Undergraduate student contribution

Home > Encyclopedia > Topics

Henslowe’s Diary

roseList documents mentioning Henslowe’s Diary

History of the Manuscript

The Academic Journey

Henslowe’s Diary is a manuscript written by Philip Henslowe between 1592-1609 detailing his many financial matters, including the day-to-day operation of his theatrical business. The manuscript is the single greatest illuminator of the history of English Renaissance theatre.
The diary survives today due to Edward Alleyn, Henslowe’s business partner and stepson-in-law. Having made a fortune on the stage, Alleyn founded the College of God’s Gift at Dulwich. After Henslowe’s death in 1616, Alleyn inherited and deposited Henslowe’s papers into the library at Dulwich College, where they lay unmolested until their discovery in 1780 by Edmond Malone, a scholar preparing a variorum edition of Shakespeare. Before Malone could make academic use of the diary, it was mislaid. In 1790, it was re-discovered; Malone prepared a transcript of thirty-eight pages (Freeman and Freeman 351) from the original manuscript, and hastily published these excerpts in his Variorum Shakespeare. Malone kept the original manuscript in his possession until his death in 1812, though whether he acted in the role of protector or the role of coveter is greatly disputed. The controversy over Malone’s guardianship stems from the discovery that he clipped autographs from the original manuscript for his own use. Malone left the pages of his transcript to his associate, James Boswell the younger, who published them and more in his own Variorum Shakespeare of 1821. The transcript appears in a sale of Boswell’s books in 1825 and in the Heber sale, when it was sold to Sir Thomas Phillips. It was reclaimed for Dulwich College by George F. Warner upon Phillip’s death in 1895 (Greg i xiv).
The next scholar to make use of the diary was John Payne Collier. Collier published the entirety of the manuscript, insofar as it related to theatrical affairs, in his History of English Dramatic Poetry. By 1845, Collier had edited the whole of the manuscript, and published what would serve as the standard for a half century. Although it was the touchstone edition, Collier’s Henslowe’s Diary was riddled with misreadings and assumptions and was therefore attacked on several fronts. Collier’s academic disgrace over the Perkins Folio in 1859 resulted in an inquiry into his corpus of work, including his Memoirs of Edward Alleyn and Henslowe’s Diary.
In 1904, W.W. Greg published a complete edition of Henslowe’s Diary with the aid of Warner and A.H. Bullen. Greg’s edition transcribed the entirety of the original manuscript and in 1908 he published an accompanying volume of extensive notes. These two texts resolve a great deal of the damage done by Collier’s mishandling and Malone’s excisions. Arthur Freeman and Janet Ing Freeman deem Greg’s publications to have superceded [Collier’s] in every respect (Freeman and Freeman 366). Supplementary papers pertaining to the diary were also published by Greg in 1907 in Henslowe’s Papers.
Greg’s edition of Henslowe’s Diary stood as the final word in the matter for fifty years but the resource went out of print and became inaccessible. In 1961 R.A. Foakes and R.T. Rickert, seeking to re-open access to diary scholarship, produced an edition based heavily on Greg’s. It claims to have corrected only one error of consequence which Greg made in a reading but in fact corrects Greg in several instances yet does not compete with Greg’s commentary (Honigmann 298). The one main distinction between the work of Greg and that of Foakes and Rickert is their respective attitudes towards Henslowe as a man. Both Greg and Warner before him judged Henslowe to be illiterate, mercenary and operat[ing] by a selfish hand-to-mouth policy based on his practice of lending money to his players. Foakes and Rickert claim that Henslowe can be viewed as either a cutthroat, exploitative creditor or an impartial banker and records-keeper and that one’s view of the entries of the Diary can vary according to one’s impression of Henslowe as a person (Foakes viii). Regardless of this contention with Greg’s edition, the Foakes and Rickert edition and its 2002 second edition provide a comprehensive and time-tempered account of the manuscript.1

Mutilations and Forgeries

The history of Philip Henslowe’s diary (1592–1609) is in no way straightforward. Because its discovery predates the study of English as a discipline, the diary was taken to be relevant only to the antiquarian hunt for the elusive traces of Shakespeare’s life. Scholarly editorial treatment has been a twentieth-century phenomenon. The transgressions against the diary were committed mainly in pursuit of Shakespeare. Henslowe’s life and the relevance of the diary to theatre history became interesting to scholars only recently.
The diary was first discovered at Dulwich College by Edmond Malone, who retained possession of it, though it is unclear whether it was given to his care or kept without permission. The circumstances of its return are also in dispute. According to Peter Martin’s biography of Malone, Malone was contracted by the Dulwich governors to possess the manuscript (and its associated documents) while he prepared his Variorum Shakespeare and was allowed to keep them after the 1790 publication as long as he paid for the privilege (Martin 127). Malone’s method of discovery is also under suspicion. While at Dulwich College, he never made even a rudimentary catalogue of his discoveries, thus giving no recourse against the forgeries and uncertainties in the years to come.
Malone’s greatest offense against the diary is his multiple excisions of autographs from the very paper of the manuscript. He snipped as many as twelve sections out of the original manuscript’s pages. Malone did this to adorn the flyleaves of his own books and to hoard materials for his next Shakespeare edition (Martin 128) but the information he gained from his clippings was used later in An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments, a study of the Ireland Forgeries. Eleven entries, either from Malone’s personal library or from a transcript from the diary still in his possession, were published in the Inquiry in 1796. Half of the twelve excisions have been recovered from Malone’s books that made it to the Bodleian library at Oxford (Martin 128).
John Payne Collier, an important early editor of Shakespeare and Renaissance literature, is allegedly guilty of inserting interlineations and notes in both Henslowe’s Diary and the Perkins Folio as asserted by various inquiries into his corpus by scholars such as Nicholas S.E.A. Hamilton, T.D. Hardy, and Clement M. Ingleby. The matter of Collier’s forgeries is perplexing, especially when compounded with Malone’s excisions. Many of the remarkable discoveries made by Collier and supposedly overlooked by Malone clarified the scholarship of Shakespeare and Renaissance theatre, and it is likely for that very reason that Collier falsified them, as in the following example cited by W.W. Greg:
Lent at the apoyntment of the company2 & my
sonne vnto hary chettell3 in earnest of4 a playe
called to good to be trewe5{ or northern man} the some of v s
the 14 of novemb3 1601
Folio 95
(Greg 1.xliii)
As Greg explains, Collier’s forgery inserts the words or northern man as an alternative title to the play Too Good to be True. Collier asserted that the play in question was based on the story of The King and the poor Northern Man, or Too Good to be True. Collier had edited a poem on that subject in 1841 for the Percy Society, and this forgery in the diary seems to be an attempt to connect the two works.
Early twentieth-century scholars George F. Warner and W. W. Greg tend to condemn Collier’s hand in complicating the study of Henslowe’s Diary. Warner attempts to be neutral on the matter, and seems to call upon the tradition of scholarship before him in judging Collier’s culpability, but ultimately he allows the accusatory facts to stand:
[T]he very serious question of authorship has yet to be decided. Here, however, the reader must be left to draw his own conclusions Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…] Although it is impossible to ignore the fact that Mr. Collier, who gave [the evidence of forgery] to the world as genuine matter, has been distinctly charged with their fabrication, it is no part of my duty either to arraign or defend him Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…] If Mr. Collier’s name has been specially prominent, the blame rests with himself. Even on the most charitable supposition, the ease with which he allowed himself to be imposed upon argues the most extraordinary carelessness and incapacity Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…] At the most, there could only have been a very few persons who had access to the collection, and who, at the same time, were keenly enough interested in dramatic history not to shrink from actual fabrication in order to support particular theories as to have the credit of discovering new facts of professed importance. (Warner xlv-xlvii)
Greg notes the fact that some forgeries date from the 1590s. Greg draws attention to folio 12 of the diary, wherein the signature of John Griggs has been imitated by Henslowe himself (Greg i 221 [in notes to f12]; Foakes 29 n.1). On the whole, however, Greg is even less forgiving than Warner in his view of the issue:
The controversy is, however, by this time a thing of the past, and it is a fact of history supported by overwhelming evidence and accredited by the most trustworthy authorities, that I accept Collier’s authorship of the strange tangle of dishonest fabrication. No extenuating circumstances can be pleaded on behalf of a man who thus abuses his powers and opportunities, and to condone his action would be in no unimportant sense to make oneself a party to his misdeeds. (Greg i xxxvii)
Through their trespasses upon the manuscript of Henslowe’s Diary, misguided or dishonest as they may be, Malone and Collier have become figures of study in their own right. Warner and Greg have taken a dim view of the mutilations and forgeries, and their judgment has informed the common attitude towards the early editors.
However, modern insight and interpretation has found its voice against the greater condemnation of Malone and Collier. In Collier’s defense, some critics have argued that in some cases he was attempting to mitigate the damage done by Malone. Dewey Ganzel contrasts Malone’s careless examination and hasty presentation with Collier’s more meticulous method of study—a method, Ganzel claims, that, by virtue of its own clarity, made Collier’s errors all the more evident. In his analysis of Collier’s discovery and documentation, Ganzel suggests that Malone may be as culpable as Collier of the forgeries (Ganzel 45–47).
The 1961 Henslowe’s Diary edited by R.A. Foakes and R.T. Rickert and subsequently the 2002 edition edited by Foakes alone are notably reticent in assigning blame for the forgeries. The editors, in the Preface to the First Edition (reproduced in the second), acknowledge their debt to Greg’s monumental 1904–1908 edition. The aim of the Foakes and Rickert edition, with its reduced commentary (fifty pages to Greg’s four hundred) is to reassess only some of the work done since 1908 and present a reliable text (Honigmann 298). It is reasonable to assume that they defer to Greg in the other matters he has so thoroughly analyzed.
The following excerpt from the diary exhibits a foreign hand, an ambiguous error, an excision, and a modern addition.
Receiued in pt of paiement of [Gri] Damon and xxs
Pythias6 this 16. of ffebruary 1599
By me henry chettle./
[1.25 inches blank and .75 inches cut away]
{Lent the 14 may 1597 to Jubie vppon a notte
from Nashe twentie shellinges more fo the Jylle
of dogges wch he is wrytinge for the company}
Folio 29v
(Greg 1.57)
This entry in the diary appears in the handwriting of Henry Chettle, playwright (Greg 2.250); Greg and Foakes and Rickert disagree as to whether the inked image can be interpreted as Grisell. Greg is able to make out Gri but Foakes and Rickert are certain only on the last letter (Foakes 63 n.3). The excised portion may correspond to the placement of the signature of W. Haughton7 or John Day8 on the folio’s recto. The insertion Lent Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…] for the company is identified as a modern forgery in Greg’s edition; Foakes and Rickert remove it from the manuscript altogether and relegate it to the notes to the text. We may never know what, if anything, was written on the verso of the excised portion, and although the insertion is confirmed to be modern, its coexistence with the excision opens the possibility that the insertion is not an addition but a replacement. In this case, such a possibility would be unlikely, as it is improbable that a 1599 and a 1597 entry would exist on the same page. Nonetheless, the entry is an excellent example of the uncertainty one faces in study of the diary.
It is likely that scholars will never know the exact history of Henslowe’s Diary. Absolute verification of all its entries seems unlikely. However, the disputed and mutilated portions are dwarfed by the amount of material deemed reliable. The diary figured significantly in the discovery of the ruins of the Rose in 1988—its accounts of expenditure in 1592 correlated with archeological evidence of a northward expansion that same year (Foakes ix-x)—and it continues to inform early modern theatre scholarship as a whole.

Persons in the Manuscript

Philip Henslowe

Philip Henslowe (also Hensley and Hinchley among other spellings) was born sometime between 1550 and 1560 in Lindfield, Sussex. He was the fourth of seven children to Edmund Henslowe, Master of the Game in Ashdown forest, and his wife, Margaret. Philip was apprenticed to dyer Henry Woodward. Upon Henry’s death, Philip married his master’s wife, Agnes Woodward, on 14 February 1579. Agnes was at least twenty years older than Henslowe and brought to the marriage two daughters, Joan9 and Elizabeth. In 1587, moderately wealthy from the dye trade, Henslowe bought a property known as the Little Rose in St. Saviour parish, Southwark. On this land he opened several drink and game establishments, before opening the Rose Playhouse in 1587. He partnered with John Chomley, citizen and grocer. They jointly financed the construction and operation of the Rose—Henslowe paid for the construction, purchase of furniture, and rents of the tenements. Chomley paid for future maintenance, had exclusive food and drink sales at the playhouse, and paid Henslowe £816 over eight and a quarter years. They shared the profits. Though Chomley and Henslowe had this contract in place, Chomley seems to disappear from the venture by the time the Rose opened its doors.
In 1592, Edward Alleyn, actor in Lord Strange’s Men and later Lord Admiral’s Men, married Henslowe’s stepdaughter Joan. That same year Henslowe was appointed Groom of the Chamber to Queen Elizabeth I, a post that required time at court. When James I took the throne in 1603, Henslowe was made Gentleman Sewer of the Chamber. In 1607, Henslowe and Alleyn were both made Vestrymen of the parish of St. Saviour and in 1608 Henslowe was made Churchwarden.
Henslowe and Alleyn were partners in many business endeavours, most notably the Fortune Playhouse. In 1600 they entered into a contract with Peter Streete,10 to build a playhouse in the Parish of St. Giles (Cripplegate). It was apparently a strained project, costing more than initially anticipated and requiring various and frequent monetary gifts to Streete for his co-operation. The Fortune opened in the autumn of 1600 with Alleyn’s company, the Lord Admiral’s Men, in residence. Upon Henslowe’s death, the Fortune’s lease was left to the company, but Alleyn took on full control of the playhouse and leased it to playing companies.
There are records, found in the diary and in the Public Records Office, of Henslowe providing for his nephews, notably Francis11 and John. From 1574–1606 Philip supported Francis with work and money and upon Francis’ death bore the funeral costs. Francis appears several times in Henslowe’s Diary as an intermediary in pawn transactions. Philip also cared for the widow and children of his brother Edmund. Edmund’s substantial estate was to be endowed between his wife Margery and children Anne, John, and Mary. According to Edmund’s will, Philip was to act as sole executor and caretaker of the children during their minority even though their mother was still living. Philip abided by the terms of the will until Margery’s death in 1592 and the children moved from Edmund’s house in Buxted to London. He kept records in the diary of his expenditures on them and their eventual apprenticeship. Philip apprenticed Edmond’s son John, the last Henslowe heir, to several trades but became entangled in an inheritance battle with him. The resulting trial soured their relationship and John was effectively disowned; Henslowe’s fortune was left to his wife and in turn to Joan and Edward Alleyn. Henslowe died in 1616 (Carson 1–25; Cerasano).

Edward Alleyn

Edward Alleyn was born 1 September 1566 in the Parish of St. Botolph without Bishopsgate. He was the second of five sons (two of which, John and Edward, lived to adulthood) to Edward Alleyn and his wife Margaret Townley. Edward Sr. was a London innkeeper, hospital administrator, and later a porter to Queen Elizabeth I. He died in 1570. The year after, Margaret married Richard Christopher, alias Grove. After Christopher’s death in 1578, she married haberdasher John Browne with whom, in the first years of the marriage, John Alleyn became embroiled in litigation over the leases of the hospital properties.
The next record of Edward places him with the Earl of Worcester’s Men, a prominent touring company, in 1583. By 1589, Edward was a servant to the Lord Admiral. That same year, Edward, his brother John, and Edward’s fellow player Robert Browne purchased playing apparel, playbooks, instruments and other commodities for their company, the Lord Admiral’s Men. By early 1592, Alleyn was well established as an actor, having acted with the Lord Admiral’s and the Lord Strange’s Men, who performed at the Rose. By August of 1592, Alleyn was in business with the Rose’s owner, Philip Henslowe. On 22 October 1592, Alleyn married Henslowe’s stepdaughter Joan. Letters found at Dulwich attest that their marriage was a good and affectionate partnership. By 1594, Alleyn was the leading player of the Lord Admiral’s Men and a celebrity on the London stage. The 1590s saw Alleyn in his best known roles: Tamburlaine of Tamburlaine the Great, Dr. Faustus in the play of the same name, and Barabas in The Jew of Malta.12 Historians have marked 1597 as the year in which Alleyn retired from the stage. He was aged thirty-one years, fourteen of which had been spent on the stage. Alleyn turned his efforts to managing investments and revivifying political alliances that he hoped would assist him in acquiring the court appointed position as master of the bears, bulls, and mastiff dogs (Cerasano). By 1604, Alleyn and Henslowe jointly held the office until Henslowe’s death at which time his share passed to his son-in-law.
Alleyn and Henslowe’s joint project, the Fortune playhouse was built in the Parish of St. Giles (Cripplegate), near Alleyn’s native Parish of St. Boltoph without Bishopsgate and to which Alleyn regularly donated poor relief. The playhouse opened in 1600, and Alleyn briefly returned to the stage to launch the enterprise. The Fortune proved to be a successful theatre, known for its repertoire of comedies and for housing the talented and popular Lord Admiral’s Men. Upon Henslowe’s death, Alleyn took control of the Fortune’s lease and rented it out to playing companies as late as 1618. On 9 December 1621, the Fortune burned down. Alleyn rebuilt it almost immediately; it was made of brick. In 1616, Alleyn became involved in a legal battle wherein Henslowe’s nephew, possibly John, fought for control of part of Henslowe’s estate, which had been willed to Joan and Alleyn. The precise outcome is unknown.
Over the period of 1605–1614, Alleyn purchased Dulwich Manor and moved there from Southwark. Construction for a college started in 1613; the chapel was consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury in 1616. After some opposition, Alleyn read the deed of foundation and statutes of The College of God’s Gift at Dulwich before several distinguished statesmen on 13 September 1619.
Alleyn’s wife Joan was buried in the Dulwich College chapel, having died on 28 June 1623. Through her, Alleyn took possession of Philip Henslowe’s papers. Alleyn married again on 3 December 1623 to Constance, daughter of poet John Donne. After three years of marriage, Alleyn fell ill and dictated his will at Dulwich on 13 November 1626. He died twelve days later and was buried in the college chapel. He was fifty-nine years old. Alleyn’s will ordered the construction of almshouses in Southwark and the Parish of St. Boltoph without Bishopsgate and the rest of his fortune and possessions, less Constance’s dowry and several gifts, passed to the College. His papers, and those of his stepfather-in-law, were placed in the library. Alleyn’s portrait (date and artist unknown) and his signet ring reside still at the Dulwich College (Cerasano).

Reading the Text

The Structure of Henslowe’s Diary

Henslowe’s diary is a folio of 238 leaves measuring 13.25in by 8in (34.92 cm by 20.32 cm). This reckoning omits four blank folios mid-volume, between 125 and 126 although it includes occasional blanks elsewhere. The diary is constructed of good quality paper and wrapped in a limp vellum wrapper, upon which Henslowe has made some jottings. Some of the pages are worn and frayed; one has been scorched. Some of the pages have also been cut and valuable signatures excised. The diary was used first by John Henslowe of Ashdown Forest and passed to Philip, who turned the book upside down for his own use and began writing from what had been the back of John Henslowe’s book. The manuscript is usually oriented to Philip’s handling, leaving John’s entries inverted and in reverse order. The leaves of the diary are foliated13 in John’s orientation. Because we are concerned with the diary as Philip deployed it, from our perspective the first page on which Philip wrote (the inside cover) is unnumbered. The back of the second page on which Philip wrote is numbered 3008 in John’s hand. The numbers descend from front to back, with each leaf numbered on the verso. The leaves are foliated by John thus: leaves 1–100 are normal, but instead of progressing to 101, 102, 110, 112 etc., John took 100 +1 to be 1001 rather than 101. Therefore, leaves he labelled 1002, 1003, 10012, 10013 are actually 102, 103, 112, 113. Page 3008, the recto of the last leaf from John’s point of view, is the same as what modern bibliographers call folio 2 verso (the back of the second leaf from Philip’s point of view, since he wrote on the inside of the cover). Furthermore, some leaves have been re-foliated, possibly by John: 102 has been altered to 101 and 103 to 102, but no further; the next leaf is 104.
From the foliation, however peculiar, we can tell that leaves are missing. Greg totals 19 missing leaves (Greg xvii). Blank pages are not reckoned by the modern foliation. Folios 238 verso to 126 verso were made in the same direction as John, but are definitely in Philip’s handwriting. Folio 238 verso, the first page of the reversed section, bears the date 24 November 1592 (Foakes 232).

Types of Entries

Henslowe’s Diary contains six kinds of entries:

Forestry and Mining Accounts

The mining accounts (Foakes xix), called forestry by Greg, are located on folios 237 verso to 137 verso. Foakes totals 18 pages missing. The entries run from January 1576 to December 1580, with the bulk of the text entered in 1577. The entries outline the duties of the workmen of Ashdown forest, which include cutting wood, collying or making coal or charcoal from lumber, mining iron ore, and hauling.

Pawn Records

Phillip Henslowe’s pawn entries cluster in three instances. Section I is located on folios 55–61, dated 16 January 1593 to 19 December 1593. Henslowe seems to have had in his employ his nephew Francis who acted as an intermediary. The excerpt, folio 55 verso, is characteristic of the entries of this first section. Henslowe would advance money to him on goods deposited by customers (Foakes xxv), here, sixty shillings for a pair of hose and a doublet:
lent vnto frances vpon14 a payer of mvrey15 satten
hosse cvtt paned & Imbrodered16 wth gowld of mr xxxxs
Toogood17 10 marche 159318
lent vnto frances the 10 of marche 1593 vpon
A dublett clothe of pech coller satten o wm xxs
harbutes19
(f. 55v; transcribed Foakes 108–109)
Section II is entered on folios 73–81, from 10 December 1593 to 22 January 1595. Francis is no longer in the entries; when he decides to pursue acting he is replaced by a Goody20 Watson. There is an entry elsewhere (f. 2v) of fifteen pounds loaned to Francis to buy a share in the Queen’s Men in May of 1593 (Foakes 7).
Section III is entered on folios 113 –136, dated 17 January 1593/4- March 1594. Henslowe’s intermediary is now a woman named Anne Nockes. This section is headed Mrs Grantes Recknyng 1593 (Foakes xxv).

Family and Personal Accounts

Henslowe used his diary to record his own and his family’s finances. The tabulations are meticulous, and they seem to cover Henslowe himself, his wife Agnes, their household, and the households of his stepdaughters and his stepson-in-law, Edward Alleyn. While these records impart little information on theatrical matters, the entries are useful in interpreting the rest of the diary. In this two-page entry, Henslowe spells the name of his frequent dinner partner, Peter Easte21 six different ways. These domestic records allow us ample opportunity to examine and draw conclusions from Henslowe’s style of writing and how he used his diary.
A not what I haue layed owte
sence we went a bowt ower new
howsse22 as foloweth 1600
pd23 for the Removinge of the donge24 wth the carte x s
pd for goinge at grenwiche wth Robart Shawe25 xviij d
pd for a brake faste at that time wth shawe xij d
pd for drinke when we payd wages v d
pd at the Rede crosse for brackfaste when we sowte strete ij s
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
pd the 8 of agust for diner for easte strete my sellfe xiij d
03li—15s—09d
(f 98v-99; transcribed Foakes 191–192)
Jonne allen Receued for Rente as folowthe 1593
Rd of the duchewoman the for [sic] mydsomer qt26 1593 xv s viij d
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
Rd of goody Rowden27 the 18 of octob3 1593 vij s x d
(f 1v; transcribed Foakes 5)

Dramatic Accounts

Henslowe recorded the takings of his playhouse by day and by play. These entries inform us of the popularity of the plays: how often they were performed, and how much they took in. There are also entries detailing the amount paid to the playwright for the piece. The entries run from 19 February 1591/2 to November 1597. The entries fall into three groups: one from the beginning to 16 May 1594, one from 3 June 1594 to 22 January 1596/7, and one from 24 January 1596/7 to the end of the entries in the November of that year.
The abbreviation ne indicates a new title; however because this indication is often in the margin or interlined, forgery suspicions shroud the verifiability of the convention. Some scholars have tried to prove that all occurrences of ne are Collier’s forgeries, but it is generally accepted that most of the abbreviations are authentic.
1 of June 1596 Rd28 at chinone of Ingland29 iij s
2 of June 1596 Rd at longshanke30 iij li
3 of June 1596 Rd at the blinde beager31 xxxxj s
4 of June 1596 Rd at the tragedie of focas32 xxxj s
5 of June 1596 Rd at tambercame xxviij s
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
17 of June 1596 Rd at hary the v33 xxvij s
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
21 of June 1596 Rd at Jew of malta34 xxij s
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
18 of July 1596 ne—Rd at the tynker of totnes35 iij li
(f 21v; transcribed Foakes 47)
Lent vnto the Company36 to geue vnto
Thomas deckers & midelton37 in earneste v li
of ther playe Called the pasyent man &
the onest hore38the some of39

Theatrical Expenditures

Henslowe’s substantial expenditures fall largely into two categories: those on behalf of his company, and those in care of his playhouse. Occasionally Henslowe would lend money to his players, and they would acknowledge their indebtedness in the diary. The accounts begin on 21 October 1597 and continue until 16 March 1602/3.
A nott what I haue layed owt abowt my playhowsse
ffor payntinge & doinge it a bowt wth ealme bordes & other
Repracyones as ffoloweth 1595 in lent [sic]
Itm bowght iij hundred & a qter of elmebordes xxiiijs
Itm pd the carpenters ther wages viij s
Itm geuen the paynter in earneste40 xx s
Itm geuen the paynter more x s
Gap in transcription. Reason: Editorial omission for reasons of length or relevance. Use only in quotations in born-digital documents.[…]
Itm pd for naylles ij s iiij d
Itm pd the smyth for nayles In fulle xij s iij d
li——s——d
Some is 108—19—00
(folio 2v; transcribed Foakes 6–7)

Miscellaneous Entries

Miscellaneous entries in Henslowe’s Diary include IOUs, superstitions, horoscopes, and recipes. The IOU here was written in the hand of Thomas Dekker,41 playwright of The Shoemaker’s Holiday. It is immediately apparent that the spelling, elevated tone, and dating system are different from those of Henslowe.
Quinto die Maij. 1602.
Bee it knowne vnto all men by
theis pnte that wee Anthony
Mundy42& Thomas Dekker doe
owe vnto Phillip Hynchlay gent
the Some of five powndes of
lawfull money of England to bee
payd vnto him his executors or
assgnes vppon the xth of June
next ensuing the date hereof
In wittnes hereof herevnto
wee haue Sett or handes43
dated this day & yere above
written
(folio 114; transcribed Foakes 212)

Glossary and Notes

Heber Sale

The Heber sale was a massive sale of the library of Richard Heber, book collector and Athenaeum trustee (1824–1828), upon his death in 1833. Heber’s will included no instructions as to the future of his library. The library was sold in sixteen separate sales, the corresponding sale catalogues of which indicate their dates and location. Thirteen sales took place in England from 10 April 1834 to 22 February 1837. Two took place in Paris on 15 March and 7 October 1836 and one took place on 26 March 1835 in Ghent, Belgium. Most of the library’s manuscripts were acquired by the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and Sir Thomas Phillips (Sherbo).

Ireland Forgeries

William Henry Ireland (1775–1835) was the son of Samuel Ireland and a forger of Shakespearian documents. Samuel Ireland (d. 1800) was a printmaker and a scholar of Hogarth who, adhering to the dominant pre-occupation of Shakespeare scholarship of the time, desired to possess a document in Shakespeare’s hand. Starting in 1794 William supplied his father with deeds, letters, confessions of Protestant faith, illuminating marginal notes, and original manuscripts—all supposedly in Shakespeare’s hand and all designed to cast Shakespeare in the light of a punctual and efficient businessman and well-regarded man of the world (Baines). The documents, according to William, belonged to the collection of a mysterious and anonymous Mr. H and were readily accepted by Samuel as authentic. William, at some time during this period, forged a deed of gift ceding all of Shakespeare’s papers to an Elizabethan man named William Henry Ireland in thanks for saving Shakespeare from drowning. The deed of gift gave William the forger a somewhat credible claim on the documents as well as a noble lineage.
In 1795, Samuel opened a house in London to display the documents. It was met with praise and veneration by the scholars of the time, though Joseph Ritson, antiquarian scholar and editor of Robin Hood: A Collection of all the Ancient poems, Songs, and Ballads now Extant Related to that Celebrated English Outlaw (Barczewski), was not fooled. That same year, William forged an entire play titled Vortingern and Rowena and Samuel published a memoir of the discoveries in Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments under the Hand and Seal of William Shakespeare. Vortingern and Rowena was performed as a play of Shakespeare in Drury Lane. The comparative simplicity of the play, added to the accounts of the miraculous discovery published in Samuel’s Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments, invited scrutiny and denunciation. In 1796, Malone’s An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments proved William Ireland’s documents were frauds by examining their signatures against the exemplars we now know to have been in his possession (Baines; Baines).

Perkins Folio

Collier discovered a supposed second Folio of Shakespeare’s plays, dated to 1632, covered with inked notes and interlineations that rendered the plays significantly more comprehensible. Announcement of this discovery appeared in The Athenaeum on 31 January 1852 and the annotations were published in 1853 in his Notes and Emendations of the Text of Shakespeare, an appendix to a text Collier had published from 1842–1844. Collier followed this discovery with a one- and then six-volume critical edition of Shakespeare (published 1853 and 1858 respectively) incorporating the emendations in which he gave an account of purchasing the folio from Thomas Rodd the younger, bookseller. The folio became known as the Perkins Folio due to an inscription on the cover; Collier claimed the owner was a Thomas Perkins, a relative of a member of The King’s Men.
Collier’s findings were questioned by many critics, chiefly by J.O. Halliwell (later Halliwell-Phillips, 1820–1880), who were suspicious of the veracity of the annotation-maker, the anonymous Old Corrector, but forgery was not suggested till 1855, in articles by A.E. Brae (1800/01–1881) and then in Brae’s Literary Cookery. After Brae’s accusations, Halliwell and others began to scrutinize Collier’s other discoveries, including a transcript of Coleridge’s 1811–1812 lectures.
The controversy caught the attention of Sir Phillip Madden, keeper of manuscripts at the British Museum. The Perkins Folio was secured by the Duke of Devonshire in May of 1859 for the British Museum and Madden, his assistant Nicholas S.E.A. Hamilton, and Nevil Maskelyne, keeper of the mineral department, made a careful study of its annotations. In July, the three wrote letters to The Times reporting that the ink interlineations were recent annotations whose content often corresponded to obviously modern penciled notes in the margins. They declared the emendations a forgery. Collier responded, also in letters to The Times, that the interlineations predated his purchase of the folio and denying any culpability in the forgery. Hamilton continued to pursue the Perkins affair, publishing an inquiry in 1860 that questioned Collier’s work on some of the Bridgewater and Dulwich papers. Even though Collier tried to defend himself and his scholarship, reviews and inquiries by scholars and academic institutions persisted into 1861. Collier continued to publish (and to forge, according to some) until his death in 1883 but he was never released from suspicion and his reputation never recovered (Ioppolo; Freeman and Freeman).

Notes

  1. See also Renaissance Clothing, Documents of the Rose Playhouse, The Rose Theatre, and Henslowe Papers, as well as the Henslowe-Alleyn Digitisation Project. (JL)↑
  2. I.e., Lord Admiral’s Men. Playing company named for Lord Charles Howard, the Lord High Admiral. First appearance at court was in 1585. Known for performing the plays of Christopher Marlowe. Upon the death of Elizabeth I, they became Prince Henry’s Men, then Palsgrave’s Men. They disbanded in 1631 (Campbell 6). Further Reading: Greg 2.80–103. (JL)↑
  3. Playwright free of the Stationers’ Company. Chettle is the most prolific of the writers mentioned in the diary and wrote frequently for the Lord Admiral’s Men. Very little is known about his life (Greg 2.250–253). Further Reading: Greg 2.250–253. (JL)↑
  4. I.e., in earnest of, on the promise of, in advance of. (JL)↑
  5. I.e., Too Good to be True. A play bought by the Lord Admiral’s Men from Henry Chettle (Greg 2.220). Further Reading: Greg 2.220. (JL)↑
  6. I.e., Damon and Pythias. Possibly by Henry Chettle. Little is known about this play other than a disproved assertion on the part of John Payne Collier that this is a later version of a play of the same name printed in 1571 (Greg 2.211). Further Reading: Greg 2.211. Payment to the Master of the Revels for the license of the play: f 69. (JL)↑
  7. Playwright, known only in his connection to Henslowe. He is first mentioned as yonge harton in connection with the Lord Admiral’s Men in 1597 and is not known to have written for any other company. He frequently collaborated with playwrights John Day and Thomas Dekker (Greg 2.271). Purchase of his play Poor Man’s Paradise: f 63v. (JL)↑
  8. Playwright frequently collaborating with Dekker and Haughton. Wrote for the Lord Admiral’s Men from 1599 to 1603, then for the Lord Worcester’s Men. Two documents by Day, namely a letter to a patron and some verses spoken by Henry, Prince of Wales after the death of Hotspur, rest at Dulwich College (Greg 2.255–256). (JL)↑
  9. Stepdaughter to Henslowe and wife of Edward Alleyn (Greg 2.309). Further Reading: Greg 2.238; Henslowe’s account of her marriage: f 2. (JL)↑
  10. Carpenter and builder. Henslowe contracts with him the building of a house on the Bankside from 13 December 1599 to 1 February 1599/1600, and the Fortune playhouse in 1600 (Greg 2.314). Further Reading: Greg 2.314. Henslowe’s account of the Bankside house: f 32. (JL)↑
  11. Philip Henslowe’s nephew and his deputy in his pawn business from roughly January to December 1593 (Greg 2.227–228; Carson 2). Further Reading: Greg 2.277–278). (JL)↑
  12. Ascribed to Christopher Marlowe. First appearance in the diary identifies it as an old play. It was performed by the Lord Strange’s Men, the Earl of Sussex’s Men, the Queen’s Men, the Admiral’s Men and the Chamberlain’s Men. The play was most likely owned by Henslowe, as it was acted by every company to have played at the Rose (Greg 2.151). Further Reading: Greg 2.151. First performance by the Lord Strange’s Men: f 7. (JL)↑
  13. Sixteenth-century books were usually foliated rather than paginated. Each double-sided leaf was numbered on the recto page (first side of the leaf), abbreviated r (as in fo. 34r, which means the front of the 34th leaf). The back of the leaf is known to bibliographers as the verso page, abbreviated v (as in fo. 34v). Over the course of the sixteenth century, printers began to add pagination, i.e., numbers on both recto and verso pages of the leaf. (JL)↑
  14. Philip Henslowe was engaged in a pawn broking business that supplied his playhouse and actor’s company with costumes. He would lend money on the security of articles of clothing. It is reasonable to assume that his deputy, Francis, would act as an intermediary between Henslowe and his client, bringing Henslowe the article to be pawned, receiving the money (as seen in the entry), and delivering the loan to the client (Jones and Stallybrass 26–28). Further Reading: Jones and Stallybrass 26–32 (on pawning practices), Jones and Stallybrass 181–206 (on Henslowe as a pawnbroker and his effect on English Theatre). (JL)↑
  15. I.e., moiré (Greg 1.239, 2.392). (JL)↑
  16. I.e., cut, paned and embroidered. (JL)↑
  17. There does not seem to be any other mention of him in the diary. He is most likely a one-time client of Henslowe’s pawn broking business. (JL)↑
  18. 10 marche 1593 is an interlineated insertion so noted by Greg and moved to footnotes by Foakes and Rickert. (JL)↑
  19. There does not seem to be any other mention of him in the diary. He is most likely a one-time client of Henslowe’s pawn broking business. (JL)↑
  20. Good woman or Mistress. (JL)↑
  21. I.e., Gilbert East, Henslowe’s bailiff. Frequent dining companion from 5 June to 8 August 1600 (Greg 2.265). Further Reading: Greg 2.265; Identified as Henslowe’s Bailiff: f 179. (JL)↑
  22. I.e., Fortune Playhouse (Greg 2.265). (JL)↑
  23. I.e., paid. (JL)↑
  24. I.e., dung (Greg 2.238). (JL)↑
  25. Player of the Lord Admiral’s Men (Greg 2.309). Further Reading: Greg 2.309; In the list of the Admirals’s Men: f 43v. (JL)↑
  26. I.e., Midsummer quarter (Greg 2.307). (JL)↑
  27. Tenant of Edward Alleyn (Greg 2.307). (JL)↑
  28. I.e., received. (JL)↑
  29. I.e., Chinon of England. Also known as The ffirste parte of the famous historye of Chinan of England. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men. First performed as a new play 3 January 1595/6, lasting fourteen performances. Nothing is known of the play other than the descriptive title of its second part: The Famous Historie of Chinon of England with his strange aduentures for the loue of Celestina daughter to Lewis King of Fraunce. With the worthy Atchuiement of Sir Lancelot du Lake, and Sir Tristam du Lions for faire Laura, daughter to Cador Earle of Cornewall, being all Knights of King Arthurs round Table (Greg 1.178). Further Reading: Greg 2.178; First performance: f 14. (JL)↑
  30. I.e., Longshanks. Author unknown but sometimes this play is thought to be Edward I surnamed Longshanks by George Peele. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men. First performed on 29 Aug 1595, lasting fourteen performances. The play belonged to Edward Alleyn and may have been taken from the plays of the Lord Strange’s Men (Greg 2.176). Further Reading: Greg 2.176; First performance: f 12v. (JL)↑
  31. I.e., Blind Beggar of Alexandria by George Chapman. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men. First performed as a new play 12 Feb 1595, lasting twenty-two performances (Greg 2.179–180). Further Reading: Greg 2.179; First performance: f 14v; Purchase of properties on behalf of the Lord Admiral’s Men: f 87v. (JL)↑
  32. I.e., Phocas. Also known as The Tragedie of ffocasse. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men. First performed 19/20 May 1596, lasting seven performances. Phocas was elected Emperor of Constantinople in 606. He was deposed and killed by Heraclites in 610. Nothing is otherwise known of the play (Greg 2.180). Further Reading: Greg 2.180; First performance: f 15v. (JL)↑
  33. I.e., Famous Victories of Henry V. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men. First performed on 28 November 1595, lasting thirteen performances. This play predates Shakespeare’s Henry V and may have come to the Lord Admiral’s Men via the Queen’s Men when they were in London in 1594 (Greg 2.177–178). Further Reading: Greg 2.177–178. (JL)↑
  34. I.e., The Jew of Malta. (JL)↑
  35. I.e., The Tinker of Totness. Performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men as a new play on 18/23 July 1596. Nothing is known of this play (Greg 2.181). Further Reading: Greg 2.181. (JL)↑
  36. I.e., Lord Admiral’s Men. (JL)↑
  37. Playwright free of the Grocers’ Company associated, in the diary, with the Lord Admiral’s Men (Greg 2.298; Jones and Stallybrass 27). Further Reading: Greg 2.298. (JL)↑
  38. I.e., The Patient Man and the Honest Whore by Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton. Also known as The Honest Whore With, The Humours of the Patient Man, and the Longing Wife (Greg 2.228). Further Reading: Greg 2.228. (JL)↑
  39. 1604 interlined. (JL)↑
  40. I.e., on the promise of, in advance of. (JL)↑
  41. Playwright and pamphleteer associated with the Lord Admiral’s Men. The date of his birth and death are uncertain, but his life was not prosperous and he spent a considerable time in prison. Knowing the unknown date at which Dekker began his dramatic career could allow us to attribute to him some of the thus-far authorless early plays performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men (Greg 2.256–260). Further Reading: Greg 2.256–260; Purchase of his play The Patient Man and the Honest Whore: (f 110; transcribed Foakes 209, Greg 1.175); First mention, purchase of his play Phaeton: f 44. (JL)↑
  42. Playwright. He wrote predominantly for the Lord Admiral’s Men between December 1597 to December 1602 (Greg 2.298). Further Reading: Greg 2.298. (JL)↑
  43. The signatures of Munday and Dekker presumed to be snipped from this entry are pasted into books in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. (JL)↑

References

  • Citation

    Baines, Paul. Ireland, William Henry (1775–1835). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14451.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Baines, Paul. Ireland, Samuel (d. 1800). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14449.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Barczewski, Stephanie L. Ritson, Joseph (1752–1803). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23685.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Bowsher, Julian. The Rose Theatre: An Archeological Discovery. London: MoLA, 1998. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Campbell, Gordon. Admiral’s Men. The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. 6. Remediated by Oxford Reference.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Carson, Neil. A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Cerasano, S.P. Henslowe, Philip (c.1555–1616). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12991.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Cerasano, S.P. Alleyn, Edward (1566–1629). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/398.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Foakes, R.A., ed. Henslowe’s Diary. By Philip Henslowe. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Freeman, Arthur, and Janet Ing Freeman. Collier, John Payne (1789–1883). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5920.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Freeman, Arthur, and Janet Ing Freeman. John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century. New Haven: Yale UP, 2004. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Ganzel, Dewey. Fortune and Men’s Eyes: The Career of John Payne Collier. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1982. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Greg, Walter W., ed. Henslowe’s Diary. By Philip Henslowe. 2 vols. London: A.H. Bullen, 1904. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Greg, Walter W., ed. Henslowe Papers: Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe’s Diary. London: A.H. Bullen, 1907. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Honigmann, E.A.J. Review of Henslowe’s Diary. The Review of English Studies 13.51 (1962): 298–300. doi:10.1093/res/XIII.51.298.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Ioppolo, Grace. Forgery. The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Michael Dobson and Stanley Wells. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. 149–150. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Jones, Ann Rosalind, and Peter Stallybrass. Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Martin, Peter. Edmond Malone, Shakespearian Scholar. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Rutter, Carol Chillington. Documents of the Rose Playhouse. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1999. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Sherbo, Arthur. Heber, Richard (1774–1833). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Brian Harrison, Lawrence Goldman, and David Cannadine. Oxford UP. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12854.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Warner, George F. Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Muniments of Alleyn’s College of God’s Gift at Dulwich. Vol 1. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1881.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

Cite this page

MLA citation

Lo, Jennifer. Henslowe’s Diary. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 7.0, edited by Janelle Jenstad, U of Victoria, 05 May 2022, mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/HENS2.htm.

Chicago citation

Lo, Jennifer. Henslowe’s Diary. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 7.0. Ed. Janelle Jenstad. Victoria: University of Victoria. Accessed May 05, 2022. mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/HENS2.htm.

APA citation

Lo, J. 2022. Henslowe’s Diary. In J. Jenstad (Ed), The Map of Early Modern London (Edition 7.0). Victoria: University of Victoria. Retrieved from https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/editions/7.0/HENS2.htm.

RIS file (for RefMan, RefWorks, EndNote etc.)

Provider: University of Victoria
Database: The Map of Early Modern London
Content: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

TY  - ELEC
A1  - Lo, Jennifer
ED  - Jenstad, Janelle
T1  - Henslowe’s Diary
T2  - The Map of Early Modern London
ET  - 7.0
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022/05/05
CY  - Victoria
PB  - University of Victoria
LA  - English
UR  - https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/HENS2.htm
UR  - https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/xml/standalone/HENS2.xml
ER  -

TEI citation

<bibl type="mla"><author><name ref="#LOJE1"><surname>Lo</surname>, <forename>Jennifer</forename></name></author>. <title level="a">Henslowe’s Diary</title>. <title level="m">The Map of Early Modern London</title>, Edition <edition>7.0</edition>, edited by <editor><name ref="#JENS1"><forename>Janelle</forename> <surname>Jenstad</surname></name></editor>, <publisher>U of Victoria</publisher>, <date when="2022-05-05">05 May 2022</date>, <ref target="https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/HENS2.htm">mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/HENS2.htm</ref>.</bibl>

Personography

Locations

Organizations