Barnardo and Fiammetta
Historical Records
Performance Records
Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary
- Fol. 13 (Greg I.25)
ye 28 of octobʒ 1595 . . . . . . ne . . Rd at barnardo & phvlameta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxiis ye 6 of novmbʒ 1595 Rd at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvijs
- Fol. 14 (Greg, I.27)
ye 19 of novmbʒ 1595 . . . . . . . . . . Rd at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vjs ye 3 of desembʒ Rd at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vijs ye 26 of desembʒ Rd at barnardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lviijs
- Fol. 14v (Greg, I. 28
ye 20 of Jenewary 1595 . . . . . . . . Rd at barnardo and phiameta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xjs
- Fol. 15v (Greg 1.30):
ye 12 of aprell ester . . . . . . . . . . . . Rd 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
References to the Play
Critical Commentary
Malone had 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, used 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 tagged 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 shamelessly implied 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 left 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 ignored Collier's false claims about "Barnardo and Fiammetta" and a companion forgery, as did Greg II, who observed 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.