SAMUEL DANIEL’S FIRST FOUR BOOKS OF THE CIVIL WARS AND SHAKESPEARE’S EARLY HISTORY PLAYS by DAVID S. WEISS A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English Literature College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Samuel Daniel’s First Four Books of the Civil Wars and Shakespeare’s Early History Plays Abstract Literary scholars agree that William Shakespeare used Samuel Daniel’s First Four Books of the Civil Wars as a source for his play Richard II, launching an interaction between the authors that lasted for many years. What has not been recognized, however, is that they may have influenced each other’s works on English history before the publication of Daniel’s epic poem. Textual, bibliographical and biographical evidence suggests that Daniel borrowed from some of Shakespeare’s earliest works, the Henry VI plays, while writing The First Four Books, and that Shakespeare could have used a pre-publication manuscript of The Civil Wars to write Richard II. A review of extant versions of The Civil Wars, the Henry VI plays and Richard II reveals a complex relationship between the authors as they wrote and revised works on the Wars of the Roses while both had connections to the Countess of Pembroke and the Earl of Essex. This analysis illuminates the works while disclosing one of the first instances of Shakespeare’s plays inspiring another artist, challenging images of Daniel as a poet who disdained theater and Shakespeare as a playwright who cared only about the popularity of his works on stage. Acknowledgments So often things which seem at first in show Without the compass of accomplishment, Once ventured on to that success do grow, That even the authors do admire th’event; So many means which they did never know Do second their designs and do present Strange unexpected helps . Samuel Daniel The First Four Books of the Civil Wars Book II, Stanza 9 Five years ago, I got the idea that it would be fun to study the relationship between the works of Samuel Daniel and William Shakespeare. Soon thereafter, my friend and fellow part-time Shakespeare scholar, Julian Bene, happened to be visiting Stratford-Upon-Avon and let me know that the Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham had a long-distance Ph.D. program. That was the first of many “unexpected helps” that have enabled me to complete a thesis on Daniel and Shakespeare. Thank you, Julian, for helping nudge me onto this path. One of the greatest surprises in this process has been how welcoming and open literary scholars have been. Many times, I looked up the contact information for professors whose work I admired and e-mailed them, out of the blue, with questions. Invariably, I got a response within days, always full of useful information. For their interest in my studies and enthusiastic encouragement, I thank Daniel Cadman, Andy Gurr, Paul Hammer, Roz Hays, Elizabeth Kolkovich, Mary Ellen Lamb, Larry Manley, Randall Martin, Alex Samson, Tiffany Stern and Edward Wilson-Lee. I especially thank those scholars who provided guidance in areas not fully published: Yasmin Arshad, Alex Gajda, Peter Greenfield, Chris Laoutaris, Sally-Beth MacLean, Steve Urkowitz and especially Martin Wiggins. I also thank John Pitcher, the world’s expert on Samuel Daniel, for graciously inviting me to present at his Daniel conference and for generously sharing his time, expertise and critical input. And, finally, I thank Paulina Kewes and Tom Lockwood for their insightful and thought-provoking suggestions made during the examination of my thesis, all of which resulted in substantive improvements in the final version. I thank the librarians who provided invaluable assistance in my research, particularly those at the British Library and the libraries of the Shakespeare Institute and Emory University. I also thank the librarians at the Bodleian, the Folger, the Wilson Library at UNC Chapel Hill, the Houghton Library at Harvard and David McKnight at the Kislak Center for Rare Books at the University of Pennsylvania. “I count myself in nothing else so happy, As in a soul remembering my good friends” (Richard II, Act II, Scene 3). There have been many friends who enthusiastically encouraged my endeavors over the past few years. I thank all those who exhibited their patience, good nature and spirit of friendship in not only listening to me, but thinking about my topic. Many provided practical help that advanced my studies and improved this thesis. I thank Brian Beazer, Jim Bennett, Henry Bladon, Amy Burlarley-Hyland, Amy Lederberg, Pete Lester, Bernie Moller, Andy Taylor, Carine Weiss, Richard Weiss and Palmer White. I especially thank those friends who took the time to read and offer detailed input on sections of the thesis: Julian Bene, Greg Hanthorn, Jeff Kigner and Todd Silliman. And I thank the two friends who wrote letters of recommendation to the University of Birmingham for me, both Shakespeare experts who, over many years, have taught me much about Elizabethan theater and both of whom graciously reviewed my thesis and provided constructive feedback: Cary Mazer and Jeff Watkins. There are two people who fit firmly into the category of scholars, and who, over the past three years, have earned special places in the category of friends: my supervisors, Gillian Wright and John Jowett. I cannot imagine a better combination of mentors to guide my studies and consider myself incredibly lucky to have had their advice and direction. When I was informed that John would be one of my supervisors, I was overwhelmed. Although I knew that I would be interacting with experts, I never dreamed that I would get so much attention from one of the world’s leading Shakespeare scholars. John has been gracious and completely open to questioning accepted ideas. Most importantly, there were points in the process when I was extremely uncertain about the direction I was taking and John provided the perfect constructively critical, informative and encouraging advice. Gillian’s continual input, guidance and encouragement have been staggering. I cannot believe the luck and serendipity of having a Samuel Daniel scholar like Gillian at one of the few universities that offered a distance learning program. From the start, Gillian’s guidance has been crucial. Every page of this thesis has been improved dramatically through her insightful and valuable input. I thank her for her patience, expertise, thoughtful advice and friendship. Finally, I thank the three people who have played the most significant role in encouraging my quirky endeavors: my wife, Maureen Cowie, and my children, Sara and Sammy Weiss-Cowie. Sara, thank you for your continuous encouragement and for your editing of sections, complete with teacherly markings. Sammy, thank you for always reminding me of the “tumultuous broils” that I was trying to avoid and for your curiosity and enthusiastic interest in my studies. And, most of all, thank you, Maureen for your continual love and encouragement. I can truly say that “thy true love remembered such wealth brings, that then I scorn to change my state with kings.” I could not have done it without your support. Thank you. Samuel Daniel’s First Four Books of the Civil Wars and Shakespeare’s Early History Plays Table of Contents Page Abbreviations, Editions and Modernization 1 1. Introduction - Daniel and Shakespeare: 1592 to 1595 3 • Overview of Daniel’s and Shakespeare’s Careers in the Early 1590s 6 • Issues Surrounding Daniel’s First Four Books and Shakespeare’s Early History Plays 8 • Reconsideration of Daniel 12 • An Apology 17 • Structure of Thesis and Content of Chapters 18 2. Textual Parallels between the Henry VI Plays and The First Four Books of the Civil Wars 20 • Critical Consideration of the Relationship Between the Henry VI Plays and The Civil Wars 21 • Textual Parallels - Book IV 27 • Textual Parallels - Book V 41 • Textual Parallels: Source or Paralogue? 49 • External Evidence of Daniel’s Awareness of the Henry VI Plays 54 3. Samuel Daniel and the Henry VI Plays: 1592-1594 63 • Samuel Daniel and the Countess of Pembroke: 1592 to 1594 64 • Strange’s Men, Pembroke’s Men and the Henry VI Plays 71 • Mary Sidney and Pembroke’s Men 84 • Mountjoy and Printed Editions of Contention and True Tragedy 92 • “ydle shadowes” and “Gross Barbarism” 98 • “pennes (like Speares)” 108 4. Manuscripts of The Civil Wars and the Date of Richard II 113 • Manuscripts of The Civil Wars 114 • Variants Between Manuscripts of The Civil Wars and FFB Q1595 119 • MS I-II and Richard II: Which Came First? 129 • Deleted Stanzas and Richard II 133 • Dating Richard II 143 5. The Civil Wars, The Essex Circle, The State of Christendom and 150 Richard II • Daniel, Mountjoy and Wanstead: 1594 to 1595 150 • Shakespeare, Daniel and the Essex Circle 154 • The State of Christendom 160 • The State of Christendom and Daniel’s Additions to The Civil Wars 166 • The State of Christendom and Richard II: Gloucester’s Death 169 • Richard’s Resignation in Daniel’s and Shakespeare’s Deposition Scenes 174 • Daniel’s Deposition Scene 180 • Shakespeare’s Deposition Scene 188 • Potential Censorship of the Deposition Scene in Richard II 196 6.