Hymen's Holiday or Cupid's Vagaries: Difference between revisions
m (minor formatting)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Historical Records==
==Historical Records==


:By the Duck of yorks Players. Shroue: munday: A Play Called Himens Haliday. (Revels Accounts, 24 February, 1612; see Streitberger, 48-9).
===Revels Accounts===
:By the Duck of yorks Players. Shroue: munday: A Play Called Himens Haliday.  
(Revels Accounts, 24 February, 1612; see Streitberger, 48-9).


:"Received of Biston, for an ould play called Hymens Holliday, newly revived at their house, being a play given unto him for my use, this 15 Aug. 1633, 3''l''. 0.0. Received of him for some alterations in it, 1''l''. 0.0." (Herbert's Office-Book; see Bentley, ''JCS'', 5: 1023; Bawcutt, ''Control and Censorship'', entry 277).
:"On Monday night the 16 of December, 1633, at Whitehall was acted before the King and Queen, ''Hymens Holliday or Cupids Fegarys, an ould play of Rowleys. Likte." (Herbert's Office-Book; see see Bentley, ''JCS'', 5: 1023; Bawcutt, ''Control and Censorship'', entry 277).
: "Cupid's Vagaries" appears in a list of plays protected by the Lord Chamberlain for the King and Queen's Young Company (Bentley, ''JCS'', 1:330-1).


===Stationers' Register===
:"Received of Biston, for an ould play called ''Hymen's Holliday'', newly revived at their house, being a play given unto him for my use, this 15 Aug. 1633, 3''l''. 0.0. Received of him for some alterations in it, 1''l''. 0.0."
([http://www.archive.org/stream/dramaticrecordso00greaiala#page/35/mode/1up Herbert 35]; see also Bentley 5.1023; Bawcutt, entry 277).
<br><br>
:"On Monday night the 16 of December, 1633, at Whitehall was acted before the King and Queen, ''Hymens Holliday or Cupids Fegarys'', an ould play of Rowleys. Likte."
([http://www.archive.org/stream/dramaticrecordso00greaiala#page/53/mode/1up/ Herbert 53]; see also Bentley 5.1023; Bawcutt, entry 277).
<br>
===Lord Chamberlain's list===
: "Cupid's Vagaries" appears in a list of plays protected by the Lord Chamberlain for the King and Queen's Young Company
(Bentley 1.330-1).
<br>
<br>
<br>
==Theatrical Provenance==
==Theatrical Provenance==


The play is first recorded as having been performed at court in 1612 by the Duke of York's Men (later called Prince Charles's (I) Men).
The play is first recorded as having been performed at court in 1612 by the Duke of York's Men (later called Prince Charles's (I) Men).


The 1633 revival noted by Herbert would have been performed by Christopher Beeston's then company, Queen Henrietta's Men, who were then playing at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. The "alterations" made to the old play would likely have been made by James Shirley, the regular dramatist at the Phoenix (Bentlrey, ''JCS'', 5:1024).


What did Herbert mean when he wrote that the play was "given unto him [Beeston] for my use"? Bentley says this implies that Herbert "somehow owned and controlled the manuscript" and charged Beeston £3 to revive it for "a benefit performance like those the King's company gave for him" (''JCS'' 5:1025).  
The 1633 revival noted by Herbert would have been performed by Christopher Beeston's then company, Queen Henrietta's Men, who were then playing at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. The "alterations" made to the old play would likely have been made by James Shirley, the regular dramatist at the Phoenix (Bentley 5.1024).




What did Herbert mean when he wrote that the play was "given unto him [Beeston] for my use"? Bentley says this implies that Herbert "somehow owned and controlled the manuscript" and charged Beeston £3 to revive it for "a benefit performance like those the King's company gave for him" (5.1025).
<br>
<br>
<br>
==Authorship==
==Authorship==


The author is most likely William, not Samuel Rowley, since William was a sharer in the Duke of York's Men (Bentley, ''JCS'', 5:1023).
The author is most likely William, not Samuel Rowley, since William was a sharer in the Duke of York's Men (Bentley 5.1023).
 




Line 29: Line 43:


Comedy.
Comedy.




Line 34: Line 49:


None known.
None known.




Line 39: Line 55:


None known.
None known.




Line 44: Line 61:


None known.
None known.




Line 49: Line 67:


All that can be guessed about this play's subject matter is that it was likely a comedy about love and marriage.
All that can be guessed about this play's subject matter is that it was likely a comedy about love and marriage.




Line 55: Line 74:
*Streitberger, W.R. ''Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1603-1642''. Malone Society Collections XIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
*Streitberger, W.R. ''Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1603-1642''. Malone Society Collections XIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.


[[category:Queen Henrietta Maria's]][[category:Duke of York's]][[category:Prince Charles's (I)]][[category:King and Queen's Young]]
[[category:Queen Henrietta Maria's]][[category:Duke of York's]][[category:Prince Charles's (I)]][[category:King and Queen's Young]] [[category:all]]






Site created and maintained by [[David Nicol]], Dalhousie University; updated 29 June, 2010.
Site created and maintained by [[David Nicol]], Dalhousie University; updated 29 June, 2010.

Revision as of 07:43, 4 July 2010

William Rowley (>1612)


Historical Records

Revels Accounts

By the Duck of yorks Players. Shroue: munday: A Play Called Himens Haliday.

(Revels Accounts, 24 February, 1612; see Streitberger, 48-9).


Stationers' Register

"Received of Biston, for an ould play called Hymen's Holliday, newly revived at their house, being a play given unto him for my use, this 15 Aug. 1633, 3l. 0.0. Received of him for some alterations in it, 1l. 0.0."

(Herbert 35; see also Bentley 5.1023; Bawcutt, entry 277).

"On Monday night the 16 of December, 1633, at Whitehall was acted before the King and Queen, Hymens Holliday or Cupids Fegarys, an ould play of Rowleys. Likte."

(Herbert 53; see also Bentley 5.1023; Bawcutt, entry 277).

Lord Chamberlain's list

"Cupid's Vagaries" appears in a list of plays protected by the Lord Chamberlain for the King and Queen's Young Company

(Bentley 1.330-1).


Theatrical Provenance

The play is first recorded as having been performed at court in 1612 by the Duke of York's Men (later called Prince Charles's (I) Men).


The 1633 revival noted by Herbert would have been performed by Christopher Beeston's then company, Queen Henrietta's Men, who were then playing at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. The "alterations" made to the old play would likely have been made by James Shirley, the regular dramatist at the Phoenix (Bentley 5.1024).


What did Herbert mean when he wrote that the play was "given unto him [Beeston] for my use"? Bentley says this implies that Herbert "somehow owned and controlled the manuscript" and charged Beeston £3 to revive it for "a benefit performance like those the King's company gave for him" (5.1025).


Authorship

The author is most likely William, not Samuel Rowley, since William was a sharer in the Duke of York's Men (Bentley 5.1023).


Probable Genre(s)

Comedy.


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

None known.


References to the Play

None known.


Critical Commentary

None known.


For What It's Worth

All that can be guessed about this play's subject matter is that it was likely a comedy about love and marriage.


Works Cited

  • Streitberger, W.R. Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1603-1642. Malone Society Collections XIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.


Site created and maintained by David Nicol, Dalhousie University; updated 29 June, 2010.