New World's Tragedy, The: Difference between revisions
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
|  
|  
| ye 17 of septmbʒ 1595 ne . .  
| ye 17 of septmbʒ 1595 ne . .  
| R''d'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| R''es'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| iij<sup>ll</sup> v<sup>s</sup>
| iij<sup>ll</sup> v<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 28: Line 28:
|  
|  
| ye 25 of septmbʒ 1595  
| ye 25 of septmbʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| R''es'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| xxxviij<sup>s</sup>
| xxxviij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 36: Line 36:
|  
|  
| ye 7 of octobʒ 1595  
| ye 7 of octobʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| R''es'' at the worldes tragedy . . . . . .  
| xxxj<sup>s</sup>
| xxxj<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 44: Line 44:
|  
|  
| ye 22 of octobʒ 1595  
| ye 22 of octobʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| R''es'' at the worldes tragedy . . .  
| xxxiijj<sup>s</sup>
| xxxiijj<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 52: Line 52:
|  
|  
| ye 3 of novembʒ 1595  
| ye 3 of novembʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| R''es'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| xxix<sup>s</sup>
| xxix<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 68: Line 68:
|  
|  
| ye 27 of novembʒ 1595  
| ye 27 of novembʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the newes wordles tragedy . .  
| R''es'' at the newes wordles tragedy . .  
| xviij<sup>s</sup>
| xviij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 76: Line 76:
|  
|  
| ye 12 of desembʒ 1595  
| ye 12 of desembʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| R''es'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| xxxj<sup>s</sup> vj<sup>d</sup>
| xxxj<sup>s</sup> vj<sup>d</sup>
|-
|-
Line 84: Line 84:
|  
|  
| ye 22 of desembʒ 1595  
| ye 22 of desembʒ 1595  
| R''d'' at the newe worldes tragedie . .  
| R''es'' at the newe worldes tragedie . .  
| xx<sup>s</sup>
| xx<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 92: Line 92:
|  
|  
| ye 8 of Jenewary 1595  
| ye 8 of Jenewary 1595  
| R''d'' at new worldes tragedie . . . . .  
| R''es'' at new worldes tragedie . . . . .  
| xviij<sup>s</sup>
| xviij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 108: Line 108:
|  
|  
| ye 25 of Jenewary 1595------------  
| ye 25 of Jenewary 1595------------  
| R''d'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| R''es'' at the new worldes tragedy . . .  
| xiiij<sup>s</sup>
| xiiij<sup>s</sup>
|-
|-
Line 124: Line 124:
|  
|  
| ye 27 of aprell 1596  
| ye 27 of aprell 1596  
| R''d'' at new worldes tragedy . . . . .  
| R''es'' at new worldes tragedy . . . . .  
| xxixs
| xxixs
|}
|}
Line 156: Line 156:
== Critical Commentary  ==
== Critical Commentary  ==


Cawley suggestively notes that “[t]he Drake-Hawkins expedition of 1595 suffered every kind of bad luck” (both men died during this fateful voyage to the West Indies) and that a “non-extant play, ''New World’s Tragedy'' … was acted at the Rose in that year” (289). But Drake did not die until early 1596, so it is unclear what aspects of this expedition the play might have dramatised by 17 September 1595.  
Neither [[WorksCited|Malone (p. 297)]] nor [[WorksCited|Collier] (p. 56)]], nor [[WorksCited|Fleay, ''BCED'' 2.304 #173]] comments on the possible subject matter of this play. [[WorksCited|Greg II]] also has no opinion (p. 76 #77).


<br> Ramsaram assumes that “[t]he lost plays—''New World’s Tragedy'', 1595, and [[Conquest of the West Indies, The | ''The Conquest of the West Indies'']], 1601, must surely have given a prominent place to Drake’s adventures” (99). Ramsaram offers no evidence to support this speculation, and indeed the example of Drake’s immortalisation in verse that Ramsaram does produce seems to contradict this inference of a lead role in lost plays. Ramsaram cites a verse panegyric by Oxford scholar Charles Fitz-Geffrey (''Sir Francis Drake. His Honorable Life’s Commendation … 1596'') which “[i]n addition to addressing Spenser, Daniel and Drayton by name … had sought to interest the dramatists of his day” in the adventures of Drake (101). But Fitz-Geffrey’s very offer to the “quaint tragedians of our time” of “a modern subject for your wits” (qtd. in Ramsaram 101) surely ought to imply that Drake’s adventures had ''not'' yet been dramatised by 1596.  
<br>'''Cawley''' suggestively notes that “[t]he Drake-Hawkins expedition of 1595 suffered every kind of bad luck” (both men died during this fateful voyage to the West Indies) and that a “non-extant play, ''New World’s Tragedy'' … was acted at the Rose in that year” (289). But Drake did not die until early 1596, so it is unclear what aspects of this expedition the play might have dramatised by 17 September 1595.  


<br> Parr speculates that ''The New World’s Tragedy'' was “perhaps inspired by the lost colony on Roanoke Island in Virginia or by the much-trumpeted atrocities of the Spanish further south” (3).  
<br> '''Ramsaram''' assumes that “[t]he lost plays—''New World’s Tragedy'', 1595, and [[Conquest of the West Indies, The | ''The Conquest of the West Indies'']], 1601, must surely have given a prominent place to Drake’s adventures” (99). Ramsaram offers no evidence to support this speculation, and indeed the example of Drake’s immortalisation in verse that Ramsaram does produce seems to contradict this inference of a lead role in lost plays. Ramsaram cites a verse panegyric by Oxford scholar Charles Fitz-Geffrey (''Sir Francis Drake. His Honorable Life’s Commendation … 1596'') which “[i]n addition to addressing Spenser, Daniel and Drayton by name … had sought to interest the dramatists of his day” in the adventures of Drake (101). But Fitz-Geffrey’s very offer to the “quaint tragedians of our time” of “a modern subject for your wits” (qtd. in Ramsaram 101) surely ought to imply that Drake’s adventures had ''not'' yet been dramatised by 1596.
 
<br> '''Parr''' speculates that ''The New World’s Tragedy'' was “perhaps inspired by the lost colony on Roanoke Island in Virginia or by the much-trumpeted atrocities of the Spanish further south” (3).  
<br><br>
<br><br>
See also [[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'']] (#1009).
See also [[WorksCited|Wiggins, ''Catalogue'']] (#1009).

Latest revision as of 10:47, 20 September 2022

Anon. (1595)


Historical Records

Performance Records

Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary

Fol. 13 (Greg I.25): ye 17 of septmbʒ 1595 ne . . Res at the worldes tragedy . . . . . . iijll vs
ye 25 of septmbʒ 1595 Res at the worldes tragedy . . . . . . xxxviijs
ye 7 of octobʒ 1595 Res at the worldes tragedy . . . . . . xxxjs
ye 22 of octobʒ 1595 Res at the worldes tragedy . . . xxxiijjs
ye 3 of novembʒ 1595 Res at the new worldes tragedy . . . xxixs
Fol. 14 (Greg I.27): ye 27 of novembʒ 1595 Res at the newes wordles tragedy . . xviijs
ye 12 of desembʒ 1595 Res at the new worldes tragedy . . . xxxjs vjd
ye 22 of desembʒ 1595 Res at the newe worldes tragedie . . xxs
ye 8 of Jenewary 1595 Res at new worldes tragedie . . . . . xviijs
Fol. 14v (Greg I.28): ye 25 of Jenewary 1595------------ Res at the new worldes tragedy . . . xiiijs
Fol. 15v (Greg I.30): / ye 27 of aprell 1596 Res at new worldes tragedy . . . . . xxixs


Theatrical Provenance

Played as a new play at the Rose on 17 September 1595 by the Admiral’s.


Probable Genre(s)

Tragedy (Harbage)


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

None known.


References to the Play

None known.


Critical Commentary

Neither Malone (p. 297) nor Collier] (p. 56), nor Fleay, BCED 2.304 #173 comments on the possible subject matter of this play. Greg II also has no opinion (p. 76 #77).


Cawley suggestively notes that “[t]he Drake-Hawkins expedition of 1595 suffered every kind of bad luck” (both men died during this fateful voyage to the West Indies) and that a “non-extant play, New World’s Tragedy … was acted at the Rose in that year” (289). But Drake did not die until early 1596, so it is unclear what aspects of this expedition the play might have dramatised by 17 September 1595.


Ramsaram assumes that “[t]he lost plays—New World’s Tragedy, 1595, and The Conquest of the West Indies, 1601, must surely have given a prominent place to Drake’s adventures” (99). Ramsaram offers no evidence to support this speculation, and indeed the example of Drake’s immortalisation in verse that Ramsaram does produce seems to contradict this inference of a lead role in lost plays. Ramsaram cites a verse panegyric by Oxford scholar Charles Fitz-Geffrey (Sir Francis Drake. His Honorable Life’s Commendation … 1596) which “[i]n addition to addressing Spenser, Daniel and Drayton by name … had sought to interest the dramatists of his day” in the adventures of Drake (101). But Fitz-Geffrey’s very offer to the “quaint tragedians of our time” of “a modern subject for your wits” (qtd. in Ramsaram 101) surely ought to imply that Drake’s adventures had not yet been dramatised by 1596.


Parr speculates that The New World’s Tragedy was “perhaps inspired by the lost colony on Roanoke Island in Virginia or by the much-trumpeted atrocities of the Spanish further south” (3).

See also Wiggins, Catalogue (#1009).

For What It’s Worth

(Information welcome)


Works Cited

Cawley, Robert Ralston. The Voyagers and Elizabethan Drama. Boston: MLA, 1938.
Parr, Anthony (ed). Introduction. Three Renaissance Travel Plays. Manchester: Manchester UP, c1995; rpt. 1999. The Revels Plays Companion Library.
Ramsaram, J. A. “Sir Francis Drake in Contemporary Verse.” Notes & Queries 202 (1957): 99-101.


Site created and maintained by David McInnis, University of Melbourne; updated, 04 September 2009.