 92 21 May Ipswich 10s G,MS 94 31 Aug Smithills, Shuttleworth estate 2s G,R 95 lONov Hardwick, Cavendish estate 5s G,R 96 8Mar Faversham 10s G,R Apr Ludlow 20s G 96-97 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 6s 8d G,R 97 4-11 Sept Hardwick, Cavendish estates 2s 6d R

Leicester's Men Patron: Robert Dudley (24 Jun 1532 or 1533-4 Sept 1588); created baron of Denbigh, 28 Sept 1564; created 14th earl of Leicester 29 Sept 1564. Known Key Players: Thomas Clarke (1572 letter); James Burbage, William Johnson, John Laneham, John Perkin, Robert Wilson (1574 patent); possibly Will Kemp, George Bryan, Thomas Pope (1586 letter mentions Kemp; all three 1586 payees at Danish court, but in both cases it is not certain that these players were actually Leicester's Men).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 Nov-Nov Coventry 30s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept LeicesterI03 24s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 40s G,R 85 2 Jun Sudbury 6s 8d G 4Jun Ipswich 20s G,MS 5-6 Jul Kirtling Manor, North estate 10s R Aug Bath 14s G,R 85-86 29 Sept-29 Sept Abingdon 15s G 86 24Mar Exeter 10s G,R 27Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 86-87 Jun-Jun Bath 23s 8d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Canterbury 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 20s G,R 1-7 Dec-1-7 Dec Fordwich 6s 8d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 17s 4d G, R Marlborough 5s G 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 40s G,R 87 23 Jan Maidstone 6s 8d G,R

103 Gurr lists the entry as 1585.

157 4Mar Dover 20s G,R 1 Mar Rye 10s G,R after 23 Mar Southampton 30s G,R 4Apr Lyme Regis 5s R 9-15 Apr Bristol 26s 8d G, R 2-8 Jul Lathom House, Stanley estate G,R Jul Nottingham 10s G,R Jul Coventry 20s G,R 1 Aug Coventry 30s G,R 11 Dec Oxford 6s 8d G,R 87-88 after 13 Sept Al de burgh 6s 8d MS 15 Jun 87-18 Jun 88 Bath 20s G,R Dec-Dec Coventry 49s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter104 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 13s 4d G, R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 5s G,R 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe 10s G,R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s G,R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 20s G,R 25 Mar-25 Mar New Romney 20s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 40s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford University 20s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Reading 10s G,R 88 3 Feb Dover 13s 4d G, R 5 Feb Rye 13s 4d G, R Apr-Oct Nottingham 10s G,R 28 Apr Lyme Regis 6s R 14-15 May Plymouth 10s G,R 9-15 Jun Bristol 26s 8d G, R 17 Jun Gloucester 20s G,R 13 Jul York 30s G,R 4-7 Sept Norwich 40s G,R 14 Sept Ipswich £1 G,MS

Hunsdon's Men/Lord Chamberlain's Men Patrons: (1) Henry Carey (4 Mar 1526-23 Jul 1596); created 1st Baron Hunsdon 13 Jan 1559; Lord Chamberlain Jul 1585-1596. (2) George Carey (1547-8 Sept 1603); succeeded as 2nd Baron Hunsdon 23 Jul 1596; Lord Chamberlain 17 Apr 1597-4 May 1603.

104 The company is listed as the Lord High Steward's in this entry.

158 Known Key Players: Will Kemp, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage (1594-95 Court payees); John Heminges, George Bryan (1595-96 Court payees); Thomas Pope (1596-97 Court payee); Augustine Philips, Henry Condell, William Sly, Christopher Beeston, John Duke (1598, listed in Every Man in His Humour as the principle comedians); Richard Cowley (1600-01 Court payee).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 85 12 Jun Dover, with Admiral's 20s G,R 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 3s 4d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester, with Admiral's 4s G,R 86 6 Jan Greenwich, Court, with Admiral's £10 A,C 87-88 Saffron Walden G 93-94 Marlborough 2s 8d G 94-99 Shoreditch, The Theatre and Curtain G 94 26Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 27Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 94-95 29 Sept-29 Sept Cambridge Town 40s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 40s G,MS 95 26Jan Greenwich(?), Courtios £10 A,C 26Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 27Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 28 Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 95-96 20 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 16s G,R 96 6Jan Richmond, Court £10 A,C 22 Feb Whitehall (?), Court £10 A,C c. 1 Aug Faversham 16s G,R 26Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 27Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 96-97 15 Oct-14 Oct Bath 20s G,R 9 Oct-11 Sept Dover 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 13s 4d G, R Marlborough 6s 8d G 97 1 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 6Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 6 Feb Richmond, Court £10 A,C 8 Feb Richmond, Court £10 A,C 29-31 Aug Rye 20s G,R 11-17 Sept Bristol 30s G,R 26Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A,C

105 Chambers does not list this court performance, but does record one for 28 December, perhaps indicating a misreading on his part.

159 98 1 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 6 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 26 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 26 Dec Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 99 1 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 20 Feb Richmond, Court £10 A, C 26 Dec Richmond, Court £ 10 A, C Playing notices continue until 1603, when the company passes under royal patronage and survives as the King's Men until 1642.

Cbandos's Men Patrons: (1) Giles Brydges (c. 1548-21 Feb 1594); succeeded as 3rd Baron Chandos 11 Mar 1573. (2) William Brydges (after 1548-18 Nov 1602); succeeded as 4th Baron Chandos 21 Feb 1594. Known Key Players: Robert Armin (1600; he is referred to as a player in Chandos's in his Foole upon Foole, or Six Sortes ofSottes).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 11 Jan Gloucester 10s G,R 85 15 Mar Exeter 10s G,R 86 13 Aug Dover 5s G,R 86-87 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s G,R 87 York 20s G,R 87-88 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 10s G,MS 88-89 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 10s G,R 89 28 Dec Gloucester 20s G,R 90 5May Rye 10s G,R 30 Jun Gloucesterl06 10s R 91 3 Sept 91 Ipswich 10s G,MS 22 Sept Norwich107 10s G,R after 22 Sept Norwich1os 20s G,R 91-92 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 5s 6d G,R 92-93 November Coventry 13s 4d G, R 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 3s 6d G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 10s G,MS

106 The company is listed as "puppet players" in this entry.

107 Norwich records indicate that, although this company claimed to be Chandos's, it was in fact an imposter.

108 This company, also claiming to be Chandos's, was licensed.

160 93 Oct-Nov Norwich 10s G,R 28Nov Bridgwater £1 G,R 28 Nov/Dec Southampton 6s 8d G,R 94-95 December Coventry I Os G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 5s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 10s G,MS 95 28 Sept-4 Oct Hardwick, Cavendish estatel09 5s G,R 95-96 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s G 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s G,R Marlborough 6s 8d G 96 27Dec Norwich I Os G,R 96-97 15 Oct-14 Oct Bath 10s G,R Dec-Dec Coventry I Os G,R 97 15 Apr Ipswich 6s 8d G,MS Jun York I Os G,R 97-98 15 Oct-13 Oct Bath lls 9d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leominster 6s 8d G,R 99 4 Jun Coventry 10s G,R Playing notices continue until 1610.

Darcy's Men Patron: John Darcy (c. 1530-18 Oct 1602); succeeded as 2nd Lord Darcy 28 Aug 1558. Also possibly Thomas Darcy (c. 1565-21 Feb 1640); succeeded as 3rd Lord Darcy of Chiche 3 Mar 1581; created Viscount Colchester 5 Jul 1621 and 4th Earl Rivers 4 Nov 1626. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 89 25 Mar-25 Jun Congleton 2s 6d R 89-90 25 Dec-25 Mar Congleton 5s R 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester! 10 2s 6d R, M 91 20 May-4 Jun Bristol £16s8d R 1st wk Apr Newcastle 40s R 8 Jun Coventry I Os R,M 91-92 Jun 91-10 Jun 92 Bath 9s 6d R

109 Gurr lists the date as 30 Sept 1595.

110 The entry refers to the company as "Dakar's."

161 Nove-Nov Coventry 6s 8d R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury 10s R 92 10 Jun Leicester111 5s R,M 24 Jun-28 Sept Congleton 6s 8d R 4 Jul Ludlow 13s 4d R, M 4th wk Oct Newcastle 20s R 92-93 1-7 Dec-1-7 Dec Fordwich 6s R 93 after 20 Jun Leicester 10s R,M after Jul Rye 13s 4d R, M 2nd wk Oct Newcastle 20s R Nov30 York, with Ogle' s 20s R,M 94 Apr Caludon Castle, Berkeley Household 6s 8d R 94-95 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s R,M 95-96 29 Sept-29 Sept Beverly 10s R 96 December Coventry 6s 8d R,M 30 Sept York, with Derby's 10s R,M 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry 5s R,M 98-99 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 99 22 Jun Leicester 10s R,M Provincial notices continue until 1603.

Oxford's Men112 Patron: Edward de Vere (12 Aug 1550-24 Jun 1604); styled Lord Bolebec until he succeeded as 17th earl of Oxford 3 Aug 1562. Known Key Players: John Dutton, Lawrence Dutton (1580 poem); Robert Leveson (1580, jailed); John Symons (1584-85 court payee).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 1 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A, C 20Jan Ipswich 20s G, MS 3 Mar Whitehall, Court £10 A, C before 29 Sept Southampton 6s 8d G, R Jan-May Gloucester 6s 8d G, R 13 May Exeter 13s 4d G, R Jul Bridgwater 20s G, R 5Aug Ludlow 8s G, R

111 The entry refers to the company as "Dakar's."

112 Jt is not always clear if notices of Oxford's players refer to the adult or boy company of this name. During the period covered in this itinerary, the court appearances are apparently the boy company, while the provincial notices are the adult company, although this is not certain.

162 11 Aug Leicester 10s G,R 27Dec Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 84-85 16 Jun-16 Jun Bath 10s R Jun-Jun Bath 7s 9d G,R Nov-Nov Coventry 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 5s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 10s G,R 2 Nov-2 Nov Maidstone 10s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 20s G,R 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 5s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Totnes £1 G,R 85 1 Jan Courtll3 £10 c 17 Apr Sudbury 5s G,MS 4May Ipswich 20s G,MS 25May Lyme Regis 3s lOd R 30Jun York 20s G,R 85-86 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 20s G,R 86-87 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 10s G,MS 87 Jun York 20s G 94-95 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 3s 4d G,R The company resurfaces in London in 1602, whereupon it merges with Worcester's Men.

Berkeley's Men (Bartlett's Men) Patron: Henry Berkeley (26 Nov 1534-26 Nov 1613), 7th Lord Berkeley at birth. Known Key Players: Thomas Goodale, Arthur King (1581 City of London note).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 4 Jul Dover 5s R,G 7 Oct Nottingham 5s R,G 10 Oct Middleton Hall 10s 114 13 Oct Ticknall Hall 3s 115 Oct Wollaton Hall, Willoughby house 10s G 9Dec Bridgwater 10s R,G 84-85 8 Sept-8 Sept Dover11 6 10s R,G 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 10s R,G

113 This company may be tumblers; this is apparently why Astington omits this entry.

114 See Greenfield, "Touring" 254.

115 See Greenfield, "Touring" 254.

116 Gurr lists the date as May 1585.

163 Totnes 6s R,G 86-87 15 Jun-14 Jun Bath 9s lOd G 2 Feb-2 Feb Hythe117 3s 4d R,G 91-92 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 2s 6d R,G 92 11 Jun Ludlow 6s 8d R,G 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,G 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham £1 G 29 Sept-29 Sept LeicesterllS 10s R,G 98-99 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 10s MS Saffron Walden 10s G Notices continue until 1612.

Hertford's Men Patron: Edward Seymour (22 May 1539-6 Apr 1621); styled earl of Hertford 1547; created Baron Beauchamp and 9th earl of Hertford 13 Jan 1559. Known Key Players: Martin Slater (1603 Court payee).

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 86-87 Marlborough 21s 4d G 90 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 6s4d G 2nd wk Oct Newcastle 40s G,R 22Nov Leicester 20s G,R 91-92 Jun-Jun Bath 20s G,R Marlborough 15s G 29 Sept-29 Sept Southampton 20s G,R 92 6Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 6-19 Aug Bristol 10s G,R 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 10s G,R 96-97 Dec-Dec Coventry 20s G,R Notices continue until 1607.

Beauchamp's Menll9

117 Gurr lists the date as 1586.

118 Gurr lists the date as 1598.

119 This may be the same company as Hertford's Men, if Edward Seymour (1537-1621) is in fact its patron. If the itineraries of the two companies are combined, there are no contradictions, and the time frames match. 164 Patron: Edward Seymour (22 May 1537-6 Apr 1621); styled earl of Hertford, 1547; created Baron Beauchamp and earl of Hertford, 13 Jan 1559 Also possibly Edward Seymour (21 or 24 Sept 1561-c. 13 Jul 1612); styled Lord Beauchamp. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 86 after 22 Aug Faversham120 M 89-90 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 10s R Marlborough M 90 25 May Ipswich 13s 4d MS, M 6Apr Gloucester 20s R,M 7 Jun Norwich 20s R,M York 30s R,M 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham121 M 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 13s 4d R, M 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 6s 8d R Marlborough M 6Mar New Romney122 10s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury 13s 4d R, M 29 Sept-29 Sept Southampton 8s 4d R,M 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Faversham 6s 8d R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 10s R 95 lOApr Norwich 20s R 16May Ipswich 10s MS,R 96 4Dec Norwich123 M

Ogle's Men Patron: Cuthbert Ogle (c 1540-20 Nov 1597), succeeded as 7th Lord Ogle 1Aug1562. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation

However, both a "becham" and "harfford" company appear in Faversham in 1592-93, which would seem odd if this was in fact the same company. Ultimately, I believe that the fact that both names are used so consistently throughout this time period suggests that Beauchamp's Men was in fact a separate company.

120 Murray must be in error here, since the records for 1586 are lost.

121 Murray appears to have confused this record with the one from 1589-90.

122 The company is listed as "Bechyng" here.

123 This entry is not in REED.

165 93 2nd wk Feb Newcastle 20s R Apr Caludon Castle, Berkeley estate 6s 8d R 11-17 Nov Hardwick, Cavendish estate 20s R 30Nov York, with Darcy's 20s R,M 4th wk Dec Newcastle 20s R 93-94 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 8s4d R,M 94 27 Jul Rye 10s R 15-21 Dec Hardwick, Cavendish estate 10s R 94-95 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 5s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s R,M 95 18 Aug Lyme Regis ls R 28 Oct Coventry 10s R 18-22 Nov Hardwick, Cavendish estate 5s R 95-96 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Dunwich 5s MS 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 3s 4d R 29 Sept-29 Sept King's Lynn 6s MS 96 1st wk Feb Newcastle 20s R 26 Dec-1 Jan Hardwick, Cavendish estate 10s R 96-97 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 97-98 29 Sept-29 Sept Newark 13s 4d R Provincial notices continue intermittently until 1609.

Stafford's Men Patron: Edward Stafford (17 Jan 1536-18 Oct 1603); succeeded as 12th Baron Stafford 1 Jan 1566. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 6s 8d R,M 85-86 29 Sept-29 Sept Barnstaple 2s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 6s 8d R,M 86 23 Oct Bridgwater 13s 4d R 86-87 Stratford on Avon M 87 6 Oct York 26s 8d R, M 87-88 Nov-Nov Coventry 6s 8d R,M 89 17 Feb Rye 10s R,M 92 May-Aug Southampton 20s R,M 2 Sept Southampton 20s R,M 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich, with Admiral's 20s MS 94 6 Oct Bridgwater 6s 8d R 166 94-95 29 Sept-29 Sept Blandford Forum 2s 6d R 95-96 25 Dec-24 Mar Congleton 5s R 25 Dec-24 Mar Congleton124 5s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 6s 8d R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Lyme Regis 3s 4d R 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry 6s R,M 99 20 May-24 Jun Bristol 20s R,M Provincial notices continue until 161 7.

Morley's Men Patron: Edward Parker (c. 1551-1 Apr 1618); succeeded as 12th Lord Morley 22 Oct 1577. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 85 13 Dec Nottingham 5s R 86 1-7 Jun Smithills, Shuttleworth estate 2s 6d R,M 91 11 Oct Aldeburgh 125 10s MS 91-92 Nov-Nov Coventry 6s 8d R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Exeter 10s R,M 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 5s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Shrewsbury 13s4d R, M 92 5May Southampton 20s R,M 19Aug Rye 6s 8d R 92-93 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 13s4d MS,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Southampton 126 M 93 1st wk May Newcastle, with the Admiral's 30s R 27-28 Jun Gloucester lls 8d R, M 23 Nov Norwich 20s R 94 15-19 May Southampton, with Derby's £1 R 20 Sept King's Lynn, with Derby's 20s MS 94-95 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 8 Sept-8 Sept Folkestone 3s4d R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s R,M

124 This entry appears to refer to the same visit as the previous entry.

125 The entry says that Morley's were present at the same time as the Queen's, which may or may not point to a joint performance.

126 Murray records this visit, but the records for this year are missing.

167 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford University 10s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Oxford 6s 8d R 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 98-99 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s R,M Provincial notices continue until 1602.

Monteagle's Men Patron: William Parker (c. 1575-1 Jul 1622), succeeded as 5th Lord Monteagle 12 Jun 1585; succeeded as 13th Lord Morley 1Apr1618. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 92-93 11 Jun 92-10 Sept 93 Bath 10s R 93 26May Lyme Regis 5s4d R 2nd wk Nov Newcastle 20s R 94 1 Feb Coventry 13s 4d R, M 4-13 Mar Southampton 10s R,M 1st wk Aug Newcastle 40s R 94-95 29 Sept-29 Sept Blandford Forum 2s 6d R Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester (twice) 8s4d R,M 95 30 Jun Norwich 20s R,M 96-97 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 97-98 29 Sept-29 Sept Kendal 10s R 98 22 Jun Norwich 10s R,M 99 12Nov York 20s R,M Provincial records continue until 1616.

Huntingdon's Men (Hastings's Men) Patron: George Hastings (c. 1540-30 Dec 1604); succeeded as 21st earl of Huntingdon, 6th Lord Hastings, 9th Lord Botreaux, 14 Dec 1595. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 Nov-Nov Coventry 10s R, M 87-88 Dec-Dec Coventry 5s R,M

168 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester127 M 29 Sept-29 Sept Nottingham 6s 8d R 96-97 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R, M 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester128 19s 4d R, M 97 2 Jul Norwich 10s R, M 97-98 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R, M 99 6 Dec Coventry 10s R, M 7 Dec Hardwick, Cavendish estate 2s6d R Provincial notices continue until 1606.

Willoughby's Men Patron: Peregrine Bertie (12 Oct 1555-25 Jun 1601); succeeded as 13th Lord Willoughby de Eresby 19 Sept 1580. Also possibly Charles Willoughby (c. 1536-between Oct 1610 and 26 Oct 1612); succeeded as 2nd Baron of Willoughby of Parham 30 Jul 1570. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 29 Sept-29 Sept Beverly 2s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Beverly 6s 8d R 95 9Jun Ipswich 10s MS 21 Nov York R Skipton Castle, Craven M 95-96 29 Sept-29 Sept Beverly 10s R Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M 29 Sept-29 Sept Ipswich 10s MS 96 9Nov Ipswich 10s MS 97 4Dec Norwich, with Beauchamp'sl29 M 98 8 Dec King's Lynn 10s MS 98-99 Dec-Dec Coventry 10s R,M

Chanel ChildrenBo_

127 This entry is not in REED.

128 Prior to this entry, the company is known as Hastings's. Beginning with this entry, it is known as Huntingdon's. The gap between the last appearance as Hastings's and the first as Huntingdon's suggests that these are two separate companies under the same patron.

129 This entry is not in REED.

130 Gurr argues that The Chapel Children, Oxford's Boys, and Paul's Children were all essentially the same company. While this may be so, I have separated them out since it isn't completely clear that this is the case.

169 Patron: Elizabeth Tudor (7 Sept 1533-24 Mar 1603); acceeded as Elizabeth I 17 Nov 1558; crowned 15 Jan 1559. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 1583-1590 London, Paul's School131 G 84 6 Jan Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 2 Feb Whitehall, Court £10 A,C 86-87 29 Sept-29 Sept Norwich 20s G,R 87 14 Jul/3 SeptG Ipswich 20s G,MS 90-91 1-7 Dec-1-7 Dec Fordwich 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 26s 8d G, R 22 Jul-22 Jul Lydd 13s 4d G, R 29 Sept-29 Sept Poole, with Queen's R

Paul's Children132 - Patron: None. Managers: Sebastian Wescott, until 1582; then Thomas Giles until 1590. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 1586-90 London, Paul's School G 87 26 Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 88 1 Jan Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 2Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A,C 27 Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 89 1 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A,C 12 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A,C 28 Dec Richmond, Court £10 A,C 90 1 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A,C 6 Jan Richmond, Court £10 A,C 90-91 29 Sept-29 Sept Gloucester 20s G,R

Sheffield's Men Patron: Edmund Sheffield (7 Dec 1565-0ct 1646), succeeded as 3rd Baron Sheffield 10 Dec 1568; created earl ofMulgrave 5 Feb 1626.

l3l It appears that the Chapel Children occupied Paul's school at this time, but as Paul's Children were still also operating, it is unclear what this means; Gurr believes that it is a signal that Paul's and the Chapel Children were in fact the same company at this time.

132 Again, as Gurr argues, it appears that this company may have been connected to the Chapel Children and Oxford's Boys.

170 Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84-85 16 Jun-16 Jun Bath 2s R,M Nov-Nov Coventry 10s R, M 8 Sept-8 Sept Dover 13s 6d R, M 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 5s R,M

Burough's Men (Burgh's Men) Patron: Thomas Burgh, Lord Burgh or Borough de Gaynesboro, 1562-14 Oct 1597 Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 90-91 27 Jul Ipswich 10s MS,M 25Aug Norwich 20s R,M 93 29 Oct York 10s R,M 96 4Dec Norwich133 10s M 97 13 Apr Norwich 10s R,M

Sangay's Men (Sandwich's Men?)B4_ Patron: William Sandys (before 1555-29 Sept 1623); succeeded as 3rd Lord Sandys 1559 or 1560. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 90 23 Jul Ipswich (Sangay's) 10s MS,M 93 28Nov Bridgwater (Sandyshes) £1 R 93-94 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester (Sandwedge) 5s R,M

Montagu's Men Patron: Anthony Maria Brown (1 Feb 1574-23 Oct 1629); succeeded as 2nd Viscount Montagu 19 Oct 1592. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation

133 This entry is not in REED.

134 It is unclear whether any of these entries actually represent the same company. Murray classifies the Ipswich and Leicester companies as "Sandwich's Men," but notes that there was no Lord Sandwich before 1660 (ii.94). Since "Sandyshes" and "Sandwedge" sound similar, and since all of these dates are close to each other, I have organized them as one company, with reservations.

171 92-93 Dec-Dec Bridgwater 15s R 29 Sept-29 Sept Leicester 5s R,M 94-95 Dec-Dec Bridgwater 13s 4d R Dec-Dec Coventry 13s 4d R, M

Mordaunt's Men Patron: Lewis Mordaunt (21 Sept 1538-16 Jun 1601); succeeded as 3rd Lord Mordaunt between Apr and Oct 1571. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry !Os R, M 93 Apr York, with Admiral's 40s R, M Provincial notices continue intermittently until 1602.

Arundel's Men Patron: Philip Howard (28 Jun 1557-19 Oct 1595); succeeded as 13th Earl of Arundel 1580. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 84 until c. 14 June Shoreditch, the Curtain 135 22 Jul Norwich 40s R 85-86 29 Sep-29 Sep Norwich 26s 8d R

Sir Thomas Cecil's Men Patron: Thomas Cecil(-), succeeded as Baron Burghley 1598; created Earl of Exeter 1605. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 86-87 29 Sep-29 Sep Norwich 10s R 87-88 29 Sep-29 Sep Norwich 20s R

Warwick's Men Patron(?): Abrose Dudley (c. 1528- 21Feb1590); styled Lord Ambrose Dudley from 1551; created Baron Lisle 25 Dec and 21st earl of Warwick 26 Dec 1561. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation

135 See Berry, Ingram, Wickham 345-346.

172 92 30Mar Ipswichl36 13s 4d G, R

Cumberland's Men Patron: George Clifford (8 Aug 1558-29 Oct 1605); succeeded as 3rd earl of Cumberland and 13th Lord Clifford, 2 Jan 1570. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 95 27 Jun Exeter 5s R

Norris's Men Patron: Henry Norris (c. 1525-27 Jun 1601); summoned to parliament 6 May 1572, thus becoming Lord Norris. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 93-94 11 Sept 93-0ct 94 Bath, with Admiral's 6s lOd R, M

Hesketh's Men Patron: Thomas Hesketh.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 87 27-30 Dec Knowsley, Stanley estate137 R,M

Cavendish's Men Patron: William Cavendish (27 Dec 1552-3 Mar 1626); created 1st Baron Cavendish of Hardwick 4 May 1605 and 2nd earl of Devonshire 7 Aug 1618. Also possibly Henry Cavendish (24 Dec 1550-12 Oct 1616). Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 85-86 Nov-Nov Coventry 7d R,M

North's Men

136 The problem here is that Warwick's Men had disappeared in 1582, apparently absorbed into Oxford's; Warwick himself died in 1590. This entry may perhaps be the result ofa clerical error, or duplicity. 137 If there is any truth to Honigmann's conjectures about Shakespeare's "lost years," namely, that Shakespeare briefly was in the service of Thomas Hesketh (as may be indicated by the will of Alexander Hoghton), as a player, before joining Lord Strange's Men, this record might indicate one possible time when Shakespeare might have passed from Hesketh's patronage to the Stanley's. Of course, this is sheer conjecture, and it also would not work particularly well with Honigmann's "early start" chronology. 173 Patron: Roger North (27 Feb 1531-3 Dec 1600); succeeded as 2nd Lord North 31 Dec 1564. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 93-94 29 Sept-29 Sept Cambridge 14s 4d R

Lincoln's Men Patron: Henry Clinton or Fiennes (after 1539-29 Sept 1616); styled Lord Clinton 1572 until he succeeded as 17th earl of Lincoln and Lord Clinton 16 Jan 15 85. Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 99 14 Jun York 20s R, M Provincial notices continue until 1609.

Mr. Evelyn's Men Patron: George Evelyn (1530-1603). Known Key Players: None.

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 88 20 Feb Greenwich, Court £10 A

Sturton's Men

Year Record Date Location Payment Citation 85 28 Jun Exeter 5s R

The records: Abingdon (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.) Aldeburgh (MS): Chamberlains' Accounts (J.C. Coldewey, ed.) Barnstaple (R): Receivers' Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.) Bath (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James Stokes, ed.) Beverly (R): Town Accounts (Diana Wyatt, ed.) Bewdley (R): St. Andrew's Chapel Accounts, Bridge Warden Accounts (David N. Klausner, ed.) Blandford Forum (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C. E. McGee, eds.) Bridgnorth (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (J. A. B. Somerset, ed.) Bridgwater (R): Water Bailiffs' Accounts, Town Receivers' Accounts (James Stokes, ed.) Bristol (R): Mayors' Audits (Mark C. Pilikton, ed.) Cambridge (R): Trinity College Stewards' Books, Town Treasurers' Books, University Audit Book (Alan H. Nelson, ed.) 174 Canterbury (R): City Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Chatsworth and Hardwick (Shuttleworth estates) (R): Cavendish Household Accounts (Barbara Palmer, ed.) Chester (R): Dean and Chapter Accounts (Lawrence M. Clopper, ed.) Congleton (R): Borough Account Book, Borough Order Book (David Mills and Elizabeth Baldwin, eds.) Coventry (R): Wardens' Account Book (R. W. Ingram, ed.) Dartmouth (R): Receivers' Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.) Dover (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Dunwich (MS): Bailiffs' Accounts (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds.) Exeter (R): Receivers' Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.) Faversham (R): Town Accounts and Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Folkestone (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Fordwich (R): Mayors' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Gloucester (R): Corporation Chamberlains' Accounts (Audrey Douglas and Peter Greenfield, eds.) Hythe (R): Assembly Book and Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Ipswich (MS): Chamberlains' Accounts (V. B. Redstone and E. K. Chambers, eds.) Kendal (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Audrey Douglas and Peter Greenfield, eds.) King's Lynn (MS): Congregation Books (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds.) Kirtling Manor (North's estate) (R): Roger, Lord North's Household Accounts (Alan H. Nelson, ed.) Lathom House, Knowsley, New Park (Stanley estates) (R): Derby Household Book (David George, ed.) Leicester (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Alice Hamilton, ed.) Leominster (R): Chamberlains' Account Books (David N. Klausner, ed.) Ludlow (R): Bailiffs' and Chamberlains' Accounts (J. A. B. Somerset, ed.) Lydd (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Lyme Regis (R): Mayors' Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C. E. McGee, eds.) Maidstone (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Newark (R): Town Accounts, Alderman's Memorandum, Chamberlains' Bill (John Coldewey, ed.) Newcastle Upon Tyne (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (J. J. Anderson, ed.) New Romney (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (James M. Gibson, ed.) Norwich (R): Chamberlains' Accounts, Clavors' Accounts, Dean and Chapter Recievers' Accounts, Mayors' Account Books (David Galloway, ed.) Nottingham (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (John Coldewey, ed.) Oxford (R): City Council Minutes, Corporation Accounts, Vicechancellors' Accounts, Chirst Church Disbursements (John R. Elliot, Alexandra F. Johnston, and Diana Wyatt, eds.) Plymouth (R): Receivers' Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.) Poole (R): Mayors' Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C. E. McGee, eds.) Reading (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.) 175 Rye (R): Chamberlains' Accounts (Cameron Louis, ed.) Sherbourne (R): St. Mary the Virgin Churchwardens' Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C. E. McGee, eds.) Shrewsbury (R): Bailiffs' Accounts, Town Payment Claims (J. A. B. Somerset, ed.) Smithills and Gawthorpe (Shuttleworth estates) (R): Household accounts of Sir Richard Shuttleworth (David George, ed.) Sudbury (MS): Court Books (David Galloway and John M. Wasson, eds.) Southampton (R): Book of Fines, Book of Debts (Peter H. Greenfield, ed.) Totnes (R): Receivers' Accounts (John M. Wasson, ed.) Wallingford (R): Borough Bailiffs' Accounts (Alexandra F. Johnston, ed.) Weymouth-Melcombe Regis (R): Mayors' Accounts (Rosalind Conklin Hays and C. E. McGee, eds.) Winchester (R): Chamberlains' Accounts, Proceedings Book A (Jane Cowling, ed.) Worcester (R): City Accounts (David N. Klausner, ed.) York (R): City Chamberlains' Books, York Minster Chamberlains' Accounts: St. Peters' Part, House Books (Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson, eds.)

Also Consulted: Astington, John. English Court Theatre 1558-1642. Includes a calendar of court performances.

Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Theatre, volume 4. Includes a calendar of court performances.

Foakes, R. A. and J. T. Rickert, eds. Hens/owe 's Diary. Includes precise dates for companies which played at the Rose.

Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearian Playing Companies. Includes many records from Stratford, Saffron Walden, Marlborough, and London playing.

McMillin, Scott, and Sally-Beth Maclean. The Queen's Men and Their Plays. Includes many records from Stratford, Saffron Walden, Marlborough, etc.

Murray, J. T. English Dramatic Companies 1558-1642. Includes many records from Stratford, Saffron Walden, and Marlborough.

176 APPENDIXB

POTENTIAL "AMALGAMATIONS," 1584-1599

1. Possible London "amalgamations"

Companies Location Date Payment Lord Admiral's and Hunsdon' s Court 6 Jan 1586 £10 Derby's, Pembroke's, and Sussex's London 1594? Sussex's and Queen's London, The Rose 1-8 Apr, 1594 Lord Admiral's and Chamberlain's Newington Butts 3-13 Jun 1594 Lord Admiral's and Pembroke's The Rose Oct-Dec 1597

2. Possible Provincial "amalgamations"

Companies Location Date Payment Lord Admiral's and Hunson's Dover 12 Jun 1585 20s Lord Admiral's and Chamberlain's Leicester 1585-86 4s Sussex's and Queen's King's Lynn 14 Nov 1586 £3 10s Sussex's and Essex's Kendal 1586-87 2s Queen's "and players in that livery" York 9 Sept 1587 £3 6s 8d Lord Admiral's and Queen's Canterbury 1589-90 30s Queen's and Essex's Faversham 4 Jan 1590 20s Queen's and Chapel Children Poole 1590-91 9s Queen's and Sussex's Gloucester 1590-91 30s Queen's and Sussex's Southampton 14 Feb 1591 20s Queen's and Sussex's Bristol 1-6 Mar 1591 26s 8d Queen's and Sussex's, Coventry 24 Mar 1591 15s Lord Admiral's and Derby's Ipswich 7 Aug 1592 20s Lord Admiral's and Lord Strange's Shrewsbury 1592-93 40s Lord Admiral's and Stafford's Ipswich 1592-93 20s Lord Admiral's and Morden's York Apr 1593 40s Lord Admiral's and Morley's Newcastle May 1593 3 30s Ogle's and Darcy's York 30 Nov 1593 20s Lord Admiral's and Norris's Bath 1593-94 22s 8d Derby's and Morley's Southampton 15 May 1594 £1 Derby's and Morley's King's Lynn 20 Sept 1594 20s 177 Derby's and Darcy's York 30 Sept 1596 10s

178 APPENDIXC

TEN ARGUMENTS FOR PEMBROKE'S COMPANY OF 1592-93

1. F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History ofthe London Stage 1559-1642 (1890). a. origin: Worcester's Men (1589) b. personnel: Marlowe, Kyd, Dekker (as playwrights) c. repertory: Edward IL Edward !IL 3 Henry VL The Taming ofA Shrew, Titus

2. W.W. Greg, Commentary to Hens/owe 's Diary (1908). a. origin: no hypothesis advances b. personnel: Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, Anthony Jeffes, John Sinkler c. repertory: Titus Andronicus, Edward IL 2, 3 Henry VL 1 Contention, True Tragedy, The Taming ofA Shrew

3. J. T. Murray, English Dramatic Companies 1558-1642 (1910). a. origin: no hypothesis advanced b. personnel: Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, Anthony Jeffes c. repertory: True Tragedy

4. E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (1923). a. origin: Strange's-Admiral's "amalgamated" company (1592) b. personnel: John Sinkler, Humphrey Jeffes, Gabriel Spencer, John Holland, George (?) Bevis, William Shakespeare (?) c. repertory: The Taming ofA Shrew, Titus Andronicus, 1 Contention, True Tragedy, Richard JJL 2, 3 Henry VI

5. Scott McMillin, "Casting for Pembroke's Men" (1972). a. origin: Strange's, or Strange's-Admiral's in combination (1592) b. personnel: William Shakespeare (?), John Sinkler, John Holland, Humphrey (Jeffes), Gabriel (Spencer), George(?) Bevis, Thomas Goodale, Robin Pallant, William Sly, "Harry," "Saunder," "Nicke," "Will" c. repertory: The Taming ofA Shrew, 1 Contention, True Tragedy, Titus Andronicus, Edward IL 2, 3 Henry VL The Taming ofthe Shrew

6. G. M. Pinciss, "Shakespeare, Her Majesty's Players and Pembroke's Men" (1974). a. origin: Laneham's branch of the Queen's Men (c. 1592) 179 b. personnel: William Shakespeare c. repertory: The Taming ofA Shrew, 1 Contention, True Tragedy, Titus Andronicus

7. Mary Edmond, "Pembroke's Men" (1974). a. origin: the unsettled circumstances of 1592 b. personnel: Simon Jewell, Robert Nicholls, William Smith, Thomas Vincent, Richard Fletcher, William Belcher, Ben Jonson c. repertory: no speculation

8. Karl Wentersdorf, "The Repertory and Size of Pembroke's Company" (1979). a. origin: Dutton's branch of the Queen's Men (c. 1591) b. personnel: Direct Evidence: John Dutton, Laurence Dutton, William Shakespeare, Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, John Holland, John Sinkler, George Bevis, Nick Tooley, William Felle, William Parr Indirect evidence: Richard Burbage, Robert Shaw, William Bird, Anthony Jeffes, Richard Bradshawe c. repertory: Titus Andronicus, Edward II, 1 Contention, True Tragedy, The Taming ofA Shrew, 1, 2, 3 Henry VI, The Taming ofthe Shrew, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Arden ofFaversham, Soliman and Perseda, Massacre at Paris

9. David George, "Shakespeare and Pembroke's Men" (1981). a. origin: Strange's Men, or Strange's Men in combination with the Admiral's Men (1592) b. personnel: Sharers: George Attewell, Lionel Cooke, Simon Jewell, Robert Nicholls, William Smith, Thomas Vincent (William Johnson, withdrawn) Hired Men: George Bevis, Harry Condell, Thomas Goodale, Robert Pallant, William Sly Boys: Alexander Cooke, John Shank, Nicholas Tooley, Will c. repertory: The Taming ofA Shrew, 1 Contention, True Tragedy, Edward II, Titus Andronicus

10. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearian Playing Companies (1996). a. origin: created by James Burbage to occupy the Theatre after Alleyn and Strange's left for the Rose (1591) b. personnel: Richard Burbage (?), William Shakespeare (?), John Holland, John Sinkler, Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes c. repertory: Edward II, The Taming ofthe Shrew, 2, 3 Henry VI, Richard III, Titus Andronicus

180 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. GENERAL

Astington, John H. Engish Court Theatre 1558-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Bald, R. C. "The Booke ofSir Thomas More and its Problems." Shakespeare Survey 2 (1949): 44-61.

Baldwin, T. W. The Organization and Personnel ofthe Shakespearean Company. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1927. Reprint New York: Russell and Russell, 1961.

Bentley, G. E. The Profession ofPlayer in Shakespeare's Time 1590-1642. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Berry, Herbert. "Aspects of the Design and Use of the First Public Playhouse." The First Professional Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576-1598. Herbert Berry, ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1979.

- - -. The Boar's Head Playhouse. Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1986.

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York: Roundtable Press, Inc., 1990.

Bradley, David. From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre: Preparing the Play for the Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Brennecke, Ernest. Shakespeare in Germany 1590-1700. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Caimcross, A. S. "Pembroke's Men and Some Shakespearian Piracies." Shakespeare Quarterly 11.4 (1960): 335-349

Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.

181 -- -. William Shakespeare: A Study ofFacts and Problems. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.

Coldewey, J.C., Ed. "Playing Companies at Aldeburgh, 1556-1635." Malone Society Collections IX. The Malone Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977: 16- 23.

Dillon, Janette. "Is there a Performance in this Text?" Shakespeare Quarterly 45 (1994):74-86

Eccles, Christine. The Rose Theatre. London: Nick Hem Books, 1990.

Edmond, Mary. "Pembroke's Men." Review ofEnglish Studies 25 (1974): 129-134.

-- -. "Yeomen, Citizens, Gentlemen, and Players: The Burbages and Their Connections." Elizabethan Theater: Essays in Honor ofS. Schoenbaum. R. B. Parker and S. P. Zitner, eds. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1996.

Fleay, Frederick Gard. A Chronicle History ofthe London Stage 1559-1642. London, 1890. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1964.

Foakes, R. A. and R. T. Rickert, eds. Hens/owe 's Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.

Galloway, David and John Wasson, Eds. "Norfolk and Suffolk." Malone Society Collections XL The Malone Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980/81.

George, David. "Shakespeare and Pembroke's Men." Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981): 305-323.

Greenfield, Peter H. "Touring." A New History ofEarly English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997: 251-268.

Greg, W.W., ed. Henslowe's Diary. 2 vols. London: A.H. Bullen, 1904, 1908.

-- -. Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931.

Gurr, Andrew. "The Chimera of Amalgamation." Theatre Research International 18 (1993): 85-93.

-- -. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1996.

182 -- -. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. 3rd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.

-- -. The Shakespearian Playing Companies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

-- -. "Three Reluctant Patrons and Early Shakespeare." Shakespeare Quarterly 44 (1993): 159-174.

Harbage, Alfred. Annals ofEnglish Drama, 975-1700. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1989.

Hildy, Frank, ed. New Issues in the Reconstruction ofShakespeare's Theatre. New York: P. Lang, 1990.

Honan, Park. Shakespeare: A Life. Oxford: University Press, 1998.

Ingram, William. The Business ofPlaying: The Beginnings ofthe Adult Professional Theatre in Elizabethan London. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.

-- -. "The Costs of Touring." Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 6 (1993): 57- 62.

-- -. "The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal." Shakespeare Quarterly 21 (1970): 385-398.

Keenan, Siobhan. Travelling Players in Shakespeare's England. New York: Palgrave Macmillin, 2002.

King, T. J. Casting Shakespeare's Plays. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.

Knutson, Roslyn L. Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare's Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

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): 154-180.

Leggatt, Alexander. "The Companies and Actors." The Revels History ofDrama in English. Vol. 3. London: Methuen and Co., 1975: 97-118.

McMillen, 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 23.2 (1972): 141-159. 183 -- -. "Simon Jewell and the Queen's Men." Review ofEnglish Studies 27 (1976): 174- 177.

McMillin, Scott and Sally-Beth MacLean. The Queen's Men and Their Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Murray, John Tucker. English Dramatic Companies 1558-1642. 2 vols. London: Constable, 1910. Reprint, New York: Russell and Russell Inc., 1963.

Nungezer, Edwin. A Dictionary ofActors and Other Persons Associated with the Public Presentation ofPlays in England Before 1642. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929.

Pinciss, G.M. "Shakespeare, Her Majesty's Players and Pembroke's Men." Shakespeare Survey 27 (1974): 129-136.

Redstone, V. B. and E. K. Chambers, eds. "Players at Ipswich." The Malone Society Collections II.III (1931). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 258-284. W.W. Greg, Gen Ed.

Riewald, J. G. "The English Actors in the Low Countries, 1585-c. 1650: An Annotated Bibliography." Studies in Seventeenth Century English Literature, History, and Bibliography. G. A. M. Janssens and F. G. A. M. Aarts, eds. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984.

Rutter, Carol Chillington, ed. Documents ofthe Rose Playhouse. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. Rev. 1999.

Schlueter, June. "English Actors in Kassel, Germany During Shakespeare's Time." Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 10 (1998): 238-261.

Schrickx, Willem. "English Actors at Wolfenbuttel, Brussels, and Graz." Shakespeare Survey 30 (1980): 153-168.

-- -. Foreign Envoys and Travelling Players in the Age ofShakespeare and Jonson. Wetteren, the Netherlands: Universaa, 1986.

Shapiro, I. A. "The Significance of a Date." Shakespeare Survey 8 (1955): 100-105.

Streitberger, W. R. "Personnel and Professionalization." A New History ofEarly English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997: 337-356. 184 Tiner, Elza C. "Patrons and Travelling Companies in Coventry." REED Newsletter 21.1 (1996): 1-37.

Wentersdorf, Karl P. "The Repertory and Size of Pembroke's Company." Theatre Annual 33 (1977): 48-61.

-- -. "The Origin and Personnel of the Pembroke Company." Theatre Research International 5 (1979): 45-68)

Werstine, Paul. "A Century of"Bad" Shakespeare Quartos." Shakespeare Quarterly 50 (1999): 310-333.

Wickham, Glynne, Herbert Berry, and William Ingram, eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

IL REED VOLUMES AND MANUSCRIPTS

Anderson, J. J., Ed. Newcastle Upon Tyne. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.

Baldwine, Elizabeth and David Mills, eds. Cheshire. Records of Early English Drama (in progress). I am grateful to the editors for allowing me access to their unpublished research.

Clopper, Lawrence M., Ed. Chester. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979.

Coldewey, John, ed. Nottinghamshire. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Forthcoming. I am grateful to the editor for allowing me access to this unpublished research.

Cowling, Jane. Transcriptions from Winchester. I am grateful to the editor for allowing me access to this unpublished research.

Douglas, Audrey and Peter Greenfield, Eds. Cumberland Westmoreland Gloucester. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.

Elliott, John R., Jr., Alexandra F. Johnston, and Diana Wyatt, Eds. Oxford. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.

Galloway, David ed. Norwich 1540-1642. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. 185 George, David, ed. Lancashire. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Gibson, James M., ed. Kent: Diocese of Canterbury. 3 vols. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2002.

Greenfield, Peter H, ed. Hampshire. Unpublished transcriptions. I am grateful to the editor for allowing me access to this unpublished research.

Hamilton, Alice. Leicestershire. Unpublished transcriptions. I am grateful to Professor Sally-Beth MacLean for allowing me access to this unpublished research.

Hays, Rosalind Conklin and C. E. McGee. "Dorset." In Dorset Cornwall. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Ingram, R. W., Ed. Coventry. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981.

Johnston, Alexandra F. Berkshire. Unpublished transcriptions consulted at the office of Records of Early English Drama, University of Toronto. I am grateful to the editor of allowing me access to this unpublished research.

Johnston, Alexandra F. and Margaret Rogerson, Eds. York. 2 vols. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1979.

Klausner, David N., Ed. Herefordshire Worcestershire. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Louis, Cameron. Sussex. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Nelson, Alan H., Ed. Cambridge. 2 vols. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Palmer, B. D. and J. M. Wasson, eds. Derbyshire. Partial collection. I am grateful to the editors for allowing me access to their unpublished, and partial, research.

Pilikton, Mark C., Ed. Bristol. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Somerset, J. Alan B., Ed. Shropshire. 2 vols. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. 186 Stokes, James. Somerset. 2 vols. Including Bath, Robert J. Alexander, ed. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Wasson, John M., Ed. Devon. Records of Early English Drama. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.

Wyatt, Diana. Beverly. Records of Early English Drama. Forthcoming. I am grateful to the editor for allowing me access to this unpublished research.

187