Barnardo and Fiammetta: Difference between revisions
(22 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
====Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary==== | ====Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary==== | ||
<br> | |||
:Fol. 13 ([http://www.archive.org/stream/henslowesdiary00unkngoog#page/n84/mode/2up Greg I.25]) | :Fol. 13 ([http://www.archive.org/stream/henslowesdiary00unkngoog#page/n84/mode/2up Greg I.25]) | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::{| {{table}} | ::{| {{table}} | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> | |- | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> 28 of octobʒ 1595 | |||
| . . . . . . ne . . | |||
| R''es'' at barnardo & phvlameta | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxii<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| y<sup>e</sup> 6 of novmbʒ 1595 | |||
| | |||
| R''es'' at barnardo | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvij<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
Line 29: | Line 39: | ||
::{| {{table}} | ::{| {{table}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> | | y<sup>e</sup> 19 of novmbʒ 1595 | ||
| | | . . . . . . . . . . | ||
| R''es'' at barnardo | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vj<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| y<sup>e</sup> 3 of desembʒ | |||
| | | | ||
| R''es'' at barnardo | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vij<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| y<sup>e</sup> 26 of desembʒ | |||
| | | | ||
| R''es'' at barnardo | |||
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lviij<sup>s</sup> | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 42: | Line 62: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> 20 of Jenewary 1595 | | y<sup>e</sup> 20 of Jenewary 1595 | ||
| | | . . . . . . . . | ||
| | | R''es'' at barnardo and phiameta | ||
| | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xj<sup>s</sup> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 55: | Line 75: | ||
::{| | ::{| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| y<sup>e</sup> | | y<sup>e</sup> 12 of ap<sup>r</sup>ell ester | ||
| | | . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
| | | R''es'' at barnardo and fiameta | ||
| | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxx<sup>s</sup> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
<br><br> | |||
== Theatrical Provenance == | == 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. | |||
<br><br> | |||
== Probable Genre(s) == | == Probable Genre(s) == | ||
Line 73: | 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]] 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|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). | |||
'''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). 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> | |||
== 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> | ||
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: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
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
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 17 February 2021.