No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Students of Elizabethan drama know that the provincial roots and byways thereof have not yet been fully explored. Such scholars as Murray and Chambers have, to be sure, produced admirable chronological sketch-maps of the companies' tours, but other things remain to be done. It will be generally agreed, I think, that something may yet be gained by studying, jointly or severally, but in any case more closely than has yet been done, the implications of some of the many plays which demonstrably reflect—in story, theme, background, or incidental allusion—their provincial origins or associations. In undertaking this general study for another purpose I have been attracted especially to certain of these plays which afford tangible clues, such as local names or allusions, apparently justifying further research. Here, specifically, I wish to present my findings concerning one case in point—the pleasant comedy of Faire Em as a “country play.” It will serve my purpose to recall, first, the relatively familiar facts about the play.
1 Elizabethan Stage, vol. ii; Murray, Engl. Dram. Companies.
2 E.g., among others, not a few of those in the Shakespeare Apocrypha.
3 On the principle emphasized by Professor Brooke at the 1929 meeting of the M. L. A., in his discussion of “Desiderata in the study of Shakspere” (PMLA, xliv, Supplement, p. xxxii), and, long ago, by Halliwell-Phillipps, who, in expressing the hope that research might produce fruitful information about such personages as Peter Turf and Henry Pimpernell, urged that “notices of these individuals … would greatly add to the already high probability that Shakespeare … was occasionally thinking of his provincial audiences” (Shakespeare's Tours, 1887, p. 48).
4 See below, n. 16 and text.
5 As set forth by Chambers, iv, 11, and in the eds. by W. W. Greg (Malone Soc. Reprints, 1927), Tucker Brooke (Sh. Apocrypha), Warnke and Proescholdt, 1883, and Simpson, School of Shakspere, vol. ii.
6 Entered in 1587, earliest extant ed., 1591 (cf. Greg, and Simpson, ii, 378 ff.).
7 The date, as will appear below, is important in connection with Lancashire's claims upon Faire Em. —Greg observes that if the piece literally appeared in the ‘Citie’ “it must have been in 1589 or earlier.”
8 For discussion, cf. Chambers and Greg.
9 Life of Shakespeare, p. 13.
10 Here I may note that Fleay, while rejecting Shakspere's claims to the authorship of Faire Em, made one concession to the opposition. “Although I cannot detect Shakespeare's hand as … probable author … he most likely appeared as an actor” (Life of Shakespeare, p. 13). It must be said that, so far as dates are concerned, Fleay's guess is not impossible, especially if we may assume with Murray (i, 73–75) that Shakspere had joined Strange's Men by 1588. But, while Mr. Fleay was about it, why did he not guess a bit further? If Shakspere acted in Faire Em, what part did he play? Most likely, of course (since he liked “kingly parts” with not much acting to do) that of William the Conqueror! (See below, text immediately following n. 13.) One recalls certain anecdotes about that gentleman and Richard the Third.
11 See below, nn. 25–27 and text.
12 See below, n. 20.
13 L. 98, Greg's ed.; Brooke, p. 288.
14 Not to add, to “fair Manchester,” which had meanwhile been mentioned many times over again in the course of the play.
15 Greg, 1. 1526; Brooke, p. 306.
16 ii, 372; cf. New Skaksp. Soc. Transactions, 1875, p. 176.
17 Engl. Drama, ii, 282 ff.
18 The name “Goodiard,” by the way, appears in a Manchester tax-list of 1606 (Chetham Soc. Miscellanies, iii, 27).
19 Simpson and Fleay touch upon it, somewhat inaccurately.
20 See n. 12, above.
21 Baines prints a picture of it.
22 E. Baines, History of Lancaster, iii, 235; cf. Ormerod, History of Chester, i, 588 n.
23 For their dates, see below, nn. 33, 36, and text.
24 Who led a company to Denmark in 1586.
25 School of Shaksp., ii, 373 ff.
26 In his Shakespeare Manual (1876, p. 281) Fleay had written: “Fair Em is the company of the Queen's Players.”
27 Engl. Drama, ii, 282.
28 A. F. Hopkinson (Fair Em, 1895, p. 2) dismisses Lancashire's claims upon the play; Chambers, Greg, Brooke and others (see above, n. 5) remain silent on the point.
29 “Sir Edmonde Trafford, miles,” is listed as one of three Lancashire knights and gentlemen who, in 1588, contributed the large sum of £100 each (five others giving £50, and fifty-nine £25 each) to the nation's emergency fund, when the Armada threatened (Names of the Nobility and Gentry, 1798; Baines, i, 246 ff.). He was for many years one of the Earl of Derby's most active deputies in raising the Lancashire levies for service in Ireland, and, like his son, who commanded the Lancashire troops there in 1584, he had doubtless seen active service (Lancashire Lieutenancy, Chetham Soc. Remains, L, 136; Baines, i, 242).
30 Baines, i, 231, etc.
31 In 1581 (Cal. St. Papers Dom., Eliz., 1581–1590, p. 220; F. Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, 1779, i, 120). Peck, and Baines (i, 237) incorrectly make him sheriff of Chester. He is also reported—upon doubtful evidence—to have been “warden of Manchester College” (S. Hibbert—Hibbert Ware—History of the Foundations … of Christ's College, i, 115).
32 See below, n. 42 and text.
33 See the Trafford pedigree in Baines, iii, 238. Trafford Park, Manchester, bears the old family name to this day.
34 See above, n. 7, and below, on the date of his visits at Knowsley, n. 53 and text.
35 Except for the point referred to in n. 19 above, Simpson's statement that he was “high sheriff of Lancashire and … also custos of Manchester Castle,” makes up the sum total of information supplied by them.
36 Knighted by King James in 1603, (i.e., he was not Sir Edmund at the time of Faire Em) M. P. from 1588 to 1592, magistrate, and sheriff of Lancaster in 1602, 1609, and 1617 (Lanc. Lieut'y.,—see n. 29—xlix, 2, 53; Baines, iii, 238, etc.). Cf. n. 46, below.
37 See below, nn. 42, 43, 46.
38 Chetham Soc. Remains, lxvii, p. cclxxxi.
39 Crosby Records, Chetham Soc., 1887, pp. v, 90–91; Simpson, Life of Campion, p. 190; Baines, i, 236 ff.
40 Derby Household Books, (hereafter referred to as “D. H. B.”), ed. F. R. Raines, Chetham Soc. Rem., xxxi, 99; Baines, ii, 104. Cf. S. Hibbert, op. cit., i, 117.
41 Then Sheriff of Lancaster.
42 (My italics) Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, i, 145. A document signed by the Bishop, Lord Strange, Trafford, and the rest, in May, 1588, proves that they remained actively in control of the “ecclesiasticall commission” for a number of years (Hibbert, i, 121–123).
43 Council letter, Aug. 30, 1581 (Dasent, Acts of the P. C., New Ser., xiii, 184).
44 Sir Thomas Hesketh, Sir John Southworth, and others (D. H. B. —see n. 40 above—p. 46, etc.; Crosby Records, p. 21, n.).
45 Cal. St. P. Dom. Eliz., 1581–90, pp. 220, 46, 50, 54, 73. (On Worsley, cf. below, n. 52.)
46 A curious document, a Privy Council letter of Aug. 31, 1581, “to th' Erle of Derbie” contains an “excuse” (which sounds slightly suspicious) “of yonge Traifford” (see above, n.36) “against whome it was thought that his Lordship had conceaved some displeasure for that he first delivered their Lordships letters unto Sir John Biron, knight, and his father, and afterwards sent th' other unto his Lordship”—the excuse being that the Council had thought the matter urgent and that “it was supposed” Derby “might happily be absent … huntinge” (Acts of the P. C., 1581, pp. 183–84).
47 Peck, i, 142, 147, etc.
48 Baines, ii, 97.
49 Crosby Records, pp. 90–91.
50 D. H. B., p. 89.
51 See above, n. 40.
52 See above, n. 45.
53 D. H. B., pp. 35, 34, 63.
54 See above, n. 36 (cf. n. 46) and, below, text before n. 78.
55 D. H. B., pp. 54, 19, 35–37, 56, etc.
56 The only company known to have been under the patronage of the Stanleys in the late eighties (cf. Chambers, ii, 118 ff.; Murray, ii, 39).
57 Or at least the passages concerning Trafford.
58 Cf. Gibbs, in Simpson, School of Shakspere, ii, 467 ff.
59 See above, n. 14.
60 D. E. B., pp. 29, 76.
61 “Dyvers Manchester men,” “Mr Maire of Chester & some of his brethren,” and “the Mayre of Lyverpolle” were among their guests at Knowsley and Lathom (Id., pp. 29, 66, 81).
62 Lord Strange “was made alderman” of Chester in 1586, whereupon he “made a rich banquet” (see J. Hemingway, who also mentions a gorgeous civic reception to Leicester, Derby, and others, in 1583—History of Chester, i, 152 ff.). Strange was Mayor of Liverpool in 1588 (D. N. B.).
63 In 1575 and 1577 “the mayor caused the popish plays of Chester … the Shepherds' play … and other triumphs … to be played” (Hemingway, i, 152).
64 See below, n. 73 and text.
65 Cf. D. H. B., pp. vi, 66, 70, etc., and, on Ffarington's style and character in general, Raines's Introduction.
66 Id., Intr., p. li. Cf. Twelfth Night, II, iii, 122–128: “Art any more than a steward? … Go, sir, rub your chain with crumbs.”
67 Witness the stringent “household rules” laid down in D. H. B., pp. 20 ff. Query:. If Shakspere was with Strange's Men at Knowsley or Lathom, and if Fleay (see n. 10, above) had remembered this Ffarington, would he not have thought it “most likely” that Shakspere did too, when he came to write Twelfth Night?
68 Id.
69 “That he had not much delight in comic humour” (writes his editor) “or a particle of imagination or sentiment or romance about him, may readily be admitted” (Id., pp. xciv ff.).
70 The rules by which he governed the 140 or more servants in his charge provide that the “meaner sort” be strictly kept in their place (see n. 67).
71 D. H. B., pp. 23, 37, 19, 48.
72 Murray (ii, 296 ff.) reprints in full, without comment, these and all other entries (including those I discuss below, see nn. 74–80) concerning players at Knowsley, etc.; but errs slightly in dating them, in each case, as of the week “beginning” on the dates mentioned. (See entries of Saturday, Dec. 28, 1588—“Wednesdaye was Christemas daie”—and of Saturday, Jan. 6, 1588—“Monday being New Years daye”—D. H. B., pp. 56, 46. These and others prove that the diarist's dates are always those of the last day of the week covered by his entry.) Murray thereby inadvertently conceals the fact that several of the plays by the unnamed company were given on such special occasions as New Year's and Twelfth Night (see below, nn. 76, 78, and text).
73 D. H. B., pp. 32, 62, 65.
74 Id., p. 45.
75 Id., p. 46. (Italics—here and in the remaining entries—mine.)
76 See above, n. 72.
77 D. H. B., pp. 56–57.
78 Id.
79 Id., pp. 74–76.
80 Id., p. 75.
81 Entry of Nov. 11, 1587. Not till Jan. 6, 1588 does he add, “on Wednesday was the crystening of my L. Strandge's doughter” (D. H. B., pp. 42, 46).
82 Murray (i, 108, 89; ii, 221) and Chambers (ii, 119; iv, 305 ff.) trace them at Cambridge and Coventry between 1587 and 1589, and at London in November, 1589.