Lost and found: William Boyle's Jugurth.
Jugurth was presumably acted c. February 1600 by the Lord Admiral's Men at Henslowe's theater, the Rose, and subsequently at the first Fortune, which opened in autumn 1600. John Astington believes that Edward Alleyn, Henslowe's son-in-law, probably played the title role. (7) Henslowe's Diary does not mention Jugurth again, though this need not mean that the play was unpopular. Unfortunately, we possess almost no contemporary allusions to the play or to its chief character. The single exception is found in Edmund Gayton's Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot[e], published in 1654, which describes holy days and other times "when Saylers, Water-men, Shoomakers, Butchers and Apprentices are at leisure": "I have known upon one of these Festivals, but especially at Shrove-tide, where the Players have been appointed ... to act what the major part of the company had a mind to; sometimes Tamerlane, sometimes Jugurth, sometimes the Jew of Malta, and sometimes parts of all these." (8) If Gayton is referring here to William Boyle's Jugurth, then the play may have remained popular for decades. After all, Marlowe's Tamburlaine and The Jew of Malta, were among the most celebrated and frequently performed Elizabethan plays.
What do we actually know about Boyle's play? The plot was based on Sallust's history in Bellum Iugurthinum, completed in 41 BC. The Roman historian explains that he had a twofold motive for treating the subject: "I am going to write about the war which the Roman people waged with the Numidian king Jugurtha, first because it was great and brutal, with victories on both sides, and second because that was the first time there was any opposition to the aristocracy's abuse of power. This struggle confused all things, human and divine, and proceeded to such a pitch of madness that political partisanship had its end in war and the devastation of Italy." (9) At the time when Jugurth figured in Rome's history, corruption had become pervasive; Jugurth himself managed to bribe Roman officials with impunity. The war itself was bloody and its course unusually convoluted. Sallust, however, must also have been attracted by something else: Jugurth's personal qualities. The historian describes the king as physically strong, mentally tough, and charismatic. Jugurth became known for his valor and skill. At the same time he had a penchant for intrigue and violence, which he used in the service of his ambition to dominate Numidia, a region that corresponded roughly to modern Algeria. Unscrupulous and cruel, he routed the remnants of the country's ruling family and seemed destined to control a large portion of North Africa. But in his siege of Cirta, the Numidian capital, in 112 BC, a number of Roman merchants were killed; in response Rome sent troops to Numidia. So just when Jugurth seemed about to achieve complete control of his homeland, he was faced with the intervention of a superpower. Having vanquished Carthage in 146 BC, the Romans were not about to allow another African nation to challenge their hegemony in the Mediterranean. A prolonged and complex military conflict ensued; although the Roman heavy infantry were formidable, they found it challenging to grapple with Jugurth's light cavalry. On the battlefield he "combined the military skills learned while fighting with the Roman troops with the classically Numidian use of cavalry and guerrilla tactics." (10) It was, however, only a matter of time before Jugurth, like Hannibal before him, was eventually defeated. In 105 BC he was captured and the following year brought to Rome, where he was probably starved to death.
Sallust's account is rich with theatrical possibilities: a supremely confident military leader who, like Tamburlaine, was humbly born but became a canny military tactician; a formidable antagonist in Marius, the Roman consul sent to crush Jugurth; a conflict between an energetic North African nation and the dominant power in the Mediterranean; military panoply and battlefield action. There is much here to furnish entertainment for audiences at the Rose and the Fortune. In view of this potential, it is not surprising that the Elizabethan-Jacobean actor and playwright Thomas Heywood was drawn to the same material. Fascinated by classical mythology and ancient history, Heywood undertook to translate Sallust's history of the Numidian-Roman campaign; his English version, printed by William Jaggard for John Jaggard, was published in 1608. (11) It is not unlikely that by the time he produced this work Hey wood had seen William Boyle's drama on the stage. Indeed, although his translation does not mention the play, Heywood might well have been drawn to the story precisely because the staging of Jugurth fired his imagination. (12)
If, in the absence of a script, we can say little with certainty about the play's content, we can at least locate connections with other plays of its time. Roslyn Knutson links Jugurth with two of Shakespeare's Elizabethan tragedies, one performed probably in the early 1590s and the other at the Globe in 1599: "'Jugurtha' presumably recounted events in the life of the Numidian king, 160-104 BCE.... As classical tragical history, 'Jugurtha' invites comparison with Julius Caesar in the Chamberlain's repertory, as well as Titus Andronicus, with which there would have been the additional connection of North Africa through the character of Aaron the Moor." (13) Rome exerted an appeal even before Shakespeare's career began. Thomas Lodge had explored similar material in The Wounds of Civil War Lively Set Forth in the True Tragedies of Marius and Scilla, probably acted c. 1586-89 by the Admiral's Men. Written around the same time as Marlowe's Tamburlaine (c. 1587) and probably inspired chiefly by Appian's Roman History, The Wounds of Civil War "is the oldest extant example of a play based on classical history." (14) Wolfgang Clemen calls Lodge's drama the "earliest Roman play in English literature." (15) Within a few years of Jugurth's composition, London audiences would see a number of other Roman plays, including Jonson's Sejanus His Fall, performed by the King's Men in 1603-4; the anonymous Claudius Tiberius Nero, Rome's Greatest Tyrant, acted in 1607 by an unidentified company; and Heywood's The Rape of Lucrece, A True Roman Tragedy, acted "around 1607" by Queen Anne's Men. (16) In addition, Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus were acted by the King's Men in 1606-7 and 1608-9, respectively. Shakespeare's Cymbeline was acted in the autumn of 1610 and John Fletcher's The Tragedy of Valentinian in 1610-11. Catiline His Conspiracy, Jonson's second Roman tragedy, was staged by the King's Men in 1611. (17) All of these plays signal the Elizabethan-Jacobean preoccupation with Rome, (18) regarded both as the aesthetic pinnacle of ancient civilization and thus a model for emulation and also, in imperial times, as a site of despotism and political anxiety and thus a handy parallel with the England of King James.
Although William Boyle's play might have been performed at the Fortune theater for years, it left no archival trace until this entry in Henry Herbert's office-book for May 3, 1624: "An Old Play, called, Jugurth, King of Numidia, formerly allowed by Sir George Bucke." (19) George Chalmers, who consulted Herbert's office-book, observes: "On the 3d of May 1624, Sir Henry Herbert states, that he had licensed, without a fee, Jugurth, an old play, allowed by Sir George Bucke, and burnt, with his other books." (20) Herbert apparently refers to playbooks lost when the Fortune theater burned the night of December 9, 1621. Jugurth and other plays must have been "recopied from old manuscripts that survived and ... relicensed." (21) Gerald Eades Bentley finds it likely that "the Jugurth, King of Numidia which Herbert licensed without fee in 1624 was the same play as Boyle's Jugurth of 1599/1600, for Sir George Buc was Deputy Master of the Revels at the time Henslowe paid for the play, and he was active in the office as Deputy or Master until 1622." (22) In 1624 the play must have been performed at the rebuilt Fortune by the Palsgrave's company, successor to Prince Henry's Men, who were themselves, earlier, successor to the Lord Admiral's Men.
It may be no coincidence that the relicensing of Jugurth accompanied the staging of numerous other Roman plays in the same decade. For example, The Tragedy of Nero, possibly written by Thomas May (acted c. 1619-23); John Webster's Appius and Virginia (c. 1624-27), Fuimus Troes, or The True Trojans by Jasper Fisher (c. 1625); The False One by Fletcher and Massinger (c. 1626 by the King's Men); Massinger's The Roman Actor (by the same company in 1626); Thomas May's The Tragedy of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt (1626); and May's Tragedy of Julia Agrippina, Empress of Rome (1628). The Jews' Tragedy, or Their Fatal and Final Overthrow by Vespasian and Titus His Son was written by William Heminges c. 1628-30 and probably acted around the same time. Jugurth, in its relicensed form, belongs to this cluster of Roman plays. Rounding off the decade, William Crosse translated anew Sallust's history of Jugurth in 1629. (23)
Whatever the success of Jugurth in the theater, there is no evidence in the Stationers' Register that Boyle's drama was ever prepared for publication. Like the vast majority of plays, it never found its way into print. Neil Carson remarks of Henslowe's Diary that "fully 90 per cent of the works have perished." (24) Even the first edition of The Spanish Tragedy, the most influential play of early modern England, has vanished, and the second quarto exists in a single copy. Thomas Kyd's Tragedy of Hamlet, also apparently recorded by Henslowe, has altogether disappeared. (25) And Marlowe's Jew of Malta, "probably the most popular play of the Elizabethan era," (26) was not printed until 1633, about four decades after its composition.
Virtually all modern scholars call Jugurth "lost." That is the term Alfred Harbage applies without qualification in his Annals of English Drama (1940). (27) Samuel Schoenbaum uses the same language in his 1964 revision of Harbage's Annals, (28) as does Sylvia Wagonheim in her 1989 revision. (29) Yoshiko Kawachi, similarly, designates the play "lost." (30) Jerzy Limon calls the 1624 Jugurth "a lost play for an unidentified company." (31) Gerald Bentley judges the 1624 play "Not extant." (32) And Jugurth appears in the Lost Plays Database. (33) The scholarly consensus is clear. But is Jugurth actually missing?
Oxford's Bodleian Library holds a manuscript catalogued as Rawlinson poet. 195, fols. 99-132, and entitled Jugurtha, or The fait[h]less Cosen german, A Tragedy. (34) In a 1936 letter to the editor of the Times Literary Supplement, Alfred Harbage implies a possible relationship between the Jugurth named in Henslowe's Diary and the Bodleian manuscript: "it would be reassuring if someone would put on record an examination of this play viewed in the light of Henslowe's payment of thirty shillings, February 9, 1600, 'for a new booke to Will: Boyle, cal'd Jugurth,' and of Sir Henry Herbert's license, May 3, 1624, of 'An Old Play, called Jugurth, King of Numidia, formerly allowed by Sir George Bucke.'" (35) This sentence, tentative in its syntax, hints at a connection without affirming it. Harbage's uncertainty may explain why he does not posit a relationship between the manuscript and the 1600 play in his authoritative Annals of English Drama, published four years later. As we have seen, in 1940 he calls the play lost. Without indicating a connection with the play, he lists the Bodleian manuscript at the very end of his book in a compilation entitled "The Extant Play Manuscripts, 975-1700: Their Location and Catalogue Numbers." (36) Similarly, both Schoenbaum and Wagonheim follow Harbage's precedent in their revisions of Annals. They, like Harbage, record the Bodleian manuscript separately from their list of plays. A reader of any edition of Annals, which is arranged in year-by-year tables, will not guess that a manuscript named Jugurth exists unless that reader carefully peruses "The Index of English Plays" at the back of the book or scrutinizes the separate list of extant manuscripts under the subheading "Anonymous [Manuscripts]." The manuscript entries for the Bodleian Jugurth in all three editions of Annals fail to mention the play, which bespeaks a conviction that the one has no particular significance for the other. This is very different from the treatment of other dramatic manuscripts in Annals. For example, in the chronological listing of plays, the 1637 entry for William Berkeley's The Lost Lady records publication in 1638 and the existence of a manuscript as well. Similarly, The Woman's Prize, or The Tamer Tamed by John Fletcher records publication in 1647 and the extant manuscript. The play titles of William Percy, which were not printed, are all accompanied by the notation "MS" in the tables. And the existence of virtually all the other manuscripts of surviving plays are indicated in the entries for individual plays. By contrast, Harbage, Schoenbaum, and Wagonheim seem to regard the title of the Jugurth manuscript more as a coincidence than as evidence that any version of William Boyle's play survives.
What makes identifying Boyle's play with the manuscript especially problematic is its uncertain date. Andrew Gurr believes that the Bodleian's Jugurtha belongs to the "mid-seventeenth-century" (37) while Gerald Bentley thinks that the play was written after the Restoration. (38) The Bodleian catalogue reports that the manuscript was produced in the "2nd half of the 17th cent[ury]," (39) though we do not know the basis for the speculation. In the absence of other information, most scholars connect the date of the manuscript with that of the play's composition. That is, they assume that the manuscript represents an entirely new dramatization of Sallust's history, undertaken around the time of the Restoration. They also believe that the new play was never finished, for the fourth act is incomplete, and the fifth act is missing altogether. According to this supposition, the author may for some reason have abandoned a work in progress; perhaps the unknown playwright died. All we can say for certain is that the manuscript represents a puzzle: Andrew Gurr has called it "a mess." (40)
I should like to propose what is admittedly a speculation: that the extant manuscript may preserve some version of the play performed before the closing of the theaters in 1642. I offer this hypothesis knowing that the evidence falls short of anything that may be construed as proof and that the reluctance to affirm a connection between the manuscript and the title in Henslowe's Diary is understandable. To begin with, the manuscript does not record either the name of the playwright or the auspices of production. Also, the entry in Henslowe's Diary does not record the alternate title of the manuscript: or The fait[h]less Cousen german. The stage directions, confined principally to entries and exits, are minimal. And the manuscript is (at least) at one remove from the original fair copy. Andrew Gurr has called the extant Jugurth a "transcript," (41) and a careful examination of the manuscript supports his judgment. The hand is chiefly italic but shows some lingering secretary features, especially in forms of e, final s, and large c. Among the clues that we are dealing with a transcript are the misspellings: "Numatia's" (for "Numantia's), "tatalize" ("tantalize"), "imortall" ("immortall"), and so forth. The scribe was apparently not heeding nasal-abbreviating macrons in the text that he was copying; perhaps he was simply not paying attention. (42) The original playwright would presumably not have made such errors. In addition, the manuscript bears signs of either revision or tampering. Many words and lines are crossed out with dark ink, chiefly in the first act. In some cases the words have become completely illegible. Where the content of the original lines may be reconstructed, there is no obvious rationale explaining the deletions. The manuscript, then, poses a multitude of problems. We cannot say with confidence when or why it was produced; nor do we know the identity of the writer or corrector. In short, we do not have a context for understanding the nature of the manuscript.
The conventional wisdom may, of course, be accurate. That is, someone may have decided around 1650 or 1660 to adapt Sallust's history of Jugurth and cast it in dramatic form. Such a scenario is plausible, though it seems just a little odd that anyone would have wanted to write a new play about an ancient historical figure whose career had been dramatized six decades earlier. Theatrical taste had profoundly changed, and plays once staged at the Rose or Fortune theaters must have seemed old-fashioned in the new era. But let us grant that Gurr and Bentley are correct in their estimate that the play belongs the middle or latter part of the seventeenth century. Is it likely that the Bodleian manuscript represents an entirely new version of the ancient narrative? The intellectual energy and theatrical skill required to conceive and carry out a brand-new dramatization, whether from an extant English translation of Sallust or from the original Latin, would have been considerable, for the Jugurthine history is a long, dense and detailed account of political maneuvering and military campaigning during the Roman Republic. Shaping Sallust's narrative for the stage in 1600, comparable to Shakespeare's adaptation of Plutarch's Lives in Antony and Cleopatra, (43) had been no small accomplishment. The challenge for a mid-seventeenth-century playwright would have been equally formidable. But the task would have been facilitated if he had at hand an extant play about Jugurth. William Boyle's drama in one of its forms could have provided a template for a new adaptation of Sallust's Jugurthine history and perhaps furnished dialogue too (the language of the Bodleian manuscript is generally consistent with that of the early seventeenth century). Access to Boyle's play, either in a copy of the original playbook or in its relicensed version, would have proved a valuable asset to a dramatist at mid-century. There is a huge difference, after all, between a playwright reimagining a story already in dramatic form, on the one hand, and a playwright starting from scratch, on the other. Significantly, stories based on ancient history and dramatized in the Restoration often had a precedent in the early modern era. For example, Nathaniel Lee's Sophonisba, or Hannibal's Overthrow, acted 1675, treats material handled earlier in John Marston's The Wonder of Women, or The Tragedy of Sophonisba, acted 1605, and Thomas Nabbes's Hannibal and Scipio, acted 1636. (44) John Dryden's All for Love, or The World Well Lost, acted 1677, draws upon Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, as well as Samuel Daniel's Tragedy of Cleopatra.
A reader of the manuscript will notice that the play is divided into acts, a convention not widely followed until the King's Men began using the Blackfriars theater c. 1610, when they faced the need to trim or replace candles during indoor performance. The act division may seem to argue that the manuscript could not be based on the Jugurth written in 1600. But many plays before 1600 observed a five-act structure, including Marlowe's Tamburlaine (acted c. 1587, printed 1590), Greene's Alphonsus, King of Aragon (acted 1587-88, printed 1599), Marston's Antonio and Mellida (acted 1599, printed 1602), Peele's The Arraignment of Paris (acted 1581-84, printed 1584), the anonymous Caesar and Pompey, or Caesar's Revenge (acted in the mid-1590s, printed 1606?), and Marlowe and Nashe's Dido, Queen of Carthage (acted c. 1587, printed 1594). The Spanish Tragedy by Kyd (acted c. 1587, printed 1592?) exists today as a four-act play, but it must have been written in five acts. (45) Therefore, the act divisions in Jugurth do not in themselves signal that the play preserved in the Bodleian was originally written in the middle of the seventeenth century or later. Moreover, even if Jugurth was written as a succession of scenes in 1600, a new playbook, relicensed by Henry Herbert in 1624, could easily have added the divisions that by then had become customary.
A reader of Jugurth will also notice that locations are sometimes given at the beginning of scenes. Before act 1, for example, we read: "Scene a pallace," and at the beginning of act 2 we find: "Scene a Chamber." It was this feature that led Gerald Bentley to conclude that we are dealing with "a Restoration rather than a Jacobean or a Caroline, much less an Elizabethan, play." (46) At first glance his judgment may seem persuasive. But it overlooks the fact that plays before 1660 sometimes use elaborate descriptions of settings. Among them are William Percy's A Forest Tragedy in Vacunium, written in 1602, John Tatham's Love Crowns the End, acted in 1632, (47) Mildmay Fane's Candy Restored, acted in 1641, (48) and Leonard Willan's Astraea, or True Love's Myrror, probably written in the 1640s. (49) Such indications of locale became standard during the Restoration, but they do not establish that the manuscript of Jugurth necessarily belongs to the period following 1660.
One final observation. The title page of the Bodleian manuscript records a statement about the play's composition. Within parallel lines drawn across the bottom of the page, someone has written: "Opus posthumum recognitum." Loosely translated, the Latin words mean "a work revised after the author's death." Unfortunately, we do not know what form the revision took. Was the play substantially revised at some point? There is no indication that it was. Many words and lines are crossed out. Do those deletions constitute the revision? They may, but there is no way of knowing with certainty. And there is, of course, no way of identifying the person who made the revisions. Who wrote the play that was revised? Was it William Boyle or someone else? We do not even know when those Latin words were inscribed on the title page. All we can say is that they are written in a different hand from that of the playbook itself. Despite the tantalizing nature of the inscription, then, it sheds no light on the date of the manuscript, or the nature of the revisions, or the identity of the person who made them.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, I offer the following ten propositions:
1. William Boyle's Jugurth was performed at the Rose and then at the Fortune theater when it opened in autumn 1600.
2. Edward Alleyn, having emerged from retirement in 1600, played the protagonist when the play was new.
3. The writing of the play, based on Sallust's history of the Jugurthine war, expressed an intensifying interest in classical Rome during the first decade of the seventeenth century.
4. The play book burned when the Fortune theater was destroyed by fire in 1621.
5. The Palsgrave's Men managed to produce a new play book, and it was relicensed by Henry Herbert in 1624.
6. The relicensing coincided with a renewed enthusiasm for Roman plays in the 1620s.
7. Edmund Gayton's 1654 allusion to the play suggests its continuing popularity.
8. Jugurth appealed to playgoers not only because of its martial content but also because of its romantic story, one with no basis in Sallust's narrative: in the list of characters Octavia is described as "Marius Daughter in Love with & beloved by Jugurtha"; the playwright has, then, invented a relationship between the daughter of the Roman consul and Jugurth.
9. A version of the playbook relicensed by Herbert may survive in the Bodleian Library.
10. The manuscript is largely intact, with the exception of the fifth act and part of the fourth, which may either have never been finished or were detached at some point from a completed play. (50) William Boyle's 1600 Jugurth may be "lost," but its avatar may survive in the Bodleian manuscript.
(1.) Henslowe's Diary, ed. R. A. Foakes, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 130.
(2.) Frederick Gard Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642, 2 vols. (1891; reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, 1962), 1: 33.
(3.) Edwin Nungezer, A Dictionary of Actors and of Other Persons Associated with the Public Representation of Plays in England before 1642 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929), 48.
(4.) W. W. Greg, Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses: Stage Plots, Actors' Parts, Prompt Books, 2 vols. (1931; reprint, Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 1: 52.
(5.) E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols. (1923; reprinted with corrections, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), 2: 171.
(6.) Boyle's name does not appear in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
(7.) John H. Astington, "Playing the Man: Acting at the Red Bull and the Fortune," Early Theatre 9, no. 2 (2006): 131.
(8.) Edmund Gayton, Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot[e] (London, 1654), 271. Gertrude Marian Sibley, in The Lost Plays and Masques 1500-1642 (1933; reprint, New York: Russell and Russell, 1971), writes: "Perhaps the play which Gayton mentioned is Boyle's Jugurtha" (86).
(9.) "The Jugurthine War" in Sallust: "Catiline's Conspiracy," "The Jugurthine War, " "Histories, " trans. William W. Batstone, Oxford World's Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 54.
(10.) Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, The Berbers (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 41.
(11.) Thomas Hey wood, The Two most worthy and Notable Histories which remaine unmained[unmaimed?] to Posterity: (viz:) The Conspiracie of Cate line, undertaken against the government of the Senate of Rome, and The Warre which Iugurth for many yeares maintained against the same State (London, 1608). Edwin Eliott Willoughby, in A Printer of Shakespeare: The Books and Times of William Jaggard (London: Philip Allan, 1934), observes: "The printing was continuous but the title-page of the first part bears the date 1608 and that of the second part 1609" (84). Charles Whibley, who edited Heywood's work as Sallust: The Conspiracy of Catiline and the War of Jugurtha, Translated into English by Thomas Heywood Anno 1608, The Tudor Translations, 2nd series (London: Constable; New York: Knopf, 1924), notes Heywood's dependence on a French translation: that Heywood "followed his rivals in getting what help he could from the French version, which lay at his hand, cannot be disputed" (xxxiii).
(12.) Heywood's interest in Roman history also issued in his Rape of Lucrece, written and acted around the same time he was translating Sallust. See Paulina Kewes, "Roman History and Early Stuart Drama: Thomas Heywood's The Rape of Lucrece," English Literary Renaissance 32, no. 2 (2002): 242.
(13.) Roslyn L. Knutson, "Toe to Toe across Maid Lane: Repertorial Competition at the Rose and Globe, 1599-1600," in Acts of Criticism: Performance Matters in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries, Essays in Honor of James P. Lusardi, ed. Paul Nelsen and June Schlueter, 21-38 (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2006), 25.
(14.) Joseph W. Houppert, ed., The Wounds of Civil War, Regents Renaissance Drama Series (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), xiv.
(15.) Wolfgang Clemen, English Drama before Shakespeare: The Development of Dramatic Speech, trans. T. S. Dorsch (London: Methuen, 1961), 134.
(16.) Richard Rowland, Thomas Heywood's Theatre, 1599-1639: Locations, Translations, and Conflict (Famham, UK, Ashgate, 2010), 4.
(17.) To the titles listed here we may add Samuel Daniel's Cleopatra, written c. 1594 and revised in 1599. Whether or not it was performed, the play has a significant connection with Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra. Anne Barton, in "'Nature's piece 'gainst fancy': the Divided Catastrophe in Antony and Cleopatra," in Essays, Mainly Shakespearean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), writes, "Shakespeare must have known this play" (124). (Barton's essay was originally published by the University of London in 1974.) Daniel, in turn, revised his own play, making it more theatrical, apparently after seeing a performance of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra (Arthur M. Z. Norman, "'The Tragedie of Cleopatra' and the Date of 'Antony and Cleopatra,'" Modern Language Review 54, no. 1 : 1-9). We may also add George Chapman's Caesar and Pompey, written c. 1604: "it has all the appearance of being written for the theater" (Rolf Soellner, "Chapman's Caesar and Pompey and the Fortunes of Prince Hemry," Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 2 : 137), but there is no record of performance.
(18.) For a list of extant Roman plays written in English between 1497 and 1651, see Clifford Ronan, "Antike Roman ": Power Symbology and the Roman Play in Early Modern England, 1585-1635 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995), 165-69.
(19.) Joseph Quincy Adams, Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, 1623-1673 (1917; reprint, New York: Benjamin Blom, 1964?), 28.
(20.) George Chalmers, A Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeare-Papers (London: Thomas Egerton, 1799), 203. In his Dramatic Records, Adams records what Chalmers had written (28, n. 5). N. W. Bawcutt, in The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels 1623-73 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), also cites Chalmers' remark about Jugurth (151) .
(21.) Andrew Gurr, Shakespeare's Opposites: The Admiral's Company 1594-1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 271, n. 147.
(22.) Gerald Eades Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage: Plays and Playwrights, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941-68), 3: 36.
(23.) William Crosse, trans., The Workes of Caius Crispus Salustius Contayning the Conspiracie of Cateline, The Warre of Jugurth, V Bookes of Historicall fragments, II Orations to Caesar for the Institution of a Comonwealth and one against Cicero (London, 1629).
(24.) Neil Carson, A Companion to Henslowe's Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 67-68.
(25.) Although the Diary does not name Kyd in connection with Hamlet, there can be little doubt that Henslowe refers to the play in his entry for June 9, 1594.
(26.) James R. Siemon, ed., The Jew of Malta, 2nd ed., New Mermaids (1994; reprint, London: Black; New York: Norton, 2006), xvi.
(27.) Alfred Harbage, Annals of English Drama 975-1700: An Analytical Record of All Plays, Extant or Lost, Chronologically Arranged and Indexed by Authors, Titles, Dramatic Companies, Etc. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1940), 67.
(28.) Samuel Schoenbaum, ed., Annals of English Drama 975-1700, 2nd ed., rev. (London: Methuen, 1964), 75.
(29.) Sylvia Stoler Wagonheim, ed., Annals of English Drama 975-1700, 3rd ed., rev. (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 79.
(30.) Yoshiko Kawachi, Calendar of English Renaissance Drama, 1558-1642, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 661 (New York: Garland, 1986), 113.
(31.) Jerzy Limon, Dangerous Matter: English Drama and Politics in 1623/24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 142.
(32.) Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1: 157.
(33.) For the Lost Plays Database, see http://www.lostplays.org. Roslyn L. Knutson prepared the treatment of Jugurth.
(34.) The manuscript sometimes gives the principal character's name in its Roman form--Jugurtha; elsewhere the playwright uses the English form Jugurth.
(35.) Alfred Harbage, " Notes on Manuscript Plays," Times Literary Supplement, June 20, 1936: 523. Harbage's letter invites the exploration of plays preserved in manuscript but little read; in addition to Jugurth, he cites Amurath, The Fatal Marriage, and The Governor. The year before he published this letter, Harbage had compiled a list of early modern manuscripts and their locations; he includes Jugurtha and gives its Bodleian catalogue number. See "Elizabethan and Seventeenth-Century Play Manuscripts," PMLA 50, no. 3 (1935): 687-99.
(36.) Harbage, Annals, 252-64; he lists Jugurth on 262.
(37.) Gurr, Shakespeare's Opposites, 6. In a footnote Gurr gives the date as "1660?" (6, n. 5).
(38.) Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 3: 38.
(39.) Falconer Madan, Richard William Hunt, and H. H. E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols. (1895-1953; reprint. Munich: Kraus-Thomson, 1980), 3: 327.
(40.) Andrew Gurr made this comment in a seminar on "Lost Plays" at the annual meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America, in Toronto, March 30, 2013.
(41.) Gurr, Shakespeare's Opposites, 6.
(42.) I owe these observations about spelling to my colleague Carl T. Berkhout, who has examined my copy of the manuscript.
(43.) In adapting Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Lives, Shakespeare was giving dramatic form to a prodigiously long and detailed history of Mark Antony's Rome in the process of becoming an empire. Unlike Boyle, Shakespeare had at hand earlier dramatic treatments of the material; he "appears to have read the Countess of Pembroke's tragedy Antonius (1592)," itself an adaptation of Plutarch, as well as "Samuel Daniel's tragedy Cleopatra (1594), which was designed as a companion piece to Antonius." See John Wilders, ed., Antony and Cleopatra, Arden 3 (London: Routledge, 1995), 61, 62.
(44.) Lee not only demonstrates his knowledge of the plays by Marston and Nabbes but also gleans "hints from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra and Macbeth." See Paulina Kewes, "Otway, Lee and the Restoration History Play," in A Companion to Restoration Drama, ed. Susan J. Owen (Oxford, UK: 2001), 360. Kewes also observes that "Lee's epilogue for a performance in Oxford anticipates the appreciation of the play by those who know the story, that is, the erudite academic audience: 'Knowing th'Original, you the Copy praise, / And Crown the Artist with deserved Bayes'" (360).
(45.) Lukas Erne, in "Thomas Kyd's Christian Tragedy," Renaissance Papers (2001): 17-34, observes, "the third act is longer than any two of the other acts together, suggesting that an act break went lost in the original printing" (23, n. 16).
(46.) Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Drama, 3: 38.
(47.) Stage directions include "A Grove discover'd, and in an obscure corner thereof Cliton as being asleepe" (sig. I5r); "A place discover'd all greene mirtles, adorn'd with roses" (sig. K2r). See John Tatham, Love Crowns the End, in The Fancies' [?Fancy's] Theater (London, 1640).
(48.) Fane's play begins with a description of "The Scene": "A picture of Diana with a Cressant under which in a scroule written in greate CANDY RESTORED under which in perspective a goodly fabrick or Cittie the Emblem of Concord Unitie and peace. Under which A Landskipp representing the springe for the fresh greennesse of itt and those innocent and usefull delights of hunting." See Candy Restored, in Mildmay Fane's "Raguaillo D'Oceano" 1640 and "Candy Restored" 1641, ed. Clifford Leech (Louvain: Uystpruyst, 1938), 101.
(49.) Willan's Astraea, or True Love's Myrror: A Pastoral (London, 1651) begins with a description of "The Scene": "The frontispiece is a wreath of fresh Foliage, much like the enterance into a close Alley, the tops whereof interlac'd, represent the perfect figure of an Arch; at whose intersection is a kind of knot, whereon is enscribed in letters of gold, FOREST ..." (sig. A5r).
(50.) Bentley, in The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, notes that the manuscript of the play concludes with "three or four sketched-in scenes ..., and after a break of three pages, four smaller pages of rough unintegrated material" (3: 37). This material may represent an effort on someone's part to recover or compensate for the missing last act.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England|
|Article Type:||Critical essay|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2015|
|Next Article:||Sin, sacredness, and childbirth in early modern drama.|