Isle of Dogs, The

Jonson, Ben and Nashe, Thomas(1597)

Historical Records

Henslowe's Diary

F. 232 (Greg, I.203)

The following entry does major work in providing a context for the lost Isle of Dogs. It gives a date which, in conjunction with the Privy Council letters and warrants, adds to the timeline of the events. It names William Birde ("borne"), who is here contracting with Edward Alleyn (and a witness named Robsone) to join the Admiral's men. It sets the terms of the contract. And it reveals why: the restraint against playing imposed by the Privy Council "by the means of playing the Jeylle of dooges." Although not every detail is equally relevant to the lost play, the entry is repeated here in its entirety in order to illustrate more fully the forgeries that had some credibility because of this legitimate entry.

M^rdom that the 10 of aguste 1597 w^m borne came & ofered

hime sealfe to come and playe w^th my lord admeralles mean

at my howsse called by the name of the Rosse setewate one the back

after this order folowinge he hathe Receued of me iij^d upon & a

sumsette to forfette vnto me a hundrethe marckes of lafull

money of Ingland yf he do not performe these thinges folowinge

that is presentley after libertie being granted for playinge to

come & playe w^th my lordes admeralles men at my howsse

aforesayd & not in any other howsse publicke a bowt london

for the space of iij yeares beginynge Jmediatly after this Re

straynt is Recaled by the lordes of the counsel w^ch Restraynt

is by the meanes of playinge the Jeylle of dooges yf he do not

then he forfettes this asumset afore or ells not wittnes to this

E Alleyn & Robsone

Forgeries in the Diary

John Payne Collier acquired access to Henslowe's Diary in 1830, the second theater historian to examine the manuscript (Edmond Malone was first). He inserted in Henslowe's manuscript three forgeries concerning The Isle of Dogs. He incorporated these into his narrative of 1597 in his History of English Dramatic Poetry ... and Annals of the Stage (1831) and published the forgeries themselves in his edition of the diary (1845). For further details, see Critical Commentary, below.

Acts of the Privy Council

28 July 1597 (Dasent, 27.313-13)

The Privy Council issued a letter to the justices of Middlesex and Surrey on 28 July in which they ordered all playhouses be torn down because of disorders committed there and lewd plays.

... Her Majestie being informed that there are verie greate disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stages and by resorte and confluence of bad people, hathe given direction that not onlie no plaies shalbe used within London or about the citty or in any publique place during this time of sommer, but that also those play houses that are erected and built only for suche purposes shalbe plucked down, namelie the Curtayne and the Theatre nere to Shorditch or any other within that county. Theis are therfore in her Majesty's name to chardge and commaund you that you take present order there be no more plaies used in any publique place within three myles of the citty until Alhalloutide next, and likewyse that you do send for the owners of the Curtayne Theatre or anie other common playhouse and injoyne them by vertue hereof forthwith to plucke downe quite the stages, gallories and roomes that are made for people to stand in, and so to deface the same as they maie not be ymploied agayne to suche use, which yf they shall not speedely perform you shall advertyse us, that order maie be taken to see the same don according to her Majesty's pleasure and commaundment. ... The like to ... the Justices of Surrey, requiring them to take the like order for the playhouses in the Banckside, in Southwarke or elswhere in the said county within iij^e miles of London.

15 August 1597 (Dasent, 27.338)

The Privy Council issued a letter to Richard Topcliffe and others on 15 August 1597 with instructions that the persons already apprehended in conjunction with the performance of a lewd play be examined on a number of particulars in light of the possible apprehension of more persons involved in the theatrical enterprise; Topcliffe was further instructed to look carefully at papers taken from the lodgings of Nashe.

... Uppon informacion given us of a lewd plaie that was plaied in one of the plaiehowses on the Bancke Side, contanyinge very seditious and sclanderous matter, wee caused some of the players to be apprehended and comytted to pryson, whereof one of them was not only an actor but a maker of parte of the said plaie. For as moche as yt ys thought meete that the rest of the players or actors in that matter shalbe apprehended to receave soche punyshment as theire leude and mutynous behavior doth deserve, these shalbe therefore to require you to examine those of the plaiers that are comytted, whose names are knowne to you, Mr. Topelyfe, what ys become of the rest of theire fellowes that either had theire partes in the devysinge of that sedytious matter or that were actors or plaiers in the same, what copies they have given forth of the said playe and to whome, and soch other pointes as you shall thincke meete to be demaunded of them, wherein you shall require them to deale trulie as they will looke to receave anie favour. We praie you also to peruse soch papers as were fownde in Nash his lodgings, which Ferrys, a Messenger of the Chamber, shall delyver unto you, and to certyfie us th'examynacions you take. ...

8 October 1597 (Dasent, 28.33)

In an entry on 8 October 1597, the Privy Council recorded the issue of warrants for the release of Gabriel Spencer and Robert Shaa (Shaw), as well as Ben Jonson; the entries notes that the warrants were signed on 3 October.

A warrant to the Keeper of the Marshalsea to release Gabriell Spencer and Robert Shaa, stage-players, out of prison, who were of lat committed to his custody. The like warrant for the releasing of Benjamin Johnson.

Theatrical Provenance

All indications are that The Isle of Dogs belonged to Pembroke's players at least by the summer of 1597. The company had arrived in London by February, where they leased the Swan playhouse on the Bankside. Francis Langley had had the playhouse built in the fall of 1594, and it was probably open for business by summer 1596. No documents reveal the identity of Langley's lessees until Pembroke's players arrive in February 1597. The company's run was abbreviated in late summer, in part if not entirely because of governmental distress at the playing of The Isle of Dogs.

Probable Genre(s)

Satirical comedy (Harbage)

Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

None known.

References to the Play

Francis Meres, Palladis Tamia, 1598

"As Actæon was worried of his owne hounds: so is Tom Nash of his Isle of Dogs. Dogges were the death of Euripedes; but bee not disconsolate, gallant young Iuuenall, Linus, the sonne of Apollo died the same death. Yet God forbid that so braue a witte should so basely perish! Thine are but paper doggies, neither is thy banishment like Ouids, eternally to conuerse with the barbarous Getæ. Therefore comfort thyselfe sweete Tom, with Cicero's glorious return to Rome, and with the counsel Æneas gives to his seabeaten soldiers. Lib. I, Æneid (Smith, II.324).

Thomas Nashe, Nashes Lenten Stuffe, 1599

In the opening section ("The Praise of the red herring"), Nashe comments explicitly on the Isle of Dogs event: "The straunge turning of the Ile of Dogs from a commedie to a tragedie two summers past, with the troublesome stir which hapned aboute it, is a general rumour laid upon me, as had well neere confounded mee ...". He speaks of the exile enforced upon him and resultant melancholy caused by "the silliest millers thombe or contemptible stickle-banck of my enemies [who are] as busie nibbling about [his] fame as if [he] were a deade man thrown amongst them to feede upon." But he promises a revenge "hot a brooding" in the form of a pamphlet that will quiet the rumors. Circling back to fallout from the play, Nashe speaks of the "unfortunate imperfect Embrion of my idle hours, the Ile of Dogs before mentioned," the conception of which was so violent that it "was no sooner borne but [he] was glad to run from it [i.e., to Yarmouth]" (McKerrow 3.153) In a marginal note, Nashe adds: "An imperfect Embrion I may well call it, for I hating begun but the induction and first act of it, the other four acts without my consent, or the least guess of my drift or scope, by the players were supplied, which bred both their trouble and mine to (McKerrow 3.153-4)

Thomas Dekker, Satiromastix, 1601 (S. R. 11 November 1601; Q1602)

In an abrasive confrontation, Tucca, a blowhard captain, rails at Horace (Ben Jonson) that he has called Demetrius (Thomas Dekker) a "Iorneyman Poet"; Tucca then turns the insult on Horace: " but thou putst vp a Supplication to be a poore Iorneyman Player, and hadst beene still so, but that thou couldst not set a good face vpon't: thou hast forgot how thou amblest (in leather pilch) by a play-wagon, in the highway, and took'st mad Ieronimoes part, to get seruice among the Mimickes: and when the Stagerites banisht thee into the Ile of Dogs, thou turn'dst Ban-dog (villanous Guy) and euer since bitest, therefore I aske if th'ast been at Parris-garden, because thou hast such a good mouth, thou baitst well ..." (IV.i.127-35).

In addition to the above reference to The Isle of Dogs itself and the site of the Swan ("Parris-garden"), Tucca refers to the location of the playhouse a few lines earlier: "... thou hast been at Parris garden hast not?" (4.i.122).

Critical Commentary

Privy Council Orders

Wickham claims that the Swan "lost its license as a result of the performance of The Isle of Dogs in 1597 (vol.2, pt. 1, p. 134). [see xerox 2.1.279+ n#5 on "owners [of playhouses being brought] sharply to heel to reassure the government and admit of its entering upon a new agreement with the acting companies"; in note: companies "which acted regularly in London without inhibition after The Isle of Dogs affair of 1597 [were] the Lord Chamberlain's, another the Lord Admiral's and the third the Earl of Worcester's" (373, n. 5);

for more, see 2.part 2 xerox (whole chapter on 1597): p. 5 = "the performance ... which provoked an immediate Order from the Privy Council condemning both authors and actors to a spell in prison and authorizing the City Council to demolish all playhouses in and arund Londond." (2.2.5);

Ingram questions the degree of causation between the Privy Council orders to close the playhouses and the restraint issued due to concerns about the performance of The Isle of Dogs.

Forgeries

F. 29^v (Greg, I.57) (Collier, 94)

Lent the 14 may 1597 to Jubie vppon a notte

from Nashe twentie shellinges more for the Jylle

of dogges w^ch he is wrytinge for the company

In his edition of the diary, Collier appended a note to this entry, reinforcing his fraudulent point that Nashe was writing the play for the Admiral's men; he references the second forgery (F. 33, below), and refers the reader to a woodcut in Gabriel Harvey's "Trimming of Thomas Nash" which shows Nash in fetters.

F. 33 (Greg, I.62) (Collier, 98)

pd this 23 of aguste 1597 to harey porter

to carye to T Nashe nowe at this tyme in the

flete for wrytinge of the eylle of doggies ten

shellings to be paid agen to me when he cane

J saye ten shillings ............................. x^s

In his diary edition, Collier also appended a note to this forgery, referring readers to his 1831 History of English Dramatic Poetry in which he had first announced the contents of his forged entries (he referenced his Shakespeare as well).

F. 33^v (Greg, I.63) (Collier, 99)

pd vnto M^r Blunsones the M^r of the Reveles

man this 27 of aguste 1597 ten shillings for

newes of the restraynt beinge recaled by the

lordes of the Queenes counsel ............................. x^s

Collier's note in the diary on this third forgery merely rephrases the entry.

Greg discusses the forgeries primarily in terms of the physical abuse of Henslowe's manuscript (I.xl-xli). He also observes, scornfully, that the entry concerning Blunson, the Revels man, is the most clumsy forgery in the volume" (I.xli).

Freeman and Freeman are more candid about Collier's "fabrication-cum-forgery" (I.205). They point out that Collier tirelessly faulted Malone for omissions in his transcript, implying that it was thus easier for Collier to mix in his mischief with Malone's omissions (I.206). They observe further than Collier's forgeries "provide the only evidence that Nashe was ever imprisoned over the affair" (I.206).

For What It's Worth

Works Cited

Bowers, Fredson. The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.(Google Books) NB: Bowers is quoted in the text above, but unavailable in digital form; the digital link is to R. H. Shepherd's 1873 edition of Dekker's works, vol. 1.

Collier, John Payne. The Diary of Philip Henslowe, from 1591 to 1609. London: Shakespeare Society, 1845.

Dasent, J. R., ed. Acts of the Privy Council of England. 32 vols. London:HMSO, 1890-1907. (British History Online)

Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman. John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.

Ingram, William. A London Life in the Brazen Age: Francis Langley, 1548-1602. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

McKerrow, Ronald B., ed. The Works of Thomas Nashe. 5 vols. London: A. H. Bullen, 1905. (Vol. 3)

Smith, G. Gregory, ed. Elizabethan Critical Essays. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1904. (Meres excerpt)

Wickham, Glynne. Early English Stages, 1300 to 1660. 3 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.

Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 21 February 2012.