Turnholt: Difference between revisions

mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 61: Line 61:
References to the lost "Turnholt" play often reiterate the date of the battle given by Chambers: 24 January 1598. This is, however, incorrect, and the point is worth clarifying given the close proximity between the real event and the staged depiction. The error has to do with a memory lapse by Sir Francis Vere himself, who gives the date of January 1597/8 in his ''Commentaries'' (publ. 1657): "In the same year one thousand five hundred ninety seven, about the latter end of September, I passed into the Low-countreys, took and gave the oaths that are usuall betwixt those of Holland the Governour and Townsmen of the ''Briell'', and so was established in that Government." Vere then begins a new section entitled "''The action at TURNHOULT''": "That winter (one thousand five hundred ninety and seven) the enemy lying at ''Turnhoult'', an open village, with four thousand foot, and six hundred horse; one day amongst other speeches I said to ''Mounsieur Barnevelt'', that they did but tempt us to beat them…" (71-72). This confusion has also been (predictably) exacerbated by an incompatibility of calendrical systems. The actual date of the battle was 24 January 1597 in the Gregorian calendar used in the Low Countries, and 14 January 1596 in the Julian calendar used in England.
References to the lost "Turnholt" play often reiterate the date of the battle given by Chambers: 24 January 1598. This is, however, incorrect, and the point is worth clarifying given the close proximity between the real event and the staged depiction. The error has to do with a memory lapse by Sir Francis Vere himself, who gives the date of January 1597/8 in his ''Commentaries'' (publ. 1657): "In the same year one thousand five hundred ninety seven, about the latter end of September, I passed into the Low-countreys, took and gave the oaths that are usuall betwixt those of Holland the Governour and Townsmen of the ''Briell'', and so was established in that Government." Vere then begins a new section entitled "''The action at TURNHOULT''": "That winter (one thousand five hundred ninety and seven) the enemy lying at ''Turnhoult'', an open village, with four thousand foot, and six hundred horse; one day amongst other speeches I said to ''Mounsieur Barnevelt'', that they did but tempt us to beat them…" (71-72). This confusion has also been (predictably) exacerbated by an incompatibility of calendrical systems. The actual date of the battle was 24 January 1597 in the Gregorian calendar used in the Low Countries, and 14 January 1596 in the Julian calendar used in England.


Aside from Vere's ''Commentaries'', the contemporaneous historical records all indicate this earlier date. While a historian may account for the "1597" pamphlets on Turnhout as having been printed before March 25 1597/8, the extant English manuscripts do not present such ambiguity. Vere's report on Turnhout sent to Lord Bughley from Breda is clearly endorsed "17 January 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 18v). Sidney's report from Flushing is dated "22 Jan: 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 29v). A congratulatory letter from Queen Elizabeth to Vere is twice dated "v<sup>th</sup> Febr. 1596." (SP 84/54, f. 66r-67v; cf. Markham 262). The list could go on. The January 1597 date is also attested in Dutch sources, such as the journals of Anthonie Duyck, who accompanied Price Maurice of Nassau (2.214-19), and appears in later English print sources, such as the 1613 English translation of ''The Triumphs of Nassau", which begins its account of the Battle of Turnhout on "the one and twentieth of Ianuarie 1597": this is clearly a date in the New Style, as the battle itself occurs on "the 24 of the said moneth" and the chapter is followed by battles taking place in August, September, and October of 1597 (Shute 197).  
Aside from Vere's ''Commentaries'', the contemporaneous historical records all indicate this earlier date. While a historian may account for the "1597" pamphlets on Turnhout as having been printed before March 25 1597/8, the extant English manuscripts do not present such ambiguity. Vere's report on Turnhout sent to Lord Bughley from Breda is clearly endorsed "17 January 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 18v). Sidney's report from Flushing is dated "22 Jan: 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 29v). A congratulatory letter from Queen Elizabeth to Vere is twice dated "v<sup>th</sup> Febr. 1596." (SP 84/54, f. 66r-67v; cf. Markham 262). The list could go on. The January 1597 date is also attested in Dutch sources, such as the journals of Anthonie Duyck, who accompanied Price Maurice of Nassau (2.214-19), and appears in later English print sources, such as the 1613 English translation of ''The Triumphs of Nassau'', which begins its account of the Battle of Turnhout on "the one and twentieth of Ianuarie 1597": this is clearly a date in the New Style, as the battle itself occurs on "the 24 of the said moneth" and the chapter is followed by battles taking place in August, September, and October of 1597 (Shute 197).  


Chambers's erroneous dating of the battle in January 1598 is not uncommon in older English scholarship. In his influential 1888 biography of Sir Francis Vere (and his brother Horace), the English geographer Clements Markham devotes an entire chapter to the Battle of Turnhout, adhering to Vere's chronology by unambiguously dating the battle in January 1598 (254-62). Modern military historians have rectified the mistake (e.g. Weigley 11, 13; Puype 71-72; Trim; Van Nimwegen 71-72), but several recent biographies of Sir Robert Sidney have followed Markham's suit (Hay 103-5; Shephard; Croft x), and Chambers's 1598 is often repeated to contextualize Rowland Whyte's letter and the lost "Turnholt". The error seldom affects the points that scholars attempt to make using the evidence of Rowland Whyte's letter; however, the distinction is salutary, being relevant to our understanding of how quickly a contemporary international event might have become material for a play at the turn of the century.
Chambers's erroneous dating of the battle in January 1598 is not uncommon in older English scholarship. In his influential 1888 biography of Sir Francis Vere (and his brother Horace), the English geographer Clements Markham devotes an entire chapter to the Battle of Turnhout, adhering to Vere's chronology by unambiguously dating the battle in January 1598 (254-62). Modern military historians have rectified the mistake (e.g. Weigley 11, 13; Puype 71-72; Trim; Van Nimwegen 71-72), but several recent biographies of Sir Robert Sidney have followed Markham's suit (Hay 103-5; Shephard; Croft x), and Chambers's 1598 is often repeated to contextualize Rowland Whyte's letter and the lost "Turnholt". The error seldom affects the points that scholars attempt to make using the evidence of Rowland Whyte's letter; however, the distinction is salutary, being relevant to our understanding of how quickly a contemporary international event might have become material for a play at the turn of the century.

Revision as of 15:35, 24 June 2013

Playwright's Name (1599)


Historical Records

Correspondence

Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sydney

1599, October 26. Strand.

"Two daies agon, the overthrow of Turnholt was acted upon a stage, and all your names used that were at yt; especially Sir Francis Veres, and he that plaid that part gott a beard resembling his, and a watchet satten doublett, with hose trimd with silver lace. It was full of quips; I saw it not, but I hard it was soe." (Kingsford et al., 2.406)

1599, October 27. Saturday. The Strand.

"This after noone I saw the overthrow of Turnhold playd, and saw Sir Robert Sidney and Sir Francis Vere upon the stage, killing, slaying, and overthrowing the Spaniard. There is most honorable mention made of your service in seconding Sir Francis Vere being ingaged." (Kingsford et al., 2.408)


A rearranged version of this correspondence was published in Arthur Collins's 1746 edition of the Sydney papers, which was quoted by Chambers (1.322n):

Two daies agoe, the overthrow of Turnholt, was acted vpon a Stage, and all your Names vsed that were at yt; especially Sir Fra. Veres, and he that plaid that Part gott a Beard resembling his, and a Watchet Sattin Doublett, with Hose trimd with Siluer Lace. You was also introduced, Killing, Slaying, and Overthrowing the Spaniards, and honorable Mention made of your Service, in seconding Sir Francis Vere, being engaged. (Collins 2.136)


Theatrical Provenance

Unknown. Probably a theater in London.


Probable Genre(s)

Topical Play (Harbage)


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

The play appears to have treated the victory of Maurice of Nassau, with an English contingent including Sir Robert Sidney and Sir Francis Vere, at Turnhout on January 24, 1597. Accounts of the battle were published within the year in pamphlets like A True discourse of the ouerthrovve giuen to the common enemy at Turnhaut, the 14. [sic] of Ianuary last 1597. by Count Moris of Nassaw and the states, assisted with the Englishe forces (London, 1597) and A discourse more at large of the late ouerthrovve giuen to the King of Spaines armie at Turnehaut, in Ianuarie last, by Count Morris of Nassawe, assisted with the English forces (London, 1597). The playwright(s) of "Turnholt" may have consulted sources like this.


References to the Play

<List any known or conjectured references to the lost play here.>


Critical Commentary

Chambers: "Up to a point the players had a fairly free hand even with contemporary events. They might represent, if they would, such feats of English arms as the siege of Turnhout with all realism." (322) "Turnhout was taken from the Spanish by Count Maurice of Nassau, with the help of an English contingent, on 24 Jan. 1598." (1.322n)

Gurr: "There is nothing in Henslowe which indicates responsibility for [the description in the letter], so it may have been put on at the Globe." (145)


For What It's Worth

The Date of the Battle

References to the lost "Turnholt" play often reiterate the date of the battle given by Chambers: 24 January 1598. This is, however, incorrect, and the point is worth clarifying given the close proximity between the real event and the staged depiction. The error has to do with a memory lapse by Sir Francis Vere himself, who gives the date of January 1597/8 in his Commentaries (publ. 1657): "In the same year one thousand five hundred ninety seven, about the latter end of September, I passed into the Low-countreys, took and gave the oaths that are usuall betwixt those of Holland the Governour and Townsmen of the Briell, and so was established in that Government." Vere then begins a new section entitled "The action at TURNHOULT": "That winter (one thousand five hundred ninety and seven) the enemy lying at Turnhoult, an open village, with four thousand foot, and six hundred horse; one day amongst other speeches I said to Mounsieur Barnevelt, that they did but tempt us to beat them…" (71-72). This confusion has also been (predictably) exacerbated by an incompatibility of calendrical systems. The actual date of the battle was 24 January 1597 in the Gregorian calendar used in the Low Countries, and 14 January 1596 in the Julian calendar used in England.

Aside from Vere's Commentaries, the contemporaneous historical records all indicate this earlier date. While a historian may account for the "1597" pamphlets on Turnhout as having been printed before March 25 1597/8, the extant English manuscripts do not present such ambiguity. Vere's report on Turnhout sent to Lord Bughley from Breda is clearly endorsed "17 January 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 18v). Sidney's report from Flushing is dated "22 Jan: 1596" (SP 84/54, f. 29v). A congratulatory letter from Queen Elizabeth to Vere is twice dated "vth Febr. 1596." (SP 84/54, f. 66r-67v; cf. Markham 262). The list could go on. The January 1597 date is also attested in Dutch sources, such as the journals of Anthonie Duyck, who accompanied Price Maurice of Nassau (2.214-19), and appears in later English print sources, such as the 1613 English translation of The Triumphs of Nassau, which begins its account of the Battle of Turnhout on "the one and twentieth of Ianuarie 1597": this is clearly a date in the New Style, as the battle itself occurs on "the 24 of the said moneth" and the chapter is followed by battles taking place in August, September, and October of 1597 (Shute 197).

Chambers's erroneous dating of the battle in January 1598 is not uncommon in older English scholarship. In his influential 1888 biography of Sir Francis Vere (and his brother Horace), the English geographer Clements Markham devotes an entire chapter to the Battle of Turnhout, adhering to Vere's chronology by unambiguously dating the battle in January 1598 (254-62). Modern military historians have rectified the mistake (e.g. Weigley 11, 13; Puype 71-72; Trim; Van Nimwegen 71-72), but several recent biographies of Sir Robert Sidney have followed Markham's suit (Hay 103-5; Shephard; Croft x), and Chambers's 1598 is often repeated to contextualize Rowland Whyte's letter and the lost "Turnholt". The error seldom affects the points that scholars attempt to make using the evidence of Rowland Whyte's letter; however, the distinction is salutary, being relevant to our understanding of how quickly a contemporary international event might have become material for a play at the turn of the century.


Works Cited

[Anon.] A True discourse of the ouerthrovve giuen to the common enemy at Turnhaut, the 14. [sic] of Ianuary last 1597. by Count Moris of Nassaw and the states, assisted with the Englishe forces (London, 1597)

[Anon.] A discourse more at large of the late ouerthrovve giuen to the King of Spaines armie at Turnehaut, in Ianuarie last, by Count Morris of Nassawe, assisted with the English forces (London, 1597).

Collins, Arthur, ed. Letters and memorials of state… Written and collected by Sir Henry Sydney… London, 1746. 2 vols.

Croft, P.J., ed. The Poems of Robert Sidney. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.

Gurr, Andrew. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.

Hay, M. V. The Life of Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester (1563–1626). Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984.

Kingsford, C.L., William A. Shaw, and G. Dyfnallt Owen, eds. Report on the Manuscripts of Lord de l’Isle & Dudley. 6 vols. London, 1925-66.

Markham, Clements R. "The Fighting Veres": Lives of Sir Francis Vere… and of Sir Horace Vere. Boston, 1888.

Puype, J.P. "Victory at Niuewpoort, 2 July 1600." Exercise of Arms: Warfare in the Netherlands, 1568-1648. Ed. Marco van der Hoeven. New York: Brill, 1997.

Shephard, Robert. "Sidney, Robert, first earl of Leicester (1563–1626)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford UP, 2004. Online.

Shute, William, trans. The Triumphs of Nassau. London, 1613.

Trim, D.J.B. "Vere [de Vere], Sir Francis (1560/61–1609)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford UP, 2004. Online.

Van Duyck, Anthonis. Journaal… 1591-1602. 3 vols. Ed. Lodewijk Mulder. The Hague, 1864.

Van Nimwegen, Olaf. The Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions, 1588-1688. Trans. Andrew May. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2010.

Vere, Francis. The Commentaries of Sr. Francis Vere. London, 1657.

Weigley, Russell Frank. The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991.


<If you haven't done so already, also add here any key words that will help categorise this play. Use the following format, repeating as necessary:>


Site created and maintained by your name, affiliation; updated DD Month YYYY.