Catiline's Conspiracy (Catiline)
Robert Wilson and Henry Chettle (1598)
Historical Records
Payments to Playwrights (Henslowe's Diary)
F. 49v (Greg I.94)
Lent mr willsone the 21 of aguste 1598 in <e> } earnest of a Boocke called cattelyne some of } xs
Lent vnto harey cheattell the 26 of aguste } 1598 earneste of a Boocke called } vs cattelanes consperecey the some of }
Lent vnto mr willsone the 29 of aguste } 1598 at the request of hary cheattell in } xs earneste of cattelyne the some of }
Theatrical Provenance
There is no evidence of performance (as in the case with "Hannibal and Hermes" and "Conan, Prince of Cornwall"), but "it remains overwhemingly likely" that the played was staged by the Lord Admiral's Men at the Rose in 1598 (Wiggins, 1137). However, Wiggins also adds that "we cannot rule out the possibility that, in a year of heavy surplus in his play purchasing, Henslowe might have had some other purpose in mind for the plays"
Probable Genre(s)
Classical history (Harbage), tragedy (Wiggins).
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
The main sources are likely to have been Sallust's De coniuratione Catilinae and Cicero's In Catilinam. However, Sallust's text had not been translated into English yet in 1598 (the first English translation by Thomas Heywood was only published in 1608). The only English version available to Wilson and Chettle would have been The Conspiracie of Lucius Catiline, translated into Englishe by Thomas Paynell; worthy, profitable, and pleasaunt to be red (London, in officina T. Bertheleti, 1541), a translation of Costanzo Felici's Historia Coniurations Catilinariae, published in Latin in 1518. Felici's account was reprinted in The conspiracie of Catiline, written by Constancius Felicius Durantinus, translated by T. Paynell, with the historye of Jugurth, writen by the famous Romaine Salust, and translated into Englyshe by A Barcklaye (London, John Waley, 1557), thereby essentially replacing Sallust's account of the conspiracy. We known that Ben Jonson drew heavily on the Latin original by Felici for his 1611 Catiline His Conspiracy (see Duffy, Bolton and Gardner, Lovascio); consequently, it is legitimate to conceive that Wilson and Chettle may have resorted to Felici's work too. Interestingly, as Wiggins (1145) notes, the Admiral's Men also produced "Jugurth, King of Numidia" only two years later. If Wilson and Chettle did indeed draw on Felici, one may even wonder whether Jonson was following their example in his Catiline.
References to the Play
None known; information welcome.
Critical Commentary
Gentili (???) suggests the play may be a rewrite of Wilson's older play on Catiline (ca. 1579), defined as “Shorte and sweete” by Thomas Lodge (1:42-43) in his reply to Stephen Gosson’s School of Abuse (1579). This would be consistent with the relatively low sum paid by Henslowe to Wilson and Chettle (1£ 5s).
Rutter (148) maintains that the piece "was evidently abandoned" and never completed, but there is no conclusive evidence about it.
Feldmann and Tetzeli von Rosador (329) point out that this play, together with "Caesar and Pompey, Part 1", "Caesar and Pompey, Part 2" and "Caesar’s Fall", would have made up "a Caesarean project of some magnitude, showing Caesar in the round" (see also "Caesar’s Fall").
For What It's Worth
Under construction.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Domenico Lovascio, University of Genoa; updated 04 March 2015.