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 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.
–
Romeo
Enters 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’s 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.
–
Page with Romeo ……………………………………………… scene 1 ; 4 (mute) = age ca. 10
……………………………………………………………………………… Robert Beeston (*unknown)
Romeo’s page-boy is only on stage to stay close to Romeo (and to hand him a torch).
–
Page with Tybalt ……………………………………………….. scene 1 ; 5 (mute) = age ca. 10
This 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’s 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) is still too young for daily performances.
—
Page with Romeo …………………………… ……………… scene 1 ; 4 (mute) = age ca. 10
For 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 :
……………………………………………………………… Hamnet Shakespeare (*February 1585)
If there is one thing William and his wife must have disagreed on, it is about the necessity of spending good money on their son’s 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.
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 ‘Ned’ 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 :
The Seven Deathly Sins (part II)
a morality play in two parts by Richard Tarleton
as performed by (assumedly) the Burbage troupe
…………………………………………Kathman-dating ………………………………. corrected dating
……………………………………….. around 1597 – 98 ……………………………………… 1596
George Bryan is paid on 21 December 1596 for a 1595 perfor- ……………………………..
mance with the Chamberlain’s Men. This is the last record of his ……….. √ ………………..
name as an active performer.
Thomas Pope and Augustine Phillips are on record as players with …………………………..
the Chamberlain’s Men from 1597 – 9 onward. An earlier date for …… √ (?)……………
SDS is possible, but becomes less plausible the further back we go ……………………………
before 1598.
William Sly came over from the Admiral’s Men somewhere be- …………………………..
tween 1594 and 1598. The dating for SDS becomes less plausible ………. ? …………………
the further back we go before 1598.
If subjected to a falsification attempt, this is for both datings the first link to give way. An inventory in Henslowe’s diary of the apparel of the Admiral’s Men, dated 13 March 1598, includes an entry on ‘Perowes sewt, which Wm Sley were’. If it was not for Sly’s recorded appearance in a 1598 Jonson-production by the Chamberlain’s 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’s 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’s?
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 ‘Perowe’ (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’s apparel in 1598.
John Duke is first on record in 1598, when performing with the ……………………………….
Chamberlain’s. An earlier date for SDS is possible, but becomes ………… √ ………………..
less plausible the further back we go before 1598.
John Sincler was certainly with the Chamberlain’s Men in 1598. ………………………………
Probably with the Pembroke’s in the early 1590’s. And perhaps …………. ? ………………..
with a company connected to the Pembroke’s touring Germany ….. identified ……………
in the autumn of 1596. If the 1623 Folio version of 3 Henry VI ……… in cast ……………..
was adapted for the Chamberlain’s Men, the presence of his ……… R & J ………………
name places him by the mid 1590s in the Chamberlain’s compa- ………… ? ……….
ny, rather than in Pembroke’s.
The 1596 dating has its second weak link in Sincler’s description : ‘John Sincler or Sinklo was apparently a very small man, to judge from the comment that are consistently made about the characters he played.’ After which observation David Kathman has no reason to link Sincler to the Chamberlain’s Men as R & J’s original 1594 apothecary. While the name ‘Sincklo’ in The Taming of the Shrew (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 (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.
If Sincler was in 1594 – 6 still with the Pembroke’s, and if he indeed played Sir Andrew in Twelfth-Night, 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 ‘thin man’, in one of his last performances.
John Holland was with the Chamberlain’s Men in the second ………… √ …………………
production of 2 Henry VI (before 1596).
Henry Condell (Ferrex + ‘lord’), John Duke (4 small parts as …… orig. boy pl. ……….
adults), and Christopher Beeston (3 small parts as adults) were …… . now resp. …………
first on record with the Chamberlain’s Men in 1598. An earlier ….. ca 20, ca 17 ………..
date for SDS is possible, but becomes less plausible the further ……… & ca 16 …………..
back we go before 1598. …………………………………………………………………. √ ………..
Thomas Vincent was a prompter at the Globe theatre after 1599………… √ …………………
he may very well have acted a mute part in 1597-98.
Thomas Belt (Panthea + ‘servant’) was apprenticed to John…………… √ …………………
Heminges on 12 Nov. 1595 for a term of nine years. ……………………….. ca 15
Alexander Cooke was apprenticed to John Heminges on 26 Jan.………………………………
1597 for a term of eight years : right on time to qualify for Queen……… ? ………………….
Videna + Procne in 1597. Probably born in December 1583.
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.
Nicholas Tooley (Pompeia + ‘lady’). With the company from 1605………… √ ………………
onward. But probably apprenticed to Richard Burbage before that …. still the ………….
time. Would have been 15 years old in 1597-8. Just the right age to … right age ………….
be playing female roles.
Robert Gough (Aspatia & Philomela). Not on record before 1603, …………………….……..
when he married Elizabeth Phillips. That same year Thomas Pope ………. √ ……………..
left whim half his wearing apparel and arms.
Some disagreement here, because Philomela was played by Robert Pallant instead, as the plot sheet (not too) clearly indicates : Philomela is played by ‘Ro R Pall.’ A slip of the pen apparently : one Robert is corrected to make another. Gough’s remaining part of Aspatia is a leading lady. And despite playing this part only, he can’t be junior to Nicholas Tooley. But without a man’s 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.
Edmund Shakespeare (Rodope) was in his late teens in 1597-98, ………………………
the upper end of the age range in which he might have played ………. √ …………..
female roles.
Kathman identifies ‘Ned’ as Shakespeare’s kid brother, rather than as his son. A dating early in 1596 places Shakespeare’s 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’s Aspatia, Rodope seems to be a minor part. At first entry in the prompt sheet minor even to Tooley’s 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 ‘Ned’ preceeds ‘Nick.’ And the ladies’ order of entrance is corrected accordingly at the next entry. Nick Tooley is twelve or thirteen, and an eleven year old ‘Ned’ 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’s third lady. If Rodope cannot be proven to be that minor, Edmund Shakespeare is on stage instead as a worthy counterpart to Gough’s Aspatia.
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’s part suggests. This scenario is more complicated than its competitor, and only to survive Occam’s Razor if it explains things better, but it is far from unlikely :
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’s 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’s birthday. In this scenario he would be on stage himself as the poet Lydgate : that goes without saying with a sixteen year old poet’s protegé on stage in the person of Henry VI.
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’s 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.
Conclusion :
The 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.