Part I from the time of its revival on August 30th, 1594, and_Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599-1609

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the numbering restarts

at [1] with each new chapter. These footnotes for the main text have

been kept in the section called ‘NOTES’ at the end of the text, as

in the original book. Some tables in the Appendices have footnotes,

denoted by (a) (b) etc, and these have been kept at the bottom of

the relevant table, as they were in the original book.

The tables and the verse in this book are best viewed using a

monospace font.

A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example y^e or E3^{r-v}.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

SHAKESPEARE AT THE GLOBE

Shakespeare

at the Globe

1599-1609

BERNARD BECKERMAN

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 1962

_New York_

form without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a

reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a

review written for inclusion in magazine or newspaper.

_First Printing_

The Macmillan Company, New York

Brett-Macmillan Ltd., Galt, Ontario

_Printed in the United States of America_

Library of Congress catalog card number: 62-7159

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My debts of gratitude, which this acknowledgment can hardly hope

to pay, are especially due to Professors Oscar J. Campbell, S.

F. Johnson, and Dr. John Cranford Adams, President of Hofstra

College. To detail the extent of Professor Campbell’s assistance

would be futile. I merely count myself fortunate in having enjoyed

his guidance and encouragement. From Professor Johnson this study

received a careful and perceptive scrutiny, to the excellence

of which I trust these pages testify. In supporting my work as

Director of the Hofstra College Shakespeare Festival, Dr. Adams

provided me with the opportunity not only to explore the authentic

staging of Shakespeare’s plays but also to draw upon his knowledge

and advice. Although my present views of Shakespearean staging

differ from his, nonetheless they owe much to the initial stimulus

he gave and the rigorous scholarship he exemplified. In addition, I

have benefited from the indulgence of various friends and scholars.

Dr. Raymond W. Short read and criticized the original draft of

the chapter on dramaturgy. Dr. James G. McManaway and Irwin Smith

offered valuable suggestions for the entire manuscript, and Mr.

Smith, together with Dr. Robert De Maria, Howard Siegman, and my

wife, Gloria, has assisted me in the final preparation of the

book.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments v

Introduction ix

One: THE REPERTORY 1

Two: THE DRAMATURGY 24

I. Premises for a Study of Shakespearean

Dramatic Form 27

II. Form and Function in the Finales of the

Globe Plays 35

III. The Nature and Form of the “Climax” in

the Globe Plays 40

IV. Structural Patterns in the Dramatic Narrative 45

V. Scene Structure in Shakespeare 54

VI. Dramatic Unity in the Globe Plays 57

Three: THE STAGE 63

I. Localization in Shakespeare’s Globe Plays 64

II. The Parts of the Stage 69

III. The Design of the Stage 101

Four: THE ACTING 109

I. The Relation of Tudor Rhetoric to

Elizabethan Acting 113

II. The Influence of Theatrical Traditions

upon Elizabethan Acting 121

III. The Effect of Playing Conditions upon

Elizabethan Acting 127

IV. Acting and the Elizabethan View of

Human Behavior 137

a) Decorum 139

b) Motivation 142

c) Passion 143

V. The Effect of the Globe Plays upon the

Acting 146

Five: THE STAGING 157

I. Stage Illusion at the Globe Playhouse 157

II. Stage Grouping at the Globe Playhouse 169

III. Actors’ Entrances upon the Globe Stage 176

IV. Recurrent Patterns of Staging 182

V. The Staging of the Finales 207

Six: THE STYLE 214

Appendix A 217

Appendix B 220

Appendix C 226

Notes 232

Index to the Globe Plays 245

General Index 248

INTRODUCTION

From 1599 to 1608 or 1609 the Globe playhouse was the home of the

Chamberlain-King’s company and the only theater where it publicly

presented its plays in London. The Globe was imitated by Henslowe,

the theater magnate, and lauded by Dekker, the playwright. Upon

its stage Shakespeare’s major tragedies enjoyed their first

performances. Located among the stews and marshes of the Bankside,

it drew across the Thames its audience, men and women, gentlemen

and journeymen, sightseeing foreigners and native playgoers.

Yet for us the playhouse signifies more than a physical structure

for the presentation of plays. It has become the symbol of an

entire art. Its construction initiated a glorious decade during

which the company achieved a level of stability and a quality of

productivity rarely matched in the history of the theater. So rich

was the achievement that virtually all interest in the Elizabethan

drama radiates from the work of these years.

Circumstances attendant on the building of the Globe playhouse were

instrumental in developing the distinctiveness of this endeavor.

The new playhouse itself was regarded as the last word in theaters.

Alleyn and Henslowe modeled the Fortune upon it. Dekker, in a

widely known paragraph from _The Gull’s Hornbook_, praised the

wonder of it. In the design of the Globe there were significant

changes from former playhouses. It was a theater built by actors

for actors. To subsidize it a new financial system was instituted

which more fully than heretofore interrelated theater and actors.

Furthermore, young men had recently taken over the entire

enterprise, playhouse and company. Until 1597 James Burbage had

maintained some connection with the Lord Chamberlain’s men. Builder

and owner of the Theatre, lessor of Blackfriars, he had exercised

a strong influence on the course the company took. In the midst

of the uncertainty marking the negotiation for a new lease on

the Theatre, James Burbage died, bequeathing to his sons and, by

association, to the actors an equivocal inheritance. From his

death in 1597 to the building of the Globe in 1599, the company

was adrift, playing mainly at the Curtain. How much responsibility

and authority the elder Burbage had relinquished to the young

men before 1597 is virtually impossible to determine, but the

records indicate that he played an active part in the management

of theatrical affairs until the end of his life.[1] After his

death the erection and success of the Globe devolved upon young,

presumably enthusiastic, but not green men of the theater.

At this time Shakespeare, even then the leading playwright of the

Lord Chamberlain’s men, was passing into a new phase of dramatic

activity. The major tragedies were soon to come from his pen. The

romantic comedies, in a style which he had developed earlier, were

shortly to reach their perfection in _Twelfth Night_. The histories

were to appear no longer. None of the plays written between 1600

and 1609 was considered a history by the editors of the First

Folio. Since _Henry V_, dated 1599, probably appeared before the

completion of the Globe, Shakespeare wrote no history play for

the Globe company. On the other hand, _Titus Andronicus_ and

_Romeo and Juliet_ are the only plays, written before the opening

of the Globe, which were labeled tragedies. Such categorization

is somewhat artificial, but it does accentuate the fact that the

settlement of the company at the Globe was followed shortly by a

shift of emphasis in Shakespeare’s work.

One more significant change occurred at this time. Either a dispute

with his fellows or an irrepressible wanderlust led the leading

clown, Will Kempe, to break with the company. Apparently before

the stage of the Globe was painted and the spectators admitted,

he severed his connection with the Lord Chamberlain’s men, though

he had been among the original five who had taken a moiety of

the lease on the projected playhouse. After his departure, there

followed a period of great stability in the acting company. In the

entire decade there were only two replacements, owing to the deaths

of actors, and three additions with an expansion from nine to

twelve members in 1603.

This nexus of events does not necessarily prove that there was a

stylistic or artistic change in 1599. Nor does it imply that little

in procedure, tradition, and equipment was carried over from the

Theatre and the Curtain to the Globe. But it does indicate that

circumstance and planning combined to modify the character of the

enterprise, to make it not merely a continuation of the past but

the start of a new theatrical endeavor. As such, the opening of the

Globe serves as an excellent point of departure for a special study

of the company sometimes dubbed “Shakespeare’s” but in this book

termed “the Globe.”

In 1608-1609 the King’s men, acquiring the private indoor theater

of Blackfriars, brought the distinctive period to a close, for with

the leasing of Blackfriars, according to Professor Gerald Bentley,

came a change of outlook.[2] He emphasizes two major factors which

led to this change. First, the audience at the private theater

differed markedly from that at the public playhouse: the former

audience was sophisticated and exclusive whereas the latter was

rude and representative. The contrast has been fully elaborated

by Alfred Harbage in _Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions_.

Secondly, the indoor theater, relatively intimate, lit by candles,

required an alteration in style of acting and provided a subtler

control of mood. To substantiate the theory that the King’s men

faced these differences squarely, Bentley cites the employment of

Jonson, skilled in writing for Blackfriars and the Children of

the Queen’s Revels; the appearance of a new type of play from the

leading playwright, now writing with Blackfriars in mind; and the

engagement of Beaumont and Fletcher, neither of whom had previously

written for this company. Altogether the events grouped around the

move to Blackfriars indicate that then too a new start was made,

and Bentley convincingly demonstrates that within a short time

Blackfriars became the leading playhouse for the King’s men in

point of prestige and profit.

Until now I have alluded rather generally to the building of the

Globe in 1599 and to the acquisition of Blackfriars in 1608-1609.

Since the assignment of several plays depends upon a more exact

dating, there is a need to arrive at more precise limits.

Shortly after the 26th of February, 1599, construction of the

Globe commenced under the supervision of Peter Streete, the man

with whom Philip Henslowe and Edward Alleyn contracted a year

later to erect the Fortune theater along the same lines. From

Streete’s building schedule for the Fortune, we can estimate that

the Globe took twenty-eight to thirty weeks to complete, and thus

the earliest opening date would have been in late August or early

September, 1599.[3]

At the Blackfriars playing by the King’s men began sometime between

June 24, 1608, when the company took a lease of the premises, and

the autumn of 1609, when the decline of a severe plague permitted

a resumption of playing. In January, 1609, the players received a

reward from His Majesty “for their private practise in the time of

infeccon.” Testimony by Richard Burbage and John Heminges in 1612

indicates that playing commenced some time during the winter of

1608-1609. A temporary reduction of plague deaths in February and

March, 1609, makes this the likely period during which Shakespeare

and his fellows first played at Blackfriars and so terminated the

Globe years.[4]

In the main the canon of Shakespeare’s plays produced between 1599

and 1609 is set. Several plays are in dispute, but on the whole,

considering the nature of much of the evidence, the degree of

unanimity among scholars is amazing.[5]

Of about nine of the plays sufficient external evidence exists to

verify their placement between 1599 and 1608. There is general

agreement that Platter is referring to Shakespeare’s _Julius

Caesar_ when he describes a performance on September 21, 1599.

Its absence from Meres’ list places it after September 7, 1598,

and Chambers dates the play 1599-1600. _Twelfth Night_, first

mentioned in connection with a performance at the Middle Temple,

February 2, 1602, is variously dated 1599 to 1601. Suggestions

of an initial performance at the Middle Temple by Wilson and at

Whitehall by Hotson do not affect the assignment of date and need

not be discussed here.[6] Despite several attempts to force back

the date of the first draft of _Hamlet_ to 1583, the year 1601 is

still the accepted date for the play as we know it. In an essay

in 1944 Chambers confirmed his dating which appeared in _William

Shakespeare_ (1930). Wilson supports this date, and Gray and

Kirschbaum have argued against the use of Harvey’s marginalia as

evidence of an earlier date.[7]

_Troilus and Cressida_ was written before February 7, 1603, when

it is listed in the Stationers’ Register “as yt is acted by my lo:

Chamblens men.” The implication is of a recent appearance, but

Hotson has made an attempt to set the date back before 1598. The

nub of his argument is that the enigmatic title “Love’s Labour’s

Won,” which appears under Shakespeare’s name in Meres’ list, really

means “Love’s Pains Are Gained,” thus fitting the subject of

_Troilus and Cressida_.[8] This line of reasoning has yet to win

support.

The upper limits of _Othello_, _Measure for Measure_, and _King

Lear_ are set by their performances at Court on November 1, 1604,

December 26, 1604, and December 26, 1606, respectively. The lower

limits are unknown, but no responsible authority has suggested

dating any of these plays before 1602.[9]

The limits for _Antony and Cleopatra_ are set at the upper end by

the listing in the Stationers’ Register of May 20, 1608, and at

the lower by Daniel’s corrections to his _Cleopatra_ in the new

edition of _Certain Small Workes_ (1607). On the same day on which

the entry for _Antony and Cleopatra_ was inserted, _Pericles_ was

registered. This play, however, had been witnessed by the Venetian

ambassador sometime between January 5, 1606, and November 23,

1608.[10]

Stylistic evidence or contemporary allusion serves to date four

plays in this period. _All’s Well That Ends Well_ is dated in

1602-1603 by Chambers, in 1602 by Kittredge and Harbage; all do so

on stylistic evidence. Allusions to the doctrine of equivocation

(II, iii, 9-13) place _Macbeth_ in 1606, and this date is widely

accepted.[11] Stylistic evidence leads most scholars to place

_Timon of Athens_ in 1607-1608, and this type of evidence,

combined with allusions of a tenuous nature, leads them to assign

_Coriolanus_ to 1608.

Several plays are on the borderline at either end of the period.

_As You Like It_, _Much Ado About Nothing_, and _Henry V_ were

“staid” from printing according to the Stationers’ Register entry

of August 4, 1600. Since none of them appears in Meres’ listing

in 1598, they all fall within the two-year intervening period. In

dating _As You Like It_ and _Much Ado About Nothing_ there is very

little evidence for narrowing the period. The appearance of Kemp’s

name in speech prefixes in _Much Ado_ (IV, ii) places it before the

opening of the Globe. O. J. Campbell points out that _As You Like

It_ must have been written after the edict against satire on July

1, 1599. These facts, together with the general consensus, lead

me to include _As You Like It_ in the 1599-1608 repertory and to

exclude _Much Ado_.

_Henry V_ is more narrowly limited by the allusions to Essex’s

campaign in Ireland (Chorus, V, 30-34). The commencement of the

campaign was on March 27, 1599, the sad conclusion on September 28,

1599. Since the Globe did not open until the end of August or early

September, the weight of the evidence excludes _Henry V_. It also

excludes _Cymbeline_ at the end of the decade. Mentioned first by

Simon Forman, who saw a performance between April 20th and 30th,

1611, the play is variously dated in 1609 or 1610. The earliest

date suggested by Chambers is the spring of 1609.

One play, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, remains in dispute.

Despite the conflict with testimony from Meres, Hotson places

the first performance of _Merry Wives_ on April 23, 1597, when

it was supposedly performed for the Knights of the Garter at

Windsor. Alexander accepts this date.[12] Chambers, Kittredge,

and Harbage date the play in 1600-1601, and Chambers points out

the appearance of a line from _Hamlet_, “What is the reason that

you use me thus?” (V, i, 312) in scene xiii of the bad quarto of

_Merry Wives_ (1602). On this basis and in the absence of any

appropriate time when the play could have been performed before

the Queen at a Garter installation, Chambers dates the play in

1600-1601. McManaway admits that many questions about the play are

unanswerable at present, although he grants that there may have

been revisions over a period of years beginning as early as 1597.

Nevertheless, as he notes, its absence from Meres’ list still

remains a bar to an early dating. Consequently, we may treat it as

part of the list of new plays written for the Globe playhouse.[13]

For supplementary evidence about the staging of Shakespeare’s plays

at the Globe, we turn to the pieces of his less gifted colleagues

who supplied the Globe company with scripts. Twelve plays are

extant which we know or have reason to believe were performed

_only_ by the Chamberlain’s or King’s men between 1599 and 1609. Of

these, three were written by Jonson: _Every Man Out of His Humour_,

_Sejanus_, and _Volpone_. The first was written “in the yeere

1599” according to the 1616 Folio, and the revised epilogue refers

to presentation at the Globe. _Sejanus_, according to Jonson,

was “acted, in the yeere 1603. By the K. Maiesties Servants.”

_Volpone_, again according to Jonson, was acted “in the yeere 1605.

By the K. Maiesties Servants.”

Barnes, Wilkins, and possibly Tourneur each contributed one

play to the King’s men’s repertory now extant. Barnes provided

_The Devil’s Charter_, played before the King “by his Maiesties

Servants” on February 2, 1607.[14] Wilkins supplied _Miseries of

Enforced Marriage_. Q. 1607 contains the advertisement “As it is

now played by his Maiesties Servants.” _The Revenger’s Tragedy_,

uncertainly linked with Tourneur’s name, appeared in quarto with

the inscription: “As it hath beene sundry times Acted, by the Kings

Maiesties Servants.” Chambers dates the play 1606-1607.

The remaining six plays are all anonymous and all ascribe

production to the Chamberlain’s or King’s men on the title pages of

their quartos. _A Larum for London_ was registered on May 27, 1600,

and printed in 1602. _Thomas Lord Cromwell_ was registered August

11, 1602, “as it was lately acted.”[15] _Fair Maid of Bristow_,

entered in the Stationers’ Register February 8, 1605, is dated 1604

by Chambers. _The London Prodigal_ appeared in quarto in 1605 and

was probably produced in 1603-1605. _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_,

although registered on October 22, 1607, is mentioned in T. M.’s

_Black Book_ in 1604. Chambers dates the play about 1603. Lastly,

_A Yorkshire Tragedy_, entered May 2, 1608, may have been written a

year or two earlier.[16]

The final additions to the 1599-1608 repertory consist of two plays

which were presented by the Chamberlain-King’s men as well as by

another company. The first, Dekker’s _Satiromastix_, presented

between the production of _Poetaster_ in the spring of 1601 and its

entry in the Stationers’ Register on November 11th of that year,

contains on the Q. 1602 title page the information that it had been

“presented publikely by the ... Lord Chambelaine his Servants; and

privately, by the Children of Paules.” Certainly this was unusual

procedure and must be taken into consideration in applying the play

to Globe stage conditions. The second, Marston’s _The Malcontent_,

dated 1604, was “found” and played by the King’s men, presumably

in retaliation for the theft of one of their plays by the Children

of the Queen’s Revels. The title page and induction of Q. 1604

refer to additions by Marston and Webster in order to accommodate

the play to an adult company. About the status of _The First Part

of Jeronimo_, the stolen play, it is difficult to be exact. Boas

dates the play after 1600.[17] Since the extant Q. 1605 may reflect

the copy of the Revels’ production, _Jeronimo_ has been cited for

supplementary evidence only.

Thus, the final list of extant works first produced at the Globe

playhouse between 1599 and 1609--the Globe plays--consists of

fifteen Shakespearean and fourteen non-Shakespearean plays. Upon

the evidence of these scripts, the bulk of this study is based.

Chapter One

THE REPERTORY

The magnificent dramas of Shakespeare that assumed flesh and motion

upon the Globe stage in its golden decade shared the boards with

hack plays, near cousins to the present-day soap operas and grade-B

westerns. It is easy to forget that the company which produced

_Hamlet_ also presented _The London Prodigal_, and that the same

Burbage who shook the super-flux as Lear may well have portrayed

the ranting, melodramatic husband of _A Yorkshire Tragedy_, a model

indeed of a figure tearing a passion to tatters. Masterpieces and

minor pieces followed one another in rapid succession in the same

playhouse, and the customs of their production were the result of a

single repertory system.

Among the various contending works on Shakespearean stage

production the one subject that is invariably neglected is this

repertory system. And yet, an understanding of how a theatrical

company goes about the business of presenting its plays is a

necessary step in working out a theory of staging. Who sees the

show and who pays the bill more often determine the possibilities

of production than other high-minded considerations. To know what

the Elizabethan repertory system was and how it operated requires

the answers to certain basic questions: How many performances was

a play likely to receive? In what sequence were these performances

given? How long did a play remain in repertory? How long were the

rehearsal periods for new plays? How many roles did an actor have

to command at one time? Where were new plays first presented? In

essence, all these questions can be contained in one all-embracing

question: How did an acting company market its wares? for let

us remember that in the Elizabethan theater we find one of the

earliest examples of theater as a commercial enterprise.

The pattern of performing which I call the repertory system came

into being with the appearance of the first permanent playhouses.

Their erection in London was a sign that the actors had discovered

the means as well as the possibility of gaining the patronage of

the large city populace for long periods of time. No longer did

the players have to be nomads. No longer was it necessary for a

handful of sharers with their apprentices and hired men to trudge

from village to village in order to find paying audiences. After

1570 the nomadic troupes that played London for short engagements

matured into resident companies that toured occasionally. Though

even the most illustrious of the companies continued to travel in

the provinces when conditions demanded, their welfare and status

were tied to the fortunes of the public playhouses. Touring was an

act of desperation. That way lay poverty. Well-being depended upon

permanence and permanence depended upon the effective exploitation

of the potential audience.

Naturally not every Londoner was a playgoer. The average play might

have been witnessed by 30,000 people over a period of a year and a

half. The assumption here is that the play performed to a capacity

audience, each member of which saw the play once. More likely,

however, not more than 15,000 to 20,000 people saw the average

play. To calculate the size of the usual theater-going populace

in London is difficult. One conclusion is evident, however. Given

the capacity of the public playhouse, somewhat between two and

three thousand persons, the companies had to change their bills

frequently if they were to attract sufficient spectators. Their

practices in doing so are the bases of the repertory system.

By 1599, the year in which the Globe playhouse was constructed,

these practices were well established. A five-year period of growth

in the theater preceded the construction of the Globe. A decade of

relative stability in theatrical affairs followed. During those

years it may not have appeared to the professional players that the

time was settled, for a serious plague in 1603 severely curtailed

playing schedules and lively competition from the children’s

companies drew customers to the private theaters after 1600. But

a retrospective survey of the years from 1599 to 1609 makes it

evident that the decade was one of peak prosperity for the public

theaters.

From 1597 to 1602 the Lord Chamberlain’s men and the Lord Admiral’s

men shared a virtual monopoly of public stage presentation. In 1597

the production of _The Isle of Dogs_ by Pembroke’s men had aroused

the ire of the Privy Council, for what offense it is not now clear.

One of the authors, Nashe, fled; Ben Jonson, either as part-author

or as actor, together with two other actors, was imprisoned for

some months. On July 28 all plays were prohibited. Disastrous as

this event was for the Pembroke’s men, it served to strengthen the

Lord Admiral’s and Lord Chamberlain’s men, for in a minute of the

Privy Council, dated February 19, 1598, they alone of the men’s

companies were permitted to play in London. Not until 1602 was the

monopoly successfully challenged. In that year Worcester’s men

received permission to perform in London, and in actuality became

a party to a new tripartite monopoly. Final confirmation of their

privileges came in 1603-1604 when the Stuart family, drawing the

theater under its patronage, dispensed royal patents to each of

them.

A fourth company to receive a patent was the Children of the

Queen’s Revels. The patent is proof that the competition of the

private theaters was a serious matter. For several years between

1600 and 1605 the boys and their literary foster fathers had

achieved a fashionable popularity. But by 1606 the most successful

of these troupes, the Children of the Queen’s Revels, seems to have

forfeited the protection of Her Majesty. Whatever may have been the

reasons, the children’s companies never were able to maintain the

continuity of the men’s companies.

From time to time throughout the decade minor adult companies

drifted into London, played several performances, and departed. An

Earl of Derby’s company appeared at Court for three performances

in 1600 and 1601, thereafter passing into the provinces whence

they had come. Henslowe records two performances by Pembroke’s men

on October 28-30, 1600. No further word is heard of them. One

performance at Court, on January 6, 1603, is noted for Hertford’s

men, otherwise a provincial company. But no professional group

successfully challenged the supremacy of these three leading

companies which, in the course of the decade, became entrenched

in their grand playhouses: the Chamberlain-King’s men at the

Globe, the Admiral-Prince’s men at the Fortune in 1600, and the

Worcester-Queen’s men at the Red Bull about 1605.

Concerning two of these companies, the Lord Admiral’s and

Worcester’s, there is substantial evidence of the ways in which

they functioned. The evidence appears in the diary of Philip

Henslowe, wherein he noted dealings with both companies. The bulk

of the records pertains to the Admiral’s company, for which we

have performance lists from 1592 to 1597 and debit accounts from

1597 to 1603. Records of Worcester’s men appear for a shorter

time in Henslowe’s _Diary_, but the material, debit accounts from

1602-1603, reveals that both companies operated in essentially the

same ways.

For the third of these companies, the Lord Chamberlain’s men, no

similar body of evidence exists. The law cases involving Heminges

with Witter and Thomasina Ostler reveal the presence of a unique

financial arrangement in this company, yet one which continued

alongside the traditional theatrical organization. Like the other

public companies, the Lord Chamberlain’s men were organized into

a partnership of sharers who managed and maintained the group.

As sharers they purchased plays, bought costumes, hired actors,

tiremen, and bookkeepers, paid licensing fees, rented a theater,

shared profits and expenses, and carried on the manifold duties

of a theatrical enterprise. The novelty of the arrangement was

that the company rented the theater from some of its own members.

Richard Burbage, William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillips, John

Heminges, Thomas Pope, in varying proportions, owned profitable

shares in the Globe playhouse. This overlapping of proprietary

interests may tend to obscure the actual similarity of the

Chamberlain’s theatrical organization to that of its rivals, for

though the financing of the companies differed, the system of

management was the same.

Evidence pertaining to actual performances by the Lord

Chamberlain’s men is rare. What clues we have take the form partly

of letters or notes discovered among nontheatrical documents and

concerned only secondarily with the stage and partly of records of

Court performances or title pages of texts that provide us with

occasional information about what was appearing on the boards of

the Globe. Alone, these items bear little weight. Their principal

value lies in their agreement with the conditions reflected in

Henslowe’s _Diary_, and it is to this source that we must turn to

secure a picture of how plays were produced in the Elizabethan

age.[1]

The theatrical periods for which Henslowe kept records cannot be

considered seasons in the modern sense. During the severe plague

of 1592-1594, playing all but ceased. After the abatement of the

disease and a false start at Newington Butts, the Lord Admiral’s

men commenced regular performances at the Rose on June 17, 1594.

Playing continued without unusual interruption until the following

March 14, 1595. After the Lenten season, the company recommenced

playing on Easter Monday, April 21st, and played through June 26th.

During the summer season the tour in the provinces was brief,

for the company reopened on August 25th and again played without

exceptional interruption through February 28, 1596. Performances

resumed on April 12th, again after Lent, and continued through

July 18, 1596. Here occurred an unusually long summer break which

lasted until October 27th, during which time the company traveled

in the provinces. Save for a curious suspension from November 16th

through the 24th, the company played at the Rose from October

27th until February 12, 1597. A brief Lenten observance followed,

and performances began again on March 3rd and continued until

July 19th. The presentation of _The Isle of Dogs_ halted general

theatrical activity on July 20th,[2] and although the Rose opened

on July 27th and 28th, the Privy Council order of the latter date

suspended all playing until “Alhallontide next.”

In the preceding schedule we may discern a more or less regular

pattern of playing. A Lenten suspension is almost invariably

observed, though the duration of the observance varies. A less

regular summer break, usually from mid-July to October, intervenes,

the length of time depending upon the severity of the plague.

Finally, during the Christmas holidays performances are given about

half the days of the month. During each December from 1594 through

1596 this interruption occurs, and is presumably the result of the

company’s activity at and about the Court.

The day by day program of the Lord Admiral’s men follows the same

sort of irregularity, as a glance at two weeks of performances will

show.

Let us choose a time from an ordinary, uneventful season. On Monday

afternoon of November 10, 1595,[3] if we had crossed the Thames

to the Rose on the Bankside, we should have seen _Longshank_, a

reasonably new play. Already it had had four performances, having

opened for the first time on the previous August 28th. However,

we might have discovered that this was an old play newly revived,

Peele’s _Edward I_. On Tuesday, the 11th, the company presented

_The Disguises_, an even newer play, having opened on the previous

2nd of October. It had already been played five times and oddly

enough this day’s performance, the sixth, would be its last. On

Wednesday and Thursday, we could have seen the first and second

parts of _Tamberlaine_. Both plays had been doing brisk business,

Part I from the time of its revival on August 30th, 1594, and