Judas: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
William Haughton (1600) William Bird, Samuel Rowley (1601)  
William Haughton (1600) William Bird, Samuel Rowley (1602)  


<br>  
<br>  
Line 36: Line 36:
== Theatrical Provenance  ==
== Theatrical Provenance  ==


&lt;Enter information about which company performed the play, and where/when it was performed, etc.&gt;
The Admiral's Men paid William Haughton 10s. on 27 May 1600 for ''Judas'', but there are no further payments for a play until December 1601, when William Birde and Samuel Rowley are paid in full for a play by that name. The purchase of cloth for the play suggests that it went into production at the Fortune in late winter 1602.


<br>  
<br>  
Line 42: Line 42:
== Probable Genre(s)  ==
== Probable Genre(s)  ==


&lt;List possible genres of the play: if noted by a critic, cite them, e.g. "Comedy (Harbage)". If an original speculation, simply list the genre.&gt;
Biblical History (Harbage)


<br>  
<br>  
Line 48: Line 48:
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues  ==
== Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues  ==


&lt;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.&gt;
The biblical narrative of Judas Iscariot is the logical narrative source.


<br>  
<br>  
Line 54: Line 54:
== References to the Play  ==
== References to the Play  ==


&lt;List any known or conjectured references to the lost play here.&gt;
None known.  


<br>  
<br>  
Line 60: Line 60:
== Critical Commentary  ==
== Critical Commentary  ==


&lt;Summarise any critical commentary that may have been published by scholars. Please maintain an objective tone!&gt;
Greg considers that the Haughton project was suspended and that Bird and Rowley later completed the play, perhaps with Haughton's "rough sketch" at hand (II. Item #207, p. 214). Subsequent scholars have agreed with Greg's reasoning.
 
Sharpe cites the genre of Biblical plays as an example of repertorial difference between the Admiral's Men and Chamberlain's Men. He supposes that the Chamberlain's Men "did not feel that plays on Bible subjects would appeal to their clientele" (28); the Admiral's Men, in contrast, were "catering to the more old-fashioned Puritans" (28-29), and thus acquired not only ''Judas'' in 1600 but also five other Biblical plays in 1602. He wonders if "they had very special reasons for such piety" then, hinting that they might have been currying the favor of Sir Robert Cecil. Sharpe expands his commentary by suggesting that the Biblical plays were the Admiral's "characteristic way of taking advantage of the current vogue of satire—by harking back to the religious-ethical type and justifying their scurrilities to their relatively unsophisticated audience by uttering them as jeremiads" (136).
 
Gurr also notes the sequence of Biblical plays in 1602 (signaled in Haughton's single payment of 1600) and finds it "tempting to think that the impulse came from Alleyn wishing to assert his Christian credentials" (41) in possible anticipation of his future gift to Dulwich and the College of God's Gift (42). Gurr also points out difficulties in using the narrative of Judas Iscariot for a play and suggests that the subject of Judas Maccabaeus had promising subject matter (42).


<br>  
<br>  
Line 66: Line 70:
== For What It's Worth  ==
== For What It's Worth  ==


&lt;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.&gt;
 


<br>  
<br>  
Line 72: Line 76:
== Keywords  ==
== Keywords  ==


William Haughton, Biblical plays  
William Haughton [[category:William Haughton]], William Bird [[category:William Bird]], Samuel Rowley [[category: Samuel Rowley]], Biblical plays [[category:Biblical plays]], Partial payment [[category:Partial payment]]


== Works Cited  ==
== Works Cited  ==


&lt;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.&gt;
Gurr, Andrew. ''Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's company 1594-1625''. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2009.
Sharpe, Robert B. ''The Real War of the Theaters''. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1935.


<br>  
<br>  


Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 31 October 2009].  
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 2 November 2009].  


[[Category:William_Haughton]] [[Category:Biblical_plays]]
[[Category:William_Haughton]] [[Category:Biblical_plays]]

Revision as of 19:13, 2 November 2009

William Haughton (1600) William Bird, Samuel Rowley (1602)


Historical Records

F. 69v (Greg I.122)

Lent vnto wm harton the 27 of maye 1600
in earneste of a Boocke called Judas the some .... xs
                                       W Haughton.

F. 95 (Greg I.151)

pd vnto wm Borne at the apoyntment of
[a Boocke] company the 20 of desemb[er] 1601
Jn earnest of a Boocke called Judas wch
samewell Rowly & he is a writtinge some of ... xxs


F. 95v (Greg I.152)

pd at the apoyntment of the company
[1601] in fulle payment for a Boocke
called Judas vnto wm Borne & Samvvelle
Rowley the 24 of desemb[er] 1601 some of ... vli


Lent vnto antony Jaffes the 3 of Janewary
1601 to bye cloth for the playe of Judas
the some of ... xxxs



Theatrical Provenance

The Admiral's Men paid William Haughton 10s. on 27 May 1600 for Judas, but there are no further payments for a play until December 1601, when William Birde and Samuel Rowley are paid in full for a play by that name. The purchase of cloth for the play suggests that it went into production at the Fortune in late winter 1602.


Probable Genre(s)

Biblical History (Harbage)


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

The biblical narrative of Judas Iscariot is the logical narrative source.


References to the Play

None known.


Critical Commentary

Greg considers that the Haughton project was suspended and that Bird and Rowley later completed the play, perhaps with Haughton's "rough sketch" at hand (II. Item #207, p. 214). Subsequent scholars have agreed with Greg's reasoning.

Sharpe cites the genre of Biblical plays as an example of repertorial difference between the Admiral's Men and Chamberlain's Men. He supposes that the Chamberlain's Men "did not feel that plays on Bible subjects would appeal to their clientele" (28); the Admiral's Men, in contrast, were "catering to the more old-fashioned Puritans" (28-29), and thus acquired not only Judas in 1600 but also five other Biblical plays in 1602. He wonders if "they had very special reasons for such piety" then, hinting that they might have been currying the favor of Sir Robert Cecil. Sharpe expands his commentary by suggesting that the Biblical plays were the Admiral's "characteristic way of taking advantage of the current vogue of satire—by harking back to the religious-ethical type and justifying their scurrilities to their relatively unsophisticated audience by uttering them as jeremiads" (136).

Gurr also notes the sequence of Biblical plays in 1602 (signaled in Haughton's single payment of 1600) and finds it "tempting to think that the impulse came from Alleyn wishing to assert his Christian credentials" (41) in possible anticipation of his future gift to Dulwich and the College of God's Gift (42). Gurr also points out difficulties in using the narrative of Judas Iscariot for a play and suggests that the subject of Judas Maccabaeus had promising subject matter (42).


For What It's Worth


Keywords

William Haughton, William Bird, Samuel Rowley, Biblical plays, Partial payment

Works Cited

Gurr, Andrew. Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's company 1594-1625. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2009. Sharpe, Robert B. The Real War of the Theaters. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1935.


Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 2 November 2009].