CHAPTER FOUR. THE ACTING

[1] Alfred Harbage, “Elizabethan Acting,” _P.M.L.A._, LIV (1939), 687. Although Professor Harbage modified his views later (“B. L. Joseph, _Elizabethan Acting_,” _S.Q._, II (1951), 360-361. A Review.) and arrived at the position that I describe on pp. 157 ff., his original thesis has served as the basis for most discussion of the subject and may well be used as a point of departure. In _Theatre for Shakespeare_ (Toronto, 1955), he reprints his original article as a “personal indulgence.”

[2] W. F. McNeir, “E. Gayton on Elizabethan Acting,” _P.M.L.A._, LVI (1941), 579-583; Robert H. Bowers, “Gesticulation in Elizabethan Acting,” _So. Folklore Quarterly_, XII (1948), 267-277; A. G. H. Bachrach, “The Great Chain of Acting,” _Neophilologus_, XXXIII (1949), 160-172; Bertram L. Joseph, _Elizabethan Acting_ (London, 1951). In a later book, _The Tragic Actor_ (London, 1959), Joseph disclaims any intention of associating formality with oratory. Both acting and oratory “had the same object, the imitation of human emotions as they are to be recognized in human beings in life” (pp. 19-21). In effect, he adopts the position of the naturalists (p. 27).

[3] Joseph, _Elizabethan Acting_, p. 1.

[4] Harbage, “Elizabethan Acting,” 698. Quoted from the ms. of _The Cyprian Conqueror_.

[5] Joseph, _Elizabethan Acting_, p. 60.

[6] John Russel Brown, “On the Acting of Shakespeare’s Plays,” _Quarterly Journal of Speech_, XXXIX (1953), 477-484; Marvin Rosenberg, “Elizabethan Actors: Men or Marionettes?” _P.M.L.A._, LXIX (1954), 915-927; R. A. Foakes, “The Player’s Passion: Some Notes on Elizabethan Psychology and Acting,” _Essays and Studies_, VII (1954), pp. 62-77.

[7] Foakes, 76.

[8] Leonard Cox, _The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke_ (1527-1530), ed. Frederic I. Carpenter (Chicago, 1899); Richard Sherry, _A Treatise of the figures of grammar and rhethorike_ (1555); Richard Rainolde, _A Book called the foundation of Rhetorike_ (1562); Roger Ascham, _The Schoolmaster_ (1570); Gabriel Harvey, _Rhetor_ (1577); Dudley Fenner, _Artes of Logicke and Rhetoric_ (1584); Henry Peacham, _The Garden of Eloquence_ (1593), ed. William G. Crane (Gainesville, Fla., 1954); John Hoskins, _Directions for Speech and Style_ (c. 1590), ed. Hoyt H. Hudson (Princeton, 1935); Edmund Coote, _The Englishe Schoole-Maister_ (1596); Alexander van den Busche, _The Orator_, tr. L. P. (Anthony Munday?) (1596); Sir Francis Bacon, _Works_, ed. James Spedding (London, 1858), vols. iv-vi.

[9] Abraham Fraunce, _The Arcadian Rhetorike_ (1588), ed. Ethel Seaton (Oxford, 1950), p. 107. Succeeding material has been taken from pp. 112-128.

[10] Baldassare Castiglione, _The Courtier_, tr. T. Hoby (1561), reprinted in Everyman’s Library Edition (London, 1944), p. 56.

[11] Fraunce, p. 106.

[12] Hoskins, p. 2.

[13] Peacham, Sig. U1^v-U2^r.

[14] Sir Thomas Elyot, _The Boke named the Governour_ (1531), folios 48-49.

[15] William G. Crane, Introduction to Peacham, p. 23.

[16] Sir Francis Bacon, _The Advancement of Learning_, in _Works_, IV, pp. 456-457.

[17] Alan S. Downer, “The Tudor Actor: A Taste of his Quality,” _Theatre Notebook_, V (1951), 77; Leslie Hotson, _Shakespeare’s Motley_ (New York, 1952).

[18] Albert L. Walker, “Conventions in Shakespeare’s Description of Emotion,” _P.Q._, XVII (1938), 26-56.

[19] Examination of Augustine Phillips. Chambers, _William Shakespeare_, II, p. 325.

[20] _Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar and Orlando Furioso_, ed. W. W. Greg. The parallel texts of the 1594 Quarto and Alleyn’s part occupy pages 142-201.

[21] Compare part line 221 with play line 1171; part lines 223-224 with play line 1175; part line 165 with play line 1012.

[22] Thomas W. Baldwin, _The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company_ (Princeton, 1927). See charts opposite p. 229.

[23] _Ibid._, pp. 197, 232, 248.

[24] Hardin Craig, _The Enchanted Glass_ (New York, 1950), pp. 225-226.

[25] Louise Forest, “Caveat for Critics against invoking Elizabethan Psychology,” _P.M.L.A._, LXI (1946), 657.

[26] Foakes, 65.

[27] Theodore Spencer, _Shakespeare and the Nature of Man_ (New York, 1943); Lily B. Campbell, _Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes. Slaves of Passion_ (New York, 1952); E. M. W. Tillyard, _The Elizabethan World Picture_ (London, 1948); John W. Draper, _The Humors and Shakespeare’s Characters_ (Durham, N. C., 1945).

[28] Timothy Bright, _A Treatise of Melancholie_ (1586), pp. 51-52.

[29] Bacon, IV, 432.

[30] Elyot, pp. 146 ff.

[31] Bacon, IV, 457.

[32] F. N. Coeffeteau, _A Table of Humane Passions_, tr. Edward Grimeston (1621); Ruth Anderson, _Elizabethan Psychology and Shakespeare’s Plays_ in _University of Iowa Studies_, III (March 15, 1927), 72 ff.; Campbell, p. 69.

[33] Thomas Wright, _The Passions of the Minde_ (1601), p. 88, as quoted by Lawrence Babb, _The Elizabethan Malady_ (East Lansing, Mich., 1950), pp. 17 ff.

[34] Babb, p. 13.

[35] Craig, p. 124.

[36] The display of wit as an individualizing element is usually limited to the following types: ladies, pages or boys, satirists such as Jaques and Thersites, clowns, gulls, braggarts, and occasional generic figures such as gentlemen and citizens. The only characters outside of these types who engage in wit play in Shakespeare’s Globe plays are Paris (_Troilus and Cressida_, III, i), Lafew, Abhorson, Shallow, and Evans (_Merry Wives of Windsor_, I, i), also in the same play, Pistol and Nym (I, iii) and the Host (II, iii; III, i). Also Iago (who may be considered a satirist) and Polonius (II, ii).

[37] Draper, for example, considers Cassio a choleric type, yet his description of the sanguine personality would fit as well (p. 15). The sanguine type, as Draper describes it, displays a predominance of blood, a handsome physique, ruddy color, a full body, susceptibility to love, honesty, trueness, and gaiety (pp. 18-23). This description fits Cassio.