FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156  
157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   >>   >|  
purpose." At this time, too, or not long after, John Marston was allowed a share in the organization, and thus was retained as one of its regular playwrights. [Footnote 340: For the patent, commonly misdated January 30, see The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 267. Mr. Wallace, in _The Century Magazine_ (September, 1910, p. 747), says that the company secured its patent "through the intercessions of the poet Samuel Daniel." It is true that the Children of Her Majesty's Royal Chamber of Bristol secured their patent in 1615 at the intercession of Daniel, but I know of no evidence that he intervened in behalf of the Blackfriars troupe.] The success of the new company is indicated by the fact that it was summoned to present a play at Court in February, 1604, and again two plays in January, 1605. Evans's activity in the management of the troupe in spite of the order of the Star Chamber is evident from the fact that the payment for the last two court performances was made directly to him. In the spring of 1604 the company gave serious offense by acting Samuel Daniel's _Philotas_, which was supposed to relate to the unfortunate Earl of Essex; but the blame must have fallen largely on Daniel, who not only wrote the play, but also licensed its performance. He was summoned before the Privy Council to explain, and seems to have fully proved his innocence. Shortly after this he published the play with an apology affixed.[341] [Footnote 341: A letter from Daniel to the Earl of Devonshire vindicating the play is printed in Grosart's _Daniel_, I, xxii.] The following year the Children gave much more serious offense by acting _Eastward Hoe_, a comedy in which Marston, Chapman, and Jonson collaborated. Not only did the play ridicule the Scots in general, and King James's creation of innumerable knights in particular, but one of the little actors was actually made, it seems, to mimic the royal brogue: "I ken the man weel; he is one of my thirty pound Knights." Marston escaped by timely flight, but Jonson and Chapman were arrested and lodged in jail, and were for a time in some danger of having their nostrils slit and their ears cropped. Both Chapman and Jonson asserted that they were wholly innocent, and Chapman openly put the blame of the offensive passages on Marston.[342] Marston, however, was beyond the reach of the King's wrath, so His Majesty punished instead the men in control of Blackfriars. It was discovered that t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156  
157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Daniel

 

Marston

 

Chapman

 

company

 

patent

 

Jonson

 

Children

 

Samuel

 

secured

 

summoned


troupe
 

Chamber

 

Blackfriars

 
Majesty
 
Footnote
 
January
 

acting

 
offense
 

ridicule

 

general


published

 

proved

 

innocence

 

Shortly

 

collaborated

 

letter

 

Eastward

 

Devonshire

 

printed

 

vindicating


comedy
 
apology
 
affixed
 

Grosart

 

creation

 

openly

 

innocent

 

offensive

 
passages
 
wholly

cropped

 

asserted

 
control
 

discovered

 
punished
 

nostrils

 
brogue
 

knights

 

actors

 
thirty