Printer Friendly

The earliest Nuremberg playbill.

"... either there is an error in the dating on the playbill ... or it is a fake".

Such was the judgment of R.A. Foakes, who, in describing seventeenth-century theatrical activities at the Nuremberg fencing-house, identifies the problem of a surviving advertisement for Die Liebes Sussigkeit verandert sich in Todes Bitterkeit (Love's Sweetness Turned To Death's Bitterness) (350n48). In 1863, when Austrian Franz Eduard Hysel published his account of the Nuremberg theatre from 1612 to 1863, he included a facsimile, stating that the playbill, dated Wednesday, the 21st of April, was probably from 1628 (29). That date became an established part of theatre history when Albert Cohn, in English Actors in Germany in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1865), filled in the narrative:
   The actors who were dismissed from Torgau in 1627 may perhaps have
   gone the following year to Nuremberg, where we meet with English
   Comedians in 1628. In April they acted a piece entitled Die Liebes
   Sussigkeit verendert sich in Todes Bitterkeit (Love's sweetness
   turned into Deaths bitterness). We learn this from a very curious
   broadside, a sort of play-bill, which is preserved in the
   town-library of Nuremberg. (xcvii-xcviii) (Figure 1)


Transcription: Zu wissen sey jederman dass allhier ankommen eine gantz newe Compagni Comoedianten / so niemals zuvor hier zu Land gesehen / mit einem sehr lustigen Pickelhering / welche taglich agirn werden / schone Comoedien / Tragoedien / Pastorellen / (Schaffereyen) und Historien / vermengt mit lieblichen und lustigen interludien / und zwar heut Mitwochs den 21. Aprilis werden sie praesentirn eine sehr lustige Comoedi / genant.

Die Liebes Sussigkeit verandert sich in Todes Bitterkeit. Nach der Comoedi soll praesentirt werden ein schon Ballet / und lacherliches Possenspiel. Die Liebhaber solcher Schauspiele wollen sich nach Mittags Glock 2. einstellen uffm Fechthauss / allda umb die bestimbte Zeit pracise soll angefangen werden. Translation: Know all men, that a new Company of Comedians have arrived here, who have never been seen before in this country, with a right merry Clown, who will act every day fine Comedies, Tragedies, Pastorals, and Histories, intermixed with lovely and merry Interludes, and to-day Wednesday the 21st of April they will present a right merry Comedy, called

Love's Sweetness turned into Death's Bitterness. After the Comedy will be presented a fine Ballet and laughable Droll. The Lovers of such plays must make their appearance at the Fencing-house in the afternoon at 2 o'clock, where the play will begin at the appointed hour precisely. [Cohn's translation, Plate II]

Cohn goes on to tell the story of a company of English players who appeared in Nuremberg in July 1628. Nuremberg was a desirable stopover for travelling players, for it had recently opened its new Fechthaus, or fencing-house, an arena that held some 3,000 spectators. The problem, which Karl Trautmann noticed as early as 1886, is that the Fechthaus did not open until June, two months after the company presenting Die Liebes Sussigkeit supposedly came to town (135). Yet the playbill states that the performance would be at the Fechthaus. Moreover, in 1628, 21 April was not a Wednesday. Yet the playbill states that the players will perform "heut Mitwoch den 21. Aprilis" (today Wednesday the 21st of April). Clearly, there is an error in the dating. That error, though, is not "an error in the dating on the playbill", as Foakes suggests; rather, it is an error in the dating of the playbill, traceable to Hysel and Cohn.

One hundred twenty-five years after Hysel published the playbill, Hans-Joachim Kurz and Barbel Rudin corrected the error, in effect rewriting the first chapter in the history of the theatrical playbill. Justifiably sceptical about the date, they began their research by examining an 1876 study by Johannes Scherr, which led to their discovery of a previously unpublished playbill that enabled a significant adjustment in the date. My own research began with Tiffany Stern's 2009 Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Following established theatre history prior to Kurz and Rudin, Stern cited the 1628 date, referring readers to the facsimile published by Cohn and noting that Foakes had cautioned that the playbill "may be fake". Troubled by Foakes's warning, I turned to the seventeenth-century calendar, then came upon an obscure 1815 publication that, to my knowledge, has never been acknowledged. In the end, my work produced the same year as Kurz and Rudin's: 1652. But because English-language theatre historians are still citing the 1628 date, I believe it is worth documenting what I learned about the Sussigkeit playbill and how.

First, we have the question of venue. Why have generations of scholars, beginning with Hysel, assumed that the Fechthaus in the playbill was Nuremberg's? There were other fencing-schools in Germany in the seventeenth century, and at least one of these, in Danzig, hosted travelling players. Jerzy Limon, in Gentlemen of a Company: English Players in Central and Eastern Europe 1590-1660, presents documents that clearly establish the Danzig fencing-house, built in 1612, as a venue for theatrical performances. But there are two reasons to accept Hysel's assumption that the Fechthaus in the playbill is Nuremberg's. A small but sure clue rests in the expression immediately preceding "Fechthaus"--"uffm"--which is Nuremberg (that is, Franconian) dialect, a local conflation of "auf dem": "at the fencing-house". The term would only have been used in southern Germany, certainly not in Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland). This, coupled with the fact that the playbill was found in the Nuremberg town hall, makes it probable that the production of Die Liebes Sussigkeit was, indeed, in Nuremberg.

Yet what about the 1628 date? If 21 April was not a Wednesday that year, when was it a Wednesday? What other years might the performance have taken place, and which calendar--Julian or Gregorian--was used? England, of course, resisted Gregory XIII's papal bull directing the change in calendar and the consequent loss of ten days, but much of the Continent adopted the new calendar shortly after the Pope's 1582 directive. Protestant cities and states in Germany, however, retained the old style for various periods of time--in the case of Nuremberg, until 1700. Hence any seventeenth-century date referring to performances in Nuremberg would be old-style, by the Julian calendar. In the seventeenth century, then, following the opening of the Nuremberg Fechthaus, 21 April fell on a Wednesday ten times: in 1630, 1641, 1647, 1652, 1658, 1669, 1675, 1680, 1686, and 1697.1 Of these, there is good reason to believe that the performance in Nuremberg took place on 21 April 1652. My argument for that date begins with the discovery of a second playbill, strikingly similar to the first.

The second "Theaterzettel" (Figure 2) announces a production of a play by Johann Rist entitled Das Friedwunschende und mit Fried besehligte Deutschland (The Peace-Wishing and With-Peace-Provided Germany):2 a company of players, never before having performed there, will present comedies, tragedies, pastorals, and histories, with interludes and with the comic character Pickelhering. The parallel language picks up again later in the advertisement, announcing that a dance and a droll will follow the play, that the play will be at the Fechthaus, and that the performance will begin precisely at two o'clock. The language of these sections is not just similar to that of the Sussigkeit playbill; with one exception ("uffm" here is "im"), it is identical, indicating that both bills were prepared by the same printer, who reused standing type for parts of it.

The second playbill is especially helpful in establishing the date. Das Friedwunschende und mit Fried besehligte Deutschland, which deals with the longing for and achievement of peace in Germany, was published in 1647 as Das friedewunschende Teutschland? Its subtitle, In einem Schauspiele offentlich vorgestellet ... (presented publicly in a play), as well as a note to the reader stating that it was performed "vor etlichen Monaten" (several months ago), establishes a production date that same year. Moreover, an inserted Transcription: Zu wissen sey jederman dass allhier ankommen eine gantz newe Compagni Comoedianten / so niemals zuvor hier zu Land gesehen / mit einem sehr lustigen Pickelhering / welche taglich agirn werden / schone Comoedien / Tragoedien / Pastorellen / (Schaffereyen) und Historien / vermengt mit lieblichen und lustigen interludien / und zwar heut Montags werden sie agrin..


Das Friedwunschende und mit Fried besehligte Deutschland. Eine sehr herrliche Matery / von dem weltberuhmten Herrn Johann Risten gesetzet und zum erstenmal in Hamburg / dem Autor zu grossen Ehren / und den Zusehern zu hochster Ergetzlichkeit auff dem Schawplatz prasentirt / sie halt in sich verblumbter Weise / den gantzen deutschen Krieg. Ist hier von keinen Comoedianten zuvor gesehen. Nach der Comoedi soll prasentirt werden ein schon Ballet / und lacherliches Possenspiel. Die Liebhaber solcher Schauspiele wollen sich nach Mittags Glock 2. einstellen im Fechthauss / allda umb die bestimbte Zeit pracise soll angefangen werden. Translation: Know all men, that a new Company of Comedians have arrived here, who have never been seen before in this country, with a right merry Clown, who will act every day fine Comedies, Tragedies, Pastorals, and Histories, intermixed with lovely and merry Interludes, and today Wednesday the 21st of April they will present a right merry Comedy called

The Peace-Wishing and With-Peace-Provided Germany. A very gorgeous picture set by the world-renowned Mr. Johann Rist and, to the author's great honor, presented for the first time at the show place in Hamburg to spectators for their highest pleasure. It contains in a concealed manner the entire German war. Has not been seen here before, by any comedian.

After the Comedy will be presented a fine Ballet and laughable Droll. The Lovers of such plays must make their appearance at the Fencing-house in the afternoon at 2 o'clock, where the play will begin at the appointed hour precisely. paragraph in the second playbill speaks of the world-renowned playwright (pastor) Johann Rist, whose allegory of war and peace was first presented at the Hamburg Schauplatz before crowds of spectators, just as the devastating Thirty Years' War was ending. Since its Hamburg production is referenced in the playbill, the Nuremberg playbill could not possibly be from 1628-or any date earlier than 1647.

The Rist playbill, like the Sussigkeit playbill, was found in the library of the Nuremberg town hall. (4) But unlike the Sussigkeit bill, which Hysel published in facsimile, the Rist playbill (prior to Kurz and Rudin) was available only in transcript. And its appearance in print is nothing short of curious. Together with a transcript of the Sussigkeit playbill, the Rist transcript was published in a "pocketbook" of a Viennese theatre company that, for some twenty years (1814-34), issued an annual miscellany, including dramatic and musical excerpts from plays and operas they performed. Entitled Theatralisches Taschenbuch: vom K.K.p. Theater in der Leopoldstadt, the 1815 issue published the transcripts under the title "Zwey Komodienzettel vom Jahre 1650" (Two Playbills from the Year 1650) (Figure 3). The editor of the Taschenbuch offered no comment but did place an asterisk next to the title, with this note: "Auf der Rathhaus-Bibliothek zu Nurnberg" (from the town hall library in Nuremberg). (5) It would appear that the Theaterzettel attracted little attention, for when Hysel published the facsimile of the Sussigkeit playbill fifty years later, he was credited with having found it. His failure to acknowledge the 1815 publication or the second playbill suggests that he knew nothing of them when he proposed a date for the Sussigkeit playbill that was twenty-two years earlier than the date in the Taschenbuch.

Today, however, the Taschenbuch transcripts are of considerable moment. The fact that the two playbills appear under the same heading establishes them as companions, and the fact that both use the same language suggests they were issued by the same printer (Wolfgang Endter?). (6) Moreover, as Kurz and Rudin learned when they examined the playbills in the Stadtbibliothek Nurnberg, the formatting and typography of the Rist bill matches that of the Sussigkeit bill: black letter with a decorative "Z" in "Zu wissen sey jedermann" and in the initial letters of the play title. Because standing type tied up capital and hence tended to be reused quickly, it is likely that both were printed at or near the same time. One would, of course, wish that whoever contributed the playbills to the Taschenbuch had offered further comment, but he at least gave the documents a date-making 1628 even less likely--and he identified the library that held them, associating the playbills with Nuremberg.


Further support for a later date than Hysel's and Cohn's may be found in E. Mentzel's discussion of pastorals, or Schaferspiele, one of the genres advertised in the playbill: "Comoedien, Tragoedien, Pastorellen (Schaffereyen), Historien". Mentzel points out that the pastoral was unknown in Germany in 1628, a comment supported by the fact that the playbill parenthetically explains "Pastorellen". Appropriated from the Italian opera, the pastoral as a dramatic genre was first mentioned in Frankfurt in 1651, when a troupe of players that had served the Prince of Orange requested permission to perform there, their petition promising "schone Historien, Comodien, Tragodien und Pastorellen" (Mentzel 174-76). Mentzel also doubted the date for the Sussigkeit playbill. Her correction, however, though valuable generally, is erroneous, for in 1649, the year she proposes, 21 April did not, as she believed, fall on a Wednesday.

If the Rist play dates from 1647, then, the playbill announcing its performance in Nuremberg could not be earlier. And if the Sussigkeit playbill is contemporaneous with the Rist playbill, as the evidence suggests, then that production also dates from in or after 1647. Theoretically, both plays could have been performed in Nuremberg that year, when 21 April fell on a Wednesday. But the Nuremberg theatrical records, which Theodor Hampe assiduously transcribed in 1898 and 1899, include no relevant entries for 1647 or 1628 or any of the years in which 21 April fell on a Wednesday--except 1652. On 7 March that year, Carl Andreas Paulsen (who was to return to Nuremberg numerous times during the 1660s and 1670s) applied to perform three or four plays at the Nuremberg Fechthaus after the Easter holiday (Easter fell on 31 March that year) and, possibly, to stay longer. Leader of a company formed around the end of the Thirty Years' War, Paulsen, whom Eike Pies calls "der eigentliche Stammvater der deutschen Wanderprinzipale" (the true originating father of the German travelling managers) (273), must have recognized that the English had become the gold standard for acting in Germany, for, although he was Hamburg-born, he identified himself professionally as an Englishman. Nonetheless, a 20 March entry indicates that Paulsen's petition to perform in Nuremberg was denied. Two weeks later, a 3 April item names another applicant: "Einem Johann Fosseur und seiner Kompanie wird das Komodienspielen erlaubt" (One Johann Fosseur and his company will be permitted to present their plays) (Hampe 153). Almost certainly, "Fosseur" was Johann Fasshauer, who, ironically, led a company that was a branch of Paulsen's (101f) and, as early as 1650, was associated with George Jolly: when "Joris Jolives" was in northern Germany that August, he petitioned the town council; his letter, which negotiates the terms of the actors' visit, mentions "Johan Vassawen" (Johann Fasshauer). Furthermore, a surviving list of actors in Jolly's company includes two women: "Ursel", Maria Ursula Carer, who later married Johann Ernst Hofmann, an actor who, with Peter Schwartz, split off from Jolly's company, later to rejoin it, and "Catrin", Catharina Fasshauer (Alexander 35-36).

Whether Paulsen and Fasshauer independently petitioned to perform in Nuremberg or surreptitiously collaborated in their applications (and whether Jolly was involved), both troupes would have followed protocol for wandering players, which entailed requesting a "Privileg", or licence, to perform, and both would have been mindful of the financial potential. As William Grange explains, after securing approval, a troupe "then needed to remain in such a venue long enough to accumulate operating capital with which it could obtain a license for the next engagement" (xliv). Markus Paul suggests how profitable such engagements could be: in its first season, 25,000 spectators paid to see theatrical performances at the Nuremberg Fechthaus (48-49).

Even after making their contribution to the poor, the stakes for traveling companies were high; hence it is not surprising that petitioning troupes styled themselves "englische Komodianten" when they were English, German, Dutch, or mixed--or perhaps they simply presented English plays. As Andrea Grafetstatter points out, the introduction to Jacob Ayer's Opus Theatricum (1618) notes that already during the time Ayer was active as a playwright (1570-93), the English were being imitated: his plays were composed to be performed "auff die neue Englische manier vnnd art" (in the new English manner and style) (153-78). Whatever their relationship to English actors, both applicants to the Nuremberg council would have been entrepreneurs, looking to bill themselves in ways that would make approval--of their applications and their audiences--more likely.

In the waning years of the English actors' domination of the German stage, the dissolution and reformation of acting companies was not unusual. Jolly's company was especially fluid, in part because the actor/manager had what Elector Palatine Charles Louis described as "colera" (a choleric disposition) (Holland 79): just before returning to England in 1660, he was evicted from Nuremberg for beating up one of his players. But even without such incidents, it was clear that players and playscripts migrated from one company to the next. In the case of the Rist play, it was performed in Hamburg in 1647 (by Paulsen's company?), in Nuremberg in 1652 (by Fasshauer?), in Regensburg in 1653 (by Jolly), and in Strassburg in 1654 (by Jolly). And it may be that Jolly's company staged it in Vienna in 1650 as well.

Incredibly, the published text and the surviving playbill are not the only documents concerning the Rist play. The Beinecke Library at Yale holds a 1648 edition of Das friedewunschende Teutschland (Zg 17 R49 648) that contains handwritten annotations. Alexander speaks of these in his essay on the actor/manager: inscribed on the inside front cover is the name "Joris Joliphus Englischer Comoediant zu Regensburg" and on the inside back cover the year: "Anno 1653". And written next to each character's name in the cast list is the name of the member of Jolly's troupe who performed that role: "moy, Samel, Hari, Peitzer, Jackob, Burckhardt, Ursel, Hiob, Joseb, Maler, HM, Wolgeha., Peitzer, ..., HGE, Jackob, Tom, Hari, Moy, Jackob, Catrin, Tom, Ursel", the "moy" apparently "moi", Jolly himself (Alexander 35). As the full forms of the abbreviated names suggest (Alexander 36, Katritzky 277n10), these actors, who belonged to Jolly's company in 1653, were at other times affiliated with other troupes.

As early as the 1580s, foreign actors applied to perform in Nuremberg: they are recorded on 7 April 1581 as "den frembden comedianten" and on 23 March 1587 as "Christoffen Hardweck, dem frembden comoedianten". The first specifically English actors applied on 20 August 1593, when "Ruberto Gruen und seinen gesellen" (Robert Green and his company) arrived. From the 1590s through 1627, the year before the opening of the Fechthaus, numerous English actors performed in Nuremberg. Those named in the register include not only Green but also Robert Browne, Thomas Sackville, George Webster, John Hill, Bernhard Sandt, Richard Machin, John Spencer, and others. There are gaps in their appearances, to be sure, for up to five years (1613-18), but their performances were sufficiently frequent and sustained for Nuremberg audiences to recognize their talents (Hampe 123-45).

When the Fechthaus opened in 1628, English actors from Kassel--thirty-six persons with twenty-six horses--en route home from Prague, were the first to perform (Von Soden 436). Moreover, entries from 11 July to 18 August suggest a five-week run of another English troupe. After 1628, though, the records say nothing about English actors until 24 May 1651-or, for that matter, anything about any actors from 29 January 1631 through 19 June 1641 --undoubtedly indicating that the Thirty Years' War, which erupted in Nuremberg in 1629, interrupted theatrical activity. When English actors return in 1651, after the war, they are referred to simply as "englische comoedianten". But in 1652, Carl Paulsen's name ("Carl Paul") appears, followed by Fosseur's; seven months later, English players are mentioned again, and, a year after that, George Jolly arrived to leave his mark on the Nuremberg stage.

But there is a remaining problem--and here my conclusion differs from Kurz and Rudin's. Scherr's study of Germany's cultural history includes a series of narrative notes that sometimes refer to or quote primary sources. One such note, under the title "Komodienzettel von 1650" (Playbills from 1650), includes the text of the Rist playbill, the play to be performed at the Fechthaus "hewt Mohntags" (today Monday), after which there is a brief announcement of the Sussigkeit play: "P.S. Mittwochs den 21. Aprillis werden sie prasentiren eine sehr lustige Comoedy titulirt: Die LiebesSussigkeit verendet sich in Todesbitterkeit" (P.S. Wednesday the 21st of April they will present a right merry Comedy, called Love's Sweetness turned into Death's Bitterness). Below that are a date--"19 April 1650"--and a signature--"Casparus Schonhuttius, Principal" (Scherr 629-30) (Figure 4). Clearly, these are the two plays at issue here, but the date following the announcement is 1650, a year in which the 21st of April (by either calendar) did not fall on a Wednesday. Unable to reconcile this discrepancy, Kurz and Rudin decided that the transcript Scherr published was a fake. But they may have hesitated to do so had they known of the Taschenbuch transcript entitled "Zwey Theaterzettel vom Jahre 1650".

Given the common reference to 1650 in their titles, one would expect that the transcripts in the Taschenbuch and in Scherr would be the same. But they are not. Each gives the full text of the Rist bill and a partial text of the Sussigkeit bill, but the Taschenbuch provides a fuller text for Sussigkeit, inserting elliptical lines where the language duplicates that in the Rist playbill: "Zu wissen--und zwar", for example. Moreover, the Taschenbuch does not contain the date and signature that appear at the bottom of the Scherr transcript. In fact, a careful look at the Taschenbuch text reveals that this is the earliest published transcript of the surviving Nuremberg playbills, a bit carelessly copied.

A closer look at the Scherr transcript, however, reveals a different lineage, for it and the surviving Rist playbill exhibit verbal variations: the Scherr transcript lacks the word "ankommen"; includes "schone" before "Tragodien"; uses "i.e." rather than parentheses around Schaffereyen, "hewt Mohntags" rather than "heut Montags", "Mahlerey" not "Matery", "gloriosen" not "weltberumten", "Spectatoribus" not "Zusehern", "grosser" not "hochster", "die venerirten Amatores" not "Die Liebhaber", the Latin form of "Johann Risten", i.e., "Johanne Bistenio" [sic--Ristenio], and "im" not "uffm". Clearly, the Scherr transcript is not of the Nuremberg playbill. Moreover, it is not itself a playbill. Rather, it appears to be a handwritten draft of the playbill the company's actor/manager, Caspar Schonhutt, prepared for the Nuremberg printer. In composing the draft, Schonhutt copied the playbill for the Hamburg production and then, as a postscript, provided notice of the Sussigkeit play. Such a scenario explains the textual differences: in advertising the 1647 performance of the Rist play, the Hamburg composer made word choices appropriate for his audience, usages reflecting high German or Latin. Now, as the actors seek approval to perform in Nuremberg, the petitioner copies by hand the information from the playbill for the earlier production. At this point, he changes only the venue: further changes, reflecting the dialect of Nuremberg, would be made at the printer's when the actual Nuremberg playbill was printed.


Whatever the nature of the Scherr transcript, we need to ask who Schonhutt was. His name does not appear in Jolly's cast list for the Regensburg production of the Rist play, in the Nuremberg records Hampe transcribed, or in studies of seventeenth-century theatre in Germany. As early as 1888, Trautmann attempted to solve the mystery of the Scherr transcript by publishing an entry from the Nurnberg Ratsmanuale (council records) (K. Kreisarchiv Nurnberg) dated 25 April 1650, in which players are granted permission to perform at the Fechthaus for eight days. Although he suggests this could be the company referenced in the Scherr transcript, he does not explain the disparity in dates--the privilege (25 April) follows the performance (21 April)--nor does he provide reason for believing that this was Schonhutt's company. More likely--and this, too, is conjecture--Schonhutt, probably a German, was an early principal of the Paulsen/Fasshauer/Jolly troupe[s].

There is, of course, speculation in this reading, which is not assisted by the fact that, although Scherr noted that the original "befindet sich auf der Rathhausbibliothek zu Nurnberg" (may be found in the Nuremberg town hall library), Trautmann could not find it (Trautmann 339-40). Nor did Kurz and Rudin or the librarian I queried. The narrative, though, is plausible, for it provides an explanation for the document that Kurz and Rudin dismiss as specious. And it hints at why the Taschenbuch editor dated the transcripts 1650: might he have seen not only the surviving playbills but also Schonhutt's draft?

Whatever our judgment on Scherr, the Nuremberg playbill for Die liebes Sussigkeit verandert sich in Todes Bitterkeit is surely not a fake. But the document must share the stage with a second Theaterzettel and be updated from 1628 to 1652. Interestingly, in the 1815 Taschenbuch we have the earliest publication of the transcripts of the two Nuremberg playbills. And in Scherr, whether or not the date and signature are authentic, we have a record of an earlier playbill, now lost: the 1647 Hamburg advertisement for Das Friedwunschende und mit Fried besehligte Deutschland.

The Sussigkeit play may one day attract even more attention than its playbill, for both Hysel and Cohn thought it could be a German version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But because it is one of the many lost early modern plays performed on the Continent by English and German troupes, it would take the discovery of new evidence or the application of greater ingenuity to confirm this.

Works Cited

Alexander, Robert J. "George Jolly (Joris Joliphus), der wandernde Player und

Manager: Neues zu seiner Tatigkeit in Deutschland (1648-1660)". Kleine Schriften der Gesellschaft fur Theatergeschichte 29-30 (1978): 31-48.

Anonymous. "Zwey Komodienzettel vom Jahre 1650". Theatralisches Taschenbuch: vom K.K.p. Theater in der Leopoldstadt, Zweyter Jahrgang, mit Kupfern. Wien, 1815. 126-27. Cohn, Albert. Shakespeare in Germany in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries [1865]. New York: Haskell House, 1971.

Eder, Ruth. Theaterzettel. Dormund: Harenberg, 1980.

Fehr, Max. Die wandernden Theatertruppen in der Schweiz: Verzeichnis der Truppen, Auffuhrungen und Spieldaten fur das 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Einsiedeln: Waldstatt, 1949.

Foakes, R. A. "The Image of the Swan Theatre". Spectacle & Image in Renaissance Europe. Ed. Andre Lascombes. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993. 337-54.

Grafetstatter, Andrea. "Foreign Culture in a Foreign Town: The Nuremberg Poet Jakob Ayrer and the Reception of Sixteenth-Century English Comedy Plays in Germany". Islands and Cities in Medieval Myth, Literature, and History. Ed. Andrea Grafetstatter, Sieglinde Hartmann, and James Ogier. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011. 153-78.

Grange, William. Historical Dictionary of German Theater. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006.

Hampe, Theodor. "Die Entwicklung des Theaterwesens in Nurnberg von der zweiten Halfte des 15. Jahrhunderts bis 1806, Teil II". Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg 13 (1899): 98-237.

H.B.C. "Rustigan on Mill-Wheels and Magnetism". Notes and Queries 2d series, no. 104 (December 26, 1957): 516-18.

Holland, Wilhelm Ludwig, ed. Schreiben des Kurfursten Karl Ludwig von der Pfalz und der seinen. Stuttgart: Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins, 1984.

Hysel, Franz Eduard. Das Theater in Nurnberg von 1612 bis 1863. Nurnberg: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1863.

Katritzky, M.A. Women, Medicine and Itinerant Theatre, 1500-1750: Literary Mountebanks and Performing Quacks. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

Kurz, Hans-Joachim and Barbel Rudin. "Pickelhering, Rechte Frauenzimmer, Beruhmte Autoren: Zur Ankundigungspraxis der Wanderbuhne im 17. Jahrhundert". Kleine Schriften der Gesellschaft fur Theatergeschichte 34-35 (1988): 29-60.

Limon, Jerzy. Gentlemen of a Company: English Players in Central and Eastern Europe 1590-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.

Mentzel, E. "Die Drei Altesten erhaltenen Frankfurter Theaterzettel". Archiv fur Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst 3rd series. Ed. Verein fur Geschichte und Alterthumskunde zu Frankfurt am Main. Vol. 5. Frankfurt a.M.: K. Th. Volker, 1896.

Paul, Markus. Reichsstadt und Schauspiel: Theatrale Kunst im Nurnberg des 17. Jahrhunderts. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 2002.

Pies, Eike. Prinzipale: Zur Genealogie des deutschsprachigen Berufstheater vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert. Dusseldorf: Henn, 1973.

Reske, Christoph. Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts im deutschen Sprachgebeit: Auf der Grundlage des gleichnamigen Werkes von Josef Benzing. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007. 718-33.

Rist, Johann. Das friedewunschende Teutschland: In einem Schauspiele offentlich vorgestellet ... [S.I. : s.n.], 1648.

--. Samtliche Werke. Ed. Eberhard Mannack. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972.

Scherr, Johannes. Deutsche Kultur-und Sittengeschichte 6th ed. Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1876.

Stern, Tiffany. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.

Trautmann, Karl. "Ein angeblicher Theaterzettel der englischen Komodianten (Die Liebes Sussigkeit verandert sich in Todes Bitterkeit)". Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte und Renaissance-Litteratur New Series. Ed. Max Kooh and Ludwig Geiger. Vol. 1. Berlin: A. Haack, 1887-88.

--. "Englische Komoedianten in Nurnberg bis zum Schlusse des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges (1598-1648)". Archiv fur Litteraturgeschichte 14.2. Ed. Franz Schnorr von Carolsfeld. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1886.

Von Soden, Franz Ludwig. Kriegs- und Sittengeschichte der Reichsstadt Nurnberg vom Ende des Sechzehnten Jahrhunderts bis zur Schlacht bein Breitenfeld 7. (17.) September 1631, II. Theil. Von 1620 bis 1628. Erlangen: Theodor Blasing, 1861.


The author thanks Markus Dubischar, Rolf Meyn, and Jorg Meyn for their help with German dialects.

(1) A number of internet sites that purport to give the day of the week for a requested date proved unreliable, undoubtedly because of regional differences in the calendar. The stated years are from the Rosetta Calendar which provides dates consistent with those in the original Nuremberg records. For a transcript of these entries, presented in a continuous chronological narrative that at times gives not only the date but also the day of the week, see Von Soden. An example: "Sonntags am 13. (23.) Juli" (442).

(2) Kurz and Rudin were first to publish the facsimile of the Rist playbill. The Sussigkeit playbill, along with others from the seventeenth century and beyond, including the Rostock bill of c. 1520, may be found in Eder.

(3) There are several early editions of the Rist play. Those dated 1647 and 1648 do not give a place of publication or publisher. One of the two dated 1649 cites Colln [Cologne]: Binghen, the other Hamburg: Heinrich Warners Seel. Witwe. The publication of Rist's play was supported by Die Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft (The Fruitbearing Society), a German literary society founded in 1611 in Weimar. Rist, who joined the Society in 1647, signed the dedication "Der Rustige" (see H.B.C.).

(4) Both playbills had been in the library of Georg Andreas Will (1727-98), historian and professor at the University of Altdorf, who left the Stadtbibliothek some 15,000 volumes.

(5) Volume 1 (1814) was edited by G. J. Ziegelhauser, volume 3 (1816) by Karl Meisl. But the editor of volume 2 is unnamed.

(6) Reske provides essays on seven printers who were active in Nuremberg in 1652, including Wolfgang Endter and his family (active 1590-1740).

June Schlueter, Charles A. Dana Professor Emerita of English at Lafayette College, has published numerous essays on the early modern period. Her most recent book is The Album Amicorum and the London of Shakespeare's Time (British Library, 2011).
COPYRIGHT 2013 The Society for Theatre Research
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Schlueter, June
Publication:Theatre Notebook
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:4EUGE
Date:Oct 1, 2013
Previous Article:Shylock and the use of stage doors.
Next Article:A whiff of lavender: the theatre ghost and the redevelopment of the Bristol old Vic.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters