Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T11:22:16.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stage History of Heywood's Love's Mistress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2010

Raymond C. Shady
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Love's Mistress, or The Queen's Masque, first produced in 1634, marks the triumphant conclusion to Thomas Heywood's prolific career as a dramatist. It is fitting, after Heywood's thirty-eight years of service to the London stage as both actor and playwright, that this play should have been "three times presented before their two excellent Majesties within the space of eight days."

Type
Research Article
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , November 1977 , pp. 86 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Eliot, T. S., "Thomas Heywood," Elizabethan Dramatists (London, 1966), p. 106Google Scholar.

2 Ibid.., p. 105.

3 Clark, A. M., Thomas Heywood: Playwright and Miscellanist (Oxford, 1931), p. 250Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 130. Cf. Bentley, G. E., The Jacobean and Caroline Stage (Oxford, 1941-1968), VII, 94-95Google Scholar, who records the earliest and latest possible date for the first performance as November 13 and 18; for the last performance as November 20 and (incorrectly) 26. It would be nice to think that the first performance was on November 16, which happened to be the Queen's birthday. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support such a possibility. At any rate, Love's Mistress appears to have been a birthday present for both Charles and Henrietta. (See below re the Second Prologue.) Clark rejects Fleay's theory that the first public performance was in 1633; see Fleay, Frederick Gard, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642 (London, 1891), I, 286, 299Google Scholar.

5 All references to Love's Mistress, or The Queen's Masque are. from my own edition of the play, a Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Toronto, 1975. For the sake of accessibility, each reference is followed by the corresponding (italicized) page number in Pearson's editon of 1874 (vol 4).

6 Clark, p. 131.

7 Ibid..

8 Ibid.., p. 131n.

9 Bentley, I, 237.

10 Ibid.., 237-41.

11 Malone Society Collections, II, part III, 389-90.

12 The London Stage. 1660-1800 (in five parts, eleven volumes), edited by William Van Lennep et. al. (Carbondale, Illinois, 1965), I, 25.

13 The Diary and Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, edited by Lord Braybrooke (Philadelphia, 1906), I, 158Google Scholar.

14 Ibid.., I, 159.

15 The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert, edited by Adams, Joseph Quincy (New Haven, 1917), pp. 116-18Google Scholar.

16 The London Stage, I, 41.

17 Pepys, Diary, II, 236.

18 W. J. Lawrence, in his article, "Foreign Songs and Musicians at the Court of Charles II," Musical Quarterly, IX (1923), claims that the revival took place at the Duke's Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields (p. 224).

19 Pepys, Diary, IV, 6.

20 Lawrence, p. 224.

21 See above, note 18.

22 Lawrence, p. 217.

23 Eric Walter White, in his article, "Early Theatrical Performances of PurcelPs Operas, with a Calendar of Recorded Performances, 1690-1710," Theatre Notebook, XIII (1959), claims that the performance was on 3 June 1669 at Drury Lane (pp. 43-65); W. J. Lawrence claims 3 June 1669 at Whitehall.

24 Quoted from an anonymous review of Heywood's plays, in Retrospective. Review (Vol. II), 1825, pp. 123-60.

25 Quoted from James G. McManaway, "Entertainment for the Grand Duke of Tuscany," Theatre Notebook, XVI (1961), 20-21.

26 Heywood's work is scarcely recognizable in the performance of "PSYCHE; or Love's Mistress" on 9 June 1704, at the Drury Lane Theatre. The characters of Pan, Vulcan, Pluto and Apollo certainly resemble the more important figures in Heywood's play, but there is no mention of either Cupid or Psyche in the description of this performance. The account of this benefit performance, attributed to Richard Leveridge in The London Stage, further illustrates the improbability of any relationship with Heywood's play:

MUSIC. All the vocal and Instrumental compos'd by the Famous Mr Matthew Lock.

DANCING. New dances proper to the occasion, particularly Arbour Dance in Imitation of the Original by du Riel, Cherrier, and La forest.

COMMENT . . . This being the first Performance of an Opera this Year. All the Scenes and Flyings as they were formerly presented. (The London Stage, II, 68.)

Thomas Shadwell's dramatic opera, Psyche, which was performed after the visit of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and before this 1704 opera, does not resemble Heywood's play in the least. A "new ballet" entitled "L'Amour et Psiche" appeared on the London stage for the first time in 1788, and accompanied both operas and comedies (e.g., The Way of the World) for approximately nine years. This interpretation of the Cupid and Psyche story, however, bears no resemblance to Heywood's Love's Mistress. (Ibid.., see Part 5, Vols, 1-3 (1788-1797).)