Pope Joan: Difference between revisions
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Historical Records==
==Historical Records==


Performance Records (''Henslowe's Diary)
===Performance Records ===


No reference to the play appears in the Stationer's Register; evidently, then, it was not published.
==== Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary ====
<br>
 
A single record of performance survives in Henslowe’s accounts for early 1592 (new style):
<br>
 
Fol. 7  ([http://archive.org/stream/henslowesdiary01hensuoft#page/12/mode/2up Greg I, 13])
 
::{| {{table}}
| ||||||||
|-
| R''es'' at poope Jone the 1 of marche 1591 <br>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . xv<sup>s</sup>
|-
|}
<br>
[[category:Solo performance]]


==Theatrical Provenance==
==Theatrical Provenance==


''Henslowe's Diary'' reports that Lord Strange's Men performed this play at the Rose Theatre on March 1, 1591/92.  Since Henslowe does not mark it as a new play, ''Pope Joan'' was evidently performed earlier, but no record of earlier performances has survived.  Manley and Maclean speculate that, given the play's anti-Catholic subject matter, it might have belonged to the "more staunchly Protestant repertory of Leicester's Men," a company that shared several members (George Bryan, Will Kempe, and Thomas Pope) with Lord Strange's Men (31, 146).
Henslowe's ''Diary'' reports that Lord Strange's men performed this play at the Rose Theatre on March 1, 1591/92.  Since Henslowe does not mark it as a new play, "Pope Joan" had evidently been performed earlier, but no record of such performances has survived.   
<br>
<br>
<br>


==Probable Genre(s)==
==Probable Genre(s)==


foreign pseudo-history (Harbage); history (Wiggins)
foreign pseudo-history ([[WorksCited|Harbage]]); history ([[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' #894]])
<br>
<br>
 


==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues==
==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues==


<Enter any information about possible or known sources. Summarise these sources where practical/possible, or provide an excerpt from another scholar's discussion of the subject if available.>
[[WorksCited|Wiggins]] points out that a possible source on the Pope Joan controversy (including a biography) by John Mayo had been published in 1591 (#894). That book, ''The Pope's Parliament,'' carries the following opinionated subtitle: " ... containing a pleasant and delightful historie, wherein are throughly deliuered and brightly blazed out, the paltry trash and trumperies of him and his pelting prelats, their mutinies, discord, and dissentions, their stomacke and malace at '''Pope''' Ioane, their shifting and foisting of matters for defence of her, and their antichristian practises, for maintenance of their pompe and auarice. Whereunto is annexed an Anatomie of '''Pope''' Ioane. more apparantly opening her whole life and storie. Written by Iohn Mayo." Mayo's screed was printed by Richard Field. [[category:Richard Field]][[category:Catholic]]
 
<br><br><br>
 


==References to the Play==
==References to the Play==


<List any known or conjectured references to the lost play here.>
Information welcome.
 
<br><br>
 


==Critical Commentary==
==Critical Commentary==


<Summarise any critical commentary that may have been published by scholars. Please maintain an objective tone!>
[[WorksCited|Malone]] makes no comment on "Pope Joan" (p. 290). [[WorksCited|Collier]] implies a narrative connection with  "The Anatomie of Pope Joane" (1624), which he suggests might be "a reprint of an earlier tract" (p. 22 n.1). [[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'']] does not pick up on Collier's observation (2.297 #104), but [[WorksCited|Greg II]] does, without further explanation of any plausible linkage (#9, p. 152).


[[Works Cited| Wiggins]] considers this play to belong to his category of old plays in the repertory of Strange's men that were nearing the end of their runs when Henslowe began to keep records (see Wiggins, both #894 [for "Pope Joan" specifically] and #878 [for his argument about the repertorial age of non-"ne" plays in Strange's 1592 repertory]).


[[Works Cited|Manley and Maclean]] conjecture that the play, given its implied anti-Catholic subject matter, might previously have belonged to the "more staunchly Protestant repertory of Leicester's Men" (31, 146). At least three players in the company of Strange's men had formerly been members of Leicester's men: George Bryan, Will Kempe, and Thomas Pope.
<br><br>


==For What It's Worth==
==For What It's Worth==


<Enter any miscellaneous points that may be relevant, but don't fit into the above categories. This is the best place for highly conjectural thoughts.>
<br><br>
 
 


==Works Cited==
==Works Cited==


<List all texts cited throughout the entry, except those staple texts whose full bibliographical details have been provided in the masterlist of Works Cited found on the sidebar menu. Use the coding below to format the list>
<br><br>
 
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em"> citation goes here </div>
 
<If you haven't done so already, also add here any key words that will help categorise this play. Use the following format, repeating as necessary: [[category:example]]>
 


Site created and maintained by Craig M. Rustici, Hofstra University; updated 24 August 2016.
Site created and maintained by [[Craig M. Rustici]], Hofstra University; updated 24 August 2016. Updated 2 November 2018 by [[Roslyn L. Knutson]].
[[category:Boccaccio]][[category:Catholicism]] [[category:disguise]] [[category:Foxe][[category:Henslowe's records]] [[category:history]]] [[category:Leicester's Men]] [[category:Lydgate]] [[category:popes]] [[category:pregnancy out of wedlock]] [[category:religion]] [[category:Rome]][[category:Craig M. Rustici]]
[[category:Boccaccio]][[category:Catholicism]] [[category:disguise]] [[category:Foxe]][[category:Henslowe's records]] [[category:history]] [[category:Leicester's]] [[category:Lydgate]] [[category:pope]] [[category:pregnancy out of wedlock]] [[category:religion]] [[category:Rome]][[category:Craig M. Rustici]][[category:Strange's]][[category:Update]]
[[category:Plays]]

Latest revision as of 10:28, 15 September 2022

Anon. (1592)


Historical Records

Performance Records

Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary


A single record of performance survives in Henslowe’s accounts for early 1592 (new style):

Fol. 7 (Greg I, 13)

Res at poope Jone the 1 of marche 1591
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvs


Theatrical Provenance

Henslowe's Diary reports that Lord Strange's men performed this play at the Rose Theatre on March 1, 1591/92. Since Henslowe does not mark it as a new play, "Pope Joan" had evidently been performed earlier, but no record of such performances has survived.


Probable Genre(s)

foreign pseudo-history (Harbage); history (Wiggins, Catalogue #894)


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

Wiggins points out that a possible source on the Pope Joan controversy (including a biography) by John Mayo had been published in 1591 (#894). That book, The Pope's Parliament, carries the following opinionated subtitle: " ... containing a pleasant and delightful historie, wherein are throughly deliuered and brightly blazed out, the paltry trash and trumperies of him and his pelting prelats, their mutinies, discord, and dissentions, their stomacke and malace at Pope Ioane, their shifting and foisting of matters for defence of her, and their antichristian practises, for maintenance of their pompe and auarice. Whereunto is annexed an Anatomie of Pope Ioane. more apparantly opening her whole life and storie. Written by Iohn Mayo." Mayo's screed was printed by Richard Field.


References to the Play

Information welcome.

Critical Commentary

Malone makes no comment on "Pope Joan" (p. 290). Collier implies a narrative connection with "The Anatomie of Pope Joane" (1624), which he suggests might be "a reprint of an earlier tract" (p. 22 n.1). Fleay, BCED does not pick up on Collier's observation (2.297 #104), but Greg II does, without further explanation of any plausible linkage (#9, p. 152).

Wiggins considers this play to belong to his category of old plays in the repertory of Strange's men that were nearing the end of their runs when Henslowe began to keep records (see Wiggins, both #894 [for "Pope Joan" specifically] and #878 [for his argument about the repertorial age of non-"ne" plays in Strange's 1592 repertory]).

Manley and Maclean conjecture that the play, given its implied anti-Catholic subject matter, might previously have belonged to the "more staunchly Protestant repertory of Leicester's Men" (31, 146). At least three players in the company of Strange's men had formerly been members of Leicester's men: George Bryan, Will Kempe, and Thomas Pope.

For What It's Worth



Works Cited



Site created and maintained by Craig M. Rustici, Hofstra University; updated 24 August 2016. Updated 2 November 2018 by Roslyn L. Knutson.