Shakespeare’s Lost Playhouse

The playhouse at Newington Butts has long remained on the fringes of histories of Shakespeare’s career and of the golden age of the theatre with which his name is associated. A mile outside London, and relatively disused by the time Shakespeare began his career in the theatre, this playhouse has been easy to forget. Yet for eleven days in June, 1594, it was home to the two companies that would come to dominate the London theatres. Thanks to the ledgers of theatre entrepreneur Philip Henslowe, we have a record of this short venture. Shakespeare’s Lost Playhouse is an exploration of a brief moment in time when the focus of the theatrical world in England was on this small playhouse. To write this history, Laurie Johnson draws on archival studies, archaeology, en- vironmental studies, geography, social, political, and cultural studies, as well as methods developed within literary and theatre history to expand the scope of our understanding of the theatres, the rise of the playing business, and the formations of the playing companies.

Laurie Johnson is Associate Professor of English and cultural studies at the University of Southern Queensland, current President of the Australian and New Zealand Shakespeare Association, and editorial board member with the journal Shakespeare. His publications include The Tain of Hamlet (2013), and the edited collections Embodied Cognition and Shakespeare’s Theatre: The Early Modern Body-Mind (with John Sutton and Evelyn Tribble, Routledge, 2014) and Rapt in Secret Studies: Emerging Shakespeares (with Darryl Chalk, 2010). Routledge Studies in Shakespeare

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com.

16 Shakespeare and Hospitality Ethics, Politics, and Exchange Edited by David B. Goldstein and Julia Reinhard Lupton

17 Shakespeare, Cinema, Counter-Culture Appropriation and Inversion Ailsa Grant Ferguson

18 Shakespeare’s Folly Philosophy, Humanism, Critical Theory Sam Hall

19 Shakespeare’s Asian Journeys Critical Encounters, Cultural Geographies, and the Politics of Travel Edited by Bi-qi Beatrice Lei, Poonam Trivedi, and Judy Celine Ick

20 Shakespeare, Italy, and Transnational Exchange Early Modern to the Present Edited by Enza De Francisci and Chris Stamatakis

21 Shakespeare and Complexity Theory Claire Hansen

22 Women and Mobility on Shakespeare’s Stage Migrant Mothers and Broken Homes Elizabeth Mazzola

23 Renaissance Ecopolitics from Shakespeare to Bacon Rethinking Cosmopolis Elizabeth Gruber

24 Shakespeare’s Lost Playhouse Eleven Days at Newington Butts Laurie Johnson Shakespeare’s Lost Playhouse Eleven Days at Newington Butts

Laurie Johnson First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Laurie Johnson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Johnson, Lawrence, 1967– author. Title: Shakespeare’s lost playhouse: eleven days at Newington Butts / by Laurie Johnson. Description: New York: Routledge, 2017. | Series: Routledge studies in Shakespeare; 24 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017021956 Subjects: LCSH: Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616—Stage history—To 1625. | Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616—Stage history—England—London. | Newington Butts Theatre (London, England) | Theater—England—London—History— 16th century. | Theater audiences—England—History— 16th century. Classification: LCC PR3095 .J56 2017 | DDC 792.0942/09031—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017021956

ISBN: 978-1-138-29633-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-09801-2 ebk) Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra To Angie, Charlotte, and TJ “Not the olden days again, Daddy—when will you write about the newen days?” This page intentionally left blank Contents

List of Figures ix Acknowledgements xi

Introduction: The Problem with Entries 1 Duopoly and Happenstance 6 “In the name of god, A men” 16

1 “be-gininge” 26 A Conceit for Documentation 31 Crewel Ironies 35 Blindness and Hindsight 43

2 “at newing ton” 53 A Place for a Playhouse 59 A Shape and a Name 73 The Latest Innovation 82

3 “my Lord Admerelle men & my Lord chamberlen men” 93 Beyond Patronage and Privy 100 Assembling the Companies 106 “As ffolowethe 1594” 113

4 “ƃ 3 of June 1594” 124 “at heaster & asheweros” 135 “at the Jewe of malta” 145 “at andronicous” 153 viii Contents 5 “at cvtlacke” 168 “ne–Rx at bellendon” 174 “at hamlet” 182 “at the tamynge of A shrowe” 191

Coda: Henslowe Draws a Line 205

Index 209 Figures

I.1 Original entry in the Henslowe papers. Dulwich College MS VII f9r detail. © David Cooper and Dulwich College. Source: With kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College 2 I.2 Dulwich College MS VII f1r detail. © David Cooper. Source: With kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College 20 1.1 “Southwark Fair,” by William Hogarth (1734). Source: Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art, Washington 41 1.2 Thomas Middleton. Frontispiece, Two New Playes (London: Humphrey Moseley, 1657) 42 2.1 “London, 1593,” John Norden. Engraving by Pieter Van den Keere. Plate facing leaf E2v (page 28). Speculum Britanniae. Part 1 (London: Eliot’s Court Press, 1593). Source: Used by permission of the ­Folger Shakespeare Library under a Creative Commons Attribution-­ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0) 54 2.2 “Map of London Showing the Playhouses,” C.W. Redwood. Joseph Quincy Adams, Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of English Theatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration (Orig. Houghton Mifflin, 1917; Reprinted, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1960): front inset 55 2.3 Plan of Walworth Manor, 1681. CCA-Map/19. Source: Reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury 63 2.4 Section of plan of Walworth Manor, 1681. CCA-Map/19. Source: Reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury 65 2.5 Newington Butts in 1947. Section, Ordnance Survey sheet number VII.95 (five feet to the mile series, 1947 amendment, © London County Council). Source: Reproduced with assistance from the London Metropolitan Archives 66 x Figures 2.6 Detail from A Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark, 1746. John Rocque. Sheet D3. Source: Reproduced courtesy of MOTCO Enterprises. © MOTCO 2001 69 2.7 The location of the Playhouse enclosure in Newington Butts. Overlay on detail from A Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark, 1746. John Rocque. Source: Base image used with permission from MOTCO Enterprises 71 2.8 Site of the Playhouse, 1947. Overlay, Ordnance Survey sheet number VII.95 (five feet to the mile series, 1947 amendment). Source: Base image © London County Council. Overlay by Matthew Nielsen 72 2.9 Site of the Playhouse frontage, 2017. Source: © Google. Captioning by Matthew Nielsen 73 2.10 “Blackfriars Theatre: Conjectural Reconstruction,” by G. Topham Forrest. The Times, 21 November (1921): 5 80 3.1 Marlborough and Tottenham Park, separated by Savernake Forest. Detail of Plate 12. Andrews’ and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire, 1773: A Reduced Facsimile, ed. Elizabeth Crittall (1952). Source: Reproduced with permission. © Wiltshire Record Society 111 4.1 Title-page, A Knack to Know a Knave (London: Richard Jones, 1594). Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, Phase 1, Oxford, Oxfordshire and Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2015. Accessed 5 December 2016 129 4.2 Title-page, Kemps Nine Daies Wonder (London: Edward Allde for Nicholas Ling, 1600). Source: Used by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0) 130 4.3 Richard Stonley’s Diary, 75v–76r. Folger Shakespeare Library MS V.a.460. Source: Used by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0) 142 4.4 Title-page, The Most Lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus (London: John Danter, 1594). Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, Phase 1, Oxford, Oxfordshire and Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2015. Accessed 12 January 2017 154 5.1 Title-page, A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called The taming of a Shrew (London: Peter Short, 1594). Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, Phase 1, Oxford, Oxfordshire and Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2015. Accessed 25 January 2017 191 Acknowledgements

It may be a strange accident of history that the year of Shakespeare 400 has given rise to this project, which seeks for the most part to push Shakespeare to the periphery for at least long enough that we might glimpse some of the back history his vast institutionalised shadow has obscured. I describe the background to this project throughout this book, with a special word in the Coda to describe the moment that inspired me to pursue a study of the eleven days that two companies were housed at the largely forgotten playhouse in Newington Butts, so I have not added a preface to repeat the story. Nevertheless, I do wish to acknowledge those without whom this project could so easily have been derailed at any moment. I am indebted to Julian Bowsher, Callan Davies, William Ingram, Gail Kern Paster, Andy Kesson, Roslyn Knutson, Sally-Beth MacLean, Matt Steggle, and Elizabeth Tavares, who each in their own way have provided wise counsel, timely interventions, fresh insights, and helpful feedback at various stages of this project. The inevitable omis- sions, errors, and contradictions that are bound to have made it through to the finished product are, of course, entirely of my own doing. On both a professional and personal level, I am as always sincerely grateful for the ongoing friendship and support of Gayle Allan, Rose Gaby, Brett Greatley-Hirsch, Mark Houlahan, David McInnis, Lyn Tribble, and the many others with whom I have been able to share my scholarly journey in the Australian and New Zealand Shakespeare Association. May we all continue to clink glasses at FANZSA gather- ings around the world for many years to come. I am also very lucky, closer to home, to have Darryl Chalk as a good friend and colleague at the University of Southern Queensland, even though our leave arrange- ments during the year of the 400 meant we talked more often abroad than at home. Darryl remains my compass, who first guided me back to Shakespeare studies, then pointed me towards ANZSA, and then showed me the value of both the International Shakespeare Association and the Shakespeare Association of America, to each of which I now make regular jaunts. This book has benefited from conversations with many people at the World Shakespeare Congress, at ANZSA, at several events run by xii Acknowledgements the Centre for the History of Emotions and the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland, and at the Beyond 400 symposium at the University of Melbourne, not least of all by the enthusiasm with which this work has been invariably received. Special thanks go to Peter Cryle, Peter Holbrook, Catherine Curtis, and Karin Sellberg (and their wonderful support team, chiefly Xanthe Asburner and Sushma Griffin) for funded travel to present an offshoot paper based on this research at the Shakespeare and the Body Politic symposium (a joint CHE/IASH event). Some of the future directions of this research are already beginning to form in my mind thanks to these opportunities. My gratitude to Mark Harvey, Peter Terry, and the entire team from the Division of Research and Innovation at USQ, for support (both material and personal) throughout this project, and to the Academic Division, for six months of funded leave via the Academic Development and Outside Studies Program. To other staff within the School of Arts and Communication, and the Faculty of Business, Education, Law, and Arts, for your goodwill and your assistance with matters that needed doing while my head was in Newington Butts instead of at the coalface, I also extend heartfelt thanks. To all my colleagues who have endured rambling daily updates over coffee, my sincere appreciation for your for- bearance, encouragement, and refusal to tell me to change the topic. The same applies to my army of friends on Facebook and off. Finally, to my wife Angie, and to my two children, Charlotte and TJ, who seem to be growing up faster than my failing eyes can comprehend, I cannot begin to express what your love and support mean in terms of the confidence it gives me to pursue these crazy projects year in, year out. While you do at times remind me it is time to change the topic when I rabbit on about my projects on the home front, these reminders always come, I am certain, too late to preserve your own sanity. I can only promise this in loving fashion in return: “Good times.”

—LMJ— (or LOJ, to those of you who know me thus) Introduction The Problem with Entries

The entrepreneur Philip Henslowe was a fastidious man. This is perhaps the one feature of his personality that can be gleaned with any accuracy from the mass of paperwork that survived him—from 1592 until 1609, he maintained accounts of loans, payments, and receipts on the spare sheets of a ledger that had been handed down to him from his deceased brother, John. The accounts are related to a variety of business inter- ests, but the items of greatest interest to scholars of early modern the- atre are those connected to his ownership of the Rose theatre (Foakes, xxix–xliv). Thanks to that part of his personality motivating him to keep detailed records of his share of receipts from performances, a re- cord survives from 3 to 13 June 1594, when both the Lord Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men took to the stage at a small play- house about a mile south of the Thames, known only to us by the name of its location: Newington Butts (see Figure I.1). For reasons that will be explained during the course of this book, I use the name “the Playhouse” to refer to the venue.1 Eleven days might seem a trifling interval in the lifespan of the two most dominant companies of the golden age of the Elizabethan playhouses, but Henslowe’s record of this brief performance run represents the first time the name of the Lord Chamberlain is re- corded in connection with the troupe that would dominate the London stage from 1594 until the closure of the theatres in 1642. This should be significant. Since this is the company in which William Shakespeare be- came a shareholder and for which he appears to have exclusively written plays after 1594, the record of these eleven days at the Playhouse is pre- cisely the sort of thing that academics, actors, antiquarians, dramatists, scholars, students, teachers, or even zoologists—if they have an interest in Shakespeare and his works—should view with intense interest. It remains an anomaly within Shakespeare studies, then, that since the Henslowe papers were first brought to public attention by Edmond Malone in 1790, most academics, scholars, and such have turned a blind eye to these eleven days in the history of the Chamberlain’s Men. The dominant narrative attached to the company, and of Shakespeare’s role in it, invariably begins in 1594 with the Theatre—the venue that James Burbage built in 1576, and which is also usually identified as the first 2 Introduction

Figure I.1 Original entry in the Henslowe papers. Dulwich College MS VII f9r detail. © David Cooper and Dulwich College. Source: With kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College. purpose-built playhouse, precipitating the golden age in question—then it proceeds to the Curtain in 1597, before moving to the Globe after it was constructed using timber from the dismantled Theatre in 1599; finally, the Chamberlain’s Men were granted the patronage of James in 1603 and operated continuously as the King’s Men until 1642, when the theatres were closed for the English Civil War. If Henslowe’s record of the earliest performances of the Chamberlain’s Men is mentioned in books or web pages conveying this narrative, it is usually as a mere cu- riosity. My aim is to look anew at those eleven days with a view to testing what the tools at the disposal of modern scholarship can reveal about their significance. As the surviving documentary record of the early modern period becomes increasingly available in searchable online formats, the researcher’s task has become easier, but this ease can be deceptive. What once took years to compile can now be done in days or even hours, leading to a mistaken comfort in the illusion that the whole of the period is now available at the click of a button. By the tools of modern scholarship, then, I am referring also to the methods used across a range of fields of study to understand the data that is now at the re- searcher’s fingertips, to aid in making sense of the archive, to recognise gaps, and to test dominant narratives against curious oddities. How could a small fragment of an entrepreneur’s accounts disrupt such an established set of understandings about Shakespeare’s life and theatre? The narrative of Shakespeare’s career has evolved over time as each new document that is unearthed with information about the Introduction 3 playwright or the theatres and companies with which he occupied him- self is incorporated into the narrative or disregarded as irrelevant. When the tradition of Shakespeare scholarship was first established in the eighteenth century, little thought was given to something as vulgar as the business in which Shakespeare produced his “dramatick poetry,” as Nicholas Rowe put it in his foundational work, Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709). The case for taking a biographical view of Shakespeare was presented in terms of reconciling his “poetry” with the life of his plays on the Restoration stage, at a time when spec- tacular stage playing and significant revision of the original texts was in vogue—and Rowe was, of course, the first to edit Shakespeare’s complete works for publication as a literary work, so his aim to establish the play- wright among those who rate as “Men of Letters” is wholly consonant with his editorial project. Rather than trying to situate Shakespeare with any specific company or theatre, Rowe sought to initially extricate his poet from the workaday world of the players. Gary Taylor observes that Rowe invented a story in which young Shakespeare falls in with a bad crowd in Stratford but flees to London to pursue a literary career, where his work met royal favour, a narrative of the poetic life that “admirably recommended Shakespeare to an eighteenth-century sensibility and was accordingly repeated and embroidered throughout the century” (77). With increasing interest in Shakespeare’s life, the editorial project that passed from Rowe to luminaries like Samuel Johnson, George Steevens, and Alexander Pope found strange bedfellows in the antiquarians who devoted themselves to finding any object or paper of relevance to the world of the Bard. This of course produced a paper trail that insistently put him back on the stage amongst the players. Unsurprisingly, then, the project that began by extricating Shakespeare from the stage passed into the hands of those who found greatest interest in the historical context in which the plays were written and performed. Toward the end of the century, Edmond Malone spent a decade pre- paring an essay on this context to accompany his contribution to the long line of editions of Shakespeare’s plays: the result was the nearly three-hundred-page essay, “An Historical Account of the English Stage” (1790). Malone’s account provides substantial evidence of the business of playing at the Globe and the Blackfriars, but he mentions the Theatre only as a sidenote: “The most ancient English playhouses of which I have found any account are, the playhouse in Blackfriars, that in Whitefriars, the Theatre, of which I am unable to ascertain the situation, and The Curtain, in Shoreditch” (52–53). He notes that the Theatre may have been the “first building erected in or near the metropolis purposely for scenick exhibitions,” but infers this simply from the name. Malone’s focus on the Globe and Blackfriars theatres becomes clear when, after listing all the known playhouses, he explains that Shakespeare’s plays “appear to have been performed either at The Globe, or the theatre 4 Introduction in Blackfriars. I shall therefore confine my inquiries principally to those two” (60). Based on the evidence provided by Malone, then, Shakespeare’s career became associated primarily with the King’s Men and their performances at the Globe on Bankside and Blackfriars within London. While documents discovered during the next few decades fur- nished scholars with more information about the Theatre—including its site in Shoreditch and the year of its construction, 1576—the expanding histories of the English stage continued to list it as a sidenote rather than include it within the more important project of detailing Shakespeare’s theatrical career. I shall consider the impact of this project on theatre history in further detail in Chapter 1. Not until 1883 did historians fully establish Shakespeare’s connection to the Theatre, and with this discovery came the necessary revision to the narrative of his career, along with a new belief in the intricate links between Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, the great actor whose father James had built the Theatre and who is thought to have played all of the greatest roles in Shakespeare’s plays.2 The idea that Shakespeare and Burbage became shareholders in the Chamberlain’s Men in 1594, an arrangement that stabilised the industry, has held sway as the abiding mo- tif in Shakespeare studies since then. The Admiral’s Men were added to this narrative in 1930, when Edmund Kerchever Chambers contrasted the volatile scene between 1590 and 1594 to the “supremacy of the London Stage” by the two companies afterwards, in his William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (47). The rivalry between the two compa- nies has been viewed in various forms, but their supremacy and the special status of 1594 as the year stability was achieved in the theatre industry have been unchallenged for the most part. The durability of this narrative has been ensured in recent years by the “duopoly” model proposed by Andrew Gurr, in which the Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey, is said to have divided up the playing talent, writing talent, and principal theatri- cal venues between himself and the Lord Admiral, Charles ­Howard, in a planned manoeuvre to control playing in and around ­London and to ensure quality performances at Court (Gurr, Company, 1–3). With 1594 holding such a special place in all such narratives, a record of performances by both companies in the middle of that year surely demands attention. The orthography may be difficult to discern in some points, so a transcription may assist the reader to understand the text:

In the name of god A men be-gininge at newing ton my Lord Admeralle men & my Lorde chamberlen men As ffolowethe 1594

ƃ 3 of June 1594 Rx at heaster & asheweros ______viij s ƃ 4 of June 1594 Rx at the Jewe of malta ______x s ƃ 5 of June 1594 Rx at andronicous ______xij s Introduction 5

ƃ 6 of June 1594 Rx at cvtlacke ______xj s ƃ 8 of June 1594 ne–Rx at bellendon ___X______xvij s ƃ 9 of June 1594 Rx at hamlet ______viij s ƃ 10 of June 1594 Rx at heaster ______v s ƃ 11 of June 1594 Rx at the tamynge of A shrowe ____ ix s ƃ 12 of June 1594 Rx at andronicous ______vij s 3 ƃ 13 of June 1594 Rx at th- Jewe ______iiij s

The reader might respond by saying that this transcription does not help at all—the structure and language might seem foreign. To explain, the first three lines constitute a header that has a standard affirmation to God in truth, a comment on the date or venue in which the following series of receipts commences, and an identification of the company. Henslowe could not fit the name “Newington” on the first line, so he slotted the final syllable at the start of the line below. Modernising the header may assist further: “In the name of God, Amen, beginning at Newington, my Lord Admiral’s Men and my Lord Chamberlain’s Men. As follows, 1594.” Each line below is a statement of receipts taken by Henslowe from a performance: each new item is marked with the symbol “ƃ” and 4 the date provided; “Rx” is Henslowe’s shorthand for “recipe” (receipt); the short title is given of the play; and the amount in Roman numerals (the entries here all provide an amount only in “s” or shillings, whereas elsewhere Henslowe adds an “l” for an amount in pounds). Henslowe’s enigmatic “ne” symbol can be seen preceding the entry for “bellendon” and is most widely interpreted as designating a play to be “new” at the time of performance, although I discuss this further in Chapter 5. This document presents problems for the conventional narratives of 1594 since it contradicts what common sense tells us to expect from two companies at the moment they stabilised the London theatre indus- try through a managed rivalry. If they were created for a duopoly, why begin their separate lives by performing together in the same venue? More to the point, why would either company, securely housed in ven- ues either side of the greater London region—the Chamberlain’s Men in Shoreditch to the north and the Admiral’s Men in Bankside to the south—then agree to perform for the first time not in either of these venues but in a relatively disused venue a mile to the south of the river? That both were at the same venue at the same time raises a question of whether these performances were in alternation or combined. The question alone is surely sufficient to cast doubt over ideas of stability and supremacy. The plays they performed offer no certainties, especially when the conventional narrative holds that the plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare were neatly divided between the two companies, and each acquired a selection of the best titles from the Queen’s Men—except for The Jew of Malta, which is Marlowe’s, every title on Henslowe’s list is the subject of ongoing debate among scholars with respect to both 6 Introduction its authorship and provenance circa 1594. Of particular interest are the titles, “andronicous,” “hamlet,” and “tamynge of A shrowe,” on Henslowe’s list. They suggest a Shakespeare connection, yet even the most fervent proponents—and indeed some opponents—of 1594 nar- ratives routinely reject the idea these are Shakespeare’s plays. If this is correct, then the first series of performances by Shakespeare’s company must have included no plays by the single playwright who is considered to be a founding member. Something has to give when confronted by a paradox of this kind, and the first thing to go is usually Newington Butts itself: the path of least resistance when presenting a 1594 narrative has most often been to disregard the Henslowe record altogether and proceed directly to the point of origin marked by a stable shareholder arrangement. This book is dedicated to the premise that Henslowe’s re- cord for the first two weeks of June 1594 offers a glimpse into significant features of the Elizabethan companies and playhouses that have been obscured by the standard narrative of Shakespeare’s career.

Duopoly and Happenstance I shall endeavour to be mindful at every turn in this book of the risks associated with using a single fragmentary source as my point of entry into the past. I take Henslowe’s record at face value but seek to find other evidence and use a range of analytical tools to situate this record squarely within its historical and cultural milieu. This does not mean that I escape the lure of biographical narrative by retreating into cultural relativism, as if to treat the text as a product of its time, and nothing more. The “subversion-containment” debates that accompanied the “cultural turn” in Shakespeare studies in the 1980s and 1990s provide a cautionary tale for those of us who pursue historical lines of inves- tigation within this subject area. Rather than rehearse these debates here, I need only observe the tension between one school of thought for which early modern plays were inherently radically subversive and another for which the same plays represented a cultural expression of the mechanisms of control exercised by those in power. Take your pick: radical bolshevism on the London stage or opiate of the masses. In truth, many scholars who cut their teeth in Shakespeare studies during the period dominated by New Historicism and Cultural Materialism did not experience the breach as forcefully as this loose caricature sug- gests. In my own experience, however, a desire to pursue a historical topic in Shakespeare studies resulted in one early supervisor’s advice to use New Historicist methods while eschewing the “Marxist British variant” of these approaches. That I adopted neither method whole- sale and opted to critique the cultural turn speaks more to a rebellious streak in my own nature than it does to genuine tension between the dominant approaches. Introduction 7 This admission reveals a relevant trait: to be honest, I do not abide binaries well, so it is no surprise that I approach the duopoly model with suspicion. Yet I hope it will be apparent that this book is not aimed, wrecking-ball style, solely at the duopoly model nor at its proponents. One goal of this Introduction and of the more detailed treatment offered in Chapter 1 is to show that the duopoly model is simply the latest man- ifestation of an explanatory blind spot that can be traced back through several hundred years in studies of Shakespeare and his plays. To some extent, it is understandable that the Henslowe entry may cause scholars to approach with caution. The entry is frustratingly bereft of commen- tary and the risk of overstating the significance of the text or, perhaps, of forcing it to serve insufficiently as evidence in support of a new grand narrative, may ward off curious eyes. An important lesson that scholars of my generation learned from the “subversion-containment” debates was that history, like nature, does not abhor a vacuum. Where gaps appear in the historical record, we feel the need to fill them in, either through interpretation (explaining meaningful or causal links between any two documented “facts”) or through extra documentation (adding more sources into the mix). In the case of the record of performances in some long-forgotten venue by two companies that would go on to dominate their era, the first demand seems at odds with explanations already holding sway and the second demand butts up against an ab- sence of further evidence. Absence of evidence should never be mistaken for evidence of absence, but there are times when it may be more appropriate to treat a lack of evidence provisionally as a cue that there may be nothing to find. The ele- gant appeal of the duopoly explanation is that it takes the relative wealth of evidence for what the future held in store for the Chamberlain’s Men from 1595 onwards, and posits the plan of 1594 as an explanation for how these things later came to pass—the evidence for intelligent design in the duopoly arrangement is to be found in the dominance of the two companies. Yet such elegant explanations also retain their appeal by virtue of being Shakespeare-centric. I suggest the biographical impera- tive in Shakespeare studies since around 1709 bears the hallmarks of a “Texas sharpshooter fallacy” in which a cluster of data points is held to indicate a common causal origin. The fallacy was identified by cancer re- searchers as a form of the clustering illusion—the researcher who circles a group of cancer sufferers as a cluster is compared to the sharpshooter who fires a gun at the side of a barn and draws the bullseye around the cluster of hits (Gawande, 34–37). In both cases, the identification of a number of data points as a cluster leads to the assumption that there is one common cause for the whole data set. The duopoly model strikes me as one example of this phenomenon, since it takes a large but never- theless limited data sample and draws the circle around it, then posits a common cause. The largeness of the sample size is only perceptible on 8 Introduction the basis of comparison with smaller data sets, including, I suggest, the prior data sets that capture the same phenomenon. This is what makes it like the sharpshooter. Each time a new data point is identified, if it is close enough in kind to the previous cluster, the circle is drawn anew to accommodate the new data point, and a new common origin is posited. Thus, I may claim that the Shakespeare-as-poet approach posited by Rowe was a product of his data, Malone’s narrative of Shakespeare’s life at the Globe and Blackfriars was a product of his new data about the performance venues for Shakespeare’s plays, and so forth. Rowe initially ignored any evidence about Elizabethan performances of the plays since his focus was on the plays as poetry and only their current stage iterations. For Malone, the new data about two playhouses was able to be positioned close enough to the critical heritage into which he sought to insert himself, so he included them in his narrative, to the ex- clusion of all other venues. Later scholars found Shakespeare located in the Theatre, so documents relating to this venue were added to the set of relevant data, and the narrative shifted to accommodate the new point of origin. I shall not seek as a matter of necessity to widen the bullseye for the sake of incorporating Henslowe’s record of performances. The goal is rather to dispense with the bullseye altogether and embrace the potentially haphazard nature of data sets that accrue around Elizabethan playhouses. That I use Henslowe’s record as a fixed point of access to the past will mean that the risk of clustering is ever present, merely re- placing the established bull (Shakespeare) with another (Henslowe). To mitigate such risk, I use an approach that I have previously identified as textually evidenced cultural history (Johnson, Tain, 23–27). Cultural history emerged within the discipline of history, as it happens, at around the same time that “subversion-containment” debates were dominating Shakespeare studies under the guise of a new form of historicism. Part of the appeal of cultural history, for me, is the intent to want to understand history from ground level (rather than “from above”) by studying the lives of the common people as earnestly as those of individuals whose names adorn official records. This provided a counterpoint in a scholarly environment in which Shakespeare’s plays were seen as either opposed to authority or hopelessly contained by authority—the cultural historian is more inclined to situate the playwright’s activities within the run-of-the- mill business of the playhouses. Cultural histories draw on a large range of types of evidence to paint a picture of any period or activity in broad brushstrokes, resisting ex- planations based simply on the agency of a few powerful individuals (see Chartier, 37–40). Yet as Anna Green has pointed out, this focus on the multitudes can lead to the perception that I mentioned above: “An exclusive focus on cultural cohesion makes it difficult to account for cul- tural change, and this has been one of the major charges against cultural history” (8). Against this perception, I offer the textually evidenced Introduction 9 method, drawing on both history and literary studies. Having trained in historical method in the shadow of E.H. Carr, I have for a long time been concerned with the sense that the agency Carr attributes to the his- torian in shaping the “facts about the past” into “historical facts” spills over too easily into his belief in large-scale causation across cultures and periods of time (10). In other words, I felt Carr was too devoted to the notion of cultural change on an epochal scale. He presented a compel- ling clarion call for a return to understanding history as progress, to help us to understand our future, but this seemed to signal unflinching accep- tance that some facts of the past are valueless if they cannot be twisted into an historical fact that is of relevance now. Hayden White’s shift toward an understanding of historiography as poetics of the past was more palatable, as it could be reconciled with my literary training, but then his notion that history is all text tends too much to smooth over the messiness of the everyday—the potential for the past to have unfolded in the way it did by happenstance is undermined by the tropes we apply when writing (over) the past. By “textually evidenced,” then, I mean that the evidence we gather to write histories comes in the form of texts, which brings with it the recognition that different texts function dif- ferently. History on the ground inevitably involves encountering many kinds of texts, which collectively speak to no single narrative; instead, their differences bear witness to the idiosyncratic qualities of everyday life, then as now. With this in mind, I have structured this book in such a way as to bring us insistently back to the question of the type of text Henslowe was keeping when he wrote down the names of the companies and their plays in 1594. It is not enough that it is classed as a business docu- ment, reducing its significance to a question only of expenditures and income. It is undeniable that Henslowe used his ledger primarily as a record of financial transactions, and I shall remind readers throughout this book of the kinds of business conducted around the playhouses. There are a number of excellent studies on which to ground a sense of playhouse business: Douglas Bruster’s Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare, Richard Dutton’s Mastering the Revels, William Ingram’s The Business of Playing, Siobhan Keenan’s Acting Companies and Their Plays in Shakespeare’s London, and Roslyn Lander Knutson’s Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time. Yet even as an artefact of Henslowe’s business interests, the “diary” is a rather idiosyncratic document that has resisted the attempts of many scholars to discern consistent patterns and business methods. Susan P. Cerasano observes the diary is very much like other manuscript notebooks of the period, in that it is unstructured, emergent, and a “work in prog- ress,” rather than a polished ledger of the kind that modern accounting methods would produce (“Curious,” 82). Those who dismiss Henslowe as a sloppy account keeper thus miss the point that this sloppiness 10 Introduction is indicative of the immediate purposes that these records served for Henslowe and others with whom he went about conducting day-to-day activities, including his business associates, family members, and social acquaintances. To ensure engagement with both the systematic and idiosyncratic fea- tures of the text, I have structured this book according to the constituent elements of Henslowe’s record. Each of its elements will be used to focus moment to moment in this study on specific questions that the document raises for some of the most entrenched beliefs about the Elizabethan period and the institutions to which that period gave rise. In a postscript of sorts to this introduction, I offer a brief example of this approach by considering what the opening six words of the Newington Butts entry—­ “In the name of god, Amen”—might reveal about the document in terms of its function. Understanding a textual fragment in such terms speaks to the fitness for purpose of the whole, which in turn intersects with questions about Henslowe’s intentions, but it pushes back against the abyss of intentional fallacy by situating the text within wider fields of textual production of which it is but one function. What kinds of rela- tions, exchanges, or transactions are enabled or disabled by this text, and what presuppositions does it make about the world in which its writer lives and works? In the process of answering such questions, I will show that the text provides important clues about the way it was writ- ten, by which I do not simply mean Henslowe’s bookkeeping methods; rather, I refer here to the order in which he made entries in the ledger and the decisions he evidently made about phrasing, nomenclature, and such. In the assortment of marks, words, half-finished phrases, and names adorning the first leaf of the ledger, and which are normally dismissed as meaningless scrawl, I identify the hallmarks of systematic preparation to inure the recording function of the document against the vagaries of an individual’s handwriting. The marks also reveal the types of business that most occupied Henslowe’s mind as he prepared to commence his re- cord keeping, which provides a clearer frame for his records of theatrical receipts, especially when compared with the document that established his stake in the Rose playhouse many years earlier, in 1587. Chapter 1 offers a history of a blind spot that has emerged in Shakespeare studies around the Playhouse at Newington Butts. While antiquarians, theatre historians and, most recently, archaeologists have unearthed more and more documents and material remains relating to the playhouses in and around London, a zone of exclusion seems to have naturally emerged with Shoreditch at its northernmost extreme and Bankside as its southern extremity, based on four centuries of Shakespeare-­centred narratives about early modern theatre. Even as in- formation emerged about a playhouse at Newington Butts, and with the prospect that this venue was the first to host the company most associ- ated with Shakespeare’s career, influential scholars drew a line in the Introduction 11 sand at Bankside and insisted that the more southerly venue was of no interest. Newington Butts has been given a set of negative connotations, suggesting it was dismissed as an outlying irrelevance by Shakespeare and his contemporaries and so is not worth closer examination by his- torians. Focusing on Henslowe’s record forges a new “be-gininge” for Newington Butts, devoid of the negative baggage. Chapter 2 replaces connotation with collocation by putting the Playhouse “at newing ton” on the map, literally and figuratively. I will demonstrate that the absence of Newington Butts from contemporary surveys of London and its sur- rounds may contribute to the sense that the Playhouse and its surrounds were fit to be kept out of sight, out of mind, by subsequent generations of scholars. More to the point, I will argue that the images of the Bankside venues on early modern maps were intended to mark the beginning of another kind of zone of exclusion: the city of London to the north of the Thames was imagined as a glorious centre of Elizabethan power, with Westminster as its spiritual limb, while south of the river was character- ised by baser pursuits such as playing and animal baiting. It is important to remember that Shoreditch and Bankside were seen by Londoners as areas beyond the boundaries of their city, a category that put them very much on par with the Playhouse at Newington Butts. To identify the location of the Playhouse more firmly, I offer a syn- thesis of evidence gathered by theatre historians, social historians, and others over the last six decades—the lion’s share of the debt is owed to Ingram’s work on leases from the records of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury and documents relating to the sewer that ran through Newington Butts (Business, 150–81; “Proposal,” 385–98). I will take this evidence further—the history of the property on which the Play- house stood provides enough detail, I suggest, to support calculations of the size, shape, and even capacity of the building. Julian Bowsher, one of the drivers behind the archaeological investigations that have uncovered a number of the London theatres, has long advocated for the valuable in- tersection between his discipline and theatre history. Reflecting on such intersections since the Rose theatre excavation began in December 1988, Bowsher wrote in 2011 that what at first seemed like the intrusion of archaeology onto the world of Shakespeare studies soon gave way to a wealth of mutual gains, but not without some initial concerns:

documentary research has always been an integral part of archaeol- ogy, perhaps more so than usual for the post-medieval period. In the 1980s, research aims towards rescue excavation were fluid and often vague. For the Rose site we stated the potential of possible Roman and probable medieval remains being discovered. We knew that the Rose playhouse had been on the site but considered that it might not have survived later development. Nor had the theatre historians any immediate research aims as they did not know what archaeology 12 Introduction involved, although key questions such as size and stage location quickly emerged during the excavation. In fact, most of their ques- tions emerged afterwards as our post-excavation analysis began, the full fruition of which took 20 years. (“Twenty,” 455)

While the Newington Butts site may never yield as much material evidence as the Rose and other sites have provided—such is the likely impact of the Elephant and Castle development of the 1960s on the original site—the gains made at other locations can be used to inform an understanding of what the property would have accommodated, espe- cially when we consider its history alongside the emergence of the other early playhouses elsewhere around London. It will also enable me to pro- pose specific reasons why the actor Jerome Savage saw the site as a viable location for a theatrical enterprise, a prospect that seems unthinkable to scholars who look upon it from this side of history as a venture that was doomed from the outset. In Chapter 3, I return to questions raised in the opening pages of this book about why “my Lord Admeralle men & my Lorde chamberlen men” would have played at Newington Butts. While I argue that it was a favourable location when Savage established the Playhouse, the suc- cess of the Rose after 1587 meant that its fortunes evidently waned. Nevertheless, I will consider the evidence indicating that players did frequently elect to use the Playhouse, especially when it provided a way around a general restraint against playing in the vicinity of London. The prospect that players sought to bypass Privy Council orders brings the patronage of the companies into sharp focus, since the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain, along with the patrons of several other leading playing companies, were Council members. Paul Whitfield White and Suzanne R. Westfall explain in Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England that despite new scholarly interest in patrons of playing companies, “patronage is not easily defined, especially with reference to an art form as multifaceted and socially complex as the theatre” (1). One way to avoid such pitfalls is to recognise the equally complex social relations in which the patrons themselves circulated—the patrons were men and women of considerable power, but this varied in degree and proximity to the crown, so patronage in all likelihood var- ied as widely as the ambitions and personalities of the various patrons. It will be shown that decisions about playing venues and repertories, within some economic and regulatory constraints, ultimately fell to the players. In this vein, I shall focus attention on the playing personnel of the two companies, employing an approach derived in part from a com- bination of company studies and repertory studies. Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean applied the first approach in The Queen’s Men and Their Plays, in which the focus shifts from Introduction 13 playwrights to “those special characteristics which give the company its identity—its acting style, its staging methods, its kinds of versifica- tion, its sense of what constituted a worthwhile repertory of plays” (xii). The shift toward studying companies was already advanced by Gurr’s foundational Shakespearian Playing Companies, as McMillin and MacLean acknowledge, but his study was heavily invested in arguing for the duopoly arrangement (xii). Similarly, Gurr’s study of the Admiral’s Men in Shakespeare’s Opposites relies heavily on the evidence of the company’s business from Henslowe’s diary, enabling him to focus on the company’s existence from 1594 onwards, while disregarding the much longer history of the company since at least as early as 1585. Other studies have since emerged in the direction provided by McMillin and MacLean, which provide models for how to approach company identity (see, for example, Griffith; Manley and MacLean). I combine company studies with the approach adopted by Knutson in The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613, which treats plays as a pivotal component in a company’s commercial tactics, thus compelling us to con- sider performance histories within the context of the market. With play texts understood as commodities and the scheduling of performances viewed as an exercise in catering to market demand, it becomes possible to reimagine the playwright as a cog in a larger engine of commerce. Divesting a play from the playwright shifts the emphasis to the specific circumstances of each performance: venue, personnel, and audience. Adapting a repertory studies approach to tracking playing personnel yields useful results, particularly in relation to the Admiral’s Men and their key player Edward Alleyn (Henslowe’s son-in-law). Henslowe’s record of company repertories before June 1594 is so frag- mented that it becomes necessary to rely on a few key titles that trans- fer from one company to another: from 1592 to 1593, Henslowe lists performances by Lord Strange’s Men, then a gap exists for the plague closures of 1593, before the Earl of Sussex’s Men appear at his Rose theatre from December 1593 to February 1594, a gap follows for Lent, eight dates are recorded for a combination of Sussex’s and Queen’s Men in April, yet another gap, and then a three day performance run is listed for the Admiral’s Men in mid-May (Foakes, 16–21). Only one play, The Jew of Malta, appears in all of these performance listings and it is also listed for both the second and last performances in the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s sequence in Newington. A few other titles appear in several but not all of these performance schedules. By identifying a specific player or grouping of players with a title, it becomes possible to track the movements of personnel. Importantly, records of compa- nies on tour fill in enough of the gaps in Henslowe’s record to close the loop on key personnel. Beyond considering patronage as the primary determining factor in the formation of companies, studies of touring schedules, the economics of touring and performing within the greater 14 Introduction London area, and asset management help us to reimagine the moment of origin as a moment in which a number of different trajectories—of personnel and of plays—all meet in Newington. Focusing on longer tra- jectories means mapping out pathways rather than feeling obliged to posit a moment of creation. Just as important, perhaps, is the ability this method provides to identify key personnel whose movements may not have taken them to Newington: I argue in Chapter 4 that there are no grounds to pre- sume that Richard Burbage was one of the players who appeared with the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in June 1594. The prevalence of opinion about Burbage being a founding member and of the company being housed from the outset at the Theatre is based on back projection from documentary evidence in 1595 and beyond whereas documents relat- ing to the case being fought by the Burbages at the Chancery in 1594, along with provincial touring records and Privy Council papers, provide grounds for doubting he or his family would have had any reason to be involved in the Newington Butts venture at that moment in time. Indeed, the relative certainty with which the membership of the Chamberlain’s Men in May 1594 is viewed by most scholars is not a true reflection of the dearth of evidence in this matter. The same is true of Shakespeare, as it happens, but for different reasons—until his name appears in March 1595 as one of the three recipients of a payment for performances at Court in late December 1594, no record survives that allows us to attach him to any specific company or location in the period leading up to the appearance in Newington of the company with which he is normally associated. This is where cultural history can serve as a useful counter- point to the Texas sharpshooter effect—by adding more data points and comparing evidence across a wide range of fields of activity at a par- ticular moment in time, arbitrary bullseyes can be discarded and gaps can be identified in the record with much finer resolution. The removal of certainties might seem like an undesirable step, but I contend it is necessary to identify these gaps in order to motivate scholarship to look further afield for still more data points that may be relevant but which have passed unnoticed so long as loose certainties deemed them to be unnecessary. In the remainder of Chapter 4 and into Chapter 5, I offer closer studies of each of the plays performed at Newington Butts. Offering one sec- tion to each play, I will work through them individually in an effort to understand why each may have been a commercially tactical choice for inclusion at that time, but also to ascertain what it could mean for the study of each play that it was staged in this location. While the first title, Hester and Ahasuerus, is a lost play, I argue there is great value in having a lost play first on the list by virtue of its natural resistance to prevailing certainties. David McInnis and Matthew Steggle note in Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England that potentially thousands of plays for which no Introduction 15 print or manuscript text survives “should be regarded positively as wit- nesses to otherwise unrecorded theatrical events rather than as mere fail- ures to preserve a literary text” (7). Hester thus demands to be studied as a play suited to the particular time and location to which Henslowe fixes it with his performance record. By attending to this play’s time and lo- cation, a potential answer arises to why the players previously affiliated with Lord Strange were awarded the livery of the Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey, at Newington in the days before 3 June 1594. Instead of a plan to form a duopoly, the gap exposed by Hester enables me to identify factors beyond the control of any player, patron, or entrepreneur. I refer first of all to the deaths of the Earls of Sussex and Derby, the latter being Lord Strange until he took the Derby title late in life. These deaths ex- plain some of the shifts in company patronage, and the death of Derby in particular will be shown to have provided Carey with a reason to offer his livery to the players while he was passing through Newington as a member of the Court just as these players were returning to London from a southern tour. The most significant factor in the movements of the companies at this time is only discernible as a gap, however, be- cause it represents the sort of event that exceeds the normal business of players and entrepreneurs to the extent that it creates a rupture in the records of performances and other commercial activities: beyond the stages of the Rose or the Theatre; beyond lease arrangements and livery privileges; and even beyond the deaths of powerful patrons, there are the heavens. Documented weather extremes for 1594 can be shown to coincide precisely with gaps in both Henslowe’s theatrical accounts and his other business records, as well as in the documented daily activities of other residents of London, providing a reasonable explanation for the Admiral’s Men to vacate the inundated Bankside playhouse and for the players who would form the Chamberlain’s Men to pause at Newington on their way back to London. The remaining plays in the sequence reveal, each in their own way, key data points related to the companies and the nature of their agreement at the Playhouse. Most interest will likely be on Henslowe’s reference to “hamlet”—while it is widely held that the play was not written by Shakespeare until 1599 or later, this 1594 record is usually believed to refer to the so-called ur-Hamlet, a version attributed to Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy. I argued in The Tain of Hamlet that the 1594 play is an early version by Shakespeare and the supposedly “bad” Quarto of 1603 retains residues of the earlier play. I revisit some of these arguments in this book, but I extend them here to align with a new focus on the commercial context for the play’s inclusion in the 1594 repertory. Importantly, I consider all seven titles in terms of a discern- ible strategy employed by the two companies in preparing their reper- tory for a June performance run, under the unusual circumstances that saw them performing outside London at the start of that month. In her 16 Introduction compelling critique of the standard narratives of 1594—in particular, Gurr’s duopoly model—Knutson argues in “What’s So Special about 1594?” that evidence from other walks of life suggests the performances at Newington Butts would have seemed at the time, to those who at- tended, like business as usual (467). I want to springboard from this critique to suggest that there was something special about 1594 but not in the sense that it needs to be privileged as the moment everything in the Elizabethan theatres stabilised around the rivalry, planned or otherwise, between two companies bearing the livery of Privy Councillors. The events of 1594 are special, rather, in the same way that those of 1593, 1592, and so on, are special. It is the uniqueness of each bullet point on the sharpshooter’s wall that will reward close attention. In the methods I use in this book, and in the arguments I present in relation to each of the elements of Henslowe’s entries for eleven days in June 1594, I hope to replace the certainty of the conventional narratives of 1594 with an approach that embraces messiness and accepts the play of chance in fa- vour of direct cause-effect explanations. I do of course provide a new set of narratives, but they do not all hinge on a single overarching trope like “supremacy” or “duopoly”; rather, they each serve a heuristic function, to make sense of the entries that have bedevilled Shakespeare scholars and early modernists for over 200 years.

“In the name of god, A men” The first six words of Henslowe’s entry tend to be the easiest to over- look, but I insist they are important for situating Henslowe’s practices within a broader context. Bruce Carruthers and Wendy Nelson Espeland explain how this phrase in particular became the standard feature of business documents in the early modern period out of a wider concern for the legitimacy of business practices in general, “partly engendered by the papal prohibition on usury” (38). If Protestant England was no longer bound by papal prohibitions, the manifest sinfulness of usury nevertheless remained an established principle inherited from Edward I, whose Statute of the Jewry of 1275 included a reinforcement of earlier papal declarations against usury. As usury became associated with Jews, even the statute of 1571 permitting usury at acceptable rates maintained “that all usury was against the law of God, leaving it to be determined by divines” (Shapiro, 99). The need for the appearance of piety in business dealings resulted from the more general application of Thomist princi- ples governing the value of money: since money serves only to enable people to make exchanges, its value is fixed by exchange; and given that the exchange is itself the consumption of the money, any attempt to ask for more is to charge for both the thing itself and its use, which is unjust (Carruthers and Espeland, 38). Starting a business document with an appeal to God’s name thereby invested that document with the stamp of Introduction 17 an oath that the dealings it represented were just. We should not forget the significance of these six words when we treat Henslowe’s ledger as evidence; in short, we should approach the document with a modicum of humility and, to some extent, in good faith, with all that this entails. Un- derstanding the ledger as a business document means recognising that it was produced in the shadow of the religious ferment of its day, invoking a divine order underpinning emergent European mercantilism and the push toward economic rationality that accompanied it (Carruthers and Espeland, 41–42). It might therefore seem unusual that Henslowe only uses the phrase in relation to his lists of theatrical performances.5 While Henslowe else- where appeals to the grace of God on behalf of a family member, this particular oath, “in the name of God, amen,” is absent from all other accounts. One explanation for this could be that he absolutely differen- tiated his theatrical enterprises from his pawn and loan transactions or family affairs, as is generally assumed in any case. Natasha Korda notes that even among scholars who have taken an interest in the diary as an invaluable record of the business of playing in early modern London, there was still widespread disinterest in the “non-theatrical” sections of the volume (185–86). Frederick Fleay stated in his Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1599–1642 of 1890 that the greater portions of the ledger given over to the non-theatrical affairs of Henslowe and his family “are of no conceivable interest to anyone,” and it is an opinion that has rarely been challenged, as Korda observes (186). While I do not believe the non-theatrical accounts are of no interest whatsoever, and will have cause to cite them on occasion throughout this book, I suggest the absence of the pious oath from the non-theatrical accounts speaks to the entrepreneur’s sense that his theatrical and non-theatrical enter- prises were, in effect, different kinds of business. In his pawn and loan accounts, ironically, Henslowe is less concerned with the appearance of piety, suggesting his Protestant ethic must have been sufficiently well formed as to exclude old time papal prohibitions—Elizabethan statutes rendered loans legal so long as the rates of return were within acceptably humble limits. Perhaps the presence of the oath in his lists of theatrical dealings speaks to a need to invoke divine order in the case that his money was being entrusted to the success or failures of the players, which might seem alto- gether consistent with a world view in which theatres were a “School of Abuse,” as Stephen Gosson called his anti-theatrical pamphlet of 1579. Henslowe was certainly no puritan, however, so it may be more accurate to suppose that the economics of playing struck him as being less structured than pawns and loans or accounts of purchase and sale, so an investment in the theatre, which paid its dividend in small piecemeal receipts, re- quired the invocation of an ordered exchange in an open market whose only guarantor was God. The oath preceding the theatrical accounts thus 18 Introduction lends to them an air of legitimacy but it also reveals Henslowe’s sense of the need to bear witness to the justness of his own dealings. In the case of each individual loan, the ledger records an amount loaned out and any payment or payments in return, from which an acceptable profit margin is instantly apparent. In each of his theatrical dealings, there is no single transaction constituting a return on investment, so the oath is appended to each list of play receipts as an assurance that he was not making an excessive profit on the theatre. It might even be possible in this light to reimagine the lists of expenditures on his Rose playhouse, in- cluding extensive payments for the construction work required to expand the building in 1592, as a legitimate businessman’s efforts to ensure that his income from the business never obscenely exceeded his expenditures. It is a picture that does not mesh with a view of Henslowe as a money-­ grubber, nor is it likely to match modern sensibilities about the almighty dollar, but I raise this prospect so the reader will be reminded that early modern commercial logic is not always commensurate with what modern business acumen might dictate. I have no reason to doubt that Henslowe was indeed motivated by profit, particularly when he expanded the Rose to accommodate larger audiences, but this is not independent from other aspects of his life. The oath accompanying each of the theatrical entries tells me that he cared for his soul—no subject who feared either God’s wrath or the fate awaiting the heretic would dare put such a blasphemy in writing. It is also possible that Henslowe’s initial foray into the theatre business was under- taken with the belief that the economics would be straightforward. On 10 January 1587, Henslowe and John Cholmley agreed on a partnership to construct and manage a theatre on land in “Rosse Alleye” (Rose alley), with the terms of the arrangement being that Cholmley, a grocer by trade, could sell his “breade or drinke” to patrons (all profits from which would be his to retain), the pair would split all takings equally between them, and Cholmley would pay Henslowe an annuity of £816 via quar- terly payments of £25-10-0 for the term of the agreement, eight years and three months (Foakes, 304–6). The partnership appears to have col- lapsed before Henslowe began his ledger: Cholmley’s name can be seen among what Foakes describes as “the scrawl on the opening page of the Diary” but there is no mention of Henslowe’s former partner within its pages (304). As Neil Carson reads their arrangement, Henslowe sought “to insure himself against fluctuations in the rate of return by selling an uncertain gain for a smaller but guaranteed income” (14). The partners settled upon a financial arrangement that provided each with a double income, but only Henslowe could be sure of a fixed income (Cholmley’s repayments) while Cholmley’s sales of food and drink represented an un- certain return—audience receipts represented an uncertain gain for both, but an agreement of longer than eight years suggests they entered into the arrangement confident of the long-term popularity of playing. Introduction 19 As it happens, the agreement was untenable. It specifies clearly that both were to be present at all performances, except if they should choose to deputise this responsibility, so that both partners always had parties on hand to:

Coleckte gather and receave all such some and somes of moneye of every psonne & psonnes resorting and Cominge to the saide playe howse to vew see and heare any playe or enterlude at any tyme or tymes to be showed and playde duringe the saide terme of Eighte yeares and three monethes excepte yt please any of the said ptyes to suffer theire frends to go in for nothinge And that all such some and somes be equally devided. (Foakes, 306)

No mention is made of how the players were expected to gain a return for performing. There is merely a stipulation that the two partners shall together “appoynte and pmitte suche psonne and psonnes players to vse exersyse & playe in the saide playe howse” (Foakes, 305–6). Carson argues that the lack of any stated provision for a share of receipts to go to the actors was a “reflection of the relative ignorance of both partners of the nature of the business upon which they were embarking” (14). He adds that Cholmley and Henslowe must have adopted the custom used at the Theatre, with the theatre owners dividing admission fees paid to enter the galleries and the players collecting the receipts at the outer door (15). While this might have been how receipt collection eventually worked at the Rose when it became operational, the initial terms of the agreement between the two partners indicate they had not yet thought of such procedural matters. By the time he began his ledger in February 1592, it is clear that no such naivety remained and Henslowe understood the need to keep a detailed record of the money he put into “my play howsse” and the amounts he received from it in return (Foakes, 9). It is not clear exactly why the partnership ended, but Cholmley’s re- payment schedule may provide the most direct answer. The quarterly payment schedule is explained in the clearest possible terms, not once, but twice, in the agreement and the penalty for any default lasting lon- ger than twenty-one days is nothing less than the termination of the partnership, with sole rights to the playhouse to be granted to Henslowe and Cholmley expelled from the property. Based on an important clue among the “scrawl” on the front page of the ledger, it is likely Cholmley did in fact default on a payment at around the same time that Henslowe acquired the book of accounts following his brother’s death. Among this scrawl, Cholmley’s name is written three times, as “Chomley when,” and “Chemley Chomley” (Foakes, 3). I am struck by the first of these as an indicator that Henslowe was thinking of a deadline when he wrote this phrase on the front page—a reminder, perhaps, to confirm the date 20 Introduction on which Cholmley’s next payment fell due. Why would he write such a thing on the ledger and not inside? One explanation is that the “scrawl” was written in preparation for the ledger. We also find among this scrawl such phrases as “Itm lent v j d,” “layd owt A bout w h,” and one with which we are already familiar, “as ffoloweth.” The writing thus appears to be not scrawl at all but a practicing hand readying itself for using these forms of entry in the pages that follow. When Henslowe writes “Chomley when,” he is anticipating entries that will be dedicated to the keeping of a regular record of Cholmley’s repayments. The two other times the name appears on the front of the ledger are written in differ- ent ink, suggesting that they were not written at the same time, and the flourish on the first letter differs (see Figure I.2)—I propose these two items were written first even though they appear lower on the page; in short, I suspect that Henslowe was practicing to write his business part- ner’s name and, unhappy with his first attempt, he tried another style and spelling next to it. He then settled on the first “C” as the best, but the second spelling as correct, and then put the combination together in a trial entry on one of the few blank spaces on the page. In his edi- tion, Foakes adds the name of “Clement Bowle” between the upper and lower attempts at Cholmley’s name on the front page, but omits the lettering that appears on the page in close proximity to these completed names. Among the omissions, an incomplete “Chom” can be located above “Chomley when,” and a second attempt at the name “Clement” is below “Chemley Chomley.” This is no clustering illusion. Henslowe was surely practicing Cholmley’s name and comparing it to “Clement,” which I take to mean that he was seeking to prevent his own hand from leading to potential confusion between the names in the ledger. Cholmley’s name does not appear in the ledger, as I have noted, but then neither does the name of Bowle. While Henslowe’s agreement with Cholmley survives, the documentary record is silent on the question of why the name of Clement Bowle appears on the front of Henslowe’s ledger. Again, Henslowe’s fastidiousness may provide us with a clue. He writes the name of Bowle twice more on this page, one of which is

Figure I.2 Dulwich College MS VII f1r detail. © David Cooper. Source: With kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College. Introduction 21 alongside the first attempt at the full name, and which reads, “Bowle wth owt mersey” (Bowle without mercy). Immediately beneath this, to the right of “Chomley,” we see “Bowght wth mersey” (Foakes, 3).6 “Bowle” and “bought” may not seem very likely to represent a source of confu- sion, until we compare the orthography, and then the two appear re- markably similar (see Figure I.2, on the right side of the detail), but the top line, compared with the name to the left, more clearly spells “Bowle” and the lower line has “bowght” (bought). Elsewhere on the same page, Henslowe repeats a number of snippets of proverbial phrases related to being a lender and a man without mercy: he dwells on the idea that a man who lends is a friend, and on the prospect that being without mercy can bring a man to “myse” (muse) or think upon mercy. These musings make perfect sense in the context of the loan accounts and the pawn business on which Henslowe was set to soon embark, but they might also inform our understanding of his frame of mind when he inscribed the name of Clement Bowle “without mercy” on the front of his ledger. Just who was this Bowle? The pages of history seem to be no help in identifying any Clement Bowle who might have been an associate of Henslowe’s circa 1592, except for the presence of a man with this name in records of the assizes from Essex in 1593. On 30 March of that year, Clement Bowles “of Halstead a labourer” was indicted for stealing six- teen pairs of gloves from Robert Androwe at Coggeshall, for which he pleaded not guilty (T/A 418/58/22, Essex Assizes, 26 July 1593),7 and from a subsequent record it appears that he was acquitted (T/A 418/58/5). The knowledge that he was accused of stealing sixteen pairs of gloves in 1593 prompts me to wonder if he previously occupied himself by acquir- ing apparel for the players leasing Henslowe’s Rose. As Alison Findlay has observed, gloves “formed a customary part of the boy actors’ means of building up the image of a woman on stage” (158). If this is indeed the case, the sixteen pairs Bowles was said to have stolen in March 1593 stands in stark contrast to just one pair of “rowghte gloves” that can be found in Henslowe’s inventory of properties for the Admiral’s Men from 10 March 1598 (Foakes, 320). The lack of references to gloves in his inventories need not mean that the players did not use any gloves—it should be noted that the “rowghte” (wrought) gloves are inventoried by Henslowe in a list of properties and not in the inventories of “goods,” “sewtes,” and “aparell” that accompany them. This means that the pair of wrought gloves were not understood by Henslowe to be an item of clothing. It is very likely that Henslowe did not inventory gloves worn by the boys simply because they were not expected to last for long and were cheaply replaced. Jean MacIntyre has shown that companies performing at Court were routinely issued with large supplies of gloves cheaply: a Revels Office ac- count of purchases for 1573–74 lists twenty-four gloves “for the children of wynsor” for a total of twenty shillings, the same number is recorded 22 Introduction for “Munkesters boyes” for half that cost, twelve pairs of “Black gloves” for just three shillings, and so on (62).8 With the Admiral’s Men per- forming regularly at Court from 1594 to 1600, it is to be expected that the company enjoyed a regular turnover of fresh gloves, rendering their inclusion in any inventory unnecessary. In February 1593, on the other hand, the playhouses were closed for the plague, so Lord Strange’s Men—who had been Henslowe’s tenants up to that time—were setting out on their provincial tour. The company had performed at Court in December and January, so were probably well stocked for gloves, but then a tour would have placed additional demands on supplies of flimsy items of this ilk. Idle speculation, perhaps, so it may suffice to simply note that Henslowe had ample reason to make the acquaintance of “a labourer” in late 1591 or early 1592, as the record of his costs for the expansion of the Rose lists a number of payments for materials and for “laborers wages” (Foakes, 11). It is not certain that this Bowles and the Bowle on the front of Henslowe’s ledger are the same person, but the circumstances under which the first was indicted may be connected in some way to Henslowe’s phrasing: he writes that Bowle is to be treated “without mercy,” suggesting an indiscretion of some kind. Did he steal from or perhaps for Henslowe at an earlier date, hence his name on the front of the ledger? Whatever the reason, I offer this puzzle as a reminder of the need for history on the ground to connect to the half visible shad- ows of the labourers and commoners who populate the world of the players and patrons. The expansion of the Rose was in all likelihood undertaken before Henslowe acquired the ledger, as John Henslowe died late in 1591, so his ledger would have passed into his younger brother’s hands sometime before Christmas.9 The timing is significant because it points to an an- swer to Cholmley’s disappearance from the ledger as well. Christmas day was one of the feast days on which Cholmley’s payments fell due. As Henslowe prepared himself to use the spare pages of his older brother’s ledger for his own account keeping, most likely with a view to start- ing after the festival season, he was expecting a payment to shortly fall due, and so he practiced entries in anticipation that he need not tally the amount of the fixed payments but only needed to record “when” each fell due, or was paid, or both. By the time he made his earliest entries in the ledger in February, however, if Cholmley’s payment de- faulted, under the terms of the agreement, the partnership would have been terminated and Cholmley sent packing. Henslowe now had “my play howsse” to concern himself with. He left six pages to make space for other types of records, and then began his first entry: “In the name of god A men 1591 beginge the 19 of febreary my lord stranges men A ffoloweth 1591” (Foakes, 16). The year of this entry was 1592 but Henslowe adhered to the old style calendar, according to which the year commenced on 25 March. Later in the year, he would turn to the fourth Introduction 23 page to record the expenditures he made for the expansion of the Rose, with the year marked 1592, indicating these entries were not made until April (Foakes, 9). Henslowe’s first entries in the ledger were thus related to a theatre business he originally entered into as part of a relatively straightforward financial arrangement, but with the collapse of his part- nership he became more aware of the need to take control of inventories and records of receipts from each of the performances at his Rose. The words he wrote to commence his first entry were the same as those with which he commenced the entry for June 1594, and they signal a belief or at least a hope in the entrepreneur that the books will balance, perhaps divinely, and that he might even anticipate the receipt of an acceptable profit margin from the venture.

Notes 1 See also Johnson, “Two Names.” William Ingram notes it “may have been called the Playhouse” (152) but offers no explanation and refers to it else- where only as “the playhouse.” The first scholar I have seen to use the name consistently is Elizabeth E. Tavares, in her dissertation (Acts). 2 The most important work in establishing this connection was Halliwell-­ Phillipps, 386–414. 3 In most respects, this transcription follows that by Foakes, except on a number of points. Walter Wilson Greg used the crossed majuscule “℞” but he modernised its meaning to “Received,” and Foakes retained the meaning in support of amending the glyph to “Rd,” a convention widely followed ever since. Henslowe may have used the shorthand “℞” (see note 4, below) but the “x” is quite pronounced in his hand and matches his use elsewhere, as can be confirmed with reference to his entry for “paradox” (MSS 7, 21v). For this reason, I separate the letters but use a subscript form on the “x” to indicate the common practice of crossing the majuscule, thus: “Rx.” I also render Henslowe’s connectors as hard lines and, instead of the paragraph mark (“¶”—see Foakes, lxiv), I use a Latin small “b” for its closer visual similarity to the mark on the original. I have also added extra spaces to the first line to indicate its alignment on the page and with the line below. For Greg’s discussion on the majuscule, see his edition, xxix. 4 The shorthand “℞” (now commonly used for medical prescriptions) histor- ically stood for “recipe” (indicative of “recipere”), meaning both a medical composition and the equivalent to the modern “receipt” (OED, “receipt, n. 12a”). See Martin, 121. 5 Cf. all entries with a header for accounts in Foakes: 16, 19, 20, 21, 54, 55, 60, 225. 6 The transcription by Foakes places “Bowght wth mersey” below “Chemley Chomley” rather than to the right of it, obscuring the relative proximity of “Bowle” to “Bowght” on the original. 7 See the Calendar of Essex Assize Files (Ass 35/35/2). 8 Ironically, MacIntyre notes the solitary glove in Henslowe’s inventory as evidence that gloves were not worn for public performances even though the regular supply of gloves at Court performances is given as evidence of the ease with which they could be replaced (61). 9 John Henslowe produced his will on 13 July 1591, but he certainly died before the year’s end. See Cerasano, “Geography,” 332, n. 12. 24 Introduction References Bowsher, Julian M.C. “Twenty Years On: The Archaeology of Shakespeare’s London Playhouses,” Shakespeare 7.4 (2011): 452–66. ———. Shakespeare’s London Theatreland: Archaeology, History and Drama (London: Museum of London Archaeology, 2012). Bruster, Douglas. Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Carr, Edward Hallett. What Is History? (London: Penguin Books, 1961). Carruthers, Bruce G., and Wendy Nelson Espeland. “Accounting for Rationality: Double Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality,” American Journal of Sociology 97.1 (1991): 31–69. Carson, Neil. A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Cerasano, Susan P. “The Geography of Henslowe’s Diary,” Shakespeare Quarterly 56.3 (2005): 328–53. ———. “Henslowe’s ‘Curious’ Diary,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 17 (2005): 72–85. Chambers, E.K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930). Chartier, Roger. Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993). Dutton, Richard. Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (London: Routledge, 1991). Findlay, Alison. Women in Shakespeare: A Dictionary (London: Continuum, 2010). Foakes, R.A., ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Gawande, Atul. “The Cancer-Cluster Myth,” The New Yorker, 8 February (1999): 34–37. Gosson, Stephen. The Schoole of Abuse, Containing a Pleasant Invective against Poets, Pipers, Plaiers, Jesters and Such Like Caterpillars of the Commonwealth (London: Thomas Woodcocke, 1579). Green, Anna. Cultural History (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). Greg, Walter W., ed. Henslowe’s Diary (London: A.H. Bullen, 1904). Griffith, Eva. A Jacobean Company and Its Playhouse: The Queen’s Servants at the Red Bull Theatre (c1605–1619) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). ———. Shakespeare’s Opposites: The Admiral’s Company 1594–1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard. Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1883). Ingram, William. “The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal,” Shakespeare Quarterly 21.4 (1970): 385–98. ———. The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992). Introduction 25 Johnson, Laurie. The Tain of Hamlet (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). ———. “The Two Names of Newington Butts,” Shakespeare Quarterly 68.2 (2017), forthcoming. Keenan, Siobhan. Acting Companies and Their Plays in Shakespeare’s London (London: A&C Black, 2014). Knutson, Roslyn Lander. The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613 (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1991). ———. Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). ———. “What’s So Special about 1594?” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 449 – 67. Korda, Natasha. “Household Property/Stage Property: Henslowe as Pawnbroker,” Theatre Journal 48.2 (1996): 185–95. MacIntyre, Jean. Costumes and Scripts in the Elizabethan Theatres (Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1992). Malone, Edmond. The Plays of William Shakespeare, Vol. 3 (Basil: J.J. Tourneisen, 1799). Manley, Laurence, and Sally-Beth MacLean. Lord Strange’s Men and Their Plays (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). Martin, Charles Trice. The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records (London: Reeves and Turner, 1892). McInnis, David, and Matthew Steggle, eds. Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). McMillin, Scott, and Sally-Beth MacLean. The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Rowe, Nicholas. Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709). Reprinted, Samuel H. Monk, ed. (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1948). Shapiro, James. Shakespeare and the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). Tavares, Elizabeth E. Acts of Imagination: Curating the Early Elizabethan Repertories, 1582–1594. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-­ Champaign (2016). Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present (London: Vintage, 1991). White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-­ Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1973). White, Paul Whitfield, and Suzanne R. Westfall, eds. Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Introduction Bowsher, Julian M.C. “Twenty Years On: The Archaeology of Shakespeare’s London Playhouses,” Shakespeare 7.4 (2011): 452–466. Bowsher, Julian M.C. . Shakespeare’s London Theatreland: Archaeology, History and Drama (London: Museum of London Archaeology, 2012). Bruster, Douglas . Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Carr, Edward Hallett . What Is History? (London: Penguin Books, 1961). Carruthers, Bruce G. , and Wendy Nelson Espeland . “Accounting for Rationality: Double Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality,” American Journal of Sociology 97.1 (1991): 31–69. Carson, Neil . A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Cerasano, Susan P. “The Geography of Henslowe’s Diary,” Shakespeare Quarterly 56.3 (2005): 328–353. Cerasano, Susan P. . “Henslowe’s ‘Curious’ Diary,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 17 (2005): 72–85. Chambers, E.K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930). Chartier, Roger . Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993). Dutton, Richard . Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (London: Routledge, 1991). Findlay, Alison . Women in Shakespeare: A Dictionary (London: Continuum, 2010). Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Gawande, Atul . “The Cancer-Cluster Myth,” The New Yorker, 8 February (1999): 34–37. Gosson, Stephen . The Schoole of Abuse, Containing a Pleasant Invective against Poets, Pipers, Plaiers, Jesters and Such Like Caterpillars of the Commonwealth (London: Thomas Woodcocke, 1579). Green, Anna . Cultural History (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). Greg, Walter W. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary (London: A.H. Bullen, 1904). Griffith, Eva . A Jacobean Company and Its Playhouse: The Queen’s Servants at the Red Bull Theatre (c1605–1619) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Gurr, Andrew . Shakespeare’s Opposites: The Admiral’s Company 1594–1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard . Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1883). Ingram, William . “The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal,” Shakespeare Quarterly 21.4 (1970): 385–398. Ingram, William . The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992).25 Johnson, Laurie . The Tain of Hamlet (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). Johnson, Laurie . “The Two Names of Newington Butts,” Shakespeare Quarterly 68.2 (2017), forthcoming. Keenan, Siobhan . Acting Companies and Their Plays in Shakespeare’s London (London: A&C Black, 2014). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613 (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1991). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “What’s So Special about 1594?” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 449–467. Korda, Natasha . “Household Property/Stage Property: Henslowe as Pawnbroker,” Theatre Journal 48.2 (1996): 185–195. MacIntyre, Jean . Costumes and Scripts in the Elizabethan Theatres (Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1992). Malone, Edmond . The Plays of William Shakespeare, Vol. 3 (Basil: J.J. Tourneisen, 1799). Manley, Laurence , and Sally-Beth MacLean . Lord Strange’s Men and Their Plays (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). Martin, Charles Trice . The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records (London: Reeves and Turner, 1892). McInnis, David , and Matthew Steggle , eds. Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). McMillin, Scott , and Sally-Beth MacLean . The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Rowe, Nicholas . Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709). Reprinted, Samuel H. Monk , ed. (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1948). Shapiro, James . Shakespeare and the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). Tavares, Elizabeth E. Acts of Imagination: Curating the Early Elizabethan Repertories, 1582–1594. Dissertation . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2016). Taylor, Gary . Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present (London: Vintage, 1991). White, Hayden . Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1973). White, Paul Whitfield , and Suzanne R. Westfall , eds. Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

“be-gininge” Ackroyd, Peter . Shakespeare: The Biography (London: Chatto & Windus, 2005). Adams, Joseph Quincy . Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of English Theatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration (Orig. Houghton Mifflin , 1917; Reprinted, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1960). Adams, Joseph Quincy . A Life of William Shakespeare (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1923). Alexander, Peter . Shakespeare’s Life and Art (London: James Nisbet, 1939). Bate, Jonathan . The Soul of the Age: The Life, Mind and World of William Shakespeare (London: Viking, 2008). Bevington, David . “The Performance History,” in Doctor Faustus: A Critical Guide. Ed. Sara Munson Deats (London: Bloomsbury, 2012): 41–71. Bourke, Joanna . “First Look at Ambitious Plans for Transformed Elephant and Castle Town Centre,” Evening Standard (25 May, 2016). Bowsher, Julian . Shakespeare’s London Theatreland: Archaeology, History and Drama (London: Museum of London Archaeology, 2012).50 Bradbrook, Muriel Clara . Shakespeare: The Poet in His World (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978). Carson, Neil . A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Chalmers, George . An Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeare-Papers, Which Were Exhibited in Norfolk Street (London: Thomas Egerton, 1797). Chambers, Edmund Kerchever . The Elizabethan Stage, Vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Collier, John Payne . The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare: And Annals of the Stage to the Restoration, Vol. 3 (London: John Murray, 1831). Collier, John Payne . ed. Five Old Plays, Forming a Supplement to the Collections of Dodsley and Others (London: William Pickering, 1833). Desant, John Roche , ed. Acts of the Privy Council of England, Vols. 1–25 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1890–1901). Duncan-Jones, Katherine . Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from a Life (London: Arden, 2001). Dutton, Richard . Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (London: Routledge, 1991). Edwards, Philip . Shakespeare: A Writer’s Progress (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). Field, Nathan . A Woman Is a Weather-Cock (London: John Budge, 1612). Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Freeman, Arthur , and Janet Ing Freeman . John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004). Furness, Horace Howard , ed. A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare: King Lear, Vol. 5, Seventh edition (Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott, 1880). Ganzel, Dewey . Fortune and Men’s Eyes: The Career of John Payne Collier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982). Gascoigne, George . A larum for London, or the Siedge of Antwerpe (London: Edward Allde for William Ferbrand, 1602). Gieskes, Edward . “‘From Wronger and Wronged Have I Fee’: Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Legal Culture” in Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007): 110–118. Greenblatt, Stephen . Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004). Greg, Walter W. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary (London: A.H. Bullen, 1904). Gurr, Andrew . “Intertextuality at Windsor,” Shakespeare Quarterly 38.2 (1987): 189–200. Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, Third edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Gurr, Andrew . “Three Reluctant Patrons and Early Shakespeare,” Shakespeare Quarterly 44.2 (1993): 159–182. Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).51 Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, Fourth edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard . A Life of William Shakespeare (London: John Russell Smith, 1848). Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard . A Descriptive Calendar of the Ancient Manuscripts and Records in the Possession of the Corporation at Stratford-upon-Avon (London: J.E. Adlard, 1863). Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard . A Collection of Ancient Documents Respecting the Office of the Master of the Revels, and Other Papers Relating to the Early English Theatre (London: T. Richards, 1870). Holden, Anthony . William Shakespeare: His Life and Work (London: Little, Brown and Company, 1999). Honan, Park . Shakespeare: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Ingram, William . The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992). Jonson, Ben . The Alchemist, in Ben Jonson’s Plays and Masques, Norton Critical Edition, Second edition. Ed. Richard Harp (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2001). Kay, Dennis . William Shakespeare: His Life and Times (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995). Kesson, Andy . “Introduction: Playhouses, Plays, and Theater History: Rethinking the 1580s,” Shakespeare Studies 45 (2017): 19–40. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “What’s So Special about 1594?” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 449–467. Lee, Sidney . A Life of William Shakespeare (London: Macmillan, 1898). Levi, Peter . The Life and Times of William Shakespeare (London: Macmillan, 1988). Lodge, Thomas . Euphues Shadow, the Battaile of the Sences, Wherein Youthfull Folly Is Set Downe in His Right Figure, and Vaine Fancies Are Prooued to Produce Many Offences (London: Abell Jeffes, 1592). Malone, Edmond . The Plays of William Shakespeare, Vol. 3 (Basil: J.J. Tourneisen, 1799). Malone, Edmond . The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, Vol. 10 (London: C. Baldwin, 1821). Martin, Peter . Edmond Malone, Shakespearean Scholar: A Literary Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Middleton, Thomas . “The Black Book” ( G.B. Shand , ed.), in Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007): 204–218. Miller, Stephen Roy , ed. The Taming of a Shrew: The 1594 Quarto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Nelson, Alan H. “Philip Henslowe and the Bankside Watermen: A Fresh Look at Three Familiar Documents.” Conference. Who Invented the “Shakespearean Theatre?” Grace Ioppolo , convenor. University of Reading, 24 November 2012. Cited with permission .52 Ordish, Thomas Fairman . Early London Theatres: In the Fields (New York: Macmillan, 1894). Peery, William . “The Influence of Ben Jonson on Nathan Field,” Studies in Philology 43.3 (1946): 482–497. Potter, Lois . The Life of William Shakespeare: A Critical Biography (Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012). Powell, Thomas . A Welch Bayte to spare Prouender (London: Valentine Simmes, 1603). Rimbault, Edward Francis . “Ancient Poetical Tracts of the Sixteenth Century,” in Early English Poetry, Ballads, and Popular Literature of the Middle Ages, Vol. 6 (London: T. Richards for the Percy Society, 1842). Shapiro, James . Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). Stow, John . Annales, or a Generall Chronicle of England. Revised by Edmond Howes (London: Richard Meighen, 1631). Syme, Holger Schott . “The Meaning of Success: Stories of 1594 and Its Aftermath,” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 490–525. Taylor, Gary . “The Order of Persons” in Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007): 31–79. Taylor, Gary . “Thomas Middleton: Lives and Afterlives” in Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007): 25–58. Taylor, Gary , and John Lavagnino , eds. Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007). Thoms, William J. , ed. Anecdotes and Traditions Illustrative of Early English History and Literature, Derived from MS. Sources (London: Camden Society, 1839). Verhasselt, Eliane . “A Biography of Nathan Field, Dramatist and Actor,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 25.3 (1946): 485–508. Wells, Stanley . Shakespeare: A Dramatic Life (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1994). Wells, Stanley . Shakespeare: The Poet and His Plays (London: Methuen, 1997). White, Martin . “London Professional Playhouses and Performances,” in The Cambridge History of British Theatre: Volume 1, Origins to 1660. Ed. Jane Milling and Peter Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004): 297–332. Wright, James . Historia Histrionica: An Historical Account of the English Stage, Shewing The Ancient Use, Improvement, and Perfection, of Dramatick Representations, in This Nation. In a Dialogue, of Plays and Players (London: G. Croom for William Haws, 1699).

“at newing ton” Aydelotte, Frank . Elizabethan Rogues and Vagabonds (Oxon: Frank Cass, 1913). Berry, Herbert . The Boar’s Head Playhouse (Cranbury: Associated University Presses, 1986). Berry, Herbert . “The First Public Playhouses, Especially the Red Lion,” Shakespeare Quarterly 40.2 (1989): 133–148.91 Bowsher, Julian M.C. “Twenty Years On: The Archaeology of Shakespeare’s London Playhouses,” Shakespeare 7.4 (2011): 452–466. Bowsher, Julian M.C. . Shakespeare’s London Theatreland: Archaeology, History and Drama (London: Museum of London Archaeology, 2012). Brownstein, Oscar . “Why Didn’t Burbage Lease the Beargarden? A Conjecture in Comparative Architecture,” in The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch 1576–1598. Ed. Herbert Berry (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979): 81–96. Bruster, Douglas . Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage, Vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Cohen, Walter . “Political Criticism of Shakespeare,” in Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. Ed. Jean E. Howard and Marion F. O’Connor (London: Methuen, 1987): 18–46. Darlington, Ida . Survey of London, Vol. 25: St. George’s Fields, the Parishes of St. George the Martyr, Southwark and St. Mary, Newington (London: London County Council, 1955). Darlington, Ida , and James Howgego . Printed Maps of London, circa 1553–1850 (London: George Philip and Sons, 1964). Davison, Peter . “Commerce and Patronage: The Lord Chamberlain’s Men’s Tour of 1597,” in Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R.A. Foakes. Ed. Grace Ioppolo (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2000): 56–71. Delano-Smith, Catherine , and Roger J.P. Kain . English Maps: A History (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1999). Desant, John Roche , ed. Acts of the Privy Council of England, Vols. 1–25 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1890–1901). Foakes, R.A. “The Discovery of the Rose Theatre: Some Implications,” Shakespeare Survey 43 (1990): 141–148. Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Holinshed, Raphael . Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Vol. 4 (1587; reprint, London: J. Johnson, 1808). Ingram, William . “The Playhouse at Newington Butts: A New Proposal,” Shakespeare Quarterly 21.4 (1970): 385–398. Ingram, William . The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992). Johnson, Laurie . “The Two Names of Newington Butts,” Shakespeare Quarterly 68.2 (2017), forthcoming. Kinney, Arthur F. Humanist Poetics: Thought, Rhetoric, and Fiction in Sixteenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986). Kitchen, Frank . “John Norden (1547–1625): Estate Surveyor, Topographer, County Mapmaker and Devotional Writer,” Imago Mundi 49.1 (1997): 43–61. Loengard, Janet . “An Elizabethan Lawsuit: John Brayne, His Carpenter, and the Building of the Red Lion Theatre,” Shakespeare Quarterly 34.3 (1983): 298–310.92 Lysons, Daniel . The Environs of London, Vol. 1 (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1792). Mackinder, Anthony , Lyn Blackmore , Julian Bowsher , and Christopher Phillpotts . The Hope Playhouse, Animal Baiting and Later Industrial Activity at Bear Gardens on Bankside: Excavations at Riverside House and New Globe Walk, Southwark, 1999–2000. MOLA Archaeology Studies Series 25 (London: Museum of London Archaeology, 2013). Marks, Stephen Powys . The Map of Mid-sixteenth Century London: An Investigation into the Relationship between a Copper-Engraved Map and Its Derivatives (London: London Topographical Society, 1964). Mitton, G.E. Maps of Old London (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908). Munro, Ian . The Figure of the Crowd in Early Modern London: The City and Its Double (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). Nichols, J.G. , ed. The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London, 1550–1563 (London: Camden Society, 1848). Norden, John . Speculum Britanniae: The First Parte: An Historicall, and Chorographicall Description of Middlesex (London: Daniel Browne, 1593). Norden, John . Speculi Britanniae Pars: An Historical and Chorographical Description of the County of Essex (1594). Ed. Henry Ellis (London: Camden Society, 1840). Ogilby, John . Britannia. Volume the First: Or an Illustration of the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, By a Geographical and Historical Description of the Principal Roads Thereof (London: John Ogilby, 1699). Parvini, Neema . Shakespeare’s History Plays: Rethinking Historicism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012). Preiss, Richard . Clowning and Authorship in Early Modern Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Short, John Rennie . Making Space: Revisioning the World, 1475–1600 (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2004). Stockwood, John . A Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse, 24 August 1578 (London: Henry Bynneman for George Byshop, 1578). Stow, John . Annales, or a Generall Chronicle of England. Revised by Edmond Howes (London: Richard Meighen, 1631). Stow, John . Two London Chronicles. Ed. Charles Lethbridge Kingsford (London: Royal Historical Society, 1910). Turner, Henry S. The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts 1580–1630 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Van Den Berg , Kent T. Playhouse and Cosmos: Shakespearean Theatre as Metaphor (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1985). White, Martin . “London Professional Playhouses and Performances,” in The Cambridge History of British Theatre, Vol. 1. Ed. Jane Milling and Peter Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015): 298–338. Wickham, Glynne , Herbert Berry , and William Ingram , eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

“my Lord Admerelle men & my Lord chamberlen men” Adams, Joseph Quincy . Shakespearean Playhouses: A History of English Theatres from the Beginnings to the Restoration (Orig. Houghton Mifflin , 1917; Reprinted, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1960). Arber, Edward , ed. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D. Vol. 2 (London: Stationers’ Company, 1875). Bowsher, Julian M.C. “The Rose and its Stages,” Shakespeare Survey: Volume 60, Theatres for Shakespeare. Ed. Peter Holland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 36–48. Carson, Neil . A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Cerasano, Susan P. “The Patronage Network of Phillip Henslowe and Edward Alleyn,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 13 (2001): 82–92. Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Chambers, E.K. , and W.W. Greg , ed. Dramatic Records of the City of London: The Remembrancia (Oxford: Malone Society, 1907). Clare, Janet . Shakespeare’s Stage Traffic: Imitation, Borrowing, and Competition in Renaissance Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Cook, David , and F.P. Wilson , ed. Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, 1558–1642 (Oxford: Malone Society, 1961). Cooper, Ian David . Networks, News and Communication: Political Elites and Community Relations in Elizabethan Devon, 1588–1603. Dissertation (Plymouth University, 2012). Davison, Peter . “Commerce and Patronage: The Lord Chamberlain’s Men’s Tour of 1597,” in Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R.A. Foakes. Ed. Grace Ioppolo (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2000): 56–71. Desant, John Roche , ed. Acts of the Privy Council of England, Vols. 1–25 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1890–1901). Dutton, Richard . Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (London: Routledge, 1991). Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Frazer, Winifred . “Henslowe’s ‘ne’,” Notes and Queries 38.1 (1991): 34–35. Greem , Mary Anne Everett , ed. Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Elizabeth, 1591–1594 (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867). Greg, Walter W. , ed. Henslowe Papers (London: A.H. Bullen, 1907). Greg, Walter W. , ed., Gesta Grayorum 1688 (London: Malone Society, 1914). Gurr, Andrew . “Three Reluctant Patrons and Early Shakespeare,” Shakespeare Quarterly 44.2 (1993): 159–182. Gurr, Andrew . “The Chimera of Amalgamation,” Theatre Research International 18.2 (1993): 85–93. Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Ingram, William . The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992).123 Ingram, William . “The Cost of Touring,” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 6 (1993): 57–62. Ingram, William . “What Kind of Future for the Theatrical Past: Or, What Will Count as Theater History in the Next Millennium?” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.2 (1997): 215–225. Kenny, Robert W. Elizabeth’s Admiral: The Political Career of Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, 1536–1624 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “Marlowe, Company Ownership, and the Role of Edward II,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 18 (2005): 37–46. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “What’s So Special about 1594?” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 449–467. MacLean, Sally-Beth . “Adult Playing Companies, 1583–1593,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theatre. Ed. Richard Dutton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009): 39–55. Manley, Laurence , and Sally-Beth MacLean . Lord Strange’s Men and Their Plays (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). McMillin, Scott . “Sussex’s Men in 1594: The Evidence of Titus Andronicus and The Jew of Malta ,” Theatre Survey 32 (1991): 214–223. McMillin, Scott , and Sally-Beth MacLean . The Queen’s Men and Their Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Nelson, Alan H. “George Buc, William Shakespeare, and the Folger George a Green ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 49.1 (1998): 74–83. Nelson, Alan H. . “Philip Henslowe and the Bankside Watermen: A Fresh Look at Three Familiar Documents.” Conference. Who Invented the “Shakespearean Theatre?” Grace Ioppolo , convenor. University of Reading, 24 November 2012. Cited with permission . Ordish, Thomas Fairman . Early London Theatres: In the Fields (New York: Macmillan, 1894). Ostovich, Helen , Holger Schott Syme , and Andrew Griffin , ed. Locating the Queen’s Men, 1583–1603: Material Practices and the Conditions of Playing (London and New York: Routledge, 2016). Rutter, Carol Chillington . Documents of the Rose Playhouse (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999). Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Elizabethan Acting Companies, 1588–1594: Received Narratives and Historiographic Problems. Dissertation (Ohio State University, 2003). Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. . Shakespeare’s Companies: William Shakespeare’s Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577–1594 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Schrickx, Willem . Foreign Envoys and Travelling Players in the Age of Shakespeare and Jonson (Wetteren: Universaa, 1986). Streitberger, W.R. The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Syme, Holger Schott . “Three’s Company: Alternative Histories of London’s Theatres in the 1590s,” Shakespeare Survey 64 (2012): 269–289. Vickers, Brian . Shakespeare, Co-author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Wickham, Glynne , Herbert Berry , and William Ingram , eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

“ƃ 3 of June 1594” Arber, Edward , ed. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D., Vol. 2 (London: Stationers’ Company, 1875). Barber, C.L. Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and Its Relation to Social Custom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959). Bate, Jonathan , ed. Titus Andronicus. Arden Shakespeare Edition: Third Series (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).164 Berghahn, Klaus L. “Comedy without Laughter: Jewish Characters in Comedies from Shylock to Nathan,” in Laughter Unlimited: Essays on Humor, Satire, and the Comic. Ed. Reinhold Grimm and Jost Hermand (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991): 3–26. Bevington, David , ed. The Jew of Malta. Revels Student Edition. Text based on the Revels Plays edition of N.W. Bawcutt (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1997). Boyd, Brian . “Common Words in Titus Andronicus: The Presence of Peele,” Notes and Queries 42.3 (1995): 300–307. Bruster, Douglas , and Genevieve Smith . “A New Chronology for Shakespeare’s Plays,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31.2 (2016): 301–320. Carson, Neil . A Companion to Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Cerasano, Susan P. “Edward Alleyn, the New Model Actor, and the Rise of the Celebrity in the 1590s,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 18 (2005): 47–58. Chambers, Edmund Kerchever . The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Chambers, Edmund Kerchever . William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930). Cory, Herbert E. “The Golden Age of the Spenserian Pastoral,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 25.2 (1910): 241–267. Doubleday, Herbert Arthur , and William Page . The Victoria History of the County of Essex, Vol. 5 (London: Constable, 1965). Drayton, Michael . Ideas Mirrovr (London: James Roberts for Nicholas Linge, 1594). Duncan-Jones, Katherine . Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from a Life (London: Arden, 2001). Dutton, Richard . Shakespeare, Court Dramatist (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Farmer, John S. , ed. Six Anonymous Plays (London: Early English Drama Society, 1906). Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Greenblatt, Stephen . “The Touch of the Real,” Representations 59 (1997): 14–29. Greenblatt, Stephen . Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Gurr, eAndrew . Shakespeare’s Opposites: The Admiral’s Company 1594–1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Hughes, Alan , ed. Titus Andronicus. The New Cambridge Shakespeare: Updated edition. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Ingram, William . “What Kind of Future for the Theatrical Past: Or, What Will Count as Theater History in the Next Millennium?” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.2 (1997): 215–225.165 Jackson, Macdonald P. “Stage Directions and Speech Headings in Act 1 of Titus Andronicus Q (1594): Shakespeare or Peele?,” Studies in Bibliography 49 (1996): 134–148. Johnson, Laurie . The Tain of Hamlet (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). Jowett, John . “Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit ,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 87 (1993): 453–486. Kathman, David . “Reconsidering The Seven Deadly Sins ,” Early Theatre 7.1 (2004): 13–44. King, T.J. Casting Shakespeare’s Plays: London Actors and Their Roles, 1590–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Kirkpatrick , Sir Cyril Reginald . “Presidential Address 1932. The Tidal Thames,” Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 233 (Westminster: The Institution of Civil Engineers, 1933): 1–34. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “Pembroke’s Men in 1592–93, Their Repertory and Touring Schedule,” Early Theatre 4 (2001): 129–138. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “What’s So Special about 1594?,” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 449–467. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “New Directions: The Jew of Malta in Repertory,” in The Jew of Malta: A Critical Guide. Ed. Robert A. Logan (London: Continuum Press, 2013): 79–105. Knutson, Roslyn Lander . “Ur-plays and Other Exercises in Making Stuff Up,” in Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England. Ed. David McInnis and Matthew Steggle (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014): 31–54. Leech, Clifford . Christopher Marlowe: Poet for the Stage. Ed. Anne Lancashire (New York: AMS Press, 1986). Levin, Richard Lewis . “The Longleat Manuscript and Titus Andronicus ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 53.3 (2002): 323–340. Manley, Laurence , and Sally-Beth MacLean . Lord Strange’s Men and Their Plays (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). Martin, Charles Trice . The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records (London: Reeves and Turner, 1892). Maxwell, J.C. ed. Titus Andronicus. New Arden Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953). McMillin, Scott . The Elizabethan Theatre and the Book of Sir Thomas More (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987). McMillin, Scott . “Sussex’s Men in 1594: The Evidence of Titus Andronicus and The Jew of Malta ,” Theatre Survey 32 (1991): 214–223. Melnikoff, Kirk . “‘[I]ygging vaines’ and ‘rimming mother wits’: Marlowe, Clowns, and the Early Frameworks of Dramatic Authorship,” Early Modern Literary Studies 16 (2007): 8. 1–37. Melnikoff, Kirk . “New Directions: The Jew of Malta as Print Commodity,” in The Jew of Malta: A Critical Reader. Ed. Robert A. Logan (London: Arden, 2013): 129–148. Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003).166 Parrott, Thomas Marc . Shakespearean Comedy (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949). Percy, William . Sonnets to the Fairest Coelia (London: Adam Islip, 1594). Potter, Lois . The Life of William Shakespeare: A Critical Biography (Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012). Preiss, Richard . Clowning and Authorship in Early Modern Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Publius Syrus . Sententiae, Ed. R.A.H. Bickford-Smith (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1895). Rickert, Edith . “Political Propaganda and Satire in A Midsummer Night’s Dream ,” Modern Philology 21.1 (1923): 53–87. Roberts, R.A. , ed. Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 4, 1590–1594 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1892). Rutter, Carol Chillington . Documents of the Rose Playhouse (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999). Schlueter, June . “Rereading the Peacham Drawing,” Shakespeare Quarterly 50.2 (1999): 171–184. Schmerl, Rudolf B. “Comedy and the Manipulation of Moral Distance: Falstaff and Shylock,” The Bucknell Review 10.2 (1961): 128–137. Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Shakespeare’s Companies: William Shakespeare’s Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577–1594 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Scott, Sarah K. “The Jew of Malta and the Development of City Comedy: ‘The Mean Passage of a History’ ,” in Christopher Marlowe the Craftsman: Lives, Stage, and Page. Ed. Sarah K. Scott and M.L. Stapleton (London and New York: Routledge, 2016): 91–108. Scott-Warren, Jason . “Early Modern Bookkeeping and Life Writing Revisited: Accounting for Richard Stonley,” Past and Present 230.11 (2016): 151–170. Simkin, Stevie . “‘The Artificial Jew of Malta’s Nose’: Performed Ethnicity in Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta ,” Studies in Theatre Production 10.1 (1999): 67–92. Stewart, Alan . “The Materiality of Early Modern Life-Writing: The Case of Richard Stonley,” in On Life-Writing. Ed. Zachary Leader (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 161–179. Stow, John . Annales, or a Generall Chronicle of England. Revised by Edmond Howes (London: Richard Meighen, 1631). Syme, Holger Schott . “Three’s Company: Alternative Histories of London’s Theatres in the 1590s,” Shakespeare Survey 65 (2012): 269–289. Tavares, Elizabeth E. “Super Troupers; or, Supplemented Playing Before 1594,” Shakespeare Studies 45 (2017): 77–86. Taylor, Gary . “The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare’s Plays,” in William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Ed. Stanley Wells , Gary Taylor , John Jowett , and William Montgomery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987): 69–114. van Es, Bart . “‘Johannes fac Totum’?: Shakespeare’s First Contact with the Acting Companies,” Shakespeare Quarterly 61.4 (2010): 551–577. Vickers, Brian . Shakespeare, Co-author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Waith , Eugene M. ed. Titus Andronicus. Oxford Shakespeare Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).167 Warkentin, Germaine , ed., The Queen’s Majesty’s Passage & Related Documents (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Publications, 2004). Wentersdorf, Karl P. “The Origin and Personnel of the Pembroke Company,” Theatre Research International 5 (1979): 45–67. Wickham, Glynne , Herbert Berry , and William Ingram , eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Wiles, David . Shakespeare’s Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

“at cvtlacke” Anon. A Pleasant conceited Historie, called The Taming of a Shrew (London: Peter Short for Cuthbert Burby, 1594). Arber, Edward , ed. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 A.D., Vol. 2 (London: Stationers’ Company, 1875). Barber, C.L. Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and its Relation to Social Custom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959).202 Bourus, Terri . Young Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy, and Performance (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). Bullough, Geoffrey . Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Vol. VII (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973). Cerasano, Susan P. “Edward Alleyn, the New Model Actor, and the Rise of the Celebrity in the 1590s,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 18 (2005): 47–58. Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Chillington, Carol A. “Playwrights at Work: Henslowe’s, Not Shakespeare’s, Book of Sir Thomas More ,” English Literary Renaissance 10.3 (1980): 439–479. Dutton, Richard . Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (London: Routledge, 1991). Foakes, R.A. , ed. Henslowe’s Diary, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Fowler, William . A True Reportaire of the Most Triumphant, and Royal Accomplishment of the Baptisme of the Most Excellent, Right High, and Mightie Prince, Frederik Henry (London: Peter Short for the Widow Butter, 1594). Frazer, Winifred L. “Henslowe’s ‘ne’,” Notes and Queries 38.1 (1991): 34–35. George, David . “Shakespeare and Pembroke’s Men,” Shakespeare Quarterly 32.3 (1981): 305–323. Guilpin, Everard . Skialetheia, or A Shadow of Truth, in Certaine Epigrams and Satyres (London: James Roberts for Nicholas Ling, 1598). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Gurr, Andrew . The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Hammer, Paul E.J. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Hoenselaars, A.J. Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: A Study of Stage Characters and National Identity in English Renaissance Drama, 1558–1642 (London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1992). Hosley, Richard . “Was There a Dramatic Epilogue to The Taming of the Shrew?” Studies in English Literature 1 (1961): 17–34. Ingram, William . The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in Elizabethan London (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1992). Johnson, Laurie . The Tain of Hamlet (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). Jolly, Eddi . “Dating Shakespeare’s Hamlet ,” The Oxfordian 2 (1999): 10–23. Jowett, John , and Gary Taylor . “‘With New Additions’: Theatrical Interpolation in Measure for Measure ,” in Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606–1623. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Jowett (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993): 107–236. Kathman, David . “Grocers, Goldsmiths, and Drapers: Freemen and Apprentices in the Elizabethan Theater,” Shakespeare Quarterly 55.1 (2004): 1–49.203 King, T.J. Casting Shakespeare’s Plays: London Actors and their Roles, 1590–1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Knutson, Roslyn L. “Pembroke’s Men in 1592–3, Their Repertory and Touring Schedule,” Early Theatre 4.1 (2001): 129–138. Lesser, Zachary . Hamlet after Q1: An Uncanny History of the Shakespearean Text (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015). MacIntyre, Jean . Costumes and Scripts in the Elizabethan Theatres (Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1992). Manley, Laurence , and Sally-Beth MacLean . Lord Strange’s Men and Their Plays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014). Marino, James J. “The Anachronistic Shrews,” Shakespeare Quarterly 60.1 (2009): 25–46. Marlowe, Christopher . The Massacre at Paris: With the Death of the Duke of Guise (London: Edward Allde for Edward White, n.d.). McMillin, Scott . “Casting for Pembroke’s Men: The Henry VI Quartos and The Taming of A Shrew ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 23.2 (1972): 141–159. McMillin, Scott . “Casting the Hamlet Quartos: The Limit of Eleven,” in The Hamlet First Published, Q1, 1603: Origins, Forms, Intertextualities. Ed. Thomas Clayton (Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press, 1992): 179–194. Miller, Stephen Roy , ed. The Taming of a Shrew: The 1594 Quarto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Oliver, Harold James , ed. The Taming of the Shrew. Oxford World’s Classics edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982). Pollard, Tanya . Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Roberts, R.A. , ed. Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House: Volume 7, 1597 (London: HMSO, 1899). Rutter, Carol Chillington . Documents of the Rose Playhouse (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999). Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Shakespeare’s Companies: William Shakespeare’s Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577–1594 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Steggle, Matthew . Digital Humanities and the Lost Drama of Early Modern England: Ten Case Studies (Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, 2015). Stern, Tiffany . Documents of Performance in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Tavares, Elizabeth E. Acts of Imagination: Curating the Early Elizabethan Repertories, 1582–1594. Dissertation . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2016). Tavares, Elizabeth E. “The Tale of Two Shrews: Recovering the Repertory of the Lord Pembroke’s Players,” Journal of the Wooden O Symposium 15 (2016): 84–95. Taylor, Gary . “Thomas Middleton: Lives and Afterlives” in Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007): 25–58. Thomas, Adrian E. The Life and Times of the English Princes of Wales (Croydon: 8T Publishing, 2015). Thompson, Ann . “Dating Evidence for The Taming of the Shrew ,” Notes and Queries 29.2 (1982): 108–109.204 Thompson, Ann , and Neil Taylor , ed. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. Third series (London: Cengage Learning, 2006). Vickers, Brian . Shakespeare, Co-author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Wentersdorf, Karl P. “The Original Ending of The Taming of the Shrew: A Reconsideration,” Studies in English Literature 18 (1978): 201–216. Wickham, Glynne , Herbert Berry , and William Ingram , eds. English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Wiggins, Martin , and Catherine Richardson . British Drama 1533–1642: A Catalogue. Volume II: 1567–1589 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Wiggins, Martin , and Catherine Richardson . British Drama 1533–1642: A Catalogue. Volume III: 1590–1597 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).