French Doctor: Difference between revisions
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Performance Records (''Henslowe's Diary'')=== | === Performance Records (''Henslowe's Diary'')=== | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
'''F. 10 ([https://archive.org/details/henslowesdiary00unkngoog/page/n79 Greg I | '''F. 10 ([https://archive.org/details/henslowesdiary00unkngoog/page/n79 Greg, I.19])''' | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<lpd-pre> | <lpd-pre> | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
: :{| {{table}} | : :{| {{table}} | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> 4 of July 1596 R''es'' at frenshe dacter xiiij<sup>s</sup> | | y<sup>e</sup> 4 of July 1596 R''es'' at frenshe dacter xiiij<sup>s</sup> | ||
|- | |||
|} | |||
'''F. 25''' ([http://www.archive.org/stream/henslowesdiary00unkngoog#page/n109/mode/1up Greg, I.49]) | |||
: :{| {{table}} | |||
| y<sup>e</sup> 29 of octobʒ 1596 R''es'' at the frenshe docter xv<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| y<sup>e</sup> 9 of novmbʒ 1596 R''es'' at the frenshe docter xiiij<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 17:32, 15 June 2019
Historical Records
Performance Records (Henslowe's Diary)
F. 10 (Greg, I.19)
ye 18 of octobʒ 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xxijs F. 10v (Greg, I.20)
ye 28 of octobʒ 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xvs ye 18 of novmbʒ 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xxvijs
ye 3 of Jenewary 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xxjs ye 30 of Jenewary 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xviijs ye 7 of febreary 1594 Res at the frenshe docter xxjs
ye 24 of febreary 1594 Res at the frensh doctor xxxxxiiijs ye easter mondaye 1595 Res at the ffrenshe doctor liijs ye 3 of may 1595 Res at the frenshe docter xjs
ye 2[3]4 of maye 1595 Res at the frenshe docter xxijs
ye 19 of septmbʒ 1595 Res at the frenshe doctor xvjs
ye 4 of July 1596 Res at frenshe dacter xiiijs
ye 29 of octobʒ 1596 Res at the frenshe docter xvs ye 9 of novmbʒ 1596 Res at the frenshe docter xiiijs
Theatrical Provenance
The theatrical provenance of "French Doctor" is complicated by the fact that Henslowe did not mark the play "ne" at its debut in his records for the autumn of 1594. Theater historians consequently assume that the play was in revival. But where had it been when new, and with which company?