DOCSLIB.ORG

Shakespeare's Lost Playhouse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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, environmental 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 Acknowledgements

ix xi

Introduction: The Problem with Entries

Duopoly and Happenstance   6

1

“In the name of god, A men”   16

1234
“be-gininge”

A Conceit for Documentation   31 Crewel Ironies   35

26

Blindness and Hindsight   43

“at newing ton”

53 93

A Place for a Playhouse   59 A Shape and a Name   73 The Latest Innovation   82

“my Lord Admerelle men & my Lord chamberlen men”

Beyond Patronage and Privy   100 Assembling the Companies   106 “ A s ffolowethe 1594”   113

“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

205 209

Index

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

41 42
1.1 “Southwark Fair,” by William Hogarth (1734). Source:
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art, Washington
1.2 Thomas Middleton. Frontispiece, Two New Playes
(London: Humphrey Moseley, 1657)
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
2.3 Plan of Walworth Manor, 1681. CCA-Map/19.
Source: Reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury
55 63 65
2.4 Section of plan of Walworth Manor, 1681.
CCA-Map/19. Source: Reproduced courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury
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
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
69 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
2.9 Site of the Playhouse frontage, 2017. Source:
© Google. Captioning by Matthew Nielsen
2.10 “Blackfriars Theatre: Conjectural Reconstruction,” by
G. Topham Forrest. The Times, 21 November (1921): 5
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
72 73 80

111 129 130 142 154 191

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

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)
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)

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

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

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 omissions, 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 gatherings 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 arrangements 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 forbearance, 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 interests, but the items of greatest interest to scholars of early modern theatre 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 record 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 playhouse 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 recorded 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 became a shareholder and for which he appears to have exclusively written plays after 1594, the record of these eleven days at the Playhouse is precisely 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 curiosity. 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 researcher’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

3playwright or the theatres and companies with which he occupied himself 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 spectacular 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 playwright 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 preparing 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

Recommended publications
  • Actes Des Congrès De La Société Française Shakespeare, 30

    Actes Des Congrès De La Société Française Shakespeare, 30

    Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare 30 | 2013 Shakespeare et la mémoire Actes du congrès organisé par la Société Française Shakespeare les 22, 23 et 24 mars 2012 Christophe Hausermann (dir.) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/1900 DOI : 10.4000/shakespeare.1900 ISSN : 2271-6424 Éditeur Société Française Shakespeare Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 avril 2013 ISBN : 2-9521475-9-0 Référence électronique Christophe Hausermann (dir.), Actes des congrès de la Société française Shakespeare, 30 | 2013, « Shakespeare et la mémoire » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 13 avril 2013, consulté le 22 septembre 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/shakespeare/1900 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/shakespeare. 1900 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 22 septembre 2020. © SFS 1 SOMMAIRE Avant-Propos Gisèle Venet et Christophe Hausermann Christophe Hausermann (éd.) Foreword Gisèle Venet et Christophe Hausermann Christophe Hausermann (éd.) La mémoire et l’oubli dans les œuvres de Shakespeare Henri Suhamy Christophe Hausermann (éd.) Shakespeare and the fortunes of war and memory Andrew Hiscock Christophe Hausermann (éd.) Les enjeux de la mémoire dans The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Byron de George Chapman (1608) Gilles Bertheau Christophe Hausermann (éd.) The Memory of Hesione: Intertextuality and Social Amnesia in Troilus and Cressida Atsuhiko Hirota Christophe Hausermann (éd.) « The safe memorie of dead men » : réécriture nostalgique de l’héroïsme dans l’Angleterre de la première modernité
  • A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement

    A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement

    A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement California’s Home for the Classics California’s Home for the Classics California’s Home for the Classics Table of Contents Dating Shakespeare’s Plays 3 Life in Shakespeare’s England 4 Elizabethan Theatre 8 Working in Elizabethan England 14 This Sceptered Isle 16 One Big Happy Family Tree 20 Sir John Falstaff and Tavern Culture 21 Battle of the Henries 24 Playing Nine Men’s Morris 30 FUNDING FOR A NOISE WITHIN’S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IS PROVIDED IN paRT BY: The Ahmanson Foundation, Alliance for the Advancement of Arts Education, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Employees Community Fund of Boeing California, The Capital Group Companies, Citigroup Foundation, Disney Worldwide Outreach, Doukas Family Foundation, Ellingsen Family Foundation, The Herb Alpert Foundation, The Green Foundation, Kiwanis Club of Glendale, Lockheed Federal Credit Union, Los Angeles County Arts Commission, B.C. McCabe Foundation, Metropolitan Associates, National Endowment for the Arts, The Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norris Foundation, The Steinmetz Foundation, Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation, Waterman Foundation, Zeigler Family Foundation. 2 A Noise Within Study Guide Shakespeare Supplement Dating Shakespeare’s Plays Establishing an exact date for the Plays of Shakespeare. She theorized that authorship of Shakespeare’s plays is a very Shakespeare (a “stupid, ignorant, third- difficult task. It is impossible to pin down rate play actor”) could not have written the exact order, because there are no the plays attributed to him. The Victorians records giving details of the first production. were suspicious that a middle-class actor Many of the plays were performed years could ever be England’s greatest poet as before they were first published.
  • Download Full-Text

    Download Full-Text

    William S h ak e s p e ar e : an overview of his life, times, and work an NAC English Theatre company educational publication THE NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE ENGLISH THEATRE PROGRAMMES FOR STUDENT AUDIENCES Peter Hinton Artistic Director, English Theatre This backgrounder was written and researched by Jane Moore for the National Arts Centre, English Theatre. Copyright Jane Moore, 2008. It may be used solely for educational purposes. The National Arts Centre English Theatre values the feedback of teachers on the content and format of its educational materials. We would appreciate your comments or suggestions on ways to improve future materials. Comments may be directed to Martina Kuska, either by email at [email protected] or fax at (613) 943 1401. Made possible in part by the NAC Foundation Donors’ Circle Table of Contents page(s) Section I: Introduction to Shakespeare............................................................................................1 - 3 William Shakespeare: Who was he, and why do we study him? .................................................1 Shakespeare‘s biography................................................................................................... 1 œ 2 Shakespeare‘s plays .......................................................................................................... 2 œ 3 Section II: Shakespeare and the Sanders Portrait............................................................................ 4 œ 5 What did Shakespeare look like? ..............................................................................................4
  • Shopping Centre Site, Elephant and Castle, 26, 28, 30 and 32 New Kent Road, Arches 6 and 7 Elephant Road, and London College of Communications Site, London Se1

    Shopping Centre Site, Elephant and Castle, 26, 28, 30 and 32 New Kent Road, Arches 6 and 7 Elephant Road, and London College of Communications Site, London Se1

    Item No. Classification: Date: Meeting Name: 7.1 Open 30 January 2018 Planning Committee Report title: Development Management planning application: 16/AP/4458 for: Full Planning Permission Address: SHOPPING CENTRE SITE, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE, 26, 28, 30 AND 32 NEW KENT ROAD, ARCHES 6 AND 7 ELEPHANT ROAD, AND LONDON COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS SITE, LONDON SE1 Proposal: Phased, mixed-use redevelopment of the existing Elephant and Castle shopping centre and London College of Communication sites comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to comprise buildings ranging in height from single storey to 35 storeys (with a maximum building height of 124.5m AOD) above multi- level and single basements, to provide a range of uses including 979 residential units (use class C3), retail (use Class A1-A4), office (Use Class B1), Education (use class D1), assembly and leisure (use class D2) and a new station entrance and station box for use as a London underground operational railway station; means of access, public realm and landscaping works, parking and cycle storage provision, plant and servicing areas, and a range of other associated and ancillary works and structures. Ward(s) or East Walworth groups Cathedrals affected: From: Director of Planning Application Start Date 02/12/2016 Application Expiry Date 24/03/2017 Earliest Decision Date 19/01/2017 Draft Planning Performance Agreement RECOMMENDATION 1. a) That planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and referral to the Mayor of London, and the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement by no later than 18 December 2018. b) That environmental information be taken into account as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessments) Regulations 2011 (as amended).
  • Dating the Shrew by Stephanie Hopkins Hughes

    Dating the Shrew by Stephanie Hopkins Hughes

    Dating the Shrew by Stephanie Hopkins Hughes The Taming of the Shrew was published for the first time in the First Folio of 1623. Commonly referred to as The Shrew to distinguish it from A Shrew, a play that on May 2,1594, was entered to Peter Short in the Stationers’ Register as The Tamynge of a Shrowe and published anonymously that year in quarto. It’s clearly the same play, though sufficiently different to be distinct from the 1623 version. The title page states: “A Pleasant Conceyted Historie, called The Taminge of a Shrowe . sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earle of Pembroke his servants . 1594.” A single copy of this edition survives, followed by a reprint in 1596 and by two more in 1607. The first in 1607 was entered in the register to Nicholas Ling at the same time as Romeo and Juliet and Love’s Labours Lost, indicating a clear connection with Shakespeare. The relationship between A Shrew (1594) and The Shrew (1623) has been vigorously debated over the years. Ann Thompson, editor of the 1984 Cambridge edition, explains the choice of theories: a) A Shrew is the original play, by an unknown writer, and the direct source of the Shakespeare play; b) The Shrew is the original play, while A Shrew (a “bad quarto”) is a memorial reconstruction of the Shakespeare play by an actor or some other person; c) both Shrews derive from a lost original, Shakespeare’s first version of the play. Despite the close resemblance in structure, the language in A Shrew is far less Shakespearean, though not totally without lyrical touches.
  • Copyrighted Material

    Copyrighted Material

    INDEX Note: page numbers in italics denote illustrations actors, 37, 39, 48, 84, 85–88, 95n24 Arden coat of arms, 74 see also cross-dressing; Edward Alleyn Arden Forest, 147–148, 149 Admiral’s Men, 85, 87 Arden of Faversham (Anon), 249 ado, as term, 144 Ariosto, Ludovico: Orlando Furioso, 15, adultery, 160–161, 164, 272 146, 147 Advancement of True Religion Act, aristocracy, 120, 123, 124–125, 129 33–34 Aristophanes, 107 Africans, 251–252 Aristotle, 100 Alleyn, Edward, 85, 87, 153 Armin, Robert, 159 All Is True (Shakespeare and Fletcher), Ascham, Roger, 33, 40 291 Scholemaster, The, 42 Anne Boleyn, 52, 163 As You Like It, 18, 146–153 Anne of Denmark, 169–170, 281–283 as eulogy for Christopher Marlowe, anti-semitism, 134–136 148 Antony and Cleopatra, 19, 210, 266–273 cross-dressing, 152 boy actors, 269–270 David and Goliath story, 150–151 and death, 272 green world, 147, 148, 149, 152–153 hierarchy, 266–267 homoeroticism, 152 Mars/Venus, 267–268 obedience, 149–150 Apollonius of Tyre, 102 Seven Ages of Man, 38 apprentices, 73, COPYRIGHTED88–89 songs MATERIAL and music in, 146 Apuleius, Lucius: The Golden Ass, Aubrey, John: Brief Lives, 48 130–131 authorship, 15, 23–24, 83, 84 Arden, Mary, 26, 63, 67, 147–148 autocracy, 19, 209–210 Who Was William Shakespeare?: An Introduction to the Life and Works, First Edition. Dympna Callaghan. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 296 INDEX Babington Plot, 54, 207 Brooke, Arthur: Tragicall Historye of Bacon, Francis, 53 Romeus and Juliet, The, 223, Bagot collection,
  • Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre and London College of Communication Site in the London Borough of Southwark Planning Application No

    Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre and London College of Communication Site in the London Borough of Southwark Planning Application No

    planning report D&P/3654/01 30 January 2017 Elephant and Castle shopping centre and London College of Communication site in the London Borough of Southwark planning application no. 16/AP/4458 Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment comprising buildings ranging from 2 to 35 storeys to provide 979 residential units; a new shopping centre; office space; a new college building; assembly and leisure space; and a new station entrance and station box for the Northern Line at Elephant and Castle London Underground station. The applicant The applicant is Elephant & Castle Properties, and the architect is Allies and Morrison. Strategic issues summary Principle of development: This mixed use scheme positively responds to strategic objectives for the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area (paragraphs 19 to 22). Mix of uses: The mix of proposed residential, retail, leisure and educational uses is strongly supported for this CAZ location. The applicant, nevertheless, needs to work with Southwark and existing occupiers to progress the detail of its business relocation strategy (paragraphs 23 to 31). Housing: The proposed build to rent housing contribution (35% affordable) is strongly supported pending an independent viability review (paragraphs 32 to 45). Urban design: The scheme would significantly increase the permeability and legibility of the area, whilst successfully accommodating a rich mix of uses that would support the vibrancy and sustainability of Elephant and Castle town centre (paragraphs 46 to 54).
  • PLAYHOUSES Gabriel Egan

    PLAYHOUSES Gabriel Egan

    12. PLAYHOUSES Gabriel Egan RAMA DOES NOT NEED purpose-built venues. celebrated actor Richard, and his brother-in-law, John Most of the scripts produced in the 2,500-year his­ Brayne. Nine years earlier, Brayne had dipped his toe D tory of recorded drama can be performed quite into theater building by installing temporary galleries adequately outdoors or within any room large enough to and a stage, with an accompanying tower or turret, in hold the performers and spectators. However, to give large the garden of the Red Lion farm in Stepney, but for the numbers of spectators a reasonable view of the action, and Theatre he and Burbage borrowed heavily to produce to charge them effectivelyYor the privilege, a custom-built something substantial: a timber-framed amphitheater performance space is needed. The ancient Greeks, whose on firm foundations, with a thatched roof and a plas­ culture flourished in the centuries before Christ, per­ tered exterior (Egan). The Red Lion does not count as the formed their plays outdoors in increasingly sophisti­ first purpose-built venue because it was merely a tempo­ cated stone amphitheaters that took advantage of natural rary construction without foundations, built for a par­ hollows in the ground to arrange the audience in an arc ticular set of performances. around the performers. The Roman culture that flourished Burbage and Brayne's decision to call their permanent in the first 600 years after Christ copied the Greek design building the Theatre evoked the old Roman amphitheaters, but also produced freestanding urban theaters. Instead of and visitors to London commented that it looked like one, putting the spectators in shallow tiers of seats, the Roman being virtually round although made of wood and plaster urban theater stacked them in a vertical tube of galleries; rather than stone.
  • In 1590, Having Been Ordered to Vacate the Rose Playhouse and Perform Instead at the Smaller

    In 1590, Having Been Ordered to Vacate the Rose Playhouse and Perform Instead at the Smaller

    NOT SO TEDIOUS WAYS TO THINK ABOUT THE LOCATIONS OF THE EARLY PLAYHOUSES In 1590, having been ordered to vacate the Rose playhouse and perform instead at the smaller venue at Newington Butts, Lord Strange’s Men petitioned the Privy Council to allow them to return to their Bankside venue.1 The Councillors relented, claiming they were “satisfied … by reason of the tediousness of the way” to the alternative venue (Foakes, 285). This notion that Newington Butts was too remote to be viable remains widely accepted, with many scholars reiterating the Councillors’ claim (see, for example, Jolly, 161; Schoenbaum, 136; Thomson, 67; Wickham, 60). Such a view props up an abiding logic that oscillates between what Henri Lefebvre calls the “paradigmatic” and “symbolic” approaches to the history of space, but it crucially ignores the “syntagmatic” approach (230). The paradigmatic distinction between travelling players and those who settled in London playhouses supports the symbolic focus given to playhouses in descriptions of the golden age of the London theatre. A key feature of this distinction is the relative absence of roads from one side of the binary: a London-centric bias at the symbolic core of these histories positions roads as a focus for travelling players, but roads disappear from narratives of the rise of the purpose-built “permanent” playhouses around London. A syntagmatic approach allows us to put the London playhouses back on the roads, so to speak, by understanding how the mobility of prospective audiences, rather than simply the push for permanence by travelling players, contributed to the rise of the early modern playhouses.

  • Doctor Faustus, Tamburlaine and the Taming of the Shrew

    Doctor Faustus , Tamburlaine and The Taming of The Shrew Derran Charlton he sole authority for the text of The Taming of The Shrew is the Folio of 1623. It is the eleventh play, appearing amongst the comedies, after As You LIke It and before All`s Well T That Ends Well. It occupies twenty-two folio pages, pp 208-29. Page 214 is wrongly numbered 212. Of the thirty-six dramas in the Folio, eighteen had already been published as Quartos. The Folio, therefore, includes eighteen unpublished plays. Sixteen were registered on 8 November, 1623. Significantly, the remaining two, King Iohn and The Taming of the Shrew , were not registered as they probably passed as reprints of older plays, The Troublesome Raigne of Iohn King of England, an anonymous play in two parts published in 1591, and The Taming of a Shrowe registered “Secundo die Maij, 1594, Peter Shorte.” This second play was printed in a quarto edition in the same year, with the following information on its title page: A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called The Taming of a Shrew. As it was sundry times acted by the Right honorable the Earl of Pembrook his seruants. Printed at London by Peter Short and are to be sold by Cuthbert Burbie, at his shop at the Royall Exchange, 1594. A single copy of this edition survives, owned by the Duke of Devonshire. First Known Performance On 11 June 1594 a performance of “the taming of a Shrow ” at the Newington Butts theater, in the village of Newington, Surrey, is recorded in Henslowe`s diary.
  • Hamlet's Jest

    Hamlet's Jest

    18. Hamlet's Jest "A fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy" —Hamlet Hamlet, the greatest play by the greatest writer who ever lived, has held its sway over the human mind for 400 years. And yet it is still shrouded in mystery. When was it written? Was there an earlier version before Shakespeare's? What is it really about? Why does Hamlet delay his revenge? The greatest mystery of all, however, is for some the easiest to answer, namely, who actually wrote the play? Its authorship is commonly attributed to William of Stratford, but there are enormous difficulties in ascribing the play to him. These problems are usually glossed over or explained away by a considerable number of unwarranted assumptions. There is, however, a simpler and more logical theory of the authorship. It is that this play about the machinations of court life was written and rewritten over a period of 30–40 years by a courtier who dares us to make the obvious identification. Date Of Composition The first difficulty with the William theory concerns the time of the play's initial composition. There are two known references to a Hamlet of the 1580s, both by Thomas Nashe. He was a Cambridge graduate (1586) who became one of the 'university wits', a circle of five writers (Nashe, Peele, Greene, Lodge and Lyly) who came to London and wrote for the stage and the press. In his preface to Sidney's Astrophel and Stella (1591), Nashe alludes to the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy, which he says had been heard on the stage for five years.
  • Walworth Road Historic Area Assessment

    Walworth Road Historic Area Assessment

    WALWORTH ROAD HISTORIC AREA ASSESSMENT ISSUE REVISION A 27 JUNE 2015 REVISION B 23 AUG 2015 COMPILED BY THE WALWORTH SOCIETY Architectural Investigation: Diana Cochrane & The Walworth Society Walworth ROAD HISTORIC AREA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY SUMMARY The collection of terraces that border the road were This HAA seeks to define the architectural and historic Walworth is an inner-city area in south London with constructed by early developers after the 1774 Act of interest of Walworth and in particular the Walworth Road. It a densely built-up townscape. It developed as a Parliament which permitted house building using local clay. builds on relatively few existing studies to provide context village in its own right, separate from Newington and enhanced understanding at a time when the area (now the Elephant & Castle) and has been in The Walworth Road tells the complete story of retail and high is subject to significant change most obviously from the existence as a Manor and Parish since Anglo Saxon street development in inner London, standalone Georgian redevelopment of the site of the former Heygate Estate in times. The Romans knew about the Walworth area terraces (late C18th), Georgian standalone and terraced the northern part of the Walworth Road, the redevelopment as it lies between two Roman Roads: Stane Street houses converted to shops by filling their gardens (early/ of the Elephant & Castle and the redevelopment of the (Newington Butts, Kennington Lane) and Watling mid C19th), the birth of a vigorous street market and the Aylesbury Estate to the south. Street (Tabard Street). Mostly marshland, the road subsequent redevelopment of Victorian and Edwardian south to Camberwell was laid along higher ground mansion blocks designed with integrated shops (late C19th, CONTRIBUTORS as a route to the village of Dulwich, with a branch to early C20th), the arrival of the early chain stores and banks The fieldwork and research for the assessment has been Peckham, terminating near Croydon.