{"id":1429,"date":"2016-11-08T14:46:48","date_gmt":"2016-11-08T13:46:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/?page_id=1429"},"modified":"2016-11-12T23:55:41","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T22:55:41","slug":"scenes-1-4-5","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/shakespeare-1616-2016\/the-first-night-of-romeo-juliet\/scenes-1-4-5\/","title":{"rendered":"scenes 1 ; 4 & 1 ; 5"},"content":{"rendered":"

in order of (dis)appearance<\/em><\/p>\n

–<\/span><\/p>\n

Mercutio<\/strong>
\nIn order to inflict a fatal wound with a thrust that is deflected downward, Tybalt should be taller than his victim. Realism therefore argues in favour of casting Richard Burbage as Mercutio. And thus biassed, a certain likeness with Hamlet becomes apparent. And a tendency of seeking the centre of attention, that is also characteristic for Fallstaff ; being fat, another apparently short fellow.<\/p>\n

–<\/span><\/p>\n

Romeo<\/strong>
\nEnters masqued, exits and enters again ; just too late to witness his own exit opposite. By the time he has a line again, Condell is in the prompter\u2019s cabin. During the Thursday afternoon performance, the central yard is audience territory, and both scenes are confined to the stage. Which allows Condell to spend some more time in there. And a proud father to spend some quality time with his boy.<\/p>\n

–<\/span><\/p>\n

Page with Romeo<\/strong> ………………………………………………<\/span> scene 1 ; 4 (mute) = age ca. 10
\n………………………………………………………………………………<\/span> Robert Beeston<\/a> (*unknown)
\nRomeo\u2019s page-boy is only on stage to stay close to Romeo (and to hand him a torch).<\/p>\n

–<\/span><\/p>\n

Page with Tybalt<\/strong> ………………………………………………..<\/span> scene 1 ; 5 (mute) = age ca. 10
\nThis boy has his moment of glory when he hands Tybalt his sword. Equal treatment of equal boys, apparently. But also allowing Robert Beeston to step down with honour when his place in tomorrow\u2019s afternoon show is taken by somebody else. He is in fact doing a really important job, because the boy he is to replace himself at Tybalt’s side (Sands or Ecclestone<\/a>) is still too young for daily performances.<\/p>\n

—<\/span><\/p>\n

Page with Romeo<\/strong> ……………………………\u00a0\u00a0 ………………<\/span> scene 1 ; 4 (mute) = age ca. 10
\nFor some reason this page did not return in the 1596 Q2-production. And without evidence to build a theory on, one is free to speculate at will :
\n………………………………………………………………<\/span> Hamnet Shakespeare (*February 1585)
\nIf there is one thing William and his wife must have disagreed on, it is about the necessity of spending good money on their son\u2019s education. Anne Hathaway was illiterate herself, and never the worse for it. Neither were her daughters. But, after some vivid discussions she may have given Hamnet her blessing to accompany his father to London like Edmund before him. There is some wishful thinking to this scenario, because Hamnet’s burial on 11 August 1596 is recorded in Stratford, and there is no way to prove London his new hometown. But no way to disprove it either, because the boy was interred three weeks after the London theatres were closed by a plague ban.<\/p>\n

And, as a matter of fact, this speculation is not completely unfounded : the moment one starts to consider the possibility that Shakespeare wanted Hamnet to follow in his footsteps, one attaches a plausible candidate to the elusive \u2018Ned\u2019 who participated somewhere in the 1590s in a production of a lost play by the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. If its surviving plot sheet, on which the performers have their entrances mapped out, features Hamnet Shakespeare, it dates with absolute certainty from the spring or summer of 1596. Which means that all one has to do to judge the likelihood of this identification, is to compare notes :<\/p>\n

The Seven Deathly Sins (part II)<\/strong>
\na morality play in two parts by Richard Tarleton
\nas performed by (assumedly) the Burbage troupe<\/p>\n

…………………………………………<\/span>Kathman-dating ……………………………….<\/span> corrected dating
\n………………………………………..<\/span> around 1597 – 98 ………………………………………<\/span> 1596<\/p>\n

George\u00a0 Bryan\u00a0 is\u00a0 paid\u00a0 on\u00a0 21 December 1596\u00a0 for a 1595 perfor- ……………………………..<\/span>
\nmance with the Chamberlain\u2019s Men. This is the last record of his ………..<\/span> \u221a ………………..<\/span>
\nname as an active performer.<\/p>\n

Thomas Pope and Augustine Phillips are on record as players with …………………………..<\/span>
\nthe\u00a0 Chamberlain\u2019s Men from 1597 – 9 onward.\u00a0 An earlier date for\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ……<\/span> \u221a (?)……………<\/span>
\nSDS is possible, but becomes less plausible the further back we go ……………………………<\/span>
\nbefore 1598.<\/p>\n

William Sly\u00a0 came\u00a0 over\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 Admiral\u2019s Men\u00a0 somewhere be- …………………………..<\/span>
\ntween 1594 and 1598.\u00a0 The dating for SDS becomes less plausible ……….<\/span> ? …………………<\/span>
\nthe further back we go before 1598.<\/p>\n

If subjected to a falsification attempt, this is for both datings the first link to give way. An inventory in Henslowe\u2019s diary of the apparel of the Admiral\u2019s Men, dated 13 March 1598, includes an entry on \u2018Perowes sewt, which Wm Sley were\u2019. If it was not for Sly\u2019s recorded appearance in a 1598 Jonson-production by the Chamberlain\u2019s Men, this entry would have been conclusive evidence for a dating of SDS as late as 1599. But this entry is an exception by linking a specific character\u2019s apparel to the performer. Why is Henslowe this explicit? had Sly been the ultimate Perowe? had the apparel been paid by Sly? was the name of Sly worth mentioning, because he had been a guest star from the Chamberlain\u2019s?<\/p>\n

It stands to reason that the suit had been tailored to Sly. For which reason it was after his departure only of use for a \u2018Perowe\u2019 (Pierrot?) of similar build. And it could have been stored almost indefinitely before it was needed again. For several years in fact, before being labelled as Sly\u2019s apparel in 1598.<\/p>\n

John Duke is first on record in 1598, when performing with the ……………………………….<\/span>
\nChamberlain\u2019s. An earlier date for SDS is possible, but becomes …………<\/span> \u221a ………………..<\/span>
\nless plausible the further back we go before 1598.<\/p>\n

John Sincler was certainly with the Chamberlain\u2019s Men in 1598. ………………………………<\/span>
\nProbably with the Pembroke\u2019s in the early 1590\u2019s.\u00a0 And perhaps ………….<\/span> ? ………………..<\/span><\/span>
\nwith a company connected to the Pembroke\u2019s touring Germany …..<\/span> identified ……………<\/span><\/span>
\nin the autumn of 1596.\u00a0 If the 1623 Folio version of 3 Henry VI<\/em> ………<\/span> in cast ……………..<\/span><\/span>
\nwas\u00a0 adapted\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chamberlain\u2019s\u00a0 Men,\u00a0 the presence of his ………<\/span> R & J ………………<\/span><\/span>
\nname places him by the mid 1590s in the Chamberlain\u2019s compa- …………<\/span> ? ……….<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nny, rather than in Pembroke\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The 1596 dating has its second weak link in Sincler’s description : \u2018John Sincler or Sinklo was apparently a very small man, to judge from the comment that are consistently made about the characters he played.\u2019 After which observation David Kathman has no reason to link Sincler to the Chamberlain\u2019s Men as R & J\u2019s original 1594 apothecary. While the name \u2018Sincklo\u2019 in The Taming of the Shrew<\/em> (ca. 1594) may originate from his participation in a later production. But the features of this apothecary return in Shakespeare plays for a decade. In Twelfth-Night<\/em> (ca. 1601-2) represented by Sir Andrew Aguecheek, who is as long as he is thin, and who ‘plays the gamboys’. Which is Sincler’s instrument.<\/p>\n

If Sincler was in 1594 – 6 still with the Pembroke’s, and if he indeed played Sir Andrew in Twelfth-Night<\/em>, he must have succeeded as the troupe’s regular ‘thin man’. Probably in the wake of a guest appearance in SDS, because in its Induction he is on stage together with George Bryan, his most likely predecessor as \u2018thin man\u2019, in one of his last performances.<\/p>\n

John Holland\u00a0 was with the\u00a0 Chamberlain\u2019s Men\u00a0 in\u00a0 the second …………<\/span> \u221a …………………<\/span>
\nproduction of 2 Henry VI<\/em> (before 1596).<\/p>\n

Henry Condell\u00a0 (Ferrex\u00a0 + ‘lord’),\u00a0 John Duke\u00a0 (4\u00a0 small parts as ……<\/span> orig. boy pl. ……….<\/span>
\nadults), and Christopher Beeston (3 small parts as adults) were …… .<\/span> now resp. …………<\/span>
\nfirst on record with the\u00a0 Chamberlain\u2019s Men in 1598.\u00a0 An earlier …..<\/span> ca 20, ca 17 ………..<\/span>
\ndate for SDS is possible,\u00a0 but becomes less plausible the further ………<\/span> & ca 16 …………..<\/span>
\nback we go before 1598. ………………………………………………………<\/span>………….<\/span> \u221a ………..<\/span><\/p>\n

Thomas Vincent was a prompter at the Globe theatre after 1599…………<\/span> \u221a …………………<\/span>
\nhe may very well have acted a mute part in 1597-98.<\/p>\n

Thomas Belt\u00a0\u00a0 (Panthea\u00a0 + ‘servant’)\u00a0 was apprenticed to\u00a0 John……………<\/span> \u221a ……………<\/span>……<\/span>
\nHeminges on 12 Nov. 1595 for a term of nine years. ………………………..<\/span> ca 15<\/p>\n

Alexander Cooke was apprenticed to John Heminges\u00a0 on 26 Jan.………………………………<\/span>
\n1597 for a term of eight years : right on time to qualify for Queen………\u00a0 ? ………………….<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nVidena + Procne in 1597. Probably born in December 1583.<\/p>\n

A dating in the spring of 1596 assigns Cooke to a major part long before he is admitted as an apprentice. He also is definitely less of an adult than Belte. But is he much younger? Boys mature at their own individual pace, and both their terms terminated about Christmas 1604. So they may have been born within months of each other.<\/p>\n

Nicholas Tooley (Pompeia + ‘lady’). With the company from 1605…………<\/span> \u221a ………………<\/span>
\nonward. But probably apprenticed to Richard Burbage before that\u00a0 ….<\/span> still the ………….<\/span>
\ntime. Would have been 15 years old in 1597-8. Just the right age to … right age ………….<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nbe playing female roles.<\/p>\n

Robert Gough (Aspatia & Philomela). Not on record before 1603,\u00a0 …………………….<\/span>……..<\/span>
\nwhen he married Elizabeth Phillips. That same year Thomas Pope\u00a0 ……….<\/span> \u221a ……………..<\/span>
\nleft whim half his wearing apparel and arms.<\/p>\n

Some disagreement here, because Philomela was played by Robert Pallant instead, as the plot sheet (not too) clearly indicates : Philomela is played by \u2018Ro R Pall.\u2019 A slip of the pen apparently : one Robert is corrected to make another. Gough\u2019s remaining part of Aspatia is a leading lady. And despite playing this part only, he can\u2019t be junior to Nicholas Tooley. But without a man\u2019s part to play, he may very well be younger than Belte. In 1603 he is definitely mature, and the earlier SDS was on stage, the better chance that he still was the treble that is suggested here.<\/p>\n

Edmund Shakespeare (Rodope) was in his late teens in 1597-98,\u00a0 ………………………<\/span>
\nthe upper end of\u00a0 the age range\u00a0 in which\u00a0 he might\u00a0 have played\u00a0 ……….<\/span> \u221a …………..<\/span>
\nfemale roles.<\/p>\n

Kathman identifies ‘Ned’ as Shakespeare’s kid brother, rather than as his son. A dating early in 1596 places Shakespeare\u2019s favourite boy actor significantly less close to the age limit for a woman’s part. He may still be a treble even. Which would explain why he has only a single female part to perform. Just like Robert Gough, who is in the same playlet, and, being treated equally, these two should be roughly of the same age. But, very much unlike Gough\u2019s Aspatia, Rodope seems to be a minor part. At first entry in the prompt sheet minor even to Tooley\u2019s Pompeia. But before identifying ‘Ned’ as a Shakespeare who is more junior than Edmund or Robert Gough, we have to rule out an error in the order of entrance. This, however, is impossible because in the order of performers \u2018Ned\u2019 preceeds \u2018Nick.\u2019 And the ladies\u2019 order of entrance is corrected accordingly at the next entry. Nick Tooley is twelve or thirteen, and an eleven year old \u2018Ned\u2019 is unlikely to outrank him. Hamnet Shakespeare is for that reason only to be expected on stage as Rodope in her capacity of the playlet\u2019s third lady. If Rodope cannot be proven to be that minor, Edmund Shakespeare is on stage instead as a worthy counterpart to Gough\u2019s Aspatia.<\/p>\n

This is in many a respect the most likely scenario. But the combination of two boys of advanced age in just one part each, defines these parts as much more important than those of the ladies in the other playlets. And of equal stature. It stands, however, to reason that in playlets of limited size, individual parts are not really difficult, and to all likelihood compatible to their counterparts in other playlets. For that reason a second scenario is to be considered. One in which Robert Gough is significantly younger than Edmund Shakespeare, and even Nicholas Tooley. This defines his age as roughly equal to what the educated guess on his position in the 1594 line-up prescribes (where he is put into place to bridge an inconvenient gap between the boys aged 11 and 13). Just as his assignment to a single woman\u2019s part suggests. This scenario is more complicated than its competitor, and only to survive Occam\u2019s Razor if it explains things better, but it is\u00a0 far from unlikely :<\/p>\n

Around 1 May 1596 Edmund Shakespeare celebrated his sixteenth birthday. To Henry the Sixth this was his first birthday in full regal power. What better day for the priest-poet Lydgate to present to him the temptations and consequences of The Seven Deadly Sins ? Now assume for argument\u2019s sake that the play’s Induction did indeed present this scenario as the framework of this play. And assume that William Shakespeare had by 1596 acquired enough influence to arrange what play was going to be performed on his brother\u2019s birthday. In this scenario he would be on stage himself as the poet Lydgate : that goes without saying with a sixteen year old poet\u2019s protege\u0301 on stage in the person of Henry VI.<\/p>\n

In this scenario little Hamnet has to be on stage as well. And as the son of… he can indeed outrank Nick Tooley (13) in the assignment of the playlet\u2019s second lady. And he certainly would have done so, if he had already shown the skills to pull it off. It probably was an easy part anyway.<\/p>\n

Conclusion :
\nThe ca. 1597-98 dating is the safer bet. The pinpoint dating in the spring of 1596 compensates for its apparent weaknesses by generating some interesting points of view. The weak spots therefore deserve all the pressure Shakespeare Studies can generate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

in order of (dis)appearance – Mercutio In order to inflict a fatal wound with a thrust that is deflected downward, Tybalt should be taller than his victim. Realism therefore argues in favour of casting Richard Burbage as Mercutio. And thus … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":1369,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1429"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1429"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1429\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1592,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1429\/revisions\/1592"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elizabethanpartsongs.nl\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}