Barnardo and Fiammetta: Difference between revisions
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
| y<sup>e</sup> 28 of octobʒ 1595
| y<sup>e</sup> 28 of octobʒ 1595
| . . . . . . ne . .   
| . . . . . . ne . .   
| R''d'' at barnardo & phvlameta
| R''es'' at barnardo & phvlameta
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxii<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxii<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
| y<sup>e</sup> 6 of novmbʒ 1595
| y<sup>e</sup> 6 of novmbʒ 1595
|  
|  
| R''d'' at barnardo  
| R''es'' at barnardo  
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvij<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 41: Line 41:
| y<sup>e</sup> 19 of novmbʒ 1595
| y<sup>e</sup> 19 of novmbʒ 1595
| . . . . . . . . . .  
| . . . . . . . . . .  
| R''d'' at barnardo  
| R''es'' at barnardo  
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .vj<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .vj<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
| y<sup>e</sup> 3 of desembʒ
| y<sup>e</sup> 3 of desembʒ
|
|
| R''d'' at barnardo  
| R''es'' at barnardo  
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .vij<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .vij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
| y<sup>e</sup> 26 of desembʒ
| y<sup>e</sup> 26 of desembʒ
|
|
| R''d'' at barnardo
| R''es'' at barnardo
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .lviij<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .lviij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 63: Line 63:
| y<sup>e</sup> 20 of Jenewary 1595
| y<sup>e</sup> 20 of Jenewary 1595
| . . . . . . . .  
| . . . . . . . .  
| R''d'' at barnardo and phiameta
| R''es'' at barnardo and phiameta
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xj<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xj<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 77: Line 77:
| y<sup>e</sup> 12 of ap<sup>r</sup>ell ester
| y<sup>e</sup> 12 of ap<sup>r</sup>ell ester
| . . . . . . . . . . . .  
| . . . . . . . . . . . .  
| R''d'' at barnardo and fiameta
| R''es'' at barnardo and fiameta
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxx<sup>s</sup>
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxx<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 96: Line 96:
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues ==


None known.
<br><br>


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


None known.
<br><br>


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


[[WorksCited|Malone]] had no comment on "Barnardo and Fiammetta" (p. 297); '''Gurr''' also offers no opinions on the story or characters (#41, p. 219).<br>
[[WorksCited|Malone]] has no comment on "Barnardo and Fiammetta" (p. 297). See [[#For What It's Worth|For What It's Worth]] below, for John Payne Collier's reaction to Malone's failure to link "Barnardo and Fiammetta" to "Bernardo and Galfrido."
 


[[WorksCited|Collier]], in a cunning authorization of his own forgery, uses a footnote on "Barnardo and Fiammetta" to assert that the valid lost play "had no connexion with [the forged] ''Bernardo and Galfrido'' … unless as a ''second'' part" (p. 59). Further embedding his forgery into stage history, Collier tags the second performance of "Barnardo and Fiammetta" on the 6th of November as either the Henslowe play or his own made-up one. He then implies that this second performance (which Henslowe recorded merely as "barnardo" was "perhaps" for "the older drama" (i.e., for the forgery) because it returned only 17s. to Henslowe (p. 59, n.1). By this specious reasoning, Collier leaves the impression that Henslowe's play and his own forgery were paired in performance in the manner of two-part plays such as "Hercules" and "Caesar and Pompey."
[[category:John Payne Collier]]


[[WorksCited|Collier]], in a cunning authorization of his own forgery, claimed that "Barnardo and Fiammetta" "had no connexion with ''Bernardo and Galfrido'' … unless as a ''second'' part" (p. 59). Further embedding his forgery into stage history, Collier tagged the second performance of "Barnardo and Fiammetta" on the 6th of November as either the Henslowe play or his own made-up one. He then shamelessly implied that this second performance (which Henslowe recorded merely as "barnardo" was "perhaps" for "the older drama" (i.e., for the forgery) because it returned only 17s. to Henslowe (p. 59, n.1). By such reasoning, Collier left the impression that Henslowe's play and his forgery were paired in performance in the manner of two-part plays such as "Hercules" and "Caesar and Pompey."
[[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'' (2. #174, p. 304]] ignores Collier's false claims about "Barnardo and Fiammetta" and a companion forgery, as does [[WorksCited|Greg II]], who observes merely that "[n]othing is known of this play" (#80, p. 177).  


[[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'' (2. #174, p. 304]] ignored Collier's false claims about "Barnardo and Fiammetta" and a companion forgery, as did [[WorksCited|Greg II (#80, p. 177)]].  
'''Gurr''' also offers no opinion on the story or characters (#41, p. 219).


[[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' (#1017)]] does not comment on the Collier forgery. He attends instead to the variant spellings in the diary of Barnardo's paired title character (which Wiggins reflects in alternative titles for the play as performed and as modernized). The problem is that no known sources treat the story of a Barnardo and a Fiametta/Philameta/Philametta, leaving only Henslowe's spellings as a means of identifying the second character in the title and play.  
[[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'' (#1017)]] does not comment on the Collier forgery. He attends instead to the variant spellings in the diary of Barnardo's paired title character (which Wiggins reflects in alternative titles for the play as performed and as modernized). For any fruitful conjecture, it is a problem that no known sources treat the story of a Barnardo and a Fiametta/Philameta/Philametta, leaving only Henslowe's spellings as a means of identifying the second character in the title and play.  
<br>
<br><br>


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


[[WorksCited|Collier]], in yet another ruse to bolster his forgery, footnoted the fraudulent entry of "galfrido and Bernardo" in his edition of the diary (1845), chiding Malone for omitting the entry; Collier also provided a source for the forged title, which he said was "doubtless ... the recently-discovered poem by John Drout, entitled "The pityfull History of two loving Ilalians, Gaulfrido and Bernardo le Vayne" dated 1570 (p. 52, n.1). For more about the forgery, go to [[Galfrido and Bernardo|Galfrido and Bernardo]].
<br><br>


== Works Cited ==
== Works Cited ==
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Gurr, Andrew. ''Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.</div>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>


Site created and maintained by [[Roslyn L. Knutson]], Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 17 February 2021.
Site created and maintained by [[Roslyn L. Knutson]], Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 17 February 2021.
[[category:all]][[category:Rose]][[Category:Henslowe's records]][[category:Roslyn L. Knutson]][[category:Update]][[category:Admiral's]][[category:Possibly corrupt titles]]
[[category:all]][[category:Rose]][[Category:Henslowe's records]][[category:Roslyn L. Knutson]][[category:Update]][[category:Admiral's]][[category:Possibly corrupt titles]][[category:Forgery]]

Latest revision as of 09:59, 16 September 2022

Anon. Play Titles A (1595)Property "Paratext" (as page type) with input value "{{{paratexts}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.Property "Contributor" (as page type) with input value "{{{contributors}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.Property "Partnering Institution" (as page type) with input value "{{{partneringInstitutions}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.

Historical Records

Performance Records

Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary


Fol. 13 (Greg I.25)


ye 28 of octobʒ 1595 . . . . . . ne . . Res at barnardo & phvlameta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxiis
ye 6 of novmbʒ 1595 Res at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvijs


Fol. 14 (Greg, I.27)


ye 19 of novmbʒ 1595 . . . . . . . . . . Res at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vjs
ye 3 of desembʒ Res at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vijs
ye 26 of desembʒ Res at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lviijs


Fol. 14v (Greg, I. 28
ye 20 of Jenewary 1595 . . . . . . . . Res at barnardo and phiameta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xjs



Fol. 15v (Greg 1.30):
ye 12 of aprell ester . . . . . . . . . . . . Res at barnardo and fiameta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxs



Theatrical Provenance

The Admiral's men gave "Barnardo and Fiammetta" seven performances at the Rose playhouse from October 1595 into April 1596 and averaged a return of 24s to Henslowe.

Probable Genre(s)

Romance ? Harbage

Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

None known.

References to the Play

None known.

Critical Commentary

Malone has no comment on "Barnardo and Fiammetta" (p. 297). See For What It's Worth below, for John Payne Collier's reaction to Malone's failure to link "Barnardo and Fiammetta" to "Bernardo and Galfrido."


Collier, in a cunning authorization of his own forgery, uses a footnote on "Barnardo and Fiammetta" to assert that the valid lost play "had no connexion with [the forged] Bernardo and Galfrido … unless as a second part" (p. 59). Further embedding his forgery into stage history, Collier tags the second performance of "Barnardo and Fiammetta" on the 6th of November as either the Henslowe play or his own made-up one. He then implies that this second performance (which Henslowe recorded merely as "barnardo" was "perhaps" for "the older drama" (i.e., for the forgery) because it returned only 17s. to Henslowe (p. 59, n.1). By this specious reasoning, Collier leaves the impression that Henslowe's play and his own forgery were paired in performance in the manner of two-part plays such as "Hercules" and "Caesar and Pompey."

Fleay, BCED (2. #174, p. 304 ignores Collier's false claims about "Barnardo and Fiammetta" and a companion forgery, as does Greg II, who observes merely that "[n]othing is known of this play" (#80, p. 177).

Gurr also offers no opinion on the story or characters (#41, p. 219).

Wiggins, Catalogue (#1017) does not comment on the Collier forgery. He attends instead to the variant spellings in the diary of Barnardo's paired title character (which Wiggins reflects in alternative titles for the play as performed and as modernized). For any fruitful conjecture, it is a problem that no known sources treat the story of a Barnardo and a Fiametta/Philameta/Philametta, leaving only Henslowe's spellings as a means of identifying the second character in the title and play.

For What It's Worth

Collier, in yet another ruse to bolster his forgery, footnoted the fraudulent entry of "galfrido and Bernardo" in his edition of the diary (1845), chiding Malone for omitting the entry; Collier also provided a source for the forged title, which he said was "doubtless ... the recently-discovered poem by John Drout, entitled "The pityfull History of two loving Ilalians, Gaulfrido and Bernardo le Vayne" dated 1570 (p. 52, n.1). For more about the forgery, go to Galfrido and Bernardo.

Works Cited

Gurr, Andrew. Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.


Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 17 February 2021.