Chapter Six
THE STYLE
The conclusions which I have drawn in this essay apply only to production at the Globe playhouse from 1599 to 1609. From them it is clear that the staging of the plays was influenced less by the structure of the stage than we have hitherto thought. When William Poel undertook to demonstrate how a knowledge of the use of an Elizabethan stage is conducive to a proper appreciation of Elizabethan plays, he embarked upon a necessary and salutary crusade. Almost every recent Shakespearean production attests to its success. However, the effect of his campaign has led to an overemphasis upon the importance of Elizabethan stage structure to production. Such studies as those of V. E. Albright, J. C. Adams, G. F. Reynolds, and Ronald Watkins are based on the assumption that the stage structure and its machinery played the decisive role in the presentation of an Elizabethan drama. This premise is not supported by the evidence. Certainly the basic form of the stage affected both the structure of the plays and the manner in which they were produced. The large platform and formal façade determined the fundamental conditions of production. But the actual production of a drama relied upon specific parts of this stage much less than we have thought. Style in staging was inherent in the dramatic form, not the stage structure.
The style of acting at the Globe played as much a part in the shaping of production as the stage structure itself. But Elizabethan acting lacked both the histrionic traditions and the fertile conditions for the development of a self-perpetuating style. Instead, the actor, endowed with a keen tongue, an agile body, and most of all, a passionate heart, fitted his skills and talents to the needs of the plays. Unlike the _commedia_ actors or the naturalistic actors of the Stanislavsky school, the Elizabethan actor did not impose a mode of presentation upon the individual scripts. This fact in no way reduces his importance to the production; it merely means that his style of playing was derived from the drama. Although the actors employed the playwrights, they did not dictate the kind of roles which were to be provided.
All factors of production, of course, were modified by the exigencies of the repertory system. Simplicity and recurrence in staging were direct results of such a system. It demanded flexibility from the actors and from the stage. Because of the practice of doubling in most plays, and the daily change of bill, the system prevented the development of special “lines.” Altogether the strenuous demands it made upon the actors encouraged individual brilliance and bold strokes but discouraged intricately designed spectacle, ensemble playing, or extensive rehearsal.
Subject to the conditions of the repertory system, the script played the dominant part in shaping the style of production. Naturally the form of the script harmonized with the structure of the stage and the manner of acting. The platform stage encouraged the growth of a panoramic narrative form of drama. The actor’s rhetorical and poetical skill, and his freedom of emotional release enabled the author to provide him with speeches of swelling passion. But it was the script which united these elements into a harmonious theatrical style.
This style, within certain limits, was realistic, not because of the subject matter of the narrative but because of the many opportunities that it offered for the description and portrayal of passion and thought. True, the framework of the passion and thought was conventional, but the conventionality had its source, for the most part, in the ceremony of Elizabethan life, which was artificial only in the Elizabethan sense of having art. Within this conventional framework, which facilitated narration as well as imparted form to the acting and staging, there operated a spontaneous, lyrical, and intensely emotionalized reality. A conventional framework, however, must not be equated with a symbolic method.
Recent scholarship has looked with increasing favor upon George Reynolds’ contention that Elizabethan staging was fundamentally symbolic. Kernodle has shown how symbolism functioned in medieval art and continental staging but has been less successful in showing its presence upon the English stage. Both scholars have pointed out individual instances of symbolic staging during the Globe period, but neither of them has demonstrated the consistent use of symbolism throughout a number of plays or an entire production. Nor is there evidence that a pattern of symbolism pervaded the action of the Globe plays. It is significant that few of the properties which we know were used at that playhouse reveal a symbolic purpose. For the most part they are utilitarian. Those properties which are most readily suited to symbolism, such as trees, have no certain representatives at the Globe playhouse. Although I have pointed out several instances where symbolic staging was or may have been introduced at the Globe, its occasional appearance did not establish the over-all style.
This style is chiefly characterized by its reconciliation of the contradictory demands of convention and reality. The two forces were maintained in delicate balance through the poetic vision of the playwrights, most completely by Shakespeare, to a lesser extent by his contemporaries. To call this style realism leads us to confuse it with the realism of modern drama. To call this style symbolism, even though it avails itself of symbols to a limited extent, leads us astray. Perhaps it is necessary to reflect the dual nature of the style in a compound term. For the conventional framework, the adjective “ceremonial” is appropriate. For the passion which lies within the conventional framework and which even permeates its interstices, the adjective “romantic” is appropriate. For the scope of the theme and the elevation of the tone, the adjective “epic” is appropriate. Thus, the style of production at the Globe playhouse may be defined as at once, ceremonial, romantic, and epic.
APPENDIX A
i. Comparison of Plays Known Only Through Henslowe with Plays Otherwise Known
Total number of plays listed in the performance lists of Henslowe’s _Diary_ 113
Plays known only through Henslowe’s _Diary_ 62 54.9%
Plays known only through the _Diary_ and Henslowe’s _Papers_ 5 4.4
Plays known otherwise than through Henslowe’s _Diary_ or _Papers_ 24 21.2%
Plays which scholars have identified with works otherwise known (22) Identification is probable for 10 8.9 Identification is improbable for 12 10.6
Plays definitely and probably unknown but ----- ----- for Henslowe 69.9%
Plays definitely and probably otherwise known 30.1%
Of those known otherwise than through Henslowe 34 plays gave 403 performances
Of those unknown but through Henslowe 79 plays gave 496 performances
ii. Length of Runs of Plays Listed in Henslowe’s _Diary_, ed. W. W. Greg, I, 13-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30, 42, 49-54
1. Number of Performances
_No. of Plays_ _No. of Plays_ _No. of_ _between_ _between_ _Perfs._ _1592-1597_(a) _1594-1597_(b)
1 19 5 2 15 5 3 8 1 4 7 4 5 4 0 6 3 2 7 7 4 8 5 4 9 4 3 10 6 2 11 6 4 12 8 7 13 3 2 14 4 3 15 2 2 16 2 2 17 2 1 21 1 1 22 2 2 25 2 2 29 1 0 32 1 1 36 1 0
(a) Full performance list, 1592-1597: 113 plays. Average number of performances: 7.9; mean number of performances: 7.
(b) Partial performance list, June, 1594-February, 1597, limits of the most stable period. Average number of performances: 10; mean number of performances: 10.
2. Length of Time
_1592-_ _1594-_ _1597_(c) _1597_(d) (_No. Plays_ _Years_ _Mos._ _and Percentage_)
1 30 26.5 9 15.8
2 16 } 5 } 3 6 } 2 } 4 7 } 31.0 3 } 22.8 5 5 } 3 } 6 1 } 0 }
7 7 } 5 } 8 7 } 6 } 9 3 } 24.8 2 } 33.3 10 5 } 4 } 11 6 } 2 }
1 0 2 } 2 } 1 1 2 } 2 } 1 3 2 } 8.0 2 } 15.8 1 4 1 } 1 } 1 7 1 } 1 } 1 8 1 } 1 }
2 0 1 } 3.5 1 } 5.3 2 2 3 } 2 }
3 2 1 .9 1 1.8
Revived(e) 6 5.3 3 5.2
(c) 1592-1597, 113 plays.
(d) June, 1594-February, 1597, 57 plays.
(e) Length of run is counted continuously when a play is performed regularly, there being no more than four months between performances. Otherwise the play is considered to be a revival.
iii. Summary of Court Performances, 1590-1642
Total number of plays that were or may have been presented at Court, 1590-1642 144
1. Plays definitely produced publicly before appearance at Court 67 46.5%
2. Plays where initial performance is uncertain 39 27.1% (Notice of Court performance is _only_ or _first_ reference to play.)
3. Plays for which there is evidence public playing preceded Court performance 8 5.5%
4. Uncertain. Title pages indicate performances in public and at Court 6 4.2%
5. Plays the title pages of which refer only to public performance 4 2.8%
6. Plays which received licenses shortly before Court performances 8 5.5%
7. Old plays revived, possibly with additions for Court 4 2.8%
8. Plays definitely presented at Court first 7 4.9%
9. Plays probably presented at Court first 1 .1%
The total number of plays presented at Court is calculated from the lists appearing in E. K. Chambers, _The Elizabethan Stage_ and Mary Steele, _Plays and Masques at Court_. The investigation of the circumstances under which the plays received their first presentations employed a wide variety of primary and secondary sources. It is beyond the scope of this book to give the evidence for each conclusion.
APPENDIX B
i. Localization in Shakespeare’s Globe Plays
Type of Locale _Total_ _Play_ _Particular_ _General_ _Neutral_ _Scenes_ P D P D P D
Julius Caesar 6 2 9 1 18(f) As You Like It 1 3 18 22 Twelfth Night 2 4 9 3 18 Hamlet 1 3 10 6 20 Merry Wives of Windsor 3 13 1 5 1 23 Troilus and Cressida 4 6 2 11 1 24 All’s Well 1 1 17 1 3 23 Measure for Measure 6 4 2 4 1 17(g) Othello 1 3 5 2 4 15 Lear 2 1 2 14 1 3 23(h) Macbeth 1 2 8 9 7 27 Antony and Cleopatra 4 8 15 8 7 42 Coriolanus 3 4 9 8 3 2 29 Timon of Athens 4 1 4 5 1 2 17(i) Pericles 2 5 4 12 4 27(j) -- -- -- --- -- -- --- Total 41 38 67 142 24 33 345
P. probably D. definitely
(f) IV, ii and iii treated separately.
(g) Number of scenes for _Measure for Measure_ is based on Folio numbering.
(h) II, ii-iv are treated as one scene following Quarto and Folio.
(i) IV, iii-iv are treated as one scene.
(j) Choruses involving dumb shows are treated as scenes.
ii. Properties Required in the Globe Plays
THE SHAKESPEAREAN PLAYS:
_Property_ _Plays_ _Scenes_ _Method of Introduction_
Tables Othello I, iii probably discovered Pericles II, iii no indication Antony and Cleopatra II, vii brought on Antony and Cleopatra I, ii brought on Timon I, ii brought on Timon III, vi brought on Macbeth III, iv probably brought on As You Like It II, v probably brought on Hamlet V, ii brought on Macbeth V, i use uncertain Julius Caesar IV, iii use uncertain
Seats Antony and Cleopatra II, vii brought on (stool) Coriolanus II, ii brought on (stool) Othello V, ii brought on King Lear IV, vii brought on Julius Caesar III, i probably brought on Hamlet I, i probably brought on Measure for Measure V, i probably brought on All’s Well II, i probably brought on Pericles V, i probably brought on Pericles V, i probably discovered Antony and Cleopatra III, x probably brought on Coriolanus I, iii probably brought on Hamlet III, iv no indication King Lear III, vi no indication Julius Caesar IV, iii no indication Pericles I, ii no indication All’s Well II, iii no indication Coriolanus V, iii no indication Antony and Cleopatra II, ii no indication Macbeth III, iv probably discovered Hamlet III, ii no indication King Lear III, vii no indication
Beds Antony and Cleopatra V, ii taken off Pericles III, i probably discovered Othello V, ii probably discovered Julius Caesar IV, iii no indication (cushions) King Lear III, vii probably discovered (cushions) Pericles V, i discovered
Scaffold Antony and Cleopatra IV, xvi probably brought on Julius Caesar III, ii brought on Troilus and Cressida I, ii probably brought on
Tombs Timon V, iii no indication Pericles IV, iv no indication
Tents Julius Caesar IV, ii use uncertain All’s Well III, vi use uncertain Troilus and Cressida I, iii use uncertain
Trees, As You Like It III, ii use uncertain Rocks, All’s Well IV, i use uncertain etc. As You Like It II, v use uncertain King Lear V, ii use uncertain Antony and Cleopatra IV, xiii use uncertain Timon IV, iii use uncertain Twelfth Night II, v no indication Hamlet III, ii no indication
Straw King Lear III, iv discovered Julius Caesar V, v no indication Julius Caesar V, iii use uncertain Merry Wives of Windsor V, vi use uncertain
Statue Julius Caesar III, i use uncertain
Desk Merry Wives of Windsor I, iv use uncertain
Stocks King Lear II, ii brought on
Cauldron Macbeth IV, i taken off
Chest Pericles III, ii brought on
Corpses Pericles I, i probably discovered
Total number of properties 65 Less properties whose use is uncertain 15 Total number of properties used 50
Properties brought on 12 24% } Properties probably brought on 11 22% } 50% Properties taken off 2 4% }
Properties discovered 2 4% } Properties probably discovered 7 14% } 18%
Properties for whom method of introduction is not indicated 16 32%
THE NON-SHAKESPEAREAN PLAYS:(k)
_Property_ _Plays_ _Scenes_ _Method of Introduction_
Tables Every Man Out of His Humour II, ii use uncertain Every Man Out of His Humour V, iv no indication Cromwell vii brought on Devil’s Charter IV, iv use uncertain Devil’s Charter Prologue probably brought on Devil’s Charter IV, iii brought on Devil’s Charter V, vi brought on Devil’s Charter V, iv brought on Fair Maid of Bristow i use uncertain Miseries of Enforced Marriage xii brought on Revenger’s Tragedy V, iii brought on
Seats Merry Devil of Edmonton Prologue discovered London Prodigal ii probably brought on Yorkshire Tragedy viii brought on Miseries of Enforced Marriage xii brought on Devil’s Charter IV, v probably brought on Devil’s Charter V, vi discovered Devil’s Charter V, vi brought on Devil’s Charter I, v brought on Devil’s Charter Prologue brought on Devil’s Charter II, i no indication Devil’s Charter I, iv discovered Cromwell vi discovered Every Man Out of His Humour II, ii probably brought on Every Man Out of His Humour Chorus brought on Sejanus II, ii no indication Sejanus III, i probably brought on Volpone V, xii probably brought on Volpone IV, v probably brought on Volpone V, iii brought on Revenger’s Tragedy I, ii no indication Revenger’s Tragedy V, i probably discovered
Beds Merry Devil of Edmonton Prologue discovered Devil’s Charter IV, v taken off Volpone I, ii no indication Revenger’s Tragedy I, iv discovered Revenger’s Tragedy II, iv no indication
Tents Devil’s Charter Prologue probably brought on Devil’s Charter IV, iv no indication
Scaffold Volpone II, ii brought on Fair Maid of Bristow xiii taken off
Raised Every Man Out of His Structure Humour III, ii no indication
Writing Miseries of Enforced Desk Marriage iii use uncertain Miseries of Enforced Marriage iv use uncertain Cromwell iii discovered Volpone V, ii no indication
Trees, Merry Devil of Edmonton x use uncertain Rocks, Merry Devil of Edmonton x use uncertain etc. Merry Devil of Edmonton i use uncertain Miseries of Enforced Marriage ix no indication Miseries of Enforced Marriage ix use uncertain Every Man Out of His Humour III, iii use uncertain
Gibbets A Larum for London viii use uncertain A Larum for London xi use uncertain
Post A Larum for London xiv use uncertain Cromwell v use uncertain Every Man Out of His Humour III, i use uncertain
Tortoise Volpone IV, iv no indication
Chest Volpone I, i no indication
Altar Sejanus V, iv no indication
Magic Glass Devil’s Charter IV, i discovered
Statue Devil’s Charter I, ii use uncertain
Earthen Vessel Devil’s Charter IV, i brought on
Prop Lion or Dragon Devil’s Charter IV, i brought on
Cupboard Devil’s Charter V, iv brought on
Hearse A Larum for London ii brought on
Cannon A Larum for London II, ii use uncertain
Corpse Revenger’s Tragedy V, i no indication
Total number of properties 68 Less properties whose use is uncertain 17 Total number of properties used 51
Properties brought on 18 35.3% } Properties probably brought on 8 15.7% } 54.9% Properties taken off 2 3.9% }
Properties discovered 8 15.7% } 17.6% Properties probably discovered 1 1.9% }
Properties for which method of introduction is not indicated 14 27.5%
(k) This list of properties does not include properties from _Satiromastix_ or _The Malcontent_.
APPENDIX C
i. Disguise
_Play_(l) _Character_ _Dress_ _Manner_ _Voice_ _Face_
_As You Like It_ Rosalind II, iv, 4-8 I, iii, 122-124 III, ii, 313-315
_Twelfth Night_ Viola I, iv, s.d. I, V, 177-236 I, iv, 29-34 _Twelfth Night_ Feste IV, ii, 1 IV, ii, 22-23 IV, ii, 71-72 IV, ii, 2
_Measure for Measure_ Duke I, iii, 45-48 I, iii, 45-48 II, iii, 1-42
_Coriolanus_ Coriolanus IV, iv, s.d. IV, v, 59 ff.
_Pericles_ Pericles II, ii, 48-52 _Pericles_ Thaisa(m) V, iii, 13-15
_Julius Caesar_ Lucilius(n)
_Merry Wives of Windsor_ Ford(o) II, ii (?) _Merry Wives of Windsor_ Falstaff IV, ii, 190 ff. _Merry Wives of Windsor_ Children, Evans V, iv, 49-52 V, v
_Othello_ Roderigo I, iii, 346(?)
_King Lear_ Kent I, iv, 1-4 II, ii, 1-180 I, iv, 1 f. _King Lear_ Edgar (Poor Tom) II, iii, 10 II, iii, 9-20 II, iii, 14-20 II, iii, 9(?) III, iv, 66 III, iv _King Lear_ Edgar (Peasant) IV, i, 40-44 IV, vi IV, vi, 7 f., 45 ff. _King Lear_ Edgar (Cornishman) IV, vi, 235-251 _King Lear_ Edgar (Champion) V, iii, 117, 142
_Devil’s Charter_ Candie, Caesar F3^v
_Merry Devil of Edmonton_ Raymond as Friar D2^r
_London Prodigal_ Old Flowerdale A2^r A2^r G4^r 18-20 _London Prodigal_ Luce F1^v F1^v F1^v
_Cromwell_ Hodge, Bedford C4^v 26-D1^v 27 C4^v 26-D1^v 27
_Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ John, Thomas
_Fair Maid of Bristow_ Harbart B1^v 28-2^v 16 B1^v 28-2^v 16 _Fair Maid of Bristow_ Challener B1^v _Fair Maid of Bristow_ Sentloe E3^r 20 E3^{r-v} _Fair Maid of Bristow_ Anabell E4^v (?)
_Volpone_ Volpone (Scoto) II, iv II, iv, 30-36 _Volpone_ Volpone (sick) I, iii-v III, iii-v, vii, ix IV, vi _Volpone_ Volpone (Commandant) V, iii _Volpone_ Peregrine V, iv, 1
_Revenger’s Tragedy_ Vindice I, i I, i
(l) _The Malcontent_ is not included in this list although its plot is based completely upon a disguise. In this play the basic disguise is manner (see I, i). Malevole and Celso converse about the former’s loss of his dukedom (213-255). On the entrance of Bilioso, however, “Malevole shifteth his speech,” that is, he adopts his satiric manner. This treatment of disguise is similar to that in _The Revenger’s Tragedy_.
(m) Time here helps to disguise Thaisa.
(n) Lucilius claims to be Brutus, but he is immediately recognized.
(o) Ford may have a change of clothing, particularly considering that Falstaff sees him at his house in IV, ii, and Ford visits him again in V, i.
ii. Formal Scenes in Shakespeare’s Globe Plays requiring more than five characters
Single Combat Scenes
_As You Like It_, I, ii; _Merry Wives of Windsor_, III, i; _Troilus and Cressida_, IV, v; _Coriolanus_, III, i.
Banquet Scenes
_As You Like It_, II, vii; _Macbeth_, III, iv; _Antony and Cleopatra_, II, vii; _Timon_, I, ii.
Hearing or Trial Scenes
_Merry Wives of Windsor_, I, i (?); _Measure for Measure_, II, i; _Othello_, I, iii; _Lear_, II, ii; _Coriolanus_, III, iii.
Council or Senate Scenes
_Hamlet_, I, ii; _Lear_, I, i; _Othello_, I, iii; _Coriolanus_, II, ii; _Julius Caesar_, III, i.
Play-Within-Play Scenes
_Hamlet_, II, ii; III, ii.
Procession Scenes
_Hamlet_, V, i; _All’s Well_, III, v; _Troilus and Cressida_, I, ii; III, iii; _Macbeth_, IV, i; _Coriolanus_, II, i; _Pericles_, II, ii; _Julius Caesar_, III, i.
Welcoming Scenes
_Troilus and Cressida_, IV, v; _Othello_, II, i; _Macbeth_, I, vi; _Timon_, I, i.
Alarum Scene
_Macbeth_, II, iii.
Parley Scenes
_Antony and Cleopatra_, II, ii; II, vi; _Julius Caesar_, V, i.
Finales
_As You Like It_, V, iv; _Twelfth Night_, V, iv; _Merry Wives of Windsor_, V, v; _Hamlet_, V, ii; _All’s Well_, V, iii; _Measure for Measure_, V, i; _Othello_, V, ii; _Lear_, V, iii; _Macbeth_, V, viii; _Coriolanus_, V, vi; _Antony and Cleopatra_, V, ii; _Pericles_, V, iii.
The only plays whose finales do not fall into this category of group scenes are _Julius Caesar, Timon of Athens_, and _Troilus and Cressida_. Their finales fall into the first category of group scenes, less than five characters with mute supernumeraries. Each of three scenes (_Troilus and Cressida_, IV, v; _Othello_, I, iii; and _Julius Caesar_, III, i) contains two types of formal actions within the single scene.
iii. The Use of the Above: Two Special Instances
_Julius Caesar_, V, iii
The stage direction “Pindarus above” together with the stage direction, “Enter Pindarus,” makes it almost certain that the above and not a platform was used. None of the scaffold scenes has a stage direction “above” or an “enter.” In this instance, then, we must suppose that either Cassius spoke very slowly or Pindarus moved very quickly, for only two and a half lines cover his ascent and two lines his descent.
_Antony and Cleopatra_, IV, xv
The physical factors that have to be satisfied in staging the monument scene are (1) Cleopatra is aloft with her women; (2) Diomedes reports Antony’s suicide and then tells her to look out the other side of the monument to see Antony; (3) Antony is heaved aloft as Cleopatra calls for aid, but not specifically from Diomedes. Diomedes, it is necessary to note, is Cleopatra’s, not Antony’s, servant; (4) Antony’s body is carried out at the end of the scene.
Warren Smith suggests that a scaffold was utilized for the monument (“Evidence of Scaffolding on Shakespeare’s Stage,” _R.E.S._, N.S. II (1951), 29). This is unlikely in view of the specific direction placing the action “aloft.” Wherever scaffolds are otherwise used (_Troilus and Cressida_, I, ii; _Julius Caesar_, III, ii; _Volpone_, II, ii; _Fair Maid of Bristow_, Sig. E4^r-F2^v), the term “aloft” or “above” is never introduced. Smith also fails to satisfy the final direction, “Exit bearing Anthony.” The monument must be connected to the tiring house. At the same time there is no indication of a curtain. Consequently, I suppose the monument to be located above. What of factor (2)? It is generally supposed that the stage direction, “Enter Diomed,” refers to an entrance on the platform. Kittredge adds “below” after this stage direction. But this is not the necessary interpretation. If Diomedes entered above, and reported in messenger fashion to his mistress, Cleopatra, his injunction to “Look out o’ th’ other side your monument” could easily mean “Look out front.” In messenger fashion he leaves after making his report. The last problem concerns raising Antony. The agency for doing so was the combined energy of more than four boys (Cleopatra, Charmian, Iras, and her maids who appear for the first time) and of at least four men. How high the body had to be raised is uncertain. J. C. Adams calculates the above was 12’ above the floor and had a 2’6” railing. Hodges’ estimate is less, about 10’. Neither 10’ nor 12’ are prohibitive heights although a railing would be difficult to work over. Perhaps it was possible to remove a portion of the railing. Despite the obstacles, however, Antony was raised in a manner which, we must suppose, was not ludicrous.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
[1] C. W. Wallace, _The First London Theatre_ (Lincoln, Neb., 1913), p. 24.
[2] Gerald E. Bentley, “Shakespeare and the Blackfriars Theatre,” _Shakespeare Survey_, I (1948), p. 47.
[3] Peter Streete agreed, in this contract dated January 8, 1600, to complete his construction by July 25, 1600 (E. K. Chambers, _The Elizabethan Stage_ (Oxford, 1923), II, p. 438), a period of about twenty-eight weeks. However, it was covenanted that “the saide Peeter Streete shall not be chardged with anie manner of pay[ntin]ge in or aboute the saide fframe howse or Stadge or anie parte thereof, nor rendringe the walls within” (Chambers, II, p. 437). Consequently, we must add to the twenty-eight weeks an indeterminate period during which the playhouse was painted, thus bringing the estimated completion of the Fortune to some time in August at least. It is probable that in computing the schedule for the Fortune, Streete utilized his experience at the Globe, particularly since the new stage was to be so much like the Globe’s. Streete would find such computation easy after allowing for differences in building conditions. On the one hand the fact that the timber from the Theatre was to be used for the Globe suggests that the frame for the Globe took less time to erect. On the other hand, the fact that the Globe had to be built on piles might reasonably suggest that laying its foundations required more time. If Henslowe’s notation of payment “to the laberers at the eand of the fowndations the 8 of maye 1600” (Philip Henslowe, _Papers_, ed. W. W. Greg, p. 10), correctly reflects the time consumed in erecting these of the Fortune, a matter of about sixteen weeks, then we must assume that the base of the Globe was not ready to take a frame until the middle of June. As Henslowe’s _Diary_ and _Papers_ indicate, Streete probably consummated his portion of the contract somewhat later than he had estimated, that is, about the first week in August (Henslowe, p. 11). But even if there were some delay, as Greg believes, Streete had erred merely by a matter of two weeks. I believe that his initial estimate, fundamentally reliable, reflected his experience at the Globe.
[4] Among others Heminges testified that he shared in profits from the presentation of plays at Blackfriars for four years previous to 1612 (Kirkham vs. Painton, as reprinted in F. G. Fleay, _A Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (London, 1890), pp. 225, 235, 238, 244, 249). The only time when the plague bills declined sufficiently to permit the possibility of performances was in March, 1609. The weekly count of plague deaths was thirty-two as of March 2, forty-three as of March 9, and thirty-three as of March 16. Thereafter, the plague increased in severity and the weekly number of deaths fell below forty only once again before December, 1609. (Statistics from John Bell, _London’s Remembrancer_ (London, 1665) as reprinted in J. T. Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_ (London, 1910), II, pp. 186-187.)
[5] E. K. Chambers, _William Shakespeare_ (Oxford, 1930), I; Alfred Harbage, _Annals of the English Drama_ (London, 1940); William Shakespeare, _The Complete Works of_, ed. G. L. Kittredge (New York, 1936); James McManaway, “Recent Studies in Shakespeare’s Chronology,” _Shakespeare Survey_, III (1950), 22-33. In composing the list of plays performed by the Globe company, I have relied on Chambers, compared with Harbage and Kittredge, and checked against McManaway’s survey of studies in the chronological order of Shakespeare’s plays. Later theories on particular plays have been examined when relevant.
[6] _Twelfth Night_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1930); Leslie Hotson, _The First Night of_ Twelfth Night (New York, 1954).
[7] Percy Allen, “The Date of Hamlet,” _T.L.S._, January 2, 1937, 12; Chambers, _William Shakespeare_, I, p. 423; also “The Date of _Hamlet_,” _Shakespearean Gleanings_ (London, 1944), pp. 68-75; _Hamlet_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1936), 2nd ed.; H. D. Gray, “The Date of _Hamlet_;” _J.E.G.P._, XXX (1932), 51-61; L. Kirschbaum, “The Date of _Hamlet_,” _S.P._, XXXIV (1937), 168-175.
[8] Leslie Hotson, “Love’s Labour’s Won,” _Shakespeare’s Sonnets Dated_ (New York, 1949), 37-56.
[9] A. Hart, “The Date of _Othello_,” _T.L.S._, October 10, 1935, 631; A. Cairncross, “A Reply to Hart,” _T.L.S._, October 24, 1935, 671; Richmond Noble, “A Reply to Hart,” _T.L.S._, December 14, 1935, 859; W. W. Greg, “The Date of _King Lear_ and Shakespeare’s Use of Earlier Versions of the Story,” _Library_, XX (1940), 377-400.
[10] Chambers, _William Shakespeare_, I, p. 522.
[11] _Macbeth_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1947), pp. xl-xlii. Wilson offers a fanciful argument to support his theory that the play was first performed before James in Edinburgh in 1601-1602. Kenneth Muir (Arden edition, 1951), p. xxvi, reviewing this argument, concludes, “It is reasonable to assume that the play was first performed in 1606, first at the Globe, and afterwards at Court--perhaps with a few minor alterations.”
[12] Leslie Hotson, _Shakespeare vs. Shallow_ (Boston, 1931), pp. 111-122; P. Alexander, _Shakespeare’s Life and Art_ (London, 1939), p. 125; William Green, _Shakespeare’s Garter Play_ (unpublished dissertation, Columbia University, 1959), believes that Lord Hunsdon commissioned Shakespeare to write the play for performance on April 23, 1597. However, his explanation for the omission of the play’s title from Meres’ list is essentially hypothetical (pp. 249-251).
[13] Eight early plays of Shakespeare’s were actually revived during the Globe period, or supposedly revived according to the title pages of early editions. These plays were _The Comedy of Errors_, _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, _The Merchant of Venice_, _A Midsummer Night’s Dream_, _Richard II_, _Richard III_, _Romeo and Juliet_, and _Titus Andronicus_. Seven of the eight, all but the first, were printed in quartos. However, the texts of later editions were set up from the early editions without appreciable alterations. The Folio text of _Dream_ does include some additions to the stage directions which may be illuminating but which do not change the theatrical elements. The Fourth Quarto (1608) of _Richard II_ is the first edition to contain the abdication scene, and the Folio text of _Titus Andronicus_ contains additional stage directions and a new scene. But these omissions in the early copies do not seem to be a result of staging conditions. There are two possible inferences. Either the later texts had no connection with the playhouse and therefore merely copied the earlier texts, or the productions did not change sufficiently over the years to cause variations in the texts. As a result I have decided to use these plays for occasional reference only.
[14] The dating of these and the succeeding plays is based upon Chambers, _Elizabethan Stage_, III, pp. 214, 293, 431, 513; IV, pp. 1, 8, 12, 27, 30, 42, 54.
[15] Baldwin Maxwell, _Studies in the Shakespeare Apocrypha_ (New York, 1956), pp. 99-106, dates the play between 1599 and 1600.
[16] _A Yorkshire Tragedy_ has been identified with _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ by F. G. Fleay and others. Mark Friedlaender, “Some Problems of _A Yorkshire Tragedy_,” _S.P._, XXXV (1938), 238-253, in his reconsideration of the evidence rejects this theory. He suggests that both plays were made from a single original play. In a more recent study Baldwin Maxwell (pp. 153 ff.) considers the plays to be independent works. Whatever the theory, it is certain that both plays were staged and must be enumerated separately.
[17] Thomas Kyd, _The Works_, ed. Frederick S. Boas (Oxford, 1955), p. xlii. Chambers, _Elizabethan Stage_, IV, p. 23, suggests that the present text was the one presented at the Globe about 1604. However, the suggestion is hedged with so many qualifications that I thought it better to exclude this piece.