Judas

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

Historical Records

F. 69^v (Greg I.122)

Lent vnto w^m harton the 27 of maye 1600

in earneste of a Boocke called Judas the some .... x^s

                                       W Haughton.

F. 95 (Greg I.151)

pd vnto w^m Borne at the apoyntment of

[a Boocke] company the 20 of desemb[er] 1601

Jn earnest of a Boocke called Judas w^ch

samewell Rowly & he is a writtinge some of ... xx^s

F. 95^v (Greg I.152)

pd at the apoyntment of the company

[1601] in fulle payment for a Boocke

called Judas vnto w^m Borne & Samvvelle

Rowley the 24 of desemb[er] 1601 some of ... v^li

Lent vnto antony Jaffes the 3 of Janewary

1601 to bye cloth for the playe of Judas

the some of ... xxx^s

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).

Keywords

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

Works Cited

Connolly, Annaliese. "Peele's David and Bethsabe: Reconsidering Biblical Drama of the Long 1590s." Early Modern Literary Studies Special Issue 16 (October, 2007) 9.1-20 Early Modern Literary Studies.

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].