Godfrey of Boulogne, Parts 1 and 2
Historical Records
Performance Records
Playlists in Philip Henslowe's diary
Fol. 9v (Greg I. 18)
ye 19 of Julye 1594 . . . ne . . . . . Rd at 2 þte of godfrey of bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . iijli xjs ye 26 of Julye 1594 Rd at godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . xlvijs ye 6 of aguste 1594 Rd at seconde þ godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxvijs ye 13 of aguste 1594 Rd at godfrey of bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxixs
Fol. 10 (Greg, I.19)
ye 26 of aguste 1594 Rd at godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvijs vld ye 8 of septmbʒ 1594 ———— Rd at godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxs ye 20 of septmbʒ 1594 Rd at godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxs ye 6 of octobʒ 1594 Rd at bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xijs
Fol. 10v (Greg, I.20)
ye 30 of octobʒ 1594 . . . . . . . . . . . Rd at bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxs
Fol. 11v (Greg, I.22)
ye 27 of aprell 1595 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rd at godfrey of bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxixs ye 17 of maye 1595 Rd at godfrey of bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxijs
Fol. 13 (Greg I.25):
ye 16 of septmbʒ 1595 . . . . . . . . . Rd at godfrey of bullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxs
Theatrical Provenance
According to the records of Philip Henslowe, the two parts of "Godfrey of Bulloigne" were performed at the Rose playhouse by the Admiral's men in the fall and spring seasons of 1594-5; part one was continued for a single performance into the fall of 1595. The first part appears to have been in the hands of the company, so it apparently had already made its debut; the second part, however, was marked "ne" by Henslowe and thus was most likely enjoying a maiden run. (See Critical Commentary below for differing opinions on whether Henslowe's entries represent one or two plays on Godfrey of Boulogne).
Probable Genre(s)
Heroical-romance
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
Scholars have agreed that the title character of "Godfrey of Boulogne" was the crusader who became king of Jerusalem, conquered in 1099 in the First Christian Crusade.
See Wiggins, Catalogue #892 for sources available to playwrights on the history of Godfrey of Boulogne.
References to the Play
Information welcome.
Critical Commentary
Malone made no comment on the appearance of "Godfrey of Bulloigne" in Henslowe's lists; and, because he transcribed only the initial performance of each repertory item, he did not express an opinion on its being a two-part play or address the issue of which entries belong to that second part (p. 295). Collier did not challenge the entry on 19 July 1594 as being the second part of a play-pair. His uncertainty lay with the registration at Stationers' Hall a month earlier (19 June 1594) of "an enterlude entitled Godfrey of Bulloigne with the Conquest of Jerusalem." He saw no "first part" of "Godfrey" in Henslowe's listings unless it was a play called "Jerusalem," which Henslowe had entered as a repertory item with Lord Strange's men. Collier did trust that Henslowe's indication of a second part confirmed the existence of a first part, and he connected that first part with the entry on 19 June 1594 at Stationers' Hall (p. 37, n.1).
Fleay, BCED expanded on Collier's reference to the item registered at Stationers' Hall, asserting that it "must have been the First Part [of "2 Godfrey of Boulogne']" and further that the first part "may have been" the "Jerusalem" performed by Lord Strange's men in 1592, which he then supposed that Henslowe had "retained" (2. #152). Further, Fleay invited a connection with Thomas Heywood's play, The Four Prentices of London.
Greg II made explicit that "only one play appears to be meant" by Henslowe's entries in the fall of 1594 (p. 166, #47). He repeated Fleay's association of Heywood's Four Prentices with the diary title. He repeated also the link between the entry in the Stationers' Register with part one of the "Godfrey" pair, but with some reluctance: "we are driven to suppose that it was Pt. I, and possibly, therefore, the same as the Jerusalem" performed by Strange's men. Despite his discomfort with the connections to other plays and publications, Greg did add "that there is good reason to suppose that Heywood was writing for the Admiral's men" around 1594, a claim that enables the further claim of a link-by-text to Heywood's Four Prentices of London.
Knutson, with the example of the "Godfrey" entries in 1594 specifically in mind, argues that Henslowe was "consistent with the naming of second parts" and that "we should take the entries marked 'second pte' as accurate, and treat all entries not so named as entries of the first part of the play" (p. 158).
Gurr, addressing the subject of sequel plays, features the "Godfrey" entries of July 1594- September 1595. On the entry of "2 þte of godfrey of bullen," he notes its "ne" and decides that "[a] play that must have been the first part was entered in the Stationers' Register for printing by John Danter on 19 June 1594" (p. 185). Further, he notes the "lack of any sign of the sequencing that put the second part directly after the first in performance" and concludes that the Admiral's men "made this sequel stand on its own, not staging it as the second half of a pairing" (p. 185). (By this last comment, Gurr implies that all of the entries in 1594-5 are for the same play: part two of "Godfrey of Boulogne.") In a note to the entry for "2 Godfrey of Boulogne," Gurr adds several points: he offers "Heywood, 1594?" as possible author; he raises the possibility that "Jerusalem" was its first part, he backs away from the Stationers' Register entry as having been part 1 of "Godfrey," and he confirms the earlier opinion (implied) that the 1594-5 entries beginning "the 2 þte" were all for the same play "without any first part" (p. 205, n. 14).
Wiggins, Catalogue #892, #960, musing on the relationship of "Jerusalem" and the two-part "Godfrey of Boulogne," finds it a stumbling block that the earlier play belonged to a different company (Strange's) than the other (Admiral's) and that "the sequel was a long time coming" (3 years). Agreeing with the opinion that all of the entries in the Admiral's list are for the same play (part two), he observes that the independence of the play suggests "a coherent narrative" not dependent on the story of "Jerusalem."
For What It's Worth
Embedded in the curiosity of the "2 þte godfrey" entries are several intriguing questions for theater historians:
- Those scholars who suggest that "Jerusalem" was part 1 of "Godfrey of Boulogne" do not also consider how the play migrated to the Admiral's men, if indeed it did (if, that is, it is the play indicated by Henslowe's entries for "Godfrey" without also the marking of "2 þte").
- The suggestion by Fleay, BCED that the "Godfrey" play/s had some connection to The Four Prentices of London by Thomas Heywood has opened the door for others to identify lost plays in the Admiral's repertory as early work by him.
- Gurr, noting that the "entries [for "the 2 þte of godfrey of bullen"] lack any sign of the sequencing that put the second part directly after the first in performance," considers this fact as additional evidence that only one play is meant. Wiggins, Catalogue #960 also suggests that the absence of a "pattern of paired performances a few days apart" works against a reading of the twelve performances in 1594-5 as evidence that Henslowe was recording two plays about Godfrey in the Admiral's offerings starting in July 1594. However, the "paired performance" pattern was not particularly rigid in the fall of 1594. Strange's men had performed its "Jeronimo" plays close together (and in order) four times, with The Spanish Tragedy solo at least six or seven times; they did not perform the two parts of "Tamar Cham" together at all. The Admiral's men did not introduce part 2 of Tamburlaine until they had performed the first part seven times. They did not introduce the second part of "Caesar and Pompey" until they had played its first part for three months, and only on its second performance was it paired with the first part. They never did play the two parts of "Seven Days of the Week" together in 1595. Nevertheless, the Admiral's scheduling of the Tamburlaine plays, the two-part "Hercules," and the two-part "Tamar Cham" (revived in May and June 1596) exemplify the pattern of paired plays, creating for theater historians what has come to look (to some) like the bellwether design.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Roslyn L. Knutson, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; updated 17 August 2020.