CHAPTER XIII. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE FROM [I WISH to specially acknowledge the great advantage that I have derived from Mr. R. Simpson's papers in writing this chapter. Although I differ from most of his conclusions, it is not too much to say that but for his previous work I should not have been able to make this investigation.-F. G. F.] The theatrical companies known to have been regularly acting in London from 1584 to 1589 are—1, The Lord Admiral's; 2, The Queen's; 3, The Lord Strange's; 4, The Children of the Chapel; 5, The Children of Paul's. Neither of the Chamberlain's companies, that is, the Earl of Sussex's (1576–1582) and the later one of the same name, that is, Lord Hunsdon's (1594-1603), have been traced in the period we are at first concerned with (1584-1589). But in 1589 two companies, 6, The Earl of Sussex's; 7, The Earl of Pembroke's, began to attract their share of public attention. These dates are important in our inquiry. The writers of plays who are chiefly remarkable were-1, George Peele, who began to write at least as early as 1584, and died in 1596-7; 2, Robert Greene, who died in 1592, and who, as I shall try to show, began to write about 1585; 3, Christopher Marlowe, whose active career began with Greene's, and lasted only one year longer; 4, Thomas Nash, who came to London in 1589; 5, Thomas Lodge, who wrote with Greene about 1589; 6, Thomas Kyd, whose Feronymo dates at latest 1588; 7, William Shakespeare. These dates are also important to us. Having laid down then these data for reference, let us proceed at once to examine the plays of The London Prodigal and Fair Emm. In the latter of these plays two stories are combined. Firstly, William the Conqueror accompanied by the Marquis Lubeck, a Danish knight, visits Denmark under the name of Robert of Windsor, having appointed two co-regents to manage his kingdom during his absence. His intention at first is to woo Blanche, the daughter of the Danish king; but he falls in love with Mariana, a captive from Sweden, who is betrothed to Lubeck. He endeavours to carry her off; but Blanche is substituted for her, masked and disguised, and he fails in his attempt to deprive the Marquis of his bride. Sweno's invasion of England (which is the only historical fact in the play) is attributed to his anger at the loss of his daughter. William in the last act suddenly, and without explanation, becomes "the Duke of Saxon." All this is admirably explained by Mr. Simpson. William the Conqueror is William Kempe the actor, who with a troop of comedians visited the Danish Court in 1586; (three of these, by the bye, were afterwards actors in Shakespeare's plays in the Chamberlain's company, namely, Kempe, Brian, and Pope !) Kempe and one other, left Denmark in the autumn; but five of the company went to Saxony. The allegory is transparent enough; it is certain that William here is not the historical Conqueror; he is king over a troop of players, at first in England, afterwards in Saxony. But I cannot further than this agree with Mr. Simpson; his interpretation of Fair Emm as the Manchester public seems to me peculiarly unhappy. Kempe was the head of the Queen's company, and in 1587, the year after he left England, we find J. Dutton and J. Lanham acting as managers of that company: surely these are the two regents left in authority by the conquering Gullielmo. They have nothing to do with Manchester, nor indeed with the public. Fair Emm is the company of the Queen's players, with whom, as we shall see, the poets are seeking connection. We must not look for exact consistency in an allegory of this kind. But before explaining the second plot of the play, I would draw attention to the way in which this "marriage" of an author to a company or manager to his troop illustrates the allegory of the "marriage" of an author to his patron as exemplified in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Lubeck is pleading William's passion to Mariana. "Mar. But Lubeck now regards not Mariana.、 Compare with this Shakespeare's 42nd Sonnet, which seems to give many critics so much difficulty to explain allegorically. "If I lose thee my loss is my love's gain; And losing her my friend hath found that loss; Surely these two extracts will bear a similar interpretation. And nothing can be more certain than Mr. Simpson's explanation of the former of the two. We must now consider the second plot. In this Fair Emm is wooed by three suitors, Manville, Vallingford, and Mounteney; by pretending blindness and deafness she hopes to drive away the two latter and be married to Manville her betrothed. Vallingford, however, is not deceived, and on her hearing of Manville's falseness in carrying on a second flirtation with Elinor of Chester, ultimately wins Fair Emm. There is also a scene of coarse levity between her and Trotter, a serving-man, of whom more hereafter. Mr. Simpson has rightly stated that Manville is Greene; but he is certainly wrong in identifying Vallingford with Shakespeare. Camden says that Wallingford is Gualt-hen, "The old rampire or fort." But an old fort is a Peel, and under this name that of George Peele is as certainly indicated as it is under that of Pyeboard in The Puritan. The remaining suitor, Mounteney, is Marley or Marlowe. Fair Emm is some theatre with which these rival poets sought to be connected during Kempe's absence. But the only theatrical company that Greene ever was connected with, as far as we know, was the Queen's, for which he wrote Orlando, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and James the Fourth. These were all written before 1589. But in 1589 Kempe had returned to England and joined Lord Strange's company, with Pope, Brian, &c. In 1589 at latest, then, we must look for the dissolution of Greene's connection with 'the Queen's company, and the formation of a new engagement between it and George Peele. We shall see ultimately how exactly these dates coincide with what we know from other sources. But there is another play, The London Prodigal, which is undoubtedly by the same hand as Fair Emm. It contains a line which occurs also in the latter play, "Pardon, dear father, my follies that are past,' and is exactly of the same tone throughout in metre, style, and general handling. In it the allegory is still clearer. Flowerdale, Oliver, and Sir Arthur Greenshield are suitors for the hand of Luce Spurcock; Flowerdale obtains her by a trick; Oliver, to whom she had been betrothed, is discarded, as well as Sir Arthur whom she really prefers. Her sister Frances, who is determined to have a husband named Tom, marries Tom Civet; her eldest sister Delia refuses all offers and remains unmarried. There is a scene between Daffodil and Luce exactly similar to, though still plainer than, that between Trotter and Emm in the former play. Flowerdale after his marriage with Luce ill-uses her, robs Delia, the eldest sister, and after a short career of debauchery is brought to express a repentance, evidently insincere, at the close of the play. In this case there is no difficulty in deciphering the personages. Flowerdale's life combines the facts of Greene's public acts in connection with the theatre, and of his private ones in forsaking his wife and living in open adultery with a common prostitute; his trickery, his gambling, and his other vices are unsparingly exposed. Oliver, "the Devonshire man," is certainly George Peele, who came from that county. Under the odoriferous agnomen of Tom Civet we can easily recognise Tom Kyd. Daffodil clearly means Lyly, and thus identifies the Trotter of the other play. Luce is the Queen's company; Delia, the eldest sister, is the Admiral's; and the foolish Frances that of the Chapel Children. These Children, by the bye, had been incorporated longer than the Admiral's company; but this slight discrepancy is of no consequence in so loose an allegory, and may not even be a discrepancy at all; as their existence may be dated by the author from the time of their having a fixed place for their performances. Sir Arthur Greenshield, "the military officer," is Marlowe, of whom Lieutenant-Colonel Cunningham says, "His familiarity with military terms and his fondness for using them are most remarkable; and I make no doubt myself that he was trailing a pike or managing a charger with the English force a few months after that strange engine for the brunt of war, the fiery keel, had been hurled against Antwerp bridge." So much for the characters. The plot tells the story of a rivalship between Marlowe, Greene, and Peele for the office of poet to the Queen's theatre; of Greene's success; of his subsequent forsaking of his engagement and defrauding the Admiral's theatre [Defence of Cony-Catching, 1592: "Master R. G., would it not make you blush if you sold Orlando Furioso to the Queen's players for 20 nobles, and when they were in the country sold the same play to Lord Admiral's men for as much more? Was not this plain cony-catching, M. G. ?"]. It tells also of Kyd's engagement with the Chapel Children, for whom he wrote Jeronymo; of a half-serious proposition of Lyly to engage with the Queen's company; of the determination of the Admiral's not to employ a regular poet at all, but to accept the best plays they could get from anyone. Another character in this play is easily identified, namely, Weathercock, that is, Thomas Lodge. He was an actor, a play-writer of tragedy and comedy, a writer of prose tracts, a student of Lincoln's Inn, a soldier (?) in the expeditions of Clarke and Cavendish ; a translator from Greek and Latin, a novelist, and finally, a physician. Rightly is he called Weathercock. He has, however, little to do with the plot. He is an early suitor of Delia's, but rejected by her; he makes no proposal to any other lady in this play. Here, then, we have the account of Greene's original engagement with the Queen's company; in Fair Emm that of his rupture and the engagement of George Peele in his stead. We now turn to Greene's prose works for further information. As dates are all-important in this part of our investigation, I must say a few words on their chronology, which has never yet been |