 | |  |
Notes
See W. W. Greg, Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses: Commentary (1931), pp. 6-11. The companion volume of reproductions and transcripts provides the best text of the plots.
E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (1930), I, 48-52; Greg, Documents: Commentary, pp. 16-19. The argument was related to the Burbage-Brayne controversy, documented by C. W. Wallace, The First London Theatre: Materials for a History, Nebraska Univ. Studies, Vol. 13 (1913), and summarized in E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (1923), II, 387-395.
"Vincent" appears only once, as a musician in scene xiii, and he may have been more a playhouse musician than a regular actor. But the distinction between "musician" and "actor" cannot be sharply drawn for Elizabethan performers, who usually knew several crafts. The manuscript shows that originally two actor-musicians (Cowly and Sincler) were cast in this scene, the "2" being changed to "3" when Vincent became available.
Documents: Commentary, pp. 99-101. I follow Greg's interpretation that the concluding episodes form one continuous scene. It may be added that for the three "antique faires" who dance into the conclusion, the plot specifies serial entrances and exits. Since similar serial entrances follow for Validore, Asspida, and Rose from the sub-plot, these groups of three roles apiece were probably doubled.
Some of the revisions in The Book of Sir Thomas More probably served a similar purpose, as I have explained in "The Book of Sir Thomas More: A Theatrical View," MP, 68 (1970), 10-24. Greg might have assumed that the "Musique" signaled before the start of the concluding scene provided an interval for the doubling, but we cannot assume that this was more than a momentary pause. A similar call for music before IV, i did not meet the casting problem that the tire-man had to solve. Wilfred T. Jewkes, Act Division in Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays: 1583-1616 (Hamdon, Conn., 1958), pp. 96-103, concludes that act intervals of the kind Greg seems to have had in mind were not a practice in the public theatres before 1607.
At first glance it appears that Burbage played the messenger, but Greg's interpretation, the only one to account for every detail in this scene, must be correct: Burbage's name was entered in mistake for the name of his major role, and the messenger was a separate part played by Lee. (Documents: Commentary, pp. 102-103.)
By a "section" of the play I mean a group of three successive scenes. The most demanding sections are: IV, vi-V, ii, twenty-one to twenty-three roles; III, iv-IV, ii, nineteen roles; several sections between II, ii and II, vi, sixteen roles.
The supernumeraries would have been busy with the "Officers" and "Lords" who enter with Egereon; one fears that the tireman might have been summoned again at this point. It should occur to students of such details that in an Elizabethan repertory company the royal costumes, expensive and used in various plays, would have been fitted to leading actors.
As Greg noticed in Documents: Commentary, p. 16n. What has confused the matter is John Alleyn's testimony in the Burbage-Brayne case (Wallace, First London Theatre, p. 101), where he refers to the Lord Admiral's patronage. This has always been taken as proving that "the Admiral's men" were playing at the Theatre in 1590-May, 1591, but it is equally possible that Alleyn was referring to his and his brother's standing as personal servants to the Lord Admiral. That Edward Alleyn retained this standing is well-known from the Privy Council warrant of 6 May 1593 in behalf of Strange's men (Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, II, 123). John Alleyn was afforded special attention as the Admiral's servant in Privy Council business of 14 July 1589; that he used to dwell with the Lord Admiral is mentioned in a letter of 22 September 1612. See G. F. Warner, Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Muniments at Dulwich College (1881), p. 85 and p. 98.
The provincial visits are recorded in Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 306-307, and Giles E. Dawson, Records of Plays and Players in Kent: 1450-1642, Malone Society Collections, Vol. 7 (1965), p. 175. The continental trip of 1592 has been misunderstood. Chambers supposed that in issuing a passport to certain performers the Lord Admiral was acting in his official capacity, not as the players' patron (Elizabethan Stage, II, 274). Unfortunately, the important phrase estants mes joueurs et serviteurs does not appear in Chambers' transcription. For a complete transcription and the correct interpretation that the actors were from the Admiral's men, see Erik Wikland, Elizabethan Players in Sweden: 1591-92, trans. Patrick Hort (Stockholm, 1962), p. 99.
I refer to the petitions from Strange's men and Henslowe to the Privy Council, as interpreted in Chambers, William Shakespeare, I, 43. As for provincial tours, all references to Strange's men in this period, including the records recently published by Dawson (see note 10), must be dated in September, 1591 or later.
| | |