Notes Introduction: Naming of Parts: Barber, Surgeon, and Barber-Surgeon 1. Thomas Middleton, The Mayor of Quinborough (1661), A2v. [References to the play in this paragraph are from this edition, which Howard Marchitello uses for his 2004 version of the play with Nick Hern Books.] The two manuscript versions of the play, the ‘Lambarde Manuscript’ (Nottingham University Library MS PwV20) and the ‘Portland Manuscript’ (Folger Shakespeare Library MS J.b.6), differ only slightly from the 1661 publication. Grace Ioppolo bases her edition of Hengist on the Lambarde Manuscript in Collected Works; she reproduces the Portland Manuscript with Oxford: Malone Society, 2003. 2. I reflect on this pun throughout the book. 3. John Ford, ‘The Fancies Chaste and Noble’ in The Works of John Ford, ed. William Gifford, 3 vols (London: James Toovey, 1869) II, FNs 15 and 16 (p. 234). 4. Mark Albert Johnston, Beard Fetish in Early Modern England (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011); Johnston, ‘“By tricks they shave a kingdom round”: Early Modern English Barbers as Panders’ in Thunder at the Playhouse, ed. Peter Kanelos and Matt Kowsko (Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont, 2010), pp. 97–115; Johnston, ‘Bearded Women in Early Modern England’, SEL, 1500–1900 47:1 (2007), 1–28; Johnston, ‘Playing with the Beard’, ELH 72:1 (2005), 79–103; Johnston, ‘Prosthetic Absence in Ben Jonson’s Epicoene, The Alchemist, and Bartholomew Fair’, ELR 37:3 (2007), 401–28. Cf. William Andrews, At the Sign of the Barbers’ Pole (Cottingham: J. R. Tutin, 1904) which is a collection of cultural tropes, but resists formal argument. 5. Will Fisher, Materializing Gender in Early Modern English Literature and Culture (Cambridge: CUP, 2006). 6. Laurie Maguire, ‘Cultural Control in The Taming of the Shrew’, RD 26 (1995), 83–104; Maguire, ‘Petruccio and the Barber’s Shop’, Studies in Bibliography 51 (1998), 117–26. 7. Patricia Parker, ‘Barbers and Barbary’, RD 33 (2005), 201–44. Later in this Introduction I will say more about how Civic and Medical Worlds draws on gender theory in touching on the ambiguous gender and sexual politics of barbers/surgeons/barber-surgeons. 8. See for example, Margaret Pelling, The Common Lot (London: Longman, 1998); Pelling (with Frances White), Medical Conflicts in Early Modern London (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003); Pelling, ‘Appearance and Reality’ in London 1500–1700, ed. A. L. Beier and Roger Finlay (London: Longman, 1986), pp. 82–112. 9. David F. Hoeniger, Medicine and Shakespeare in the English Renaissance (London and Toronto: AUP, 1992); William Kerwin, Beyond the Body (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005); Todd H. J. Pettigrew, Shakespeare and the Practice of Physic (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007). Earlier studies in the twentieth century placed little emphasis on the distinction between types of medical practitioner in the period: Philip C. Kolin, The Elizabethan Stage Doctor (Salzburg: Institut fur Englishe sprache und Literatur, Universitat Salzburg, 1975); Herbert Silvette, The Doctor on the Stage, ed. Francelia Butler (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1967); Paul G. Brewster, ‘Physician and Surgeon as Depicted in 16th and 17th Century English Literature’, Osiris 14 (1962), 13–32. 203 204 Notes 10. Pettigrew, see pp. 133–7. 11. On the plurality of medical discourse see Thomas Rütten, ‘Early Modern Medicine’ in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine, ed. Mark Jackson (Oxford: OUP, 2011), pp. 60–81 (p. 63). 12. Rütten, p. 71. 13. Middleton was a London lad with a longstanding if eventually strained relation- ship with the city’s civic centre; he would have been familiar with the rivalries and difficulties of the guilds. 14. Sidney Young, The Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of London (London: Blades, 1890), p. 24. 15. See Peregrine Horden, ‘Medieval Medicine’ in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine, ed. Mark Jackson (Oxford: OUP, 2011), pp. 40–59 (esp. p. 42). 16. Young, p. 66. 17. Young, p. 67. 18. Barbers’ Archive, ‘Inspeximus and Confirmation of charter of 1462’, A/1/2, a parchment now displayed in Company’s Charter Room. 19. Barbers’ Archive, ‘Ordinances examined and approved pursuant to Act of Parliament of 1504’, A/3/1. 20. Barbers’ Archive, ‘An Act Concerning Barbers and Surgeons to be of One Company’, Charter Act and Ordinance Book (1540), A/6/1. A painting (undated) by Hans Holbein the Younger, which commemorates the occasion, currently hangs in the Company Hall in Monkwell Square. Historical outlines of events leading to the union and further details on the Holbein are in Young, pp. 51–92. 21. John Stow and Anthony Munday, The Survey of London (1633), p. 623. 22. The charters and ordinances are all readily available in Barbers’ Archive. 23. See Kerwin, pp. 133–64; Hoeniger, pp. 17–31; Pelling, ‘Trade or Profession?’ in The Common Lot (London: Longman, 1998), pp. 230–59; Pettigrew, pp. 61–91. 24. Francisco de Quevedo, Visions, or Hels Kingdome (1640), pp. 45–46. This is the transla- tion of the lengthiest part of de Quevedo’s dreams and discourses, Los Sueños (1627). 25. Pelling discusses the inadequate medical services available to the proletariat in Common Lot and ‘Appearance and Reality’. See also Medical Conflicts. 26. Galen, Certaine Workes of Galens, trans. Thomas Gale (1586), Aiiiv of Gale’s opening address to Sir Henrie Nevell. 27. Anon, ‘The Rimers New Trimming’ (c.1614), stanza 7, lines 3–4. 28. Thomas Freeman, Rubbe (1614), B3v-B4r. 29. Peter Lowe, The Whole Course of Chirurgerie (1597), B3r. 30. Cf. Sivqila and Omen’s dialogue in Thomas Lupton Too Good, To Be True (1580), which criticizes surgeons for money grabbing and holding the sick to ransom. 31. Barbers’ Archive, Court Minutes, B/1/4, p. 54. 32. William Salmon, Ars Chirurgica (1698), p. 1266. 33. John Marston, The Dutch Courtesan, ed. David Crane (London: A & C Black; New York: W W Norton, 1997), FN to II.i.164. 34. Thomas Middleton, Hengist, ed. Grace Ioppolo in Collected Works, FN to III.iii.61 (p. 1468). 35. Kerwin, p. 98. 36. Jonathan Sawday, The Body Emblazoned (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 4, 42, 57. 37. Peter Ackroyd, London (London: Vintage, 2001), p. 209. 38. See Young, pp. 66–8 (p. 66). 39. Stow and Munday, p. 623. 40. A person’s membership of a guild did not always mean that they practised the occupation for which the guild stood, although this was more prevalent from Notes 205 the mid-seventeenth century. I have not come across literary references to free- men barber-surgeons who are not characterized as barber/surgeon practitioners. On 14th April 1629 The Company minutes note that ‘Walter Clinche useing Barbarye … free of the merchantailors … had order to forbeare that trade untill he were translated into our Companie’ (Barbers Archive, Court Minutes, B/1/5, p. 90). 41. Barbers’ Archive, Court Minutes, B/1/2, 25v. 42. John Webster, The Tragedy of the Duchesse of Malfy (1623), L3r. Cf. Thomas Dekker, Match Me in London (1631), G2r; Dekker, A Knights Conjuring (1607), C3r; Dekker, Ravens Almanacke (1609), B1r-v. 43. John Smith, An Accidence (1626), B2v. 44. The case of the barbers of London, Early English books tract supplement interm guide (1745?), E7: 1[18]. 45. As we will find in Chapter 4, ear-cleaning also fell within the regular practice of a barber. 46. ‘Barbery’ (and equivalent spelling) is commonly used in this sense in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century manuscript documents from Barbers’ Hall. See also Randle Cotgrave’s Dictionarie of the French & English Tongue (1611): the entry on ‘Barbarie’ has ‘the trade of a Barber’ as one definition. 47. See lists in John Marston, Dutch Courtezan (1605), A2v, and in the collection, The Workes of Mr. John Marston (1633), Z3v. 48. Crane amends the script: ‘Enter Holifernes the Barber[’s boy]’ (s.d. II.i.162). 49. See David Kathman, ‘Grocers, Goldsmiths, and Drapers’, RQ 55:1 (2004), 1–49, in which Kathman describes two Barber-Surgeon freemen, Thomas Go[ugh]e and Henry Totnell (both barbers), who performed at court (pp. 24–5, 28, 39). 50. Quotations are taken from John Lyly, Midas in Galatea/Midas, ed. George K. Hunter and David M. Bevington (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2000). 51. Hunter and Bevington FNs to III.ii.64–65/III.ii.2. 52. Compare these numbers with the number of plays which include characters of other trades, ones that were high in contemporary Lists of Precedence in the civic system: Mercers (11), Grocers (8), Drapers (11), Fishmongers (3), Goldsmiths (17), Skinners (0), Tailors (60, and 3 ‘Botchers’), Haberdashers (8), Salters (1), Ironmongers (1), Vinters (25), Clothworkers/Clothiers (4), Brewers (4), Leathersellers (0), Pewterers (2). (In 1604, the Company of Barbers and Surgeons was positioned sixteenth in the list of guild precedence, an all-time high. For additional informa- tion on Precedent listings see Young, pp. 195–197.) Physicians or Doctors, named interchangeably and without the complications of barber/surgeon naming, are abundant on the early modern stage, featuring respectively in 66/107 plays; and there are 22 plays which include an Apothecary. These numbers reflect the number of plays, and not the number of characters. Barnabe Barnes’s The Devil’s Charter and George Peele’s Edward the First stage two barbers and fairly frequently a barber’s boy accompanies a barber on stage; there are two surgeons in Philip Massinger’s A Very Woman and John Webster’s The Devil’s Law-Case. 53. Thomas L. Berger, William C. Bradford, and Sidney L. Sondergard, An Index of Characters in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 22, 94. 54. Francis Beaumont, The Knight of the Burning Pestle, ed. Michael Hattaway, 2nd edn (London: A & C Black; New York: WW Norton, 2002); William Cartwright, ‘The Ordinary’ in Comedies, Tragi-Comedies, With Other Poems (1651), E4v.