A COMPANION TOHENSLOWE'S DIARY

Henslowe's 'diary' is a unique source of information about theday-to-day running of the Elizabethan repertory theatre. PhilipHenslowe, a theatrical entrepreneur, kept records of his financialdealings with London companies and actors from 1592—1604.

The diary itself is difficult to decipher. Neil Carson's analysis isbased on a much more thorough correlation of Henslowe's entriesthan has been attempted before, breaking down into clear tabularform the main items of income and expenditure and drawing con-clusions about the management procedures of the companies, theprofessional relationships of actors and playwrights and the waysin which plays were written, rehearsed and programmed.

Previous speculation has dismissed Henslowe himself as ignor-ant, disorderly and grasping. Carson shows him to have been abenign and efficient businessman whose control over the actors'professional activities was much less extensive than has often beensupposed.

A COMPANION TO

HENSLOWE'S DIARY

NEIL CARSON

The right of theUniversity of Cambridge

to print and sellall manner of books

was granted byHenry VIU in 1534.

The University has printedand published continuously

since 1584.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSCAMBRIDGE

NEW YORK NEW ROCHELLE MELBOURNE SYDNEY

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSCambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www. cambridge. orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521235457

© Cambridge University Press 1988

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1988This digitally printed first paperback version 2005

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication dataCarson, Neil.

A companion to Henslowe's 'Diary'.Bibliography

Includes index.1. Henslowe, Philip, d. 1616. Diary. 2. Theater -

England - History - 16th century. 3. Theatrical managers -England - Diaries. I. Henslowe, Philip, d. 1616.

Diary. II. Title.PN2589.H43C37 1987 792'.0942 87-11650

ISBN-13 978-0-521-23545-7 hardbackISBN-10 0-521-23545-6 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-54346-0 paperbackISBN-10 0-521-54346-0 paperback

TO MY MOTHER AND THEMEMORY OF MY FATHER

CONTENTS

Preface page ixAcknowledgements xiList of abbreviations and note on stylistic conventions xii1 Philip Henslowe and his 'diary' 12 Theatrical landlord 143 The players 314 The playwrights 545 The plays 676 Tables and summaries 80

I Chronological List of Plays 82II Performance Calendar 1592-1596 85

Ilia Literary Expenses 101Illb Production Expenses 103IV Consolidated Accounts 1592-1603 118V Summaries 138

Select bibliography 142General index 145Index of plays 148

vn

PREFACE

NOT SURPRISINGLY the editing of Henslowe's diary has always taken precedenceover its explication. Commentaries have been rudimentary or have laggedwell behind the publication of the original material. Edmond Malone, the

first to make scholarly use of the manuscript, apologized that it was not in his power'to arrange those very curious materials in their proper places', but did not wish that'the publicke should be deprived of the information and entertainment' they wouldafford (1790:1, Part 2, 289). Malone's extracts printed in his edition of The Plays andPoems of William Shakespeare (1790) were the only selections from the diary andpapers available to most scholars until J. Payne Collier's edition of the diary, publishedin 1845. Collier's commentary was devoted almost entirely to an explanation of thedocument's relevance to the study of Shakespeare. Furthermore, it was coloured by hisattitude to its author whom he described as 'an ignorant man, even for the time inwhich he lived, and for the station he occupied'. Collier's assessment seems to havebeen based entirely on the fact that Henslowe 'wrote a bad hand, adopted anyorthography that suited his notion of the sound of the words . . . and kept his book,as respects dates in particular, in the most disorderly, negligent, and confused manner'(1845: xv). Collier himself made no attempt to improve the order of the work, how-ever, and added materially to its confusion by introducing a number of forged entries.

The first serious effort to see some kind of pattern in the document was made byF. G. Fleay in his Chronicle History of the London Stage 1559-1642 (1890). Fleaydrew up an abstract of the performance records and loan accounts, but ignored mostof the non-theatrical material which he described as being 'of no conceivable interestto anyone'. His analysis of the Henslowe records had an important influence on laterwork, as did his call for a new edition of the diary. 'Collier's edition', he wrote, 'is adisgrace to English literature, and the Dulwich authorities would do well to have itre-edited by a competent hand, with careful elision of his numerous forgeries, and withthe matter arranged in serviceable consecution . . . without infringing on the accuracyofthetext'(1890:95).

Greg's editions of the diary (1904), and papers (1907), and his volume of com-mentary (1908) more than met the need Fleay identified. They have now served nearlythree generations of scholars and in some respects will not likely be superseded. TheFoakes-Rickert edition of the diary (1961) introduced many new readings, and theScolar facsimiles of the diary and papers (1977) enable students to puzzle out theirown interpretations of the text. But Greg's discussions of the many individualsmentioned in the diary will probably stand for many years, as will his account of thelost plays.

ix

x PREFACENevertheless, a reassessment of Greg's assumptions and some of his interpretations

is overdue. As Foakes and Rickert observed, scholarship in the last eighty or moreyears has suggested new possibilities of interpreting difficult entries. Furthermore,there is a compelling need for a functional abstract of the diary's contents to whichscholars can refer. The absence of an agreed-upon basis for analysis and comparisonmeans that each scholar must do this preliminary recasting of the accounts himself,and can only with great difficulty check the conclusions of others. The purpose of thisvolume, then, is to present the matter of the diary in that 'serviceable consecution'advocated by Fleay without, it is to be hoped, the infringement of accuracy he warnedagainst.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Specialists and non-specialists alike will recognize how much thiswork owes to previous scholars. I would like to acknowledge particu-larly the advice and assistance of Carol Chillington Rutter whosechallenging questions and criticism were invaluable, and the supportand encouragement of William Ingram and R. A. Foakes.

I am also grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada for financial support, and to the University ofGuelph for a period of leave during which I was able to complete a firstdraft of the manuscript.

XI

ABBREVIATIONS

ES The Elizabethan Stage by E. K. Chambers. 2 vols. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1923.

HD Henslowe9 s Diary edited by R. A. Foakes and R. T. Rickert. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1961.

HP Henslowe s Papers edited by W. W. Greg. London: A. H. Bullen, 1907.Mun. Muniments in the Henslowe papers.Ms Manuscript(s) in the Henslowe papers.PRO Public Record OfficeSR A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London: 1554-

1640 edited by Edward Arber. London, 1875-94.

A NOTE ON STYLISTIC CONVENTIONS

Pagination. To avoid confusion between modern editions, references to Henslowe'sdiary are to the original manuscript in the form f. 1 (folio 1 recto) or f. lv (folio 1verso).Currency. English currency dates from Saxon times when the basic unit was a silverpenny known as a sterling. Large amounts were estimated in pounds of sterlings eachone containing two hundred and forty pennies. In Norman times the 'pound' wasdivided further into twenty shillings and the three basic units were referred to in Latinmanuscripts as libra, solidus and denarius, terms which were shortened to '£', V and'd'. By Elizabethan times a bewildering number of coins had been introduced, but allof them could be related to the basic units. Henslowe occasionally refers to unfamiliarcoins such as marks, but his accounts are kept in the traditional form, and his calcu-lations in pounds, shillings and pence. Frequently he substitutes hyphens for the moreusual symbols and it is this system (1-10-6) that has been adopted in this commentary.

xn

1 • PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'

PHILIP HENSLOWE was the fourth of seven children of Edmond and MargaretHenslowe (or Hensley) of Lindfield, Sussex. We do not know when he was born,but it is likely to have been between 1550—60, which would have made him

about sixty when he died. He appears to have acquired little of either education orpatrimony, and to have begun his career as an apprentice or servant to a London dyerby the name of Henry Woodward. Philip's diligence in the execution of his duties musthave recommended him (at least to his mistress), for on 14 February 1579 (a mere twomonths after her husband's death), Agnes Woodward and Philip Henslowe weremarried. At a stroke, the former servant acquired not only a readymade family(6-year-old Joan and 4-year-old Elizabeth), but also a substantial estate.

Henslowe was probably in his mid- or late twenties at the time of his marriage; hisnew wife was considerably older. No record of Agnes' birth date survives and the onlyclue we have to her age is a deposition made after Henslowe's death in 1616 allegingthat she was then a hundred years old. This testimony by Philip's nephew is almosttotally untrustworthy, however, since it would make Agnes fifty-nine years old at thetime her second daughter was born (and sixty-three when she married Philip). It ismore likely that she was in her early fifties in 1579.

Whatever their relative ages, the Henslowes appear to have suited one another, andwith his newly acquired resources Philip began to prosper. In June 1584, he negotiatedfor the purchase of 60 dozen goat skins (Mun. 86, 87). The following year he securedwhat was probably his first piece of real estate, a property in Southwark known as theLittle Rose (Mun. 15). It was described as tenements with two gardens, and accordingto Greg may have been a brothel (1904: II, 3). As early as 1593 he may have ownedan inn called 'the ffolles head' (f. lv); two years later he acquired the adjoining 'Jemesis head' (f. 3v), and sometime subsequently a property known as The Barge, the Bell,and the Cock, and also possibly one called The Unicorn (Greg 1904: II, 25, 26). Healso invested in numerous rental properties, and his income from this source rosesteadily in the seventeenth century.

Henslowe's elevation from 'servant' to prosperous burgher is pleasantly edifying,but it is not entirely the story of a self-made man. Quite apart from his good sense inmarrying money, Henslowe was fortunate enough to become allied to another shrewdand ambitious entrepreneur in the person of Edward Alleyn. This came about inOctober 1592, when the actor married Henslowe's step-daughter, Joan Woodward.Alleyn and Henslowe obviously had much in common, for they became partners in avariety of highly successful business enterprises. Of the two men, it was probablyHenslowe who gained most by the alliance. According to testimony given in 1616, the

1

2 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY''Industrie and care' of Alleyn contributed greatly to the 'Bettering of the Estate of thesaid Philip Henslowe' (PRO STAC8/168/18).

It would be unfair, however, to attribute all of Henslowe's success to his relatives bymarriage. In the course of his life he won a series of honours which were no doubt ingood measure a result of his own efforts and ability. In 1592 he was appointed Groomof the Chamber to Queen Elizabeth, a post that required him to spend considerabletime at court (Ms 1,11). Following James's accession, he became Gentleman Sewer ofthe Chamber, and in 1607 he was elected vestryman (along with Edward Alleyn) of theparish of St Saviour. A year later he became a churchwarden, and in 1612 he wasappointed one of six governors of the Free Grammar School of the parish. By thesecond decade of the seventeenth century, therefore, the poorly educated apprenticehad attained what Greg describes as 'an assured and honoured social position amonghis fellow citizens' (1904: II, 15).

What can we deduce from all this? Such a position is not, of course, incompatiblewith the ignorance and greed sometimes attributed to Henslowe. To determinewhether or not these worldly honours were hollow we need to know more aboutHenslowe's personal life. Here the documents illustrating Henslowe's relations withhis extended family are valuable. The complicated and sometimes acrimonious deal-ings reflected in letters and legal documents provide some clues to the motives and feel-ings of the man. While the evidence is not always as unambiguous as we might hope,it does provide a useful background against which to judge his activities in the theatre.

Philip was the second youngest of five sons, and in worldly terms quite likely themost successful. He had no children of his own, but, owing to rather tragic circum-stances, he became involved in the raising of several nieces and nephews. The first ofthese was Francis, son of his eldest brother, Richard, who died in 1574. Sometimeabout 1590, when Francis would have been about twenty-four, Henslowe received anappeal for assistance to obtain his release from prison. He obliged at a cost of 16s. 4d.(Ms HI, 5). Between January 1593, and May 1594, Henslowe employed Francis in hispawnbroking business, at the end of which period he advanced him £15 to pay for ashare in the Queen's Men (f. 2v). The following June, Francis borrowed another £9 forhalf a share in an unnamed acting troupe (f. 3v). In December 1597, Philip lent him £7to help him buy a house on the Bankside (f. 62). By 1604 he was performing with theDuke of Lennox's Men (f. 100), but sometime after that he was again in prison (thistime for stealing a horse), and had to borrow £5 from his uncle to obtain his freedom.There is no record that Francis repaid any of these debts. Then in 1606 Francis and hiswife died, probably of the plague, and an undated note among Henslowe's papersrecords charges 'laid owte' for their funeral (Mss IV, 57, 58).

The relationship between Henslowe and his second nephew, John, is, if anything,even more poignant. Philip had been of assistance to his second brother, Edmond, andon a number of occasions had loaned him money to buy real estate and to pay off hiscreditors (f. 122v). But he became more deeply involved in the family affairs whenEdmond fell sick sometime in 1591. Henslowe rode down to the family place inSussex, paid for Edmond's care and for the threshing of his crops, and finally under-

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY' 3wrote the costs of his funeral and the legal expenses connected with his will (f. 122v-123).

Edmond's estate was substantial. He owned a 'mansion house' and shop atBuxtead, and from the sale of this and his household goods he hoped to endow hisfamily. He bequeathed £20 to his wife, and to his daughter, Anne, he promised a dowryof £100 to be paid one month after her marriage. Apart from several small legacies, theremainder of the estate was to be divided equally between his wife and his two otherchildren, John and Mary, the former to receive his portion on reaching maturity andthe second a month after her wedding. Perhaps the most curious provision ofEdmond's will, however, was his wish that Philip in his capacity as executor shouldassume responsibility for the care of his children during their minority. The terms ofthe will are very specific:

I make my brother Philip Hensley sole exequutor and doe desire hirn^to deale for my childrennsbehalfe the beste he can Prouided allwaies that he sustaine no lesse theareby But that out of the saidgoodes, he shoulde be paide all suche iuste costes and charges as he shalbe at in compassinge anieof thease bequestes, ffor I would have him and his wiefe, take my childrenn as theire owne and withthem theire seuerall porc[i]ion, and to see them broughte vp in the feare of god till suche time as theyshall come to age themselves.

(PRO, P.C.C., PROB 11/79, 212-212v probated 15 Dec. 1591,cited by Cerasano (1985) in an unpublished appendix.)

Not surprisingly, perhaps, Edmond's widow Margery had other ideas about theraising of her children. As Henslowe reports it, she 'ded desyer to haue the bordinge& bringyn vp of her owne iij chelldren after al the good weare [ap]praysed wch the onehalfe was to her sealfe &c the other halfe vnto John &C mary wch was valewed to 30 li,&C for that halfe she was contented to bord them & scolle them' (f. 124). The wordingis ambiguous, but the phrase 'that halfe' presumably refers to John and Mary's portionwhich Margery kept in addition to her own.

The arrangement seems to have worked well until Margery's death three years later.At that time the children 'cameal vp to . . . London'. Henslowe claimed sometime after1595 that they had 'bene euer sence at [his] carges &C as [he had] payd for ther bordeto ther mother [he looked] a cordynge to the will to be a lowed yt agayne' (f. 124). Thephrase 'to ther mother' is puzzling, but Henslowe seems to be claiming only thoseexpenses incurred after the children arrived in London on 27 February 1595. Accord-ing to the detailed calculation drawn up, probably in the summer of 1595 and set outon folios 122v to 123v, Henslowe spent some £85 on his brother's family, but appearsto have benefited little from the will. The portions of John and Mary seem to have beenconsumed paying for their upkeep; of Anne's legacy of £100 there is no furthermention; and Philip reports that he 'never had any thinge of [Edmond's] but thehowse' (f. 41v) which contrary to the provisions of the will was not sold until afterMargery's death when it brought £80, less than Henslowe's expenses until that time.

It is not known how old the children were when they came to London, but the twoeldest were quickly apprenticed (John to a dyer and Mary to a seamstress) whichsuggests they were in their mid-teens (f. 124v). Of his two nieces, Ann was eventually

4 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'married, but Mary fell ill of a 'dead pallsey' in 1605 and was rendered 'lame' andunable to work. Henslowe lent John money to take his sister home to his house. There-after he paid two shillings a week for her keep until she died in 1607.

Up until this point Henslowe's dealings with his poor relatives seem to be markedby a sense of responsibility and possibly even generosity. His subsequent relationswith his nephew John, however, are more complex. After Francis's death in 1606,John was the sole surviving male in the Henslowe line and the most obvious heir toPhilip's fortune. Not improbably there were considerable hopes and pressures centredon the young man. Unfortunately he seems not to have been able to live up to them.At some time after his arrival in London he left his master, and Philip apprenticed himagain, this time to a waterman. About 1598 he 'layd owt' £5 to buy a boat, and severalyears later in 1605 he paid £14.16s. to buy John a place as one of the King's watermen(f. 124). The year before that, Edmond's will had again been challenged in the courtsand Philip had financed John's legal defence (f. 123v).

Any of these transactions might have caused friction between the two men. But itwas apparently John's taking his uncle to court that produced an irreparable rupture.The details of the case are unknown, but, according to witnesses in 1616, it was thesource of a bitter breach between uncle and nephew. Jacob Meade asserted thatHenslowe 'heild a very hard conceipt of [John because]... in former tymes [John] hadsued & troubled [his uncle] for goods wch were some tyme the plaintiffs fathers . . .as the complainant] pretended' (PRO C.24/431/23 and ST.CH. 168/18 citedChillington 1979). Not improbably the litigation grew out of John's suspicion that hehad been cheated of his inheritance in some way by his uncle. Whatever the cause, itseems to have permanently poisoned relations between the two, for when they met 'bychance or otherwise in any place . . . [Philip] would scarcely vouchsafe to speake vnto[John] or so much as to take notice of [him] otherwise then by some slight carelesssalutation or a nod of his head or such like'. As a consequence of this hostility,Henslowe by the time of his death had vowed that John 'should not have a foote of theland or one peny worth of the goods wch were [Henslowe's]'. Accordingly he effec-tively disinherited his nephew by passing part of his estate (which was officially valuedat £1700. 12s. 8d. but may have been worth as much as eight times that amount) toJohn's son and the remainder to his wife, Agnes, who in her turn willed it to Joan andEdward Alleyn.

The picture which emerges from these documents is not simple. Clearly Henslowewas capable of what looks like vindictiveness, but we know little of the circumstancesthat aroused it. His treatment of his relatives apart from John seems to have been fairand the tone of his letters to Alleyn is simple and warm (Mss I, 10, 12, 13, 14).Whereas the provisions of Edmond's will would seem to have opened the way forHenslowe to appropriate the inheritance to his own use until the children were oldenough to claim it, he does not appear to have done so. On the contrary, he seems tohave treated his sister-in-law, Margery, with consideration and tact. While there is noreason to suppose that he treated his business associates with the same tolerance heshowed to members of his family, neither is there any irrefutable evidence that he did

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY' 5not. The complaints of actors about his hard dealings in 1615 constitute a special casewhich will be dealt with later. During the period the diary covers, however,Henslowe's relations with players and playwrights seem to be marked by the samepatience and fairness he showed towards his own relatives.

THE 'DIARY'

If for the sake of convenience we continue to use the word 'diary' to refer toHenslowe's theatrical account book, we must do so with the understanding that it isa misnomer. The volume which Philip acquired from his elder brother John he used forvarious purposes after 1592. Indeed, one of the first things to strike a modern readerprimarily interested in the theatre is just how much of the volume is given over to non-theatrical affairs. Memoranda, receipts, recipes, and notations on a multitude ofsubjects from real estate to family business abound. While at first these auxiliaryinterests seem to present a bewildering confusion, it is possible to group them under afew general headings.

To begin with, the volume frequently served Henslowe as a sort of 'commonplacebook' in which he recorded interesting and miscellaneous bits of information. Theserange from aphorisms (f. 1), to card tricks (f. 18v), to medications (ff. 16v, 17v, 18,136v), to memoranda of events such as the wedding of Edward Alleyn and his step-daughter Joan (f. 2). Closely related to these entries are various memoranda whichHenslowe made to help him remember such things as the measurements of thewainscoting in Alleyn's house (f. 2), the fact that he had put his horse to grass (f. 24v),and the details of a farm he may have considered buying (f. l l lv) .

The incorporation of such apparently irrelevant material into an account bookseems strange to a modern reader and is sometimes seen as evidence of Henslowe's dis-organized mind or sloppy methods. But account books of the sixteenth century wereneither so neat nor so homogeneous as today's ledgers. Merchants frequently inter-mixed their financial statements with various personal matters, such as rules forconduct or treatments for coughs and other ailments (Yamey 1940: 5). The accountbook of the leading sixteenth-century merchant of Ipswich was little more than arough book whose erasures and cancellations make it almost indecipherable. Even themost successful and eminent merchants of the period often show very elementarytechniques and slovenly execution (Ramsay 1956: 186). Sir Thomas Gresham, forexample, used a mixture of roman and arabic numerals (the latter gradually replacingthe former in England in the sixteenth century), and mixed company and personalbusiness in his books. In this respect, at least, Henslowe's practice in his diary isperfectly normal for his time.

Another use Henslowe soon found for his volume was as a depository of variouslegal and semi-legal records. These include several agreements and contracts whichwere signed and witnessed, and would therefore have had some weight in a court oflaw if the terms were ever challenged. Entries range from simple signed acknowledge-ments of indebtedness such as that of Arthur Langworth (f. 88), to more specialized

6 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'memoranda. Henslowe recorded payments received as rent (f. 43), or on private debts(f. 103), and collected signed testimony relating to payments he made for 'the bargainfor the tenements on the Bankside' (f. 98v). He also itemized various bonds commit-ting one individual to underwrite the debt of another (f. 2), or agreeing to a forfeiturein the case of non-payment of debt (f. 259v), or the failure to fulfil a promise (f. 97v).Elsewhere in the diary he transcribed agreements which would not have had legalstatus in the form in which we find them. For example, a partnership between Alleynand Henslowe on the one hand and John Ackley and Nicholas Dame on the otherseems to be no more than a summary of the terms of the contract (f. 204). Entriesrelating to an agreement between Alleyn and Langworth (ff. 24,25) would also appearto be merely descriptive, since neither of the parties has signed them. In these cases,Henslowe is probably simply reminding himself of the terms of official documentsdeposited elsewhere.

A better notion of Henslowe's use of the diary for business purposes can be derivedfrom the accounts relating to his dealing with, and on behalf of, his son-in-law,Edward Alleyn. These accounts are recorded on folios 238-23 where Henslowereversed the book and began working from the back towards the middle. The recordhas the appearance of a ledger. One page contains a series of expenses incurred byEdward Alleyn in connection with his house during an indeterminate period beforeand after 24 November 1592. On the facing page a column of figures adds up to£13-04-02 (exactly £5 less than the actual amount of Alleyn's expenses). An accountof further expenses described as charges 'as hathe bene layd owt a bowt edward aleneshowsse' begins on folio 237 and appears to list items paid for by Henslowe (possiblyafter Alleyn left to travel in the provinces after 31 January 1593). The accounts goback to 4 November, and extend to September 1594 (probably an error for 1593)(f. 235). Henslowe drew up an account of what he was owed on folio 234v, andrepeated it on 234.

These pages are interesting because they are much more systematic than most of theaccounts in the diary. Expenditures are carefully itemized, and it would appear thatthey have been transcribed from other sources. This is suggested by the fact that fiveitems paid for by Alleyn appear in exactly the same phraseology in Henslowe'saccounts, although the mistake was caught and the duplicate entries are crossed out.Henslowe made no effort to total the expenses until very near the end of the accountwhen he entered a sub-total and then a final total in the left margin opposite the lastentry. The sum (£154-12-00) seems to be 12s. Id. too high, but it is possible thatHenslowe was making some kind of correction which he has not shown in the book.The figure has been carried over to the top of folio 234v, but Henslowe reckonedAlleyn's debt using a very different set of figures from those on the previous pages.What is significant about these entries is that they show that as early as 1592Henslowe was capable of neat and meticulous book-keeping, of bringing all expendi-tures relevant to a particular enterprise together, and of drawing up a balance of debitsand credits. The raison d'etre of the Alleyn accounts was clearly to provide a com-prehensive record of expenditures so that Henslowe could reclaim his money.

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY' 7A similar need explains the series of records relating to Henslowe's activities as

executor of his brother's estate. As we have seen, Henslowe attended his brother in hislast sickness, and after his death assumed increasing responsibility for the family. In1595, after the death of his sister-in-law he arranged for the sale of the house, andabout the same time drew up 'A Juste note of what [he had] Lent vnto edmondHenslowe . . . & Layd owt . . . [for his] children' (f. 122v). The account was compiledfrom different parts of the diary where he had recorded expenditures from 1592 to1595, and was presumably prepared so that he could present a claim against the estate(f. 124).

In the two examples so far discussed Henslowe was acting as an agent, and in suchcircumstances he demonstrated that he was reasonably painstaking. In the secondcase, for example, he meticulously retranscribed the expenditures on folios 39,40,41,and 41v, although presumably he could have done his calculations without going tothis extra trouble. Why he did so is not clear unless it was to present the account toother eyes which might have been confused by the original entries made over a numberof years. The transcription is, perhaps, a tacit acknowledgement of the occasional orirregular nature of the original accounts.

Henslowe probably learned his book-keeping techniques as an apprentice. Since heis referred to on different occasions as a citizen and dyer, the business in which hedeveloped his skills was what today we would describe as a service industry. Materialbrought to the shop was presumably processed and returned and the only book-keeping necessary would be to keep track of the changing inventory of material to bedyed, and to record payment for the process. The system Henslowe learned, therefore,was probably a fairly simple one, for English business practices were in considerableflux in the mid-sixteenth century. Early account books frequently record only creditdealings, the entries being crossed out when payment was received. Such entries oftendid not occur in chronological order, since the costliness of paper necessitated the useof every empty space available (Yamey 1940: 5). Nevertheless, these primitivemethods of book-keeping were adequate for most business requirements and lasted inEngland well into the seventeenth century.

The need of merchants to take frequent inventories, and their desire to be able toreckon their current financial position more readily, led as early as 1211 in Florenceto a system of double-entry book-keeping. This method called for the recording ofevery transaction both as a credit and a debit, and made possible a regular balancingof the accounts. For example, instead of a sale of cloth being entered only once as anincrease in cash, it would be listed twice (as a cash increase and as a deduction fromthe stock). In this way the total of current assets (stock plus cash and accounts receiv-able) can be more easily compared with current liabilities. The more efficient double-entry system made its way slowly from the large Italian mercantile firms to the smallerbusinesses of Europe. It appears that it had become established in the more up-to-datecounting houses of London by the middle of the sixteenth century (Ramsay 1956: ciii),but individual tradesmen clung to the older methods for another hundred years.

The most relevant feature of the double-entry system for our purposes is its use of

8 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'a variety of different kinds of books. Originally, one volume would have been used torecord transactions as they occurred. In such a book, sales and purchases, cash andcredit entries might follow one another chronologically without distinction. From anearly date, however, merchants tended to replace a single comprehensive book with anumber of separate volumes each devoted to a particular type of transaction (Defoe1738: 34). A complete system required three volumes: a journal or day book listingcredit transactions; a cash book for cash transactions; and a ledger in which the entriesfrom the journal and cash books would be summarized in separate accounts for eachcustomer.

It is very probable that the book-keeping system that Henslowe learned as a youngman was not adequate for the enterprises of his maturity. After his marriage to AgnesWoodward, Henslowe lived almost entirely on investment. His wealth consisted of hiscapital, held partly in real estate, partly in loans and partly in cash. His real annualincome would be what he received in rent and interest less the amount he spent to earnthat income. To determine his financial position at any time he would have had to beable to total his assets in property, credit and cash, and deduct from them his currentliabilities in expenses or bad loans. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to dothese things using the diary alone. For example, Henslowe made no distinctionbetween cash and credit transactions. The sale of a jewel to William Sly (f. 15) wasrecorded in the same way as a loan to Richard Jones (f. 34v). And yet in the first casethe item should be deducted from some inventory of jewels, while in the second theamount should be subtracted from the cash on hand. The existence of a rent bookfrom the years 1504-1611 (Ms XVIII, 6) and a 'building book' referred to by Alleyn(Ms IX, 24 Dec. 1621) suggest that the diary contains only a partial record ofHenslowe's financial dealings. There is no consolidation of entries to present a moreor less comprehensive financial picture, and, indeed, it is difficult to deduce why someof the records were kept at all.

This is certainly the case with many of his real estate transactions. Documentsrelating to this aspect of Henslowe's business have survived among the muniments andmanuscripts preserved at Dulwich College. Greg has collated all the evidence to puttogether as complete a picture of Henslowe's speculations in property as is possible.Here we will consider the diary entries only as evidence of Henslowe's book-keepingmethods. The fullest accounts are those with Mrs Keyes in April and May of 1599. Onfolio 42v, Henslowe itemized what he had 'payd for mrs keayes' and on folio 43 whathe had 'Receud of mrs Keayes Reant'. This is a conventional record of income on theright hand side and payments on the left. Thus receipts totalling £4-6-0 are offset byexpenditures amounting to £4-7-8. These latter are made up of rent paid on MrsKeyes' behalf, a loan of £1-00-0, and the transfer of certain rents received. Theaccounts are not totalled or balanced, but the debit side is crossed out. Once again, themore complete form of these accounts may be a result of the fact that they were pre-pared for someone other than Henslowe himself.

Such a conclusion might be supported by the lacunae in the remaining real estaterecords. Where Henslowe listed his own payments (to John Malthouse for example)

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY' 9he did so without explanation and without reference to any income. His 'Reconynge'drawn up on folio 19 shows various legal expenses incurred in connection with thepurchase of tenements which may have been part of the messuage on the Banksideknown as The Barge, the Bell and the Cock (Greg 1904; II, 297). There he itemizedvarious charges amounting to £4-7-02 (which he incorrectly totalled as £4-11-11 atthe bottom of the account). That these costs are only part of the expenses involved inthe transaction is suggested by the 'ttottalis' £131-06-11 entered at the bottom left ofthe account, but there is no indication in the diary of what this total represents or howit was arrived at. It is clear, therefore, that the 'malthouse Recknyge' is only a partialrecord of Henslowe's transactions relating to The Barge, the Bell and the Cock, and thatfurther accounts including the purchase price of the property, expenses for repairs andamounts received in rent must have been kept elsewhere. Like the other reckonings forAlleyn and Mrs Keyes, this was probably prepared as a kind of statement of account.

The majority of the real estate entries seem to be memoranda of some kind, but inmost cases it is difficult to see why they were preserved and impossible to deduce theirrelationship to Henslowe's investments as a whole. They seem to fall into threecategories: statements of expenses (including rent), reminders of agreements (ff. 24,25,98) and accounts of rental income. There are several brief summaries of expenses,such as the cost of repairs for The Fool's Head (f. lv), the amount paid for paintedcloth, wainscoting and turned pillars for The James' Head (f. 3v) and costs for repairsto Hugh Daves' house (ff. 6—6v), mending a wharf (f. 21) and building a house on theBankside (f. 32). Few of these accounts are added up, and when they are, as in the caseof the Bankside property, the addition is inaccurate. It is also interesting that some-times entries are made before the cash is actually paid out and then subsequentlycancelled by writing 'no' in the left-hand margin (f. 32). These cancellations have beentaken into consideration when the account was totalled, but there is no indication ofwhat income (if any) the sums were charged against.

Another expense incurred by Henslowe was his annual rents. The only record ofthese is a memo on folio 178v showing yearly charges of £52-14-8 beginning in 1602.There is no indication of when these rents were due, or how often they were paid, andno evidence of an attempt to balance these expenses against income received from theproperties. That Henslowe was in receipt of rents is shown by accounts on the facingpage. There he enters 'A note of alle my tenentes & what they paye yearley' (f. 178).This entry has the appearance of an aide memoire rather than an active account,although a series of dots and strokes following each name may indicate instalmentpayments. On the whole, therefore, the diary entries relating to Henslowe's invest-ments in real estate appear to be little more than casual jottings for particular purposesrather than a systematic attempt to keep track of his changing financial position.

The same could be said of the extensive records of personal loans. From very earlyin his business career Henslowe found it necessary to extend credit to his associatesand customers. Though not as widespread as today, the use of credit was an integralcomponent of sixteenth-century business and trade. There were three main types ofcredit instruments: the bill of debt (a promissory note in English usually written by the

10 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'debtor himself), the 'obligation' (a note drawn up in Latin by a scrivener and signed,sealed and witnessed), and the bill of exchange (usually reserved for transactions withthe continent) (Ramsey 1962: xlix). Some of the diary entries would qualify as thefirst, but most are simply notes of what Henslowe was owed together with (occasion-ally) a record of repayments.

One of the simplest forms of credit is instalment buying whereby the purchaser ineffect borrows money from the vendor. One such transaction is described on folio 16,where Henslowe records the sale of a doublet to Steven Magett. Between 23 Januaryand 3 May 1596, Magett paid sums of from one to four shillings amounting in all tosixteen shillings. When the total price of the doublet was paid, Henslowe crossed outthe account as an indication that it was closed. It is possible that an amount for interestwas included in the sale price, but I think it unlikely. It is more probable that Henslowewas making allowances for the irregular income of those associated with the theatre,as he appears to have done when he sold Richard Bradshaw a quantity of copper lacein December 1600, and agreed to accept payment when Bradshaw returned to Londonafter a provincial tour (f. 84v).

Henslowe recorded relatively few sales in his diary. He was constantly lendingmoney in other ways, however, and there are a number of minor peculiarities abouthis accounts. To begin with, records of loans are not restricted to a particular part ofthe volume. Furthermore they are only rarely consolidated, and many of them seem tobe incomplete. Several appear to have remained unpaid, while in other cases there areacknowledgements of payments for debts which have not been recorded. Finally,almost all of the loans are to individuals whom Henslowe would have known per-sonally. These scattered records do not look like the accounts of a professional money-lender; they have more the appearance of the rather casual efforts of a man to keeptrack of his personal loans.

This is not to suggest that Henslowe was indifferent to the losses which might resultfrom bad debts. He tried to minimize such losses in several ways. One of the most com-mon entries was a simple notation of an unsecured loan such as 'lent vnto mr hareydraper the 4 of aprell 1593 in Redey money the some of xvjli' (f. 3). Such a memor-andum would have had little validity in law, since it is unsigned and unwitnessed. Thisparticular entry has not been crossed out which may indicate that the loan was neverrepaid, or may simply be evidence of Henslowe's carelessness. Since Draper did notput his name to the memo, he might not have known of it, and would have had noreason to insist that it be cancelled when the debt was paid.

Somewhat more binding in effect would be the witnessed notes of indebtedness.These took various forms. There were the signed memoranda such as 'Lent mrRichard ffuller my attorney the 24 of aguste in Readey money . . . & witneses to theleandynge herof mr shealden player & mr fullers man' (f. 40v). In this case presumablythe borrower could not sign for the debt himself since the money was being picked upby a servant, but the signatures would no doubt be legally binding. In many cases theindebted party would himself sign an acknowledgement. Such promissory notes wereoften entirely in the hand of the borrower and constituted a formal receipt such as

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY' 11'Borrowed of phillip Henchlowe xxs the vijth of Aprill anno dom 1599 — HenryPorter' (f. 62). At other times the acknowledgement might be in the form of a bond,setting out the conditions of repayment as in the following: 'Be it knowne vnto all menby theise p[rese]ntes That I Henry Porter do owe and am indebted vnto Mr PhillipHenchlowe in the some of Twenty shillynges of good and lawfull money of England,ffor the wch true and good payment I bynd me my heiers and executore, where vnto Ihave set my hand this present seaventene of January, a. do. 1598 per me, Henry Porter'(HD: 265). Some of these bonds (but not Porter's) have been cancelled, which in mostcases is the only evidence we have that the debt was retired. It seems clear that in thesetransactions Henslowe was attempting to ensure repayment, but it is questionablewhether he was always successful. One debt, that of Gabriel Spencer acknowledged on20 April 1598 (f. 42), remained uncancelled in the diary and was almost certainlyunpaid at the time of Spencer's death on 22 September of that year. Other uncancelledaccounts probably indicate similar outstanding debts.

Some insight into Henslowe's lending practices and his methods of recording hisloans may be gained by examining his relations with the actor William Bird. Birdjoined the Admiral's Men in the autumn of 1597 when the company incorporatedseveral of the leading players from Lord Pembroke's Men. Between then and 1603,Bird was involved in several legal and domestic difficulties which necessitated frequentrecourse to Henslowe for 'redey money'. Altogether he borrowed £30-00-0, repayingall but £4-00-0 by 12 March 1602 (f. 89v). A number of these transactions areitemized in the diary.

The earliest records of loans to Bird appear on folio 38 immediately below a list ofexpenditures related to 'the changinge of ower comysion' (possibly a reference toHenslowe's efforts to secure the Mastership of the Bears (Greg 1904: II, 37). At thebottom of the page are two memoranda of loans to Bird witnessed by third parties(including 'thomas dowten biger boye whome fecthed yt fore hime'. This latter loanwas for a short period (19—24 December), and was apparently collected by one of theboy actors on Bird's behalf. The following February Henslowe advanced Bird afurther £1-00-0 for a waistcoat, but this loan was not witnessed.

On 9 April 1598, Bird, along with Spencer and Downton, borrowed a total of£6-00-0 which they acknowledged in a bond drawn up partly by Henslowe and partlyby Downton, and signed by the three debtors (f. 42). Possibly the money was neededto defray legal costs involved in a court case between the three of them and MartinSlater. At any rate, Henslowe appears to have advanced the trio another sum of£1-10-0 for this purpose on 8 March. In recording this second advance in Bird'saccount, Henslowe turned to a new page (f. 39) and retranscribed all of the actor'sdebts under the heading 'wm Bornes alles [alias] birde Recknynge... at severall timeslent as folowethe 1597'. The original items were probably crossed out about this time,and Henslowe carefully carried forward the details of the loans, including the fact thatthey should have been repaid the previous Christmas Eve. Between 25 and 29 MarchHenslowe advanced Bird an additional 18s. 4d. which he added to the actor's growingdebt.

12 PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY'Running out of space at this point, Henslowe continued Bird's account on the facing

page under the heading 'wm borne alles birde 1598 Deatte as folowth'(f. 38v).Between 29 March and 27 November he added seven small loans totalling £3-14-8.Overlapping with these accounts are a series of secured loans on folio 41v. Theseadvances differ from earlier loans in that Henslowe began to take articles of clothingand jewellery as security for his money.That this was more of a formality than aserious attempt to protect his investment, however, is suggested by the entry 'Dd vntowm Birde ales borne ij gewells of gowld wch he layd to me to pane [pawn] for xs wchI dd to hime agayne wth owt money wch he owes me.' In succeeding years, Bird's needsappear to have been more sporadic. Henslowe made memoranda of loans on 22 April1599 and 26 November 1600 (f. 42v). Then on 11 July 1601 he drew up a final state-ment which Bird signed acknowledging a total debt of £23-00-0.

It is difficult to see how Henslowe arrived at this figure. Between April andDecember 1598, Bird borrowed a total of £14-18-0. His recorded loans in 1599 and1600 totalled another £5-00-0. In addition, the actor borrowed sums of £6-00-0 and£3-00-0 jointly with Spencer and Downton. The final acquittal given by Henslowementions 'another debte of vj li or thereaboutes. vppon a bond' (f. 89v) which prob-ably refers to the first of these joint loans (f. 42), so it is possible that the second mayhave been incorporated (in whole or in part) in Henslowe's reckonings. This wouldgive a total of £22-18-0 which Henslowe might well have rounded out to £23-00-0.But the diary also records several irregular repayments which should have beencredited against this sum. Between 25 February and 4 March 1598, Bird managed torepay ten shillings on his debt of £1-00-0 for a waistcoat (f. 39v). Then on 17 Juneof the same year Henslowe collected five shillings which he obviously expected to bethe first of many such payments, since he entered it under the heading 'Rd of wm Birdeat severalle times' (f. 33). In June 1601, Bird again began to repay his debt andmanaged to turn over £1-11-8 before Henslowe recorded that he 'pd him backe agayne this mony' (f. 102v). It would appear that either Henslowe did not credit thesepayments to Bird's account (deliberately or otherwise) or that the diary entries consti-tute only part of the record of the actor's transactions. That the latter is the case issuggested by the reference to 'ij gewells of gowld' which Henslowe noted he hadreturned (f. 41v), but nowhere recorded having received.

Sometime before 18 October 1601, Bird borrowed another £5-00-0, and instead ofadding this amount to the £23-00-0 Henslowe entered it separately along with acolumn of several repayments (f. 103v). Once again the payments cease after about amonth so it is something of a surprise to learn that by 12 March 1602, Bird hadreduced his debt to £4-10-0 and stood 'cleere of all debtes &C demaundes except theisdebtes and suche stocke &c covenentes as I maie clayme &c challendge of him by reasonof his coniunction wth the Companie' (f. 89v). This latter is obviously a reference toBird's obligations as a sharer as distinct from his personal debts.

Generalizing from these records, I think we can draw several conclusions. First,Henslowe used a variety of strategies (witnessed notes, bonds, receipts and collateral)to secure his loans, but there is no evidence that he foreclosed on any of them, or even

PHILIP HENSLOWE AND HIS 'DIARY 13that he charged interest. Their personal nature is borne out by the casual record-keeping, and by the fact that the entries are intermixed with family matters, such as hisactivities on behalf of his brother's children (ff. 39v, 40). If Henslowe were the flint-hearted moneylender he is sometimes made out to be, it is unlikely that he would havebeen so apparently indifferent to repeated delays and defaults in repayments.

The non-theatrical accounts reveal much about Henslowe's book-keeping methodsand his 'style' of doing business. It would appear that the diary is less a formal accountbook (such as a ledger or a journal, both of which would need to be kept more sys-tematically) than a personal memorandum book. Occasionally it contains extensiverecords like a complete list of expenditures, or a series of loans, but even in these casesthere is no effort to incorporate the information into a comprehensive financial state-ment. It is difficult to imagine how Henslowe could have supervised his variousbusiness enterprises without a fuller set of books including, at the very least, a ledgerin which he would have recorded his transactions with individuals. If such booksexisted, possibly they became separated from the diary at the time of Henslowe'sdeath. Whatever the truth, we must recognize, I think, that the diary contains only apartial record of Henslowe's activities, albeit a record maintained by a reasonablypainstaking individual.

2 • THEATRICAL LANDLORD

WE DO NOT KNOW how Philip Henslowe, 'citizen and dyer', recent bridegroomand speculator in sheepskins, became attracted to the new business of thetheatre. Nothing we have learned of his other interests would suggest a liter-

ary bent, nor does his enterprise or ambition in marrying his master's widow betokena Bohemian personality. Whatever the cause, whether shrewd foresight, love of art,naked greed or a combination of all three, on 10 January 1587 Henslowe entered intopartnership with one John Cholmley, grocer, to share expenses in the building of aplayhouse. According to the terms of their agreement Cholmley was to have the use ofa small tenement or dwelling-house on the property for storage, and the exclusive rightto sell bread and drink to patrons. He was also to get one half of all the moneycollected from the audience attending the plays. In return he agreed to pay Henslowean annuity of £816 in quarterly instalments of £27-10-0 over a period of eight yearsand three months. For his part, Henslowe promised to pay all rents and to repair thebridges and wharfs belonging to the property by the following Michaelmas (Mun. 16).

The purpose of the partnership from Henslowe's point of view was to insure himselfagainst fluctuations in the rate of return by selling an uncertain gain for a smaller butguaranteed income. Cholmley, no doubt, would be attracted by the prospect ofmaking a double profit, one on the food concession and a second on his share of thebox-office revenue. As it stands, however, the agreement seems unworkable since theterms make no provision for a share of the receipts to go to the actors. Not unlikelythis is a reflection of the relative ignorance of both partners of the nature of thebusiness upon which they were embarking.

The agreement specified that the theatre should be erected by John Grigges, acarpenter, with 'as muche expedicon as may be' but did not name a precise com-pletion date. At the same time, it bound Cholmley to quarterly payments beginning onthe feast of St John the Baptist, and added that failure to meet these payments wouldconstitute a breach of the agreement and the termination of the partnership. There isno record of when the Rose theatre was finished although it was certainly standing by1588 (ES: II, 407). Henslowe seems, therefore, to have lived up to his side of thebargain, but no sign of Cholmley's participation in the enterprise can be found a fewyears later when we first get a glimpse of its operations.

What Henslowe did with his new playhouse during the first four years of its exist-ence is not known. Between March and April 1592, however, he recorded expendi-tures in his newly acquired account book amounting to some £108. These related tocharges for what by that time he was referring to as 'my playe howsse' (f. 4). It isdifficult to see why major repairs should have been required a mere five years after the

14

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 15construction of the building so it is more likely, perhaps, that these expenses point tosome alterations of the basic structure, possibly the construction of a 'heavens' andlords' rooms over the stage. Charges for a 'maste' (likely a flagpole), for thatched roof-ing, for two dozen turned ballasters, and for 'sellynge' (ceilings) in the lords' room andthe room over the tiring house (f. 5v) all support such an interpretation. When thework could have been done, however, is difficult to see since the theatre was in con-stant use by Strange's men between 19 February and 23 June (Table II. 1). I am inclinedto think that alterations were completed before the company moved in. The receiptsare for large bills which were probably presented some months after the work wascompleted. The other expenses listed on folios 4-5 have the appearance of an accountretranscribed from other sources like that prepared for Edward Alleyn.

Just as mysterious as the date of these entries is their purpose. They seem to rep-resent Henslowe's attempt to determine his current financial position. But in order toascertain whether or not he was earning an adequate return on his investment,Henslowe would have had to add to these figures his original capital outlay togetherwith yearly fixed costs, and set the total off against income. Possibly he did draw upsome kind of balance sheet like the one on folio 235v, but if so it has not survived. Inorder to understand Henslowe's activities in relationship to the theatre and theplayers, therefore, it is necessary to attempt to reconstruct his theatrical finances.

INCOMEAs we have seen, Henslowe originally envisaged splitting all of the income from thetheatre with his partner Cholmley. What he probably intended was that the owners ofthe theatre would divide the admission fees paid to enter the galleries, while the playerswould take the receipts collected at the outer door. This, at least, was the custom at theTheatre according to Cuthbert Burbage who went on to say that at some later pointthe owners' or 'housekeepers'' share was reduced to one half of the gallery income(PRO LC/5/133, pp. 50-1; cited Schoenbaum 1975: 104). Precisely when this changetook place is not known. Depositions taken in a case involving James Burbage and thewidow of his former partner, John Brayne, make ambiguous reference to the mannerin which the owners shared the income from the theatre. Mrs Brayne was authorizedby the court to appoint collectors to stand at the door 'that goeth vppe to the galleries'to take 'half the money that shuld be gyven to come vppe into the said galleries at thatdoor' (ES: II, 392). Since we do not know if there was more than one door to thegalleries, however, we cannot be sure what proportion of the takings Mrs Brayne wasclaiming. By 1597 the Swan owner, Francis Langley, received only one half of thegallery money as rent (Wallace 1910: 352). It seems likely, therefore, that Greg is right(1904: II, 134) when he estimates that the figures recorded in the diary after19 February 1592 represent one-half of the receipts collected in the galleries. Whetherthose receipts belonged to the actors or the owner is a more complex problem, towhich we will return.

There are several puzzles related to these accounts. The first is why Henslowe kept

16 THEATRICAL LANDLORDthem at all. Was he perhaps compiling a financial statement to show to a silent partneras Burbage apparently did at the Theatre (Wallace 1966: 85)? Another problem is themethod used. Did Henslowe collect the money daily and record it immediately, or didhe consolidate this list from other reckonings as we have seen him do with some of hisnon-theatrical activities? As Foakes and Rickert point out (HD: xxvii), Hensloweseems sometimes to have written his dates prior to entering titles and income (f. 9v).An error in the dating of entries from 8 May to 3 June 1592 (f. 7v) might suggest thathe recorded these items in batches. On Monday 9 May, Henslowe wronglytranscribed the date as 7 May. During the next two weeks, each date is two daysbehind the calendar. Following the entry for 18 May, however, Henslowe again mis-read his figures and began the next series of receipts with the date 10 May. He carriedon chronologically until he reached the bottom of the page where he recorded receiptsfor 22 May (twelve days behind the actual date). At the top of the next leaf he con-tinued with 24 May, but at last realized his error. Discovering the mistake following18 May, he went back and corrected the entries to 22 May. This left his new date stillthree days behind the calendar, a fact he must have known since he corrected 24 Mayto the actual date, 5 June (f. 8).

It is easy to see how this series of mistakes began, but difficult to understand how itcould have continued so long undetected if Henslowe entered his receipts every day.He could hardly have gone for almost a month not knowing the date, especially sincehe was engaged in business transactions in the same period (ff. 6v, 123v). Altogethermore probable is the hypothesis that Henslowe made his diary entries at irregularintervals. I suspect that he began a group of entries on 6 May, and got out of sequencewhen he confused the VI of 'harey the vj' for the date of the preceding day. He con-tinued this batch of entries until the week following Whitsun, carefully skipping a daybetween the sixth performance of one week and the first of the following. He indicatedthis break by a line across the page between what he recorded as 11 and 13 May(Thursday and Friday), although, as Greg has shown, the interruption in playingalmost certainly took place between 13 and 15 (Saturday and Monday). Sometimelater he began again and made a second mistake when he misread 18 as 8 andcommenced the following week's receipts with the date 10 May.

Support for the theory of periodical entry is provided by what looks like a sub-totallocated on folio 7v. This figure is one of several numbers jotted in the margins of folios7v and 8. In certain cases, the figures are quite clearly references to sums of money, as'Rd li 24' or 'Rd 32.14.' Other figures such as '9', '34' or '066.' are more ambiguous.The entry in question reads 51-10 (a correction of 49-10) and very probably means£51-10-0. How Henslowe arrived at this figure is not clear. It is very close to the totalreceipts collected between 17 April (the date following the first marginal entry) andwhat Henslowe records as 15 May. This sum amounts to £51-9-6, and it is easy tobelieve that the figure was rounded out. But it is difficult (perhaps impossible) toreconcile the other 'sub-totals' with the accounts. For example, 'Rd li 24' should prob-ably read '23', while 'Rd 32.14' might be a miscalculation for £32-8-6. Possibly '34'is a rough estimate, but I can find no correlation between subsequent marginal figures

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 17and the actual sub-totals of the receipts recorded. Furthermore, all such jottings dis-appear after 22 June 1592, so if someone was attempting to keep track of receipts, theeffort was abandoned.

A change in Henslowe's method of recording income took place in the early summerof 1594 when he entered into an association with the Admiral's and Chamberlain'sMen. Beginning 3 June 1594, he started each entry with a symbol followed by the dateand the name of the play. (The form of entry bears a strong resemblance to a series ofpawn accounts (f. 73), to be discussed later, in which Henslowe began using the samesymbol and date systems in December 1593.) Entries in this new form run withoutsignificant interruption until 22 January 1597. In the earliest of them there is evidenceof an attempt to keep track of receipts by recording totals at the foot of the page(ff. 9v, 10, lOv). Interestingly, these are in a different ink from the surrounding entries,which may indicate that the calculations were carried out at a different time and even,perhaps, by a different hand. The totals recorded (111-6-0, 60-06-3, 58-08-0)correspond only approximately with the actual totals (104-15-6, 67-18-6,58-04-10).We notice here, however, a feature that is characteristic of many of Henslowe'saccounts - that the three incorrect totals add up to a figure very close to the real one(£230-00-3 for £230-17-6). Either Henslowe's totals do not sum up the pages as theynow exist, or he discovered his mistake and silently corrected it.

After 14 December 1594, receipts were no longer totalled, but two interlined entrieson folio 12v suggest some kind of a review of the figures. The first of these ('post 83li') appears between the date (10 June 1595) and the sum recorded on that day. Itcorresponds fairly closely to the total collected from 10 March up to and including'whittson daye' by which Henslowe probably meant Monday 9 June. The purpose ofthis sub-total (if it is one) is obscure, but the occurrence of the word 'post' is extremelyinteresting. In a commercial context the word later referred to the action of tran-scribing an entry from a journal or day book to a ledger, and it is entirely possible thatHenslowe is using it in this sense. If he is, then this would be fairly convincing evidencethat the diary is only a book of original entry, and that Henslowe (or an associate)maintained another set of books in which accounts might have been laid out in a moresystematic manner. The flaw in this argument is that the word occurs only one othertime in the diary (at the bottom of folio 12v), and there it is difficult to see howHenslowe arrived at his total of 173-00-0. A figure which looks like a sub-totalappears on folio 14 without the preceding 'post', and once again it is not easy to seewhat the sum represents.

Another puzzling feature of these income accounts is the presence of severalnotations referring to payments to the Master of the Revels. These payments were ofvarious kinds. Between 26 February and 10 May 1592 Henslowe paid Tilney fiveshillings a week, after which time the sum gradually increased until it reached sixshillings and eightpence by the end of Strange's first season. Thereafter no furthermention of payments to the Master is to be found until 10 March 1595, at which timethere is an interlined notation '17p from hence lycensed' (f. llv). This seems to referto the seventeen 'ne' plays introduced into the Admiral's Men's repertoire since June

18 THEATRICAL LANDLORD1594 and may be an indication that licence fees for all these works were paid in a lumpsum. More likely, perhaps, it may simply indicate that the company was paid up untilthat time. On 31 May a curt note 'pd' may refer to some sort of payment to the Masterof the Revels; that is certainly the meaning of entries on 7 November, 18 December,30 January and at the end of February 1596, when Henslowe reported 'the master ofthe Revelles payd vntell this time al wch I owe hime' (f. 14v).

The relationship between these three styles of entry is obscure. Weekly remittancesin 1592 were probably licence fees for operating the theatre paid by the owner. Theplay licences mentioned in the second entry are quite distinct, and the cost of suchlicences should normally be a charge on the actors rather than the landlord. Sub-sequent notations probably refer again to fees for operating the theatre, but there is noindication of what sum was being paid out. Between 26 April and 12 July 1596,Henslowe recorded several other payments in the income accounts and collectedsigned acquittances in other sections of the diary where the money paid to the Masteris sometimes described as 'paye' (f. 20v), and sometimes as being for the Master's 'use'(f. 23v). From these receipts it would also appear that by 1596 the theatre licence feehad risen to 10 shillings a week.

The playhouse income accounts continue unchanged until 22 January 1597, whenthere is a sudden and dramatic alteration in their form. On that date Henslowechanged from roman numerals (Rd at Joronymo . . . xixs) to a system of five columnsof arabic numbers (Janewary 1597 tt at Nabucadonizer 0 09 02 00 - 03). There isfairly general agreement that this change must reflect an alteration in Henslowe'srelationship to the company, but no consensus as to what that change might be.Wallace (1910: 361) followed by Baldwin (1927b: 71) suggested that the first twofigures represent pounds and shillings and record half the gallery income, while thelast three columns (representing pounds, shillings and pence) record the outer doorreceipts. This theory was attacked by Chambers (ES: II, 143 n.) on the grounds thatthe players' income would not go through Henslowe's hands, and that there is not thekind of correlation between the two amounts which we would expect if they were bothcollected on the same day. In his turn, Chambers put forward the suggestion that thegreatly fluctuating sums in the last three columns were loans to the players. As Foakesand Rickert point out, however, Henslowe already had a separate loan account withthe players (ff. 22v-23), and would be unlikely to open a duplicate one. These writersseized on Chambers' observation that during the first seven weeks of playing(24 January—14 March) there is a rough correlation between the first two and lastthree columns on a weekly basis which disappears after the players cease borrowingfrom their landlord. They conclude that for the duration of these entries, Henslowewas responsible for collecting all the receipts, listing the half gallery income in the firsttwo columns, and entering the door receipts due the players in the last three. The factthat the latter figures vary greatly (sometimes being reduced to zero) they explain bysupposing that Henslowe was repaying himself out of these takings and turning overto the players what remained (HD: xxxiv).

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 19It seems unlikely that Henslowe should change from the fairly detailed description

of advances he used before and after this period to a system so open to error and abuse.Perhaps the conclusive argument against the theory that these figures concealHenslowe's loans to the company, however, is the size of the amounts involved.Presumably the highest figures in the last three columns would be those from whichsmall or no deductions had been made, and which would therefore be close to the totalamount taken in at the outer door. These figures average about £20 per week so itshould be possible to estimate the players' weekly borrowing by subtracting the actualweekly total from a hypothetical average. When this is done we see that the supposedloan repayments amount to about £14 a week, far above the sums borrowed fromHenslowe at any other time.

Whatever the true nature of these entries, they cease as abruptly as they began whenthe amalgamated Admiral's—Pembroke's Company started performing at the Rose inOctober 1597. At that time, apparently, the landlord prepared to continue his five-column system by making a marginal note 'the xj of octobe be gane my lord admerals&C my lord of penbrokes men to playe at my howsse 1597' (f. 27v). Beneath this entryhe inscribed a column of 'tt at's in readiness for recording titles and income. Threeplays (Joroneymo, the comody ofvmers and doctor fostes) were entered, but then theentries cease until the end of the month when Henslowe listed six performances endingon 5 November together with the usual five columns of figures. A peculiarity of thislast sequence of income accounts is that it overlaps with a very different system ofrecording receipts found elsewhere in the diary. This alternative set of figures isdescribed as 'A Juste a cownte of all Suche monye as I haue Receued of my lordadmeralles &c my lord of penbrocke men as foloweth be gynynge the 21 of October1597' (f. 36v). It differs from previous records in that it gives only a weekly total, buteventually it is this method which prevails, and the records of daily performance dis-appear. The accounts of the week ending 5 November, however, are in both systemsand it is possible therefore to compare the figures. On folio 27v the first two columnsyield a total of £5-12-0, whereas the amount recorded in the weekly accounts for thesame period is £2-18-10 (f. 36v). This confirms the impression that the new totalsaverage only about half what was collected between 1592-7 (Table IV).

These new weekly accounts run until 8 July 1598, by which time Henslowe hadreceived exactly £125 (a total rounded off by the last payment of £2-11-07). Threeweeks later he began yet another income account with the words 'Here I Begyne toReceue the wholle gallereys ffrome this daye' (f. 48). These latter receipts continueduntil 13 October when Henslowe acknowledged he had collected £358-03. A weeklater he continued the account (f. 62v), and by 13 July 1600, the players had paid anadditional £207-02-0 which they acknowledged left them just £300 in Henslowe'sdebt (f. 69v). Here the income receipts cease altogether with the exception of twoisolated entries on folio 83 under the heading 'My Lordes of penbrocke men beganeto playe at the Rosse the 28 October 1600.' These report income of 'xjs 6d' and 'vs'taken at 'licke vnto licke' and 'RadeRicke'. What is puzzling is that they show a return

20 THEATRICAL LANDLORDto an earlier system of daily rather than weekly receipts, presumably reflecting anagreement between Lord Pembroke's Men and the owner of the Rose similar to thatstruck between the Admiral's Men and Henslowe in 1594—7.

What can we deduce about Henslowe's relations with the players from hischameleon-like records of income? The accounts themselves seem to progress throughfive stages, as follows:

1592-94 daily income: 'Rd at (title and date) xxii'1594-97 daily income: '(date) Rd at (title) xvii'1597-97 daily income: '(date) tt at (title) 03 04 01 03 00'1597-98 weekly income: 'Rd the (date) vli js xjd'1598—1600 weekly income: 'wholle gallereys' xli xiiij'

It has been assumed that these entries are Henslowe's receipts compiled for his own (orpossibly a partner's) information. Such an interpretation is supported by outside evi-dence that Francis Langley was in receipt of one half of the gallery takings at the Swan(Wallace 1910: 352); that Henslowe took one half of the gallery income at the Hopeas rent (Mun. 52); and that Burbage kept a 'Booke of Reconinges' between himself andhis partner, Brayne (Wallace 1966: 85). But there are a number of difficulties with thistheory. Cholmley is nowhere specifically referred to in the diary, and Beckerman'ssuggestion (1971: 42) that the accounts were needed to settle with Alleyn ignores thefact that the actor seems to have withdrawn from active management between 1597and 1600. Foakes' theory that the information was compiled for the Master of theRevels (HD: xxix) may be true, but he bases his argument in part on his contentionthat the cessation of daily entries coincided with a change in the manner of paying theMaster. In fact, as we have seen, Henslowe returned briefly to a system of daily entriesin October 1600, when, according to Foakes, such records would no longer berequired. Another problem is the relationship between this 'rental' income and the'wholle gallereys', sums collected by Henslowe between 1598 and 1600 as repaymentfor loans to the players. Greg has demonstrated that these latter sums almost certainlyrepresent only half of the income from the galleries. He suggests that Henslowe'srental income was a constant figure and that there would be no need in these years torecord it in the diary (1904: II, 134). Apparently he did not see how seriously this factundermines his basic assumptions. For as Foakes rightly points out, 'If there was noneed for Henslowe to keep a record [of his rental income] at this time [1598], it maybe wondered why he should have troubled to keep one earlier' (HD: xxviii).

It is time to ask whether the seemingly confusing features of the diary accounts can-not be explained by a simpler hypothesis than the ones so far proposed. Is it possiblethat this income was not Henslowe's after all, but that from first to last the landlordwas recording money collected by him but due to the players? We recall that Cholmleyand Henslowe originally intended to collect all the income to the theatre (by whichthey perhaps understood only the gallery income), and that Burbage and Brayneseemed to be doing the same at the Theatre. If we suppose that the gatherers at the

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 21Rose were divided between those who collected in the galleries and returned theirreceipts to the owner, and those who collected at the outer doors and gave theirrevenue to the players, then some of the puzzling features of the entries disappear. Thedaily income records can be seen as a statement, not of what Henslowe earned, but ofwhat he owed the actors out of the total gallery income. This is perhaps more con-sistent with the non-theatrical accounts which are mostly statements of expendituresrather than income. The enigmatic five-column entries may also be more easily under-stood as the players' income. If we assume that the first two columns represent theactors' half gallery income (which Henslowe continued to record, but in this novelform), then perhaps the second three columns represent the outer door takings (lesswhatever the players needed to pay current production expenses). I suspect that thissystem reveals an increasing reliance on the part of the Admiral's Men on the servicesof Henslowe as treasurer and banker. When Alleyn retired and the Pembroke's actorsjoined the Company (fresh from their painful experiences with Langley), there wasperhaps less willingness on the part of the newly formed company to trust Henslowewith the handling of so much of their income and the five-column system wasabandoned.

The reorganization of the Company also coincides with the sudeen change from adaily to a weekly method of entry. Starting in October 1597, Henslowe recordedmoney 'Receued of the players. The sums collected between 21 October 1597 and8 July 1598 differ from all other income accounts in the diary. Unlike the daily sumslisted earlier, and the 'wholle gallereys' collected later, these entries are about half aslarge as the usual weekly totals and regularly include odd pence. Furthermore, theamounts seem to be discretionary, since the final payment appears to have been calcu-lated to bring the total to exactly £125 (ff. 35,36v). Finally, it is not at all clear whetherthe money belonged to Henslowe or the players. The amounts are not deducted fromthe actors' debt which might suggest (as it apparently did to Greg) that they representpayments for rent. But why are they so much smaller than earlier 'rental' figures? Andwhy were they so carefully rounded off? One possibility is that the money was beingheld in trust by Henslowe and like Humphrey Jeffes' half-share (for which Henslowealso rendered a 'Juste acownte'), it was 'payd backe agayne vnto the companey' (f. 36).Perhaps the new Admiral's-Pembroke's Men insisted on a new method of gatheringand dividing the receipts. But what that method was we cannot say. Not unlikely, theplayers began collecting the money from the outer doors themselves, and possiblyturned over one-half of their gallery takings to Henslowe to be held in trust for somenow indeterminable purpose.

The accounts with the Admiral's Men cease when the Company moved to theFortune where Alleyn (as part owner) probably took over the responsibilities of deal-ing with the players. When Pembroke's Men began performing at the Rose in 1600,Henslowe assumed that he would once again collect the receipts in the galleries andturn over one-half of them to the players, but, for whatever reason, the system was notcontinued.

22 THEATRICAL LANDLORD

INVESTMENT

Throughout the period that Henslowe was receiving income from the theatre he musthave been concerned with the double problem of safeguarding and investing hismoney. Regular deposit banking does not appear to have developed in England untilthe next century, so presumably currency was stored in strongboxes in individualhomes and shops. Since Henslowe does not seem to have been engaged in manufac-turing or commerce, he must have been continually on the lookout for suitable oppor-tunities for profitable investment. In a period when interest charges were legal butfrowned on, such investments may have been difficult to find.

There is some indication that Henslowe's financing of the actors may have grownout of, or dovetailed with, his pawnbroking business. The diary contains a number ofaccounts related to this curious side of Henslowe's affairs dating between January1593 and April 1596. The earliest appears on folio 55, where Henslowe lists a loan tohis nephew, Francis, 'vpon A peticote of Read wth iij belementes laces of A womondwellinge in londitche'. The transaction is peculiar and requires some interpretation.It seems clear that the money is being secured by the woman's gown although the pay-ment is actually made to Francis. Henslowe was apparently underwriting a pawn-broking business, but it is far from clear just what his relationship to that business was.

Little is known about pawnbroking in England in the sixteenth century, and it haseven been suggested that it did not exist as a separate, self-sufficient trade until thereign of James II (Hudson 1982: 32). Elsewhere in Europe pawnbroking was wide-spread, even becoming a licensed monopoly in the Low Countries as early as the four-teenth century. Records from medieval Bruges and nineteenth-century Londonsuggest that the methods and problems of the business did not vary much from age toage. The pawnbroker's clientele was drawn from all classes, but it was the poor whopredominated. Records surviving from Pistoia in the fourteenth century show that inone five-day period, a pawnbroker made eighty loans of which nearly half were for lessthan £1-10. Pledges were mostly articles of clothing, followed by tools, jewellery,arms, bedding and household utensils. Regulations under which the pawnbrokersoperated specified that pledges had to be kept for a year and a day after which theybecame forfeit and could be sold. The customary rate of interest allowed by law was2d in the pound per week or 43 per cent (De Roover 1948: 121—5). Although the rateseems usurious (and was frequently attacked as such), it has been argued that it wasnot excessive in view of the expenses involved. These would include licence fees, rent,wages, interest on capital borrowed, storage charges and depreciation on pledges(De Roover 1948: 128).

To keep track of the large number of small articles, the pawnbrokers at Bruges issueda document for each loan on which they recorded the names of lender and borrower,a description of pawned articles, the amount due, the signature of the lender and thedate (De Roover 1948: 132). This medieval equivalent of a pawn ticket would beretained by the borrower and presented along with a payment covering principal andinterest to reclaim the article pawned. How these latter were stored is not known. One

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 23would assume that some numerical identification would be necessary to simplify theprocess of recovery from storage, but since no actual pawn ticket has survived it isimpossible to know the truth. An extant fragment of an account book belonging to aTuscan pawnbroker in 1417 indicates that the lender kept a folio record of loans andwrote the dates of repayment in the margin (De Roover 1948: 122).

Against this background it is possible to begin to reconstruct Philip Henslowe'sactivities in the pawning business between 1593 and 1596. Once again, one is struckby the partial nature of the surviving records. The first set containing his dealings withFrancis suggests that he was underwriting his nephew by advancing money onunredeemed pledges. This would permit money which would otherwise be tied up tobe put out at interest a second time. Henslowe would collect interest from the date headvanced money to Francis until the time the pledge was redeemed. Francis, in themeantime, would advance the borrowed money on a second loan. But what wasHenslowe's role? It seems on the face of it that he would not have been involved in theday-to-day supervision of the business. On the other hand, he may have received andstored goods, for he recorded marginal notes in his diary such as 'DD [delivered] vntofranees mayde' (f. 74v). This particular action may have deserved some notice becauseit was unusual. There is no indication of whether pledges were redeemed by Francis orby the parties themselves. Whoever finally collected the pawned article paid anamount of interest which seems to have varied considerably. Charges were calculatedby the month from the date received, and ranged from sixpence to fourteen pence, butseem normally to have been sixpence or eightpence in the pound. Henslowe kept norecord of when a pledge was redeemed, simply crossing out an entry (or in many casesa whole page of entries) when he received his money. This last suggests to me that thearticles were collected (possibly in large lots) by the agent. At various times there weremore than one agent, and over the years Henslowe had dealings with four women inaddition to his nephew Francis. The accounts were kept separate, but whether or notthe individuals were partners or salaried employees, and whether they worked at oneshop or several, is difficult to determine.

Henslowe's pawn entries, although less scattered than his other loan accounts, donot have the appearance of a complete set of pawnbroking records. Not only are thedates on which pledges were redeemed missing, but there is nowhere any calculationof profit or loss on the operation. In addition to the interest he collected, Henslowealso appears to have claimed unredeemed pledges. Sometime in March 1595, hereturned to Goody Watson several garments described as 'my owne' which he askedher to sell at specified prices (f. 19v). These articles are almost certainly unredeemedpledges on which Henslowe had lent Watson money on 27 October, 5 and29 November and 16 December 1595 (ff. 80-80v). The prices he asked were from twoto four shillings more than the sum borrowed, amounts which probably representinterest for the three or four months he held the articles. The relatively brief periodbetween the loan and the sale may indicate that the articles had already been in thepawnshop for many months before they were brought to Henslowe. Or it may simplymean that regulations concerning the sale of pledges were less stringent in London

24 THEATRICAL LANDLORDthan they were on the continent. The full story of Henslowe's pawnbroking activitiesis unlikely to be recovered. In any case, it is probably not a coincidence that the lastpawn transaction is dated 12 April 1597 (f. 133), and that the earliest recorded loanto the players is made the following month (f. 71 v).

At first Henslowe's dealings with the Company took the form of personal loans.Between 2 May and 25 May 1596, he recorded six advances to Edward Alleyn 'for thecompany' which altogether added up to £21-13-04 (f. 71v). He entered this figure inarabic figures at the foot of the column and again to the right of the heading describingthe loans. Part way down the page he began an income account with the heading'Receaued agayne of my sonne EA of this deate abowe written as foloweth'. Between10 May and 11 June, he recorded repayments amounting to £25-10-00, which he sub-totalled in the left margin. Sometime later Alleyn borrowed an additional £10-09-0,but by 8 July the Company had paid Henslowe a total of £39-09-00, which he enteredincorrectly as £30-10-00 to the left of the heading. When he balanced the figures hediscovered that the actors had repaid £7-06-08 more than they had borrowed and hereturned that sum to Alleyn.

The account is interesting for what it reveals about Henslowe's book-keepingmethods. First, he seems to have made a distinction between expense sums which herecorded on the right, and income sums which he entered on the left. Secondly, hecarried his totals to the top of the account where he sometimes had to correct them bycrossing out one set of numbers and entering another. A puzzling feature of this other-wise fairly accurate account is the figure 033-00-04 at the head of the page. In thatposition it would appear to be intended as the corrected total of loans made, but it is17 shillings too large. Since Henslowe obviously used the correct total in estimatingwhat to repay Alleyn, it is possible that he originally intended to charge the Companyinterest.

The next series of transactions between Henslowe and the players took placebetween 14 October 1596 and 25 March 1597 (ff. 22v-23). It marks an interestingdevelopment from the method of recording personal loans, and seems to reflectHenslowe's search for a more satisfactory way of keeping track of his advances andrepayments. The account begins on folio 23 beneath the heading 'A note of Suchemoney as I haue lent vnto thes meane whose names folow at seaverall tymes edwardalleyn martyne slather Jeames donstall &C Jewbey'. There follow four items totalling£2-12-8 which appear to be separated off from a further five loans and three repay-ments which are grouped together by a large bracket in the left margin. Perhaps thesefirst advances were repaid separately, since they do not figure in subsequent calcu-lations. Sometime after 1 November, Henslowe shifted his loan entries to the facingpage (f. 22v) leaving space at the bottom of folio 23 for additional repayments. Byearly December he had advanced a further £15-15-0 which he correctly sub-totalledin the left margin and noted that the entire debt, including £7-00-0 still owing on 'theother side', came to £22-15-0. On 16 December he drew up another sub-total in theleft margin, this time adding up all his advances (except the first four) which gave hima sum of £35-15-00. In January, the players were able to repay £18-00-0, but by

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 2514 March they had had to borrow another £8-11-0, bringing their total debt to£44-06-0, which Henslowe noted in the margin. On Good Friday the landlord and histenants drew up a reckoning for the season, at which time Henslowe advanced theplayers a further £5-14-0 which brought their loans to an even £50, just £30 more thanthey had managed to repay.

Here we see Henslowe modifying his method of recording personal loans to adaptit to changing circumstances. Individual items were listed at the top of a page andrepayments below them. When he ran out of space (presumably because he did notexpect to be called on so frequently), he transferred the account to a facing page so itwas all visible. Periodic sub-totals were compiled, but only on the first occasion didHenslowe deduct what the players had repaid him to give a current balance. Sub-sequent estimates were of his advances only. The final reckoning was worked outwithout totalling the income account, and the balance entered at the head of theaccount on folio 22v, where it was witnessed by Edward Alleyn.

The next series of loan accounts show Henslowe working out a relationship to thenew combined Admiral's-Pembroke's Company. About this time Edward Alleynretired from active participation in the troupe, and Henslowe had to deal with the newleading players, Robert Shaa and Thomas Downton. Both Shaa and Downton hadbeen part of the ill-fated Pembroke's Men at the Swan Theatre, and it is not improb-able that they brought a different style of management to the Rose. This is suggestedin part by the change we have noticed in the method of collecting the gallery income.It is borne out by the players' increased reliance on Henslowe as a banker. Oneimportant point of contention between the Pembroke's Men and the owner of theSwan was Langley's assertion that he was owed some £300 for costumes. In theirdeposition in the suit in the Court of Proceedings, Shaa and Downton asserted thatLangley had no claim on them because he had already been repaid. What is particu-larly interesting about this case is that the method of repayment used was the allo-cation of a certain portion of the players' gallery takings for this purpose. The systemis described as follows:yf the said Def[endan]t were at charges for the provyding of apparell . . . the same was vppon hisowne offer . . . And that the Deft should be allowed for the true value thereof out of theCompl[ainan]tes [i.e. the players'] moytie of the gains for the severall standinges in the galleries ofthe said howse [the Swan] . . . which [they] have faithfullye performed from tyme to tyme.

(Wallace 1910: 352)

The statement is interesting for several reasons. It is the earliest description we have ofthe method of financing production expenses out of the gallery receipts which becamecommon in the seventeenth century. Furthermore, it is the first example of a companyfinancing itself by borrowing from a theatre owner. Finally, the evidence suggests thatsuch procedures were not continuous, but were resorted to only 'from tyme to tyme'presumably as normal methods of financing proved inadequate. We will discuss laterwhat factors may have forced the players to turn to Henslowe for support. Here it isworth considering how the theatre owner responded to what were almost certainlynew demands on his resources.

26 THEATRICAL LANDLORDThe accounts with the new AdmiraPs-Pembroke's Company begin as what appear

to be personal loans to the two leading players. Between October and DecemberHenslowe entered a number of advances to Shaa at the top of folio 37 and to Downtonat the bottom of the same page. Since the former loans are all described as being 'forthe company' (or for theatrical purposes) and the latter are vague or personal, it wouldseem that Henslowe was at first uncertain about the nature of the loans he wasmaking. This uncertainty is also reflected, perhaps, by the fact that no less than threeof the loans were witnessed by Edward Alleyn.

Anticipating that the Company would want to borrow more money, Henslowe leftsome space to record further loans, and on 1 December noted the players' first repay-ment of £1-00-0 (which was subsequently cancelled) (f. 37v). Shortly after the secondloan to Shaa, Henslowe made an advance to Thomas Downton of £12-10-0 to get twocloaks out of pawn. Instead of recording this transaction with the advance to Shaa,however, he entered it at the bottom of the page, thereby implying some kind of dis-tinction between the two loans. Thereafter, Henslowe continued to enter the advancesto Shaa at the top of the page, and those to Downton at the bottom. By 8 December,he had run out of space on Shaa's half of the page, and continued the account overleafabout an inch beneath the first repayment entry. Twenty days later, this second pagehad also been filled, and Henslowe was forced to turn to a blank space in the diary.There, instead of simply continuing his records, he began all over again, transcribingthe entries from folios 37-37v into a new account beginning on folio 43v.

This fresh start must have been made sometime between 28 December 1597 (thedate of the last entry on folio 37v), and 5 January. Henslowe specified that the moneywas being advanced to the Company, consisting of the ten named players 'bornegabrell shaw Jonnes dowten Jube towne synger &c the ij geffes' (f. 43v) which he there-after referred to simply as the Admiral's Men.

From these entries it is possible to catch a glimpse of his day-to-day relations withthe players. On 8 December he advanced money to 'the littell tayller' to enable him tobuy 'tafetie and tynselP to make a costume for the play Alice Pierce. Since the tailorcould not authorize the advance on his own, the entry was witnessed by EdwardAlleyn, who apparently still had some authority in the Company. At another time,Henslowe gave Ben Jonson £1 as an advance on a play he was writing for Christmas.Jonson had apparently shown a plot of the work to the Company and it hadauthorized payment by Henslowe. How this authority was communicated to the land-lord is not explained. Henslowe's dealings continued to be with a wide variety ofindividuals, ranging from sharers such as Shaa, Borne, Juby, Spencer, and Downtonto dramatists (Munday and Dray ton), and 'ij yonge men'.

By the end of 1597 it had become apparent that the new company was going to relymore heavily than its predecessor on money borrowed from Henslowe. To accommo-date his growing business with the players, Henslowe turned to an empty space in hisvolume (f. 43v) and began the account anew. The most striking difference between thisand earlier accounts is that for the first time Henslowe made no provision for record-

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 27ing repayments. And indeed, he appears to have received none, for sometime after8 March 1598 he totalled his advances accurately as £46-07-03 (f. 44v) and the prin-cipal sharers of the new Admiral's Men acknowledged their indebtedness for the entireamount.

Two questions suggest themselves. First, why would Henslowe continue to lendmoney to an organization which seemed unable or unwilling to repay him? Was hecontent to wait because he would collect interest on his money? On at least oneoccasion Henslowe included what he called 'forberance of my mony' in a loan to theCompany. On 6 December 1602, he bought from Robert Shaa 'iiij clothe clockes laydwith cope lace for iiij li a clocke' (f. 118). The cloaks were for the use of the Company,so Henslowe added the sum to the players' account. As he explained, however, heincluded a sum of five shillings 'vpon euery clocke' which meant that the amountentered in the diary was £17. It is not impossible that similar interest charges arehidden elsewhere in the diary. On the whole, however, this entry appears to be anexception, so it is unlikely that Henslowe was profiting from his moneylending. Itwould appear that the landlord was satisfied to lend money to the players in order tokeep them at his theatre, where he earned a more than satisfactory income from rent.A second question is whether or not the newly constituted Admiral's Men inheritedthe debt of £30 incurred by the previous Company under Alleyn's leadership. Onceagain, there is no evidence in the present accounts, although Henslowe's later calcu-lations suggest that the debt was assumed.

Beginning with the Spring—Summer season of 1598, Henslowe seems to haveprovided most of the money spent on playbooks, costumes, and properties by theAdmiral's Men. The accounts run more or less continuously from 13 March 1598(f. 45) to 13 October 1599 (f. 64v). In that time, the financier made periodic reckon-ings of both loans and repayments, but it is not until the latter date that he struck abalance in order to estimate the players' indebtedness. Because his calculations werepartial and irregular it is difficult to follow Henslowe's footsteps. Nevertheless, wherewe can trace his figuring it is remarkably accurate. For the first few months, Henslowecontented himself with periodic sub-totals. His first (£104-12-8) appears on folio 47v,and is exactly ten shillings too high. By 28 July 1598 (f. 48) he had added a further five-shilling error, to give a total of £120-15-4 (Table IV.12). Significantly, this total doesnot include the already acknowledged debt of £46-07-3, so that the Company's totalindebtedness exceeded £167. The following day Henslowe received the first weeklyinstalment of 'the wholle gallereys' which he recorded as repayment against this debt.

This latter income account appears on folio 48, and is set up like the Alleyn repay-ment account on folio 71v. At the top of the columns of dates and figures are twoamounts, one on the left and one on the right. According to convention, these shouldbe respectively repayments and loans. Since we do not know when the figures wereentered, however, there is no way of confirming that Henslowe was following theconvention. Nor is it obvious what the figures represent. The left-hand total of£160-15-4 is exactly £40 greater than Henslowe's estimate of the Company's debt on

28 THEATRICAL LANDLORD28 July, but this may be nothing but coincidence. The corrected total on the right-handside is the same as the sub-total of income drawn up on 16 December, but again thereis no obvious reason why a sub-total should be entered here.

The first attempt to draw up a balance occurs on 24 February 1599. On that dateHenslowe correctly totalled the sums he had received from the players' half galleriesas £247-03-00 (f. 48v). He subtracted this from his estimate of what he had lent theCompany and entered the result as 'dew £233-17-17'. His method of arriving at thetotal of his advances is rather cumbersome. His first sub-total made between 4 and 8October (£152-14-00) appears to be just £10 too large. A second marginal sub-totalof £80-12-00 (f. 52) is accurate, except that it includes two personal loans of £1 eachwhich were subsequently cancelled (f. 51v). At the bottom of that page Henslowerecorded a further sub-total which he miscalculated as £88-10-0 (instead of£89-10-0). On 22 January 1599 he reverted to his former method and entered correctmarginal sub-totals on 22 January (£42-12-00) and 16 February (£39-00-0). Thesegive a sum of £314-18-0 which, together with the earlier debts of £46-07-3 and£120-15-4, comes to £482-00-7. Deducting £247-03-0 from this amount would givea balance of £234-17-7 rather than £233-17-7. These figures, which are within tenshillings of my calculations (£155-13-7 + £77-14-0, Tables IV.12 and IV.13) indicatethat Henslowe could be extremely accurate when he made the effort.

The next balance was drawn up prior to the summer break between 8 and 21 June1599 (f. 63). The £76-04 borrowed by the players between that date and 24 Februaryshould yield £558-04-7, but Henslowe entered a total of £586-12-7. This looks verymuch as though accounts containing loans of £28-8-0 may have been entered onleaves missing between folios 54v and 63. This is supported by the fact that the diarycontains no loans between 16 April and 26 May 1599, although the income recordsindicate that playing was continuous through this period (f. 48v). Henslowe sub-tracted what he had received from the players and obtained a balance 'dewe' of£262-12-7 (f. 63). This figure is £27 higher than it should be, since Henslowe deductedthe wrong sub-total from folio 48v (£324 instead of £357).

A more official balance was entered on 13 October 1599, when Henslowe reckonedthat he had 'layd owte for [Lord Nottingham's Men] the some of vj hundred &C thirtietwo pownds' and that the players had paid 'of this deatte iij hundred & fiftie &C eyghtepowndes' (f. 64v; 48v) leaving a balance of £274-00-0. Once again Henslowe arrivedat his total by calculating a sub-total (£41-12-04), then adding a subsequent loan of£3 to give a grand total of £631-04-11 which he rounded off.

The loan accounts continue without interruption after the October balancing. Fromthis point, however, Henslowe began recording the total of his loans at the bottom ofeach page. This considerably simplified the procedure of balancing which he next didon 10 July 1600. At that time eleven sharers of the Company acknowledged a debt of£300 (f. 69v). It is difficult to see how Henslowe arrived at this figure. His own sub-totals added to his previous reckoning yield a grand total of £842-18-5 which, afterrepayments of £565-05 have been deducted, leaves a balance owing of £271-13-0. Itis possible that there are some hidden expenses which do not show up in the diary, or

THEATRICAL LANDLORD 29possibly the players agreed to round off the figure, thereby including a sum for interestin the final payment. A third possibility is that Henslowe is including the 1595 debt of£30.

It would appear that this marks the end of the Admiral's Men's tenancy at the Rose.On 28 October 1600, Henslowe began an account with Pembroke's Men, who'begane to playe at the Rosse' on that day (f. 83). But the daily receipt entries continuefor only two days, which suggests to me, not that Pembroke's deserted the theatre, butthat it did not require Henslowe's services as banker in the same way as its pre-decessors. Henslowe continued to lend the Admiral's Men money, but it becomesmore difficult to envisage just how the business was carried on. I imagine that duringmost of this period Henslowe conducted his affairs in his own home, and that playersor playwrights wishing to borrow money came to the landlord's counting-house. Thiswould have been a relatively simple matter when the Company was located on theSouth Bank. When it moved to the Fortune, however, I think it is possible that EdwardAlleyn took over some of the day-to-day administrative duties, such as supervising theowners' gatherers. The Company's expenditures on plays and costumes did not abate,but no repayments are recorded. By February 1602 the Company had borrowed anadditional £304-10-4, all of which Henslowe added to their debt, bringing it to adaunting £604-10-4 (not including £50 paid to Jones and Shaa when they left theCompany).

By 15 September Henslowe estimated that the players' debt had climbed to£718-12-10 (f. 107v) which, using the uncorrected total at the foot of folio 107,includes all the loans made since February. At Christmas 1602, however, Hensloweonce again cast up his accounts and estimated that 'all Recknengs a bated' the playersowed him £226-16-8 plus £50 lent to give Jones and Shaa (f. 108 v). This statement canhardly mean what it says. Total loans to that date amounted to £774. That theAdmiral's Men can have paid off more than £500 of its outstanding debt in such ashort time seems most improbable. That it did not is indicated by Henslowe's lastmajor balancing, which he carried out on 5 May 1603 (f. 109v). On that day hetotalled all advances made to the Company since 23 February 1602 as £188-11-6.Then he added that figure to £211-09-0, which he called a 'Some vpon band' to get£400-00-6. The second amount is the same as a mysterious figure at the top of thecolumn of sharers' names on folio 104, and it may be that the Company signed aformal bond to repay this amount which Henslowe then treated separately, as he didthe £50 advance to Jones and Shaa. The numbers seem impossible to reconcile with thefinal statement of debt which Henslowe reckons at £197-13-4. Finally, almost a yearlater, in March 1604, Henslowe acknowledged that with the exception of £24 he was'descarged to them of al deates' (f. 110). How the players can have reduced theirfinancial obligations to Henslowe so rapidly, and in a period when playing wasseverely curtailed because of the plague, is a mystery which we cannot solve with infor-mation from the diary. Unfortunately Henslowe's records are sketchy at the very pointwhen we would expect them to be most detailed. Whether the players had money inreserve, or sold their costumes to raise cash, or gave Henslowe a share of the theatrical

30 THEATRICAL LANDLORDstock as payment of their debt we will never know. That Henslowe may indeed havetaken some payment in kind is suggested by his phrase 'all Reconynges consernyngethe company in stocke generall descarged' (f. 110). But what exactly this ratherambiguous phrase means we can hardly say.

An examination of Henslowe's activities as theatrical landlord and banker showsthat the popular conception of the man as a crass and illiterate promoter hardly fits thefacts. While it is dangerous to generalize from Henslowe's book-keeping to his per-sonality it is, perhaps, fair to say that the diary is a much more systematic and accuratedocument than is sometimes implied. It seems clear that it formed only part ofHenslowe's accounting records, which included also formal bonds and very likely oneor more ledgers. The diary and papers reveal glimpses of a man conscientious in hisfamily responsibilities, and undemanding in his business dealings. While heundoubtedly earned interest on the money he invested in a pawnbroking business, thatinterest (although higher than the legally allowable 10 per cent) was not more thanwas customarily charged abroad. There is no evidence that Henslowe's pawnbrokingactivities continued once he began lending money to the players. Partial as it is, the evi-dence which survives gives no indication that Henslowe charged interest on theseloans except in exceptional circumstances. Certainly there is no suggestion that he wasguilty of usury, and there is no contemporary allusion to such a charge ever beingbrought against him.

3 • THE PLAYERS

AWE HAVE SEEN, Henslowe's diary entries were made for very limited pur-poses, and attempts to arrive at deductions of a sweeping kind necessitate acertain amount of correlation and inference. Nowhere is the process of analysis

more delicate than when applied to questions of theatrical management. For on manyimportant matters, such as the division of administrative authority, the methods ofmaking and enforcing decisions, or the procedures by which a script was transferredto the stage, the diary is ambiguous or silent. The most crucial question to be con-sidered in this context is the nature of the relationship between Henslowe and thevarious companies performing in his theatres. Was the landlord, as some commen-tators assume, involved in the day-to-day business of the theatre, hiring actors, buyingplays, choosing costumes and properties? Or was he simply a property-owner, whosemajor interest was in collecting rent? Many of the prevailing negative assumptionsabout Henslowe's tyranny over the players have been derived from documents linkedto the Lady Elizabeth's Men, c. 1613-15. The first of these, entitled 'Articles of agree-ment', sets out the responsibilities of Henslowe and Jacob Meade who had 'raised' theCompany, on the one hand, and Nathan Field and his fellow players on the other(Mun. 52). According to its terms, Henslowe and Meade were to provide playingpremises, and to supply the actors with costumes and properties (both in London andon tour) from Henslowe's private stock. In addition, Henslowe and Meade were tochoose 'ffower or ffive Shareres', who would act as a kind of management committee,and to pay out money approved by this body to purchase 'apparrelP or plays. Theyalso undertook to arbitrate in matters of dispute between members of the Company,expelling disobedient or recalcitrant actors at the request of the majority, and turningover to the players any fines collected for infractions of Company rules or discipline.The theatre owners must also have supervised the collection of some or all admissioncharges, since they agreed to render up an account of such takings 'every night'. TheCompany, for its part, promised to repay Henslowe for expenditures made on anyplay 'vppon the second or third daie whereon the same play shalbe plaide'. Theyagreed to turn over one-half of the gallery receipts to Henslowe in repayment for adebt of £124, and also probably covenanted to pay the other half for rent (althoughthis latter provision is not incorporated in the surviving document).

The way in which this agreement actually worked out in practice may be surmisedfrom two further documents entitled 'Articles of Grievance and Oppression againstPhilip Henslowe' (Ms 1,106). These articles were drawn up by Lady Elizabeth's Men,probably in 1615, and likely refer to a later company than the one represented byNathan Field. The actors' complaints focus on Henslowe's autocratic and high-

31

32 THE PLAYERShanded methods. The basic financial arrangement is familiar: the actors agreed to payHenslowe one-half of the gallery income as rent, and the other half as payment for adebt of £126 and towards ongoing expenditures on properties and costumes. Whilethe players remained in Henslowe's debt, he would retain their costumes andplaybooks as security for his money. Once the debt was retired, which the players esti-mated would be in three years, the stock was to be turned over to the Company. Theplayers charged that Henslowe deliberately broke the Company in order to avoidsurrendering the stock.

This last point is of particular interest for the light it throws on the way in whichHenslowe was able to interfere in the autonomy of the acting troupes. OstensiblyHenslowe was only an agent of 'fower of the sharers'. In fact, however, the landlordwas in the habit of securing bonds from individual players to protect his investment.Since these bonds were drawn up in Henslowe's name rather than in the name of theLady Elizabeth's Men, Henslowe was apparently able to 'withdraw' the hired men andto 'turn them over to others'. Just what these terms mean is not entirely clear, but theimplication that Henslowe was able to make and break companies in this way is evi-dent enough. Also it appears that Henslowe occasionally threatened to prosecuteplayers for bonds in his possession and used this power to influence the decisions ofthe sharers.

These articles were drawn up shortly before Henslowe's death, and no answer to thecharges has survived. It would be naive, therefore, to take them at face value or toignore the possibility that the players overstated their case. When settlement wasfinally reached after Henslowe died, the actors agreed to pay Alleyn £200 of the £400Henslowe had said they owed him, which suggests that there was some right on thelandlord's side. When due allowance is made for hyperbole, however, it would appearthat there must have been a kernel of truth in their accusations. It seems fairly safe toconclude that by 1615 Henslowe had a considerable stock of playing apparel (andpossibly playbooks) which he had no doubt accepted as settlement for various play-house debts. He had also learned how to protect his capital by sequestering orimpounding costumes and playbooks as security for outstanding loans, and by takingbonds to guarantee the performance of various obligations. The question at issue iswhether Henslowe employed these practices from the beginning, or whether they werethe result of long and bitter experience dealing with irresponsible (or indigent) players.

The view that Henslowe always exercised considerable control over the activities ofthe players occupying his theatres is not without foundation. To begin with, theterminology of many entries in the diary implies that Henslowe had some kind of man-agerial role in the companies he dealt with. As early as 1597 we find a note of anadvance to Ben Jonson 'vpon a Bocke wch he was to writte for vs' (f. 37v). InNovember 1599 Robert Wilson gave a receipt to Henslowe for £8 for 2 HenryRichmond which was 'sold to him &c his Company' (f. 65)^ although the pronounmight equally well apply to Robert Shaa, who authorized the payment. William Birdesold a play called Jugurth with the proviso that 'if you dislike He repaye it back'(f. 67v). Here the allusion must be to Henslowe, and the implication is that he had

THE PLAYERS 33some say in the choice of scripts. A similar implication underlies the entry of28 February 1599, in which Henslowe recorded that Henry Porter gave 'his faythfullepromysse that I shold haue alle the boockes wch he writte' (f. 54).

Outside the diary, several other surviving documents suggest that Henslowe playeda managerial role. After the death of Gabriel Spencer in September 1598, he wrote toAlleyn that he had 'loste one of my company' and requested his son-in-law's'cownsell', presumably concerning a replacement (Ms I, 24). In the autumn of 1597Henslowe recorded agreements with several of the individual members of thePembroke's—Admiral's Company which look suspiciously like those described in theArticles of Grievance of 1615.

The bonds in question are not in existence, but a series of memoranda in Henslowe'shand reproduces their terms, and the signatures of various witnesses to them(ff. 230v-233). The entries are curious, since in the form in which they exist (neithersigned nor sealed) they would not have any legal force. Nevertheless, they no doubtreproduce the agreements between Henslowe and several players as Henslowe under-stood them, and frequently the wording implies that the landlord exerted some sort ofauthority over his tenants.

The earliest of the memoranda is dated 27 July 1597, and is the most extreme in itsterms. Henslowe recorded that 'I heayred [hired] Thomas hearne . . . to searve me ijyeares in the qualetie of playenge . . . & not to departe frome my companey tyll this ijyeares be eanded' (f. 233). It may be that the wording reflects the uncertainty of thetime (following the Privy Council's proclamation to close the theatres in the summerof 1597), but there is little doubt about how Henslowe viewed his relationship toHearne. By 6 August the political situation may have been clearer, for on that dateHenslowe recorded that 'I bownd Richard Jones . . . to contenew &C playe with thecompany of my lord admeralles players . . . & to playe in my howsse only' (f. 232v).The phrase 'to contenew &C playe' is puzzling, since Jones is one of the players whodeserted the Admiral's Men to join Pembroke's at the Swan. Otherwise this bonddistinguishes more sharply between Henslowe as theatre owner and the Company asthe producing organization. Henslowe's role in 'binding' Jones in this case seems morethat of an agent of the players. Shaa and William Birde were similarly bound to actwith the Lord Admiral's Men about this time, but on 6 October Henslowe reportedthat 'Thomas dowten came &C bownd hime seallfe vnto me . . . to playe <wth me> in myhowsse &C in no other . . . wth owt my consent' (f. 232). Here the correction of 'wthme' to 'in my howsse' is surely significant. Henslowe obviously knew, but tended toforget, that while the theatre belonged to him, the Company did not. Consequentlyphrases such as 'my consent' probably mean 'the consent of four or five of the sharers.Support for this interpretation comes from the fact that the signatures Henslowereproduced were those of the witnesses rather than the individual bound by the agree-ment. It seems unlikely that Henslowe would have sought out as many as six and sevenmembers of the Company if he had had the necessary authority himself to hire theseactors as his 'covenante searvantes'.

The widely held impression that Henslowe ran the companies in his theatre is clearly

34 THE PLAYERSwrong. In fact, the theatre owner's knowledge of the inner workings of the actingcompanies was fairly shaky. The most convincing proof of the landlord's distancefrom the day-to-day management decisions is his apparent ignorance of specificdetails. Frequently he does not know the name of a play, and the title is inserted later(f. 118), sometimes in a different hand (f. 69v), sometimes interlined. He is oftenunfamiliar with the playwrights working for the theatre, referring at one point simplyto 'the other poet' (f. 118v). And on at least two occasions he even mixes up thecompanies, entering Worcester's transactions in the Lord Admiral's accounts (ff. 108,109). But the final proof that Henslowe was acting on the players' orders rather thanthe other way around is the form of the accounts themselves. The money paid out is'for the vse of the compayny' (f. 65), and expenditures are approved by individualsharers. The cumulative debt is acknowledged by the sharers and ultimately repaid bythem.

COMPANY ORGANIZATIONIf the business decisions reflected in the diary are those of the players, what do theentries tell us about the way those decisions were reached? An Elizabethan actingcompany was a two-tiered organization consisting of eight to twelve 'sharers' and avariable number of apprentices and hired men. As the term suggests, the sharers hadinvested in the company and collectively were responsible for its debts. The hired per-sonnel, on the other hand, had no such legal or financial obligations, and simplyworked for their weekly wages. This structure was a consequence of the evolution ofthe professional acting companies during the preceding century. Originally retainersin the noble households of medieval and Tudor England, the players became more andmore independent as acting moved out of private halls and into inn yards and publictheatres. By the 1590s the 'domestic' status of the players had become something of alegal fiction, as the 'servants' of the Lord Admiral or the Lord Chamberlain devotedalmost all of their time and energy to mounting plays in London.

These plays were produced in a highly complex repertory system requiring meticu-lous planning. Plays had to be purchased, rehearsals organized, actors and craftsmenhired and supervised, performances planned, production schedules overseen, box-office revenue collected, salaries paid and profits estimated. In addition it was necess-ary to arrange for the transcription and licensing of playbooks, to keep track of thecostumes and properties needed for each performance and to organize provincialtours. Management practices that might have served a small group of players in thefirst half of the century would have been hopelessly inadequate to meet the demandsof a large professional organization in the last decade. It is likely, therefore, that inaddition to any articles of agreement entered into with a theatre owner, the playerswould have worked out some kind of 'composition' among themselves, outlining therights and obligations of various parties to the contract. Although no example of sucha contract from the period survives, the loan accounts in Henslowe's diary provide us

THE PLAYERS 35with considerable information about the ways in which Elizabethan players governedthemselves and their hired men.

The clearest reflection of the actors' management procedures is to be found in thepatterns of authorization. Generally speaking, responsibility for approving paymentswas shouldered by two leading sharers (Shaa and Downton, then Shaa and Rowley,and finally Alleyn and Downton). One member of the pair was usually more activethan the other in approving expenditures on scripts, but the evidence does not indicatethat there was a clear distinction between what we might call a 'literary manager' anda 'production manager'. Probably the leading player assumed a directorial roleanalogous to that of the later actor-managers, and was assisted by several subordinate'officers'. The way in which the four or five executive sharers may have divided theirresponsibilities is suggested in the deposition of Ellis Worth, Richard Perkins, andJohn Cumber in the case of Smith vs Beeston (1619). These actors describe how theQueen's Men managed their affairs at the Red Bull in the years around 1612. Theordering and setting forth of plays, they explained, 'required Divers officers and thatevery one of the said Actors should take vpon them some place & charge' (Wallace1909: 35). What this probably means is not that every other actor assumed a mana-gerial post, but only that every one of the four or five principal sharers did so. In fact,only one of these management positions (the one responsible for 'the prouision of thefurniture &c apparrelP) is described in the deposition. The duties of this office includeddeducting from 'the colleccions and gatheringes wch were made continaullywhensoeuer any playe was acted a certen some of money as a comon stock towardesthe buyeing & Defraying of the charges of the furniture &C apparrelP; purchasing 'thefurniture, apparrell &C other necessaries' needed for the production; rendering anaccount of his activities to the company, and returning any surplus to the sharers'according to there place &c qualitie' (Wallace 1909: 36). Christopher Beeston, theholder of the office in the Queen's Men for a period of some seven or eight years (from1611/12 to 1619) was apparently empowered to act 'wthoutt the privitie Direccion orknowledge' of any of his fellows. Not surprisingly, perhaps, this independence led tocorruption (or at least the suspicion of corruption) so that by the time the Companydispersed at the death of Queen Anne, some of the sharers were convinced thatBeeston had considerably 'enritched' himself at their expense.

Several other details of this case throw light on the administrative practices of theQueen's Men in the years 1612-19. It appears that offices in the Company were notpermanent, but that the 'vsuall manner was, that sometymes one, and sometymesanother . . . Did provide Clothes and other necessaries for the settinge forth of theactors' (Wallace 1909: 40). Since the case concerns an alleged debt to a mercer, theemphasis is on the business transactions most directly related to that suit. The fact thatno mention is made of the purchase of plays or the paying of hired men does notnecessarily mean that Beeston did not also have responsibility for such activities. Butthe reference to 'every one of the said Actors' strongly suggests a group of officers ofwhich Beeston was only one.

An interesting feature of the management of the Queen's Men is that it was com-

36 THE PLAYERSpletely internal (Beeston was himself a sharer) and that it was conducted without thehelp of an outside financier. A production fund was created by setting aside a portionof the box-office revenue, and the depositions make it clear that the Company did notgo into debt since 'Beeston would nott haue engaged himself for any stuff vnlesse thesaid Beeston had formerlie receaued outt of the colleccions aforesaid as much moneyas would haue answered for the same' (Wallace 1909: 38).

This raises questions about the Company's financial management. How was the'certen some' deducted from the daily takings? Was this money kept separate from therest of the cash? Who supervised the operations? Nowhere in the documents survivingfrom the sixteenth century is there unequivocal reference to a company treasurer. Andyet logic dictates that there must have been one. James Burbage maintained a 'Bookeof Reconinges', but the volume seems to have dealt only with his activities as partner(Wallace 1966: 129). Henslowe's diary makes very infrequent reference to the pay-ment of salaries or shares. That a record of such things was kept in some of the theatresis established by the testimony of Roger Clarke, who said that at the Red Bull the hiredmen's rate of salary was 'sett downe in their booke' (Sisson 1954: 63). What thissuggests is that there may have been several sets of records, and that the accounts ofproduction expenses may have been separate from those setting out the salaries andshare dividends. Evidence from a much later period shows how Thomas Cross, atreasurer in the Duke's Theatre, was responsible for 'paying the whole charge of theHouse weekly, that is to say, the Salaries of all hireling Players both men and Women,Music Masters, Dancing Masters, Scene-men, Barbers, Wardrobekeepers, Door-keepers and Soldiers, besides Bills of all kinds as for Scenes, Habits, Properties,Candles, Oil, and other things, and in making and paying (if called for) all theDividends of the Sharers' (Milhous 1979: 13-14).

While it would be rash to cite Restoration evidence as proof of Elizabethan practice,it would be foolish to ignore it altogether. Theatrical practices evolve slowly, and thereis reason to suppose that some kind of continuity existed between the Elizabethan andthe Restoration theatres. At the very least, it seems safe to assume that while theoreti-cally each sharer was entitled to a say in management decisions proportionate to hisinvestment, in practice there must have been considerable delegation of responsibility.Company affairs were probably run by a small 'executive committee' of senior sharerswhich in turn probably designated several 'officers' to supervise particular areas suchas finance, production, and possibly 'script development'.

Since the sharers could not themselves produce a theatrical season, it was necessaryfor them to recruit a number of hired men and apprentices to swell their ranks. Thenumber of such non-sharing members in an acting troupe is difficult to determine andprobably varied from season to season and from company to company. By 1624, forexample, the 'musitions and other necessarie attendantes' required by the King's Menwas twenty-one (Adams 1917: 75). Since every such 'attendante' represented anadditional expense, however, there was considerable incentive to keep the companiessmall. The author of the anonymous Fair Maid of the Exchange shows how the

THE PLAYERS 37twenty-two roles in that comedy could be played by eleven (in fact twelve) actors, andit has been convincingly argued that, with two exceptions, all of Shakespeare's pre-Globe plays could be produced with a standard cast of twelve men and four boys(Ringler 1968: 126). This rather low estimate of company size is based on a theory ofminimal staging which assumes that 'crowds' on the Elizabethan stage rarelynumbered more than two. Shakespeare's own reference in Henry V to 'four or fiveragged foils' might lend some support to such a theory, but at least one plot of theperiod seems to contradict it. Part Two of The Seven Deadly Sins (probably performedat the Curtain or the Rose as early as 1592) required between twenty-two and twenty-nine actors (McMillin 1973: 236). If we add a backstage staff of eight or so (some ofwhom might have appeared on stage as supers) then it is unlikely that the companythat performed 2 Seven Deadly Sins can have been much smaller than thirty. Thisagrees with David Bevington's estimate (1962: 30) and is probably a suitable numberto take as a basis for discussion.

There have been attempts to distinguish between the 'hired men' who were actorsand other backstage personnel, but such distinctions are misleading. Everyone in acompany who was not a sharer or an apprentice was 'hired' whether he earned hissalary by acting, opening trap-doors, making costumes, playing a musical instrument,or collecting money for admission. As employees, the hired men played no official rolein the management of a company. Their duties were likely prescribed, but wererarely set out in formal contracts before the eighteenth century (Milhous 1980: 29).Among the most important (and certainly the most public) of the hired men were thesalaried actors. The detailed casting information provided by the plots of 2 SevenDeadly Sins (c. 1592), Frederick and Basilea (1597), and The Battle of Alcazar(1602?), shows that some actors doubled as many as seven roles in a single production.Since an average season might include ten new plays and perhaps some twenty oldworks, a secondary player might need to have as many as a hundred parts committedto memory. Likely some form of unofficial precedence existed in a company so thatthe experienced members played the more impoitant roles and were frequentlyexcused from doubling. It has been argued that these distinctions were rigid, and thatthe leading sharers invariably played the leading roles (Baldwin 1927b: 177), but theevidence hardly supports such a theory. In the case of the Admiral's Men, at any rate,Richard Alleyn was almost certainly not a sharer in 1597 when he played one of thetitle roles in Frederick and Basilea.

Some clues to the actors' methods of work can be gleaned from the terms of anagreement between Philip Henslowe and Robert Dawes. Although Dawes was asharer in Lady Elizabeth's Men at the time of the agreement in 1614, he had onlyrecently been elevated to that position and seems to have had no administrative duties.His responsibilities as an actor, therefore, would not likely have differed much fromthose of the hired men. He agreed to 'attend all such rehearsall which shall the nightbefore the rehearsall be given publickly out', and to pay specified fines for arrivinglate, for absenteeism, for missing a performance, for drunkenness, or for taking any of

38 THE PLAYERSthe costumes out of the theatre. It is no doubt a reflection of the interests of the partiesdrawing up the contract that the penalty for missing a performance was one-fortiethof the fine for removing costumes from the premises (HP: 123-5).

Salaries paid to hired personnel varied little during the period. On 2 July 1597Thomas Hearne covenanted to 'searve... ij yeares in the qualetie of playenge' for fiveshillings a week in the first year and six shillings and eightpence a week in the second(f. 233). This salary seems to have been fairly standard, and to have remained the samefor almost forty years. Stephen Gossen complained in 1579 that 'hirelings' stood in'reversion of 6s by the week' (1579: 15), while Roger Clarke testified in the next cen-tury that he had been promised the same weekly salary by the Queen's Men in theyears 1621-3 (Sisson 1954: 63). More experienced actors were undoubtedly able toearn a bit more. William Kendall contracted for ten shillings a week in 1597 (BL MsEgerton 2623: 19) as did Richard Baxter in 1623 (Sisson 1954: 63). ThomasDownton's servant was able to demand eight shillings a week in 1599 (f. 20v), but allof these figures appear to have been flexible. When playing ceased, for example, or acompany went on the road, salaries were sometimes halved (f. 20v). Even during theregular seasons the hired players might be called on to share in hard times. RogerClarke, a 'hyred servant' in the Queen's Men in 1623, testified that 'When they hyredme they agreed to give vnto me six shillings a weeke so long as I should continue theirhired servant and they did so sett downe in their booke and when good store ofCompany came to the playes that the gettings would beare it, I was truly payed my vjsa week but when company fayled I was payed after the rate of their gettings whichsometymes fell out for my part iis vjd a week.' He further maintained that such 'pro-rating' of the hired men's salaries was the common practice with 'all other companyesof players in and about London' who, notwithstanding their agreements, regularlypaid out 'no more then it will fall out to their Shares as Company doe come in toplayes' (Sisson 1954: 63).

John King in the same case claimed that during his thirty years as a hired man withthe Red Bull Company he had lost more than one hundred pounds, because it wasunderstood that in poor times he was expected to 'beare [his] part of the losse . . .aswell as the company and to have a part proportionablie only to those gettings'(Sisson 1954: 64). This testimony suggests a rather inequitable distribution offinancial risks between investors and employees, but the picture may not be as one-sided as it appears. King also referred to continuous employment for a period of thirtyyears {c. 1593-1623), which may mean that he was kept on some kind of retainerthrough periods of idleness.

Fully as indispensable as the hired actors were the various stagehands and craftsmenwho laboured behind the scenes. The so-called 'tiremen' probably looked aftercostumes (Ms 1,104), purchased material (f. 92v), possibly made costumes (ff. 115v,117v), and sometimes borrowed money on the company's behalf (f. 22v). The playersalso had dealings with a number of craftsmen. Whether these workmen were on thecompany payroll or functioned as independent businessmen is difficult to say. Thetailors Radford and Dover, and the property-maker William White, collected money

THE PLAYERS 39directly from Henslowe on many occasions (ff. 86v, 92, 92v, 93) which might suggesta residential status of some kind. On the other hand, Henslowe made similar directpayments to other craftsmen not likely attached to the company, such as Mr Heathand Mr Stone, mercers (ff. 87, 92v, 108v), Mrs Gosson, a milliner (f. 95v), and tounnamed lacemakers (f. 49v), a carman (f. 22v), and a 'sylke man' (f. 68).

An interesting example of how the players may have dealt with theatrical craftsmenand tradesmen is provided by the case of William Freshwater, a tailor who suppliedWorcester's Men in 1602-3 (ff. 115,119). Some twenty years later, he testified aboutprocedures followed in Queen Anne's Men in the years 1612—16. Described in thedeposition as a tailor and workman for the Company. Freshwater explained that hehimself had often gone to a mercer's house 'some tymes by direccon from the saydBeeston & some tymes as sent by others of the sayd Company, for diuerse stuffes, wchthey had occasion to vse. And when he [had] asked the pl.[ain]t[ive] for the stuffes. . . [the mercer] often tymes refused to delyuer the same . . . without some token from. . . Beeston' (Wallace 1909: 46). Witnesses in the case testified that they had seenBeeston examine the mercer's 'shopp book or Bookes of accompt' at which timeBeeston had acknowledged receipt of the material and promised to pay for it. Suchacknowledgement must have been merely verbal, however, for although the relevantaccount book was introduced into the court as evidence, Beeston was able to deny thathe had seen it. Smith seems to have been less successful in his proceedings against theplayers than his fellow mercer, John Willett, who in 1603 finally collected a bill ofeight pounds ten shillings from Worcester's Men by having John Duke arrested andthrown into the Clink (f. 120v).

Further light is shed on the lower ranks by a letter from William Birde to EdwardAlleyn complaining about one John Russell, whom Alleyn had appointed as agatherer. When Russell proved untrustworthy in this capacity, the actors 'resolued heshall neuer more come to the doore yet [for Alleyn's sake], he shall haue his wages, tobe a necessary atendaunt on the stage, and if he will pleasure himself and vs, to mendour garmentes, when he has leysure, weele pay him for that to' (Ms 1,104). From thisletter it would appear that while Alleyn as theatre owner selected the gatherer, it wasthe players who paid his salary. Whether that salary was the same as a 'necessaryattendaunt' would receive, or the actors had decided to transfer Russell to an entirelydifferent job with a different salary, is not clear. What is interesting is that Russell'snew responsibilities did not take all of his time, so he was free to earn extra incomeduring his 'leysure'.

INCOME

A major problem attending any attempt to reconstruct the financial management of atroupe such as the Lord Admiral's Men is the difficulty of estimating their income. Theactors generally received the revenue from the outer door (the house money) plus halfof the receipts from the galleries. Admission to the theatre appears to have been paidin instalments, everyone paying a penny at an outside door for admission to the yard,

40 THE PLAYERSafter which those who wished could pay an additional penny for access to the galleries,and a third 'for a quiet standing' — presumably in one of the so-called 'lords' rooms' —(Lambarde 15: 359). Money paid at these various entries was collected by gathererswho then participated in a division of the income between company and landlord. Theway the system operated in the Restoration is described in the Agreement drawn upbetween Sir William Davenant and several actors in 1672. According to that agree-ment, 'Sir William Davenant, his Executors, administrators, or assignes, shall at thegenerall Chardge of the whole Receiptes prouide three persons to receive money forthe said Tickettes, in a roome adioyning to the said Theatre; And that the Actors . . .shall Dayly or Weekely appoint two or three of themselues, or the men hirelingesdeputed by them, to sitt with the aforesaid three persons . . . that they may suruey orgiue an accompt of the money receiued' (Adams 1917: 98—9). The most thoroughattempt to work out the theatre door receipts from evidence in Henslowe's diary andpapers is that of T. W. Baldwin (1927c: 42—90) who concludes that the outer doorreturns amounted to one and two-fifths of the gallery receipts, or about £1-17-9 a day.Since this figure seems surprisingly low, and the average attendance it implies (453)smaller than we would expect at the public theatres, it is worth reviewing the evidence.

The major part of Baldwin's rather complicated argument is based on the interpret-ation of the five-column figures on folios 26-27v of Henslowe's diary. As we haveseen, Baldwin believed these figures represent one-half of the gallery income (in thefirst two columns) and the outer door money (in the last three). A study of the entriesreveals that there is a change in the figures, beginning about 12 March. The dailytakings for the first five weeks are as shown below:

DateJan. 24

25262728293031

Feb. 123456789

10111213

Titlethat wilbeblind beagerNabucadonizerwoman hard (ne)long megewoman hard[Sunday] TotalsJoronymowoman hardwhat wilbeoserykewoman hardvalteger[Sunday] Totalsoseryckewoman hardJoronymostewtleyelexsander (ne)elexsander[Sunday] Totals

Gall.0-17-00-19-00-09-02-11-00-07-02-03-0

[7-06-0]1-04-01-05-01-18-01-09-01-08-01-09-0

[8-13-0]0-14-01-09-00-17-00-18-03-05-01-14-0

[8-17-0]

Outer0-19-73-08-02-00-36-07-81-30-114-14-0

[20-00-5]1-15-62-11-21-03-03-02-14-03-05-13-9

[18-08-6]7-16-01-02-14-15-21-01-00-17-09-13-0

[25-04-3]LENT

41Mar. 3

A

456789

101112

THE PLAYERSwhat wilbe

elexsander[Sunday] Totalswoman hardJoronymolodwicke

valteger

0-09-0

1-15-0[2-04-0]1-05-01-01-01-16-0

0-18-0

0-16-0

0-13-0[1-09-0]6-02-10-03-47-04-0

9-01-413 [Sunday] Totals [5-00-0] [22-10-9]

Here we see a rough (though not complete) correlation between the first and secondset of figures, and average daily revenues of about £1-00-0 and £3-00-0 respectively.Contemporary estimates of theatre attendance and the players' income are not entirelyreliable. Samuel Kiechel, a traveller whose knowledge of the subject cannot have beenextensive, estimated the daily takings at the public theatres to have been between£10-00-0 and £12-00-0 (ES: II, 358). A more informed estimate is provided by ThomasHeywood, actor, playwright, and sharer with almost thirty years' experience, whodeclared in 1623 that the income at the Red Bull in 1612-13 had been about 'eight ornyne pownds in a day received at the dores and Galeries' (Sisson 1954: 64). Whetheror not we believe that the diary entries from 24 January to 12 March give us the exactadmission figures at the Rose, I think we must conclude that the receipts from theouter door were very probably higher than Baldwin estimated, and that theyamounted to between £3-00-0 and £4-00-0 daily from some eight hundred to athousand spectators.

The problem facing the sharers who collected this income was how to allocate theirresources between fixed and variable costs. In addition to theatre rental, the playershad to pay the salaries of their hired men and secure a continual supply of new scripts.They also had to license their plays and secure the properties and costumes needed fortheir productions. Only when all these running expenses had been met would the prin-cipal players know whether or not there was a profit for them to share. In order to livethemselves, they had to draw a salary, but how could they estimate what that salaryshould be when neither future income nor future expenses could be accurately pre-dicted? If they drew too much from current receipts, they might not be able to pay theirbills at the end of the season. If they drew too little, they might earn less than their hiredemployees. The solution they appear to have found was to divide among themselvesa certain portion of the total receipts, thereby varying their own income as the totalrevenue varied.

The way this system worked is suggested by a series of entries on folio 36 headed 'AJuste acownte of the money wch I haue Receued of humfreye Jeaffes hallffe shearebeginynge the 14 of Jenewary 1597' (actually 1598). Jeffes seems to have been a newmember of the combined Pembroke's—Admiral's Men formed in the Fall of 1597, andhis name first appears in the diary in the list of players drawn up between 28 December1597 and 5 January 1598 (f. 43v). For some indeterminable reason, Henslowe col-

42 THE PLAYERSlected small sums (presumably Jeffes' share of the income from the gallery) at weeklyintervals between 14 January and 4 March 1598, at the end of which period hereturned to the Lord Admiral's players all but 6d. of the total to be shared 'a monstethem'.

It is impossible now to ascertain why Henslowe should have been collecting thereceipts from Jeffes' share, and why the money should have been returned to thecompany as a whole rather than to Jeffes himself. In spite of this, the figures are invalu-able for what they suggest about the players' income and the size of the troupe at thistime. Some light is thrown on these subjects by a comparison of the income fromJeffes' share with what Henslowe described as 'A Juste a cownte of all Suche monyeas I haue Receued of my lord admeralles &C my lord of penbrocke.men' (f. 36v).

We can assume that these weekly sums recorded by Henslowe (about half of whathe was collecting from 1592 to 1597) represent one-quarter of the total galleryincome. If we also assume that the sharers normally divided part of the gallery incomeamong themselves, then there should be a constant ratio between the 'Juste a cownte'and Jeffes' half share. A glance at the list below shows that this is in fact the case andthat Jeffes' half share is consistently about one-seventeenth of the half-gallery income.

Date 1/4 Gall. 1/2 Gall. Share FractionJan.

Feb.

2128

4111825

3-09-01-08-95-00-02-16-43-09-04-15-0

6-18-02-17-6

10-00-05-12-86-18-09-10-0

0-08-00-03-40-11-70-06-70-08-00-10-0

1/171/171/171/171/171/17

Mar. 4 5-11-3 11-02-6 0-13-0 1/17

If the ten players mentioned in the loan accounts (f. 43v) have all invested in theCompany, then the distribution would be seven full and three half shares for a total ofseventeen half shares.

Confirmation that the sharers were deriving their personal income from the galleryreceipts is provided by a brief account on folio 33v of 'gabrell spencer . . . his share inthe gallereyes' between 14 April and 24 June 1598. Once again, three of these weeklypayments amount to a constant fraction of the gallery receipts for the same period.

Date 1/4 Gall. Share FractionApr. 14 5-02-0 0-07-0 1/14.5

27 3-04-0 0-04-0 1/16June 17 3-36-0 0-05-0 1/15

In this case, the fraction is roughly 1/15 rather than 1/17, which suggests a change inthe composition of the troupe. (Possibly a sharer has left.) The sums are probably one-half of Spencer's share of the half galleries assigned to Henslowe as repayment of aprivate debt. All these figures show that a full share in the Lord Admiral's Men duringthe Spring and Summer of 1598 returned between seven and twenty-six shillings aweek.

The value of an individual's share in the common stock of playbooks, properties,

THE PLAYERS 43and costumes varied with the success of the Company, but there is evidence that it rosesteadily in the sixteenth century. Six sharers in a company that may have beenPembroke's Men owned joint stock worth £80-00-0 (£13-06-0 per share) in the 1580s(Edmond 1974: 129-36; McMillin 1976: 174-7). Francis Henslowe borrowedmoney from his uncle for theatrical shares in 1593 and again in 1595. On the firstoccasion he paid £15-00-0 for a full share in the Queen's Men (f. 2v). Two years later,when joining an unnamed company, he had to pay £9-00-0 for half a share (f. 3v).Richard Jones and Robert Shaa had £50-00-0 'at their goinge' which suggests that thevalue of a share in the Admiral's Men in 1602 was £25-00-0 (ff. 108v, 109v). Depart-ing sharers were paid £80-00-0 by Queen Anne's Men in 1612, and £70-00-0 by thePrince's Men in 1613 (ES: I, 352).

There is also some indication that company income at the Fortune was somewhathigher than it had been at the Rose and that the principal players benefited from thisincrease. Sometime in November 1600 Edward Alleyn rejoined the Admiral's Men,and Henslowe noted a payment to him of £1-12-0 'for the firste weckes playe the xjparte of xvij li ix s' (f. 70v). About a year later, in February 1602, Henslowe recordedanother payment to Alleyn 'owt of the gallery mony' of £1-07-6 which may also havebeen a weekly share (f. 105). In the summer of 1601, several sharers paid off their'privat deates' by giving Henslowe weekly sums which probably amounted to one-halfof their shares (ff. 102v—103v). These repayments ranged between £0-10-7 and£1-00-0 which suggests that the players may have been collecting weekly shares ofbetween £1-00-0 and £2-00-0.

BORROWING

In normal times the professional acting companies appear to have lived within theirmeans. This was clearly the practice of the Queen's Men in 1612 when ChristopherBeeston 'would nott haue engaged himself for any stuff vnless [he] had formerliereceaued out of the colleccions [from the gallery] as much money as would haueanswered for the same' (Wallace 1909: 38). All the evidence seems to indicate that theAdmiral's Men followed a similar practice at the Rose from 1594 to 1596. Beginningin the latter year, however, Henslowe's diary reflects a change in the players' methodsof purchasing playbooks, costumes, and properties which constitutes a radically dif-ferent approach to company finance. The earliest evidence of this change is found onfolio 71v, where Henslowe recorded a series of loans 'vnto my sonne edwarde alien',already discussed. Just why the players should suddenly have found it necessary toborrow money from their landlord cannot be known. Some light may be thrown onthe question, however, by examining the Company's revenue during this period.Income from performances had been slowly declining (from an average of £1-14-0 in1592 to £1-07-0 in the summer of 1596) (Table V.I). Furthermore, the first fewweeks of the 1596 Spring-Summer season seem to have been particularly poor. Easterweek netted Henslowe only £8-08-0 (compared to £15-06-0 the previous year), andthe next two weeks brought in only £13-07-0 (compared to £20-10-0 in 1595). This

44 THE PLAYERSslide in revenue may have been sufficient to leave the players unable to meet theircurrent expenses and in need of outside capital.

When we bring together information from Henslowe's daily performance records(f. 15v) and the schedule of loans (f. 71v), we can see that the first advances to theplayers were probably made to enable them to pay production expenses for 1 TatnarCham and Phocas (Table IV.8). A comparison of income and repayments, however,demonstrates that the company tried to pay off its debt to Henslowe as rapidly aspossible. From 10 to 27 May the players made almost daily repayments as follows:

DateMay

June

July

10111213141516171819202223242526272829303111

19202122222324252627282930

12345

TitleJulian Apostatafortunatustambercameblind begerJew of Malta

chynonetambercamebegerffocasse (ne)Julyanpethagorosffocasseffortunatustambercamehary the vchinone

pethagores2 tambercame (ne)

[Total]1 tambercame2 tambercameJew of Maltafocastroye (ne)nutt

beager1 tambercame2 tambercame

paradox (ne)troyefostes

[Total]focasse

1/2 Gall.1-06-00-18-02-05-02-00-01-04-0

1-13-02-06-02-09-02-05-00-14-01-07-01-19-00-14-01-00-01-03-00-09-0

3-00-03-00-0

1-16-01-15-00-13-02-10-03-09-00-12-0

0-19-01-10-01-00-0

2-05-01-04-00-14-0

1-02-0

Repay1-10-01-00-02-06-02-06-01-06-01-04-01-16-02-10-02-13-0

1-08-02-00-01-02-01-05-0

[22-06-0]

3-04-0[25-10-0]

3-13-0

1-01-01-10-01-01-0

2-07-01-05-0

[36-07-0]1-03-0

THE PLAYERS 456 segeoflondon 0-15-0 0-17-07 wisman 0-16-08 2 tambercame 1-03-0 1-02-0

[Total] [39-09-0]Henslowe's total £39-10-0 (f. 71v)

It is significant that by 25 May the players had repaid £22-06-0, or 12s. 8d. more thanthey had borrowed. Since income in May was more than adequate to cover theCompany's expenses that month, the reason for borrowing from Henslowe must havebeen related to convenience (scheduling payments over a longer period) rather than toneed.

A similar explanation may account for the undated advances recorded beneath theMay loans. In two separate transactions, Henslowe lent Alleyn a total of £10-10-0 'toby a new sewte of a parelP and 'to fenesh vp the blacke veluet gowne' (f. 71v). The firstof these loans at least must have been made shortly before 11 June when the playersturned over £3-04-0 to Henslowe from the income of the premiere of 2 Tamar Cham,Box-office revenue dropped the following week when the Company gave only fourperformances, and no further repayments were made until the premiere of Troy on 22June. Thereafter, fairly regular payments were turned over until 8 July when theplayers had paid Henslowe a total of £39-09-0 (incorrectly recorded as £39-10-0), orsome £7-00-0 more than their debt. On 22 July the Privy Council issued an order toclose the theatres, thereby ending the Spring season on the very day the Admiral's Menmounted their last new production, The Tinker ofTotnes^ on 24 July. Sometime later,Henslowe returned to Alleyn the £7-06-8 which he estimated he owed the Company(f. 71v).

The procedures worked out by Alleyn and Henslowe in the spring of 1596 are ofparticular interest in that they suggest how the relationship between the players andtheir landlord developed. Since Henslowe left relatively little room between the firstadvance and the first repayment, he obviously did not expect the accounts to continue.But what both parties probably regarded as a temporary loan seems to have evolvedinto something else. That the players continued to hand over money to Henslowe afterthey had repaid their debt must indicate that they saw some advantage in accumulat-ing a reserve. Why they should have preferred to deposit this surplus with their land-lord rather than in their own coffers is unclear. Nevertheless, what is apparent is that(deliberately or not) the Admiral's Men hit upon a system of financing productionexpenses by regularly setting aside some money from their half of the gallery income.

The next evidence of the actors' financial difficulties occurs on folios 22v—23. ThereHenslowe opened an account which he called 'A note of Suche money as I haue lentvnto thes meane': 'edward alleyn martyne slather Jeames donstall &C Jewbey'. Aninitial group of four loans was for what appears to be pre-season expenses, such asbringing in new players ('to feache fleacher'), paying wages, and purchasing a newplay ('hawodes bocke'). Below this group, Henslowe entered a further five advanceswhich he marked off from the rest by a large bracket in the left margin. These items,totalling £9-00-0, are undated. By early December he had advanced the Company an

46 THE PLAYERSadditional £15-15-0 for a variety of production expenditures, such as 'coper lace', a'headtier & a Rebata', a 'saten dublet wth syluer lace' and 'other thinges', almost allfor the play Vortigern.

As in the previous season, the players began to repay their banker very shortly afterthe first loan. On 29 October they turned over £1-00-0 (although their gallery receiptsthat day had amounted to no more than fifteen shillings), and three days later theyrepaid a further £1-00-0 (out of receipts of £2-07-0). In November, however, theplayers missed a total of ten playing days, and Henslowe's entire weekly gallerytakings on one occasion were only twelve shillings (Table IV.9). As a result, thesharers were unable to maintain their schedule of repayments, and by early Decemberthey were £22-15-0 in Henslowe's debt. Receipts in December picked up only slightly(in spite of three new productions before Christmas), and the Company was forced toreturn to Henslowe for funds for 'stewtley's hose' and to buy a play from 'mr porter'.Attempts to pay Henslowe £2-00-0 on 13 December were apparently unsuccessful(since the entry was cancelled), so by the end of the year the Admiral's Men hadborrowed a total of £35-15-0 and made repayments of only £2-00-0.

In January 1597 the Company's fortunes began to change as weekly receipts rose tonormal levels. Not only were the players able to stage four plays without recourse toHenslowe (Nabuchodonizer, That Will Be Shall Be, Alexander and Lodowick, and AWoman Hard to Please), but they began to pay off their debt. The pattern of theserepayments suggests a change in the method employed. Instead of frequent smallinstalments from the gallery receipts, the players made large but irregular payments(mostly from the takings at a premiere). These sums (£7-00-0, £5-00-0, and £4-00-0)are all substantially greater than the gallery receipts on the corresponding days, andprobably represent those takings plus a share of the house money. By the end of play-ing in Lent, the Company had managed to repay a total of £20-00-0, leaving them£15-15-0 in arrears at Easter.

After a two-week rest, the players began a partial schedule on 3 March 1597.During March, they borrowed an additional £8-09-0 to purchase a play and 'bysylckes &c other thinges for guido'. On 25 March Henslowe advanced Alleyn a further£5-14-0 to bring the Company's debt to an even £30-00-0. Why the actors beganborrowing again after a period of eight weeks during which they were self-sufficientis suggested by the performance schedule for March. Acting began on the third of themonth, but, as was usual during Lent, the Company did not perform every day.Because of this, income was curtailed, and it is not surprising that they were forced toseek help to pay production expenses for the 'ne' play they mounted in this period.

The summer of 1597 was a crucially important one for the Admiral's Men andmarks a new stage in the Company's relationship with Philip Henslowe. After the pro-hibition on playing by the Privy Council and the failure of Francis Langley to renew hislicence for the Swan Playhouse, the principal actors from Admiral's and Pembroke'sMen combined to form a reorganized Admiral's Company at the Rose. This newtroupe was under the leadership of Robert Shaa (Alleyn having retired from acting

THE PLAYERS 47about this time), and it is not unlikely that the changes in Henslowe's accounts reflectShaa's style of management.

On 23 October Henslowe began a new account which he set up as a personal loanto Robert Shaa. Shaa, of course, was only acting as a representative of the Companywhich Henslowe described as 'my lorde admeralls men &c my lord of penbrockes'(f. 37). Between 23 October and 1 December, Shaa received a total of £6-19-0 to spendon playbooks and costumes. Evidence that the players originally intended to repaythese advances by a series of direct payments similar to those made by Alleyn theprevious season is to be found on folio 37v, where Henslowe has noted receipt of 'pteof payment' on 1 December. It is worth noting that this payment is quite separate fromthe weekly sums Henslowe had been receiving 'of the two companies since21 October. Furthermore, whereas the latter sum was received on a Saturday, thesingle payment of the loan was made on a Thursday, possibly just after a particularlyprofitable performance. It seems fairly clear from these entries that, in Henslowe'smind at any rate, the sums were being collected for very different purposes.Apparently Henslowe expected further lump sum repayments, for he left room torecord them on folio 37v, but none was forthcoming, and eventually he cancelled the1 December entry, possibly when other arrangements for retiring the debt were made.

In terms of the total amount borrowed, the 1597-98 season is very similar to thatof a year earlier (£2-02-0 per week compared to £2-04-0). The strangest aspect ofthese new loans, however, is that the actors seem to have made no effort to repay them.When Henslowe drew up a reckoning after 8 March 1598, the sharers acknowledgedthat they owed him £46-07-3 (f. 44v) which, added to the outstanding balance of£30-00-0, meant an accumulated deficit of £76-07-3. Income was significantly lowerthan in the prosperous days of 1594-95 (Table IV.5), but it was no less than in theprevious year, when the actors managed to repay Henslowe £20-00-0 in four months.

LITERARY MANAGEMENT

Under Alleyn's management, the Admiral's Men had spent relatively little of themoney they borrowed on playscripts. During Spring-Summer 1596, Henslowerecorded no loans specifically for plays, and the following season the Company spentonly £7-10-0 (out of a total of £35-15-0 borrowed) for scripts (Table IV.9). Thispattern was completely reversed by the amalgamated Pembroke's-AdmiraPs menunder Shaa. Shaa and his associates spent almost three-quarters of the money theyborrowed on new plays. A major problem facing the players in the autumn of 1597,therefore, was that of working out a satisfactory method of approving these growingexpenses.

As the number of individuals receiving advances increased, so did the difficulty ofensuring that they were acting on behalf of the Company. It was customary for indi-viduals approaching Henslowe for money to present some kind of authorization toshow that a particular expenditure had been approved. A few such authorizations

48 THE PLAYERShave survived (Mss I, 26, 31-6), but normally the only clue we have to the nature ofthe approval given is in the diary entry itself. These entries follow a standard form —'layd owt vnto Robarte shawe to by a boocke for the companey' (f. 43v). This particu-lar entry probably indicates that Shaa himself collected the money and, since he wasa sharer, also tacitly approved the expenditure. Only rarely, however, are transactionsso straightforward. Frequently playwrights approached Henslowe directly andreceived money for work submitted ('layd o w t . . . for a boocke called mother Readcape to antony monday & dray ton' - f. 43 v), or for the promise of work to be com-pleted later ('lent vnto Bengemen Johnson... vpon a boocke wch he showed the plottevnto the company wch he promysed to dd vnto the company at cryssmas next' —f. 43v). The danger inherent in a system which permitted writers to borrow moneywithout authority on scripts that had not yet been completed is evident from twoentries made towards the end of June. On folio 46v Henslowe recorded a balancing ofhis account with Chettle with the note 'all his pte of boockes to this place are paydewch weare dew vnto him & he Reastes be syddes in my Deatte the some of xxxs[hillings]'. Apparently Chettle had managed to elicit £1-10-0 from Henslowe on thepromise of providing work which was never delivered. (Or Henslowe was mixingpersonal and company accounts.) Clearly, if the actors were not to be continuallycharged for non-existent scripts, some more effective means of control was necessary.

During 1598 literary expenditures reached their highest peak (averaging £4-03-0per week), and unspecified advances outnumbered properly authorized loans by threeto one (Table V.2). Beginning in December of that year, however, requests for pay-ments were much more consistently approved by one of the leading sharers. Thistighter control over expenses appears to have had an effect on literary management.In the two years between December 1598 and the time the Company left the Rose tomove to the Fortune, three-quarters of the payments to authors were authorized. Thecontrast between the procedures used to purchase scripts before and after December1598 is even more marked if we compare the number of play titles approved in eachperiod. Of the forty-six titles mentioned in the diary in the early period, twenty-fivewere paid for without a recorded approval from one of the sharers. In the secondperiod, the Company purchased forty-eight plays for which Henslowe recordedspecific authorization for all but seven.

Another striking feature of the literary expenses recorded in the diary afterDecember 1598 is the sharp increase in the number of partial payments. Before thatdate, such payments constituted only about one-fifth of the total; after, they amountedto almost half. This suggests that the Company may have begun to discourage writersfrom completing unpromising scripts, or it may indicate that they began to put moreemphasis on doctoring plays already in hand.

The stricter supervision of literary expenditures reflected in the Company'saccounts in 1599 makes possible the identification of policy-makers among the share-holders. Following the reorganization, Robert Shaa, Thomas Downton, and SamuelRowley emerged as the three players most consistently involved in dealing with thedramatists. In the early months, responsibility for decision-making seems to have been

THE PLAYERS 49shared fairly evenly between the two senior men. During the ten months immediatelyfollowing reorganization. Downton's name is more frequently found authorizing pay-ments to writers, but during the Fall—Winter season of 1599—1600, Shaa's influencebecomes predominant. After the move to the Fortune in the autumn of 1600, there isa dramatic shift of responsibility as Downton's name virtually disappears from theaccounts of literary payments, and Shaa and Rowley between them make most of theauthorizations. Another significant change of authority occurs following Shaa'sdeparture from the Company (probably during Lent in 1602), when ThomasDownton again emerges as the individual responsible for most decisions.

Further insight into the players' literary management is provided by an inventory ofplaybooks drawn up sometime during the summer or early autumn of 1598. Once partof the Henslowe—Alleyn papers, the original manuscript has been lost and is nowknown only in the transcribed form published by Malone in his 1790 edition ofShakespeare. Described as 'A Note of all suche bookes as belong to the Stocke, andsuch as I have bought since the 3d of March 1598' (HD: 323) the document presentsseveral interesting puzzles. Not the least of these is the identity of the author. Thephrase 'I have bought' sounds suspiciously like Henslowe, and if indeed he is the com-piler of the list then the words probably mean no more than 'have lent the actors tobuy'. The fact that one of the plays on the list Vayvode, belonged to Edward Alleyn inJanuary 1599 raises the possibility that he may have been the T in question. Bywhomever compiled, however, the inventory is most probably (like the companioninventories of properties and costumes) a list belonging to the players. Its compositenature is indicated by the play titles, which can be divided into five categories. Theseinclude: unknown plays (Black Joan, Sturgeflattery); old Pembroke's plays(Hardicanute, Bourbon, Friar Spendleton); an old Admiral's play (Comedy ofHumours); and five plays purchased from Martin Slater (1 and 2 Hercules, Phocas,Pythagoras, and Alexander and Lodowick). The remaining seventeen books areworks purchased by the Admiral's Men between 21 October 1597 and 29 August1598.

When the inventory is compared with the loan accounts and with other playhouseinventories, several startling anomalies emerge. Perhaps the most striking of these ishow incomplete the list appears to be. Henslowe's records show that during the firsttwo weeks of the Fall-Winter (1597-98) season, the amalgamated Company pro-duced Jeronimo, Comedy of Humours, Dr Faustus, Hardicanute, Friar Spendletonand Bourbon (f. 27v). And yet the Company apparently did not own books forJeronimo and Dr Faustus. Since the plays could hardly be staged without a prompt-book, the logical conclusion is that these volumes must have been stored separately(possibly because they belonged to one of the sharers).

A related problem is the absence from the list of several plays for which the playershad presumably paid. This group includes a total of fourteen plays. Nine of these(Love Prevented, Funeral of Richard, III of a Woman, A Woman's Tragedy,1 Hannibal & Hermes, Valentine & Orsen, 1 Brute, Hot Anger Soon Cold, andChance Medley) were almost certainly completed, while the remainder may never

50 THE PLAYERShave been finished (Haughton's book, Benjamin's plot, The Miller, Pierce of Extonand Catline). How can we account for this discrepancy? One possibility is thatAdmiral's and Pembroke's Men retained their separate identities and that the missingplays belonged to Pembroke's. Such an hypothesis ignores the presence of several ofPembroke's plays in the stock, however, and the fact that the distinction between thetwo companies which Henslowe began to make in his diary was abandoned by thebeginning of 1598. A more cogent explanation — that the 'stocke' included onlyprompt-books — is suggested by the fact that all but two of the fourteen works forwhich the actors borrowed money to pay production expenses are included in theinventory. (One of the exceptions, 1 Brute, was produced after the inventory wasdrawn up.) This suggests that the plays purchased but not listed had not yet beenannotated for the stage, and that such plays were perhaps not considered to be part ofthe stock.

Another subject the inventories illuminate is that of the relationship between pro-duced and unproduced plays. It might be assumed that only plays paid for 'in full' andincluded in the diary production accounts ever reached the stage. But the records callthat assumption into question. The inclusion of A Woman Will Have Her Will in theinventory suggests that the work was produced in spite of the fact that the diaryrecords payments of only £1-00-0 for the piece. Even more persuasive evidence is pro-vided by the case of 1 Brute for which Chettle and Day received £3-14-0 'in earnest'between 30 July and 16 September 1598, and the actors paid £1-04-0 in productionexpenses on 12 December.

In the years for which we have detailed records, the players mounted new plays atthe rate of about two a month but acquired them somewhat faster. This would suggestthat in normal conditions a company could gradually accumulate a surplus of scriptsfrom which to choose their new productions. The records of the Pembroke's-Admiral's Company from October 1597 to May 1598, however, indicate that theactors produced most of the plays they purchased. Furthermore, in mid-May theyresorted to the unusual tactic of buying a block of five old plays from Martin Slater.All of this suggests that the seasons immediately following the amalgamation ofPembroke's and Admiral's Men were unusual, and that the players may have beenstruggling to build up their stock after the break-up of the Company in 1597.

PRODUCTION MANAGEMENTFrom the beginning, the actors seem to have exercised tighter control over productionexpenses than they did over expenditures on playbooks. This, at least, is the impli-cation of the figure's in Table V.3. There it is evident that specified advances out-numbered unauthorized expenditures in all but five seasons. The consistency of thepattern at the Rose makes more noticeable the change when the Company moved tothe Fortune. There for the first three seasons the practice was altered. For the first time,unauthorized advances began to outnumber those approved by a named sharer. Thisbecame most extreme in the Fall-Winter season of 1601-2 when unauthorized pay-

THE PLAYERS 51ments were in the majority by two-and-one-half times. This change coincided withDownton's withdrawal from production management, and was reversed when hereturned in 1602-3, so it may reflect his personal influence. Another difference in theproduction management is the greater participation of theatre craftsmen. Tailors andtiremen had received money from Henslowe at the Rose, but after 1600 they played amore prominent role.

The production expenditures recorded in the diary enable us to see more clearlyhow the players financed their plays. One of the most interesting seasons was Fall-Winter 1598-99 (Table IV.13). During that period, expenditures rose very rapidly toan unprecedented average of £6-14-9 per week with budgets for individual pro-ductions three or four times what they had been. These figures reflect several specialcircumstances. To begin with, they include a number of rather large payments whichwere not directly related to production. For example, some of the sharers borrowed£35-00-0 to come to an agreement with their former landlord, Francis Langley, andthe Company purchased several expensive costumes to add to the stock. The seasonalso saw a number of unusual expenditures for the purchase of musical instrumentsand the discharge of Chettle and Dekker from prison. Even when these allowances aremade, however, the rate of spending on production remains unusually high. It ispossible that this increase does not represent a change in production expenses so muchas a change in the percentage of those costs going through Henslowe's accounts. Whenthe players agreed to turn over to Henslowe the receipts from their half of the galleriesbeginning 29 July 1598, they may also have decided to pay a smaller proportion oftheir regular running expenses from their own revenue.

That the actors sometimes paid for and staged plays without borrowing moneyfrom Henslowe is a possibility which has already been suggested. Considerable evi-dence of the practice is to be found in the production accounts. Suspicion is raised bycertain anomalies such as the production costs of £1-04-0 for 1 Brute in a season whenevery other play cost more than £10-00-0 to mount. It seems extremely likely thatadditional money was spent on this production, but that it came out of the players'pockets directly. Further evidence of the independent financing of productions isprovided by the consolidated weekly accounts (Table IV.13). There we see that theCompany performed regularly for thirty weeks. During comparable seasons in earlieryears, Strange's and Admiral's Men produced a new play every two weeks or so. If theAdmiral's Men had followed their earlier practice, then they would have mountedtwelve to fifteen new productions rather than the seven for which they borrowed fundsfrom Henslowe. All the evidence seems to point to one conclusion - that Henslowe'sdiary does not give us a complete record of all new plays staged by the players after1597.

Still further insight into the players' production methods is provided by a series ofplayhouse inventories of costumes and properties compiled during March 1598 (HD:317—25). The first thing that strikes one about the lists of costumes is their size. If wefollow the distinction implied in the documents themselves between the moreexpensive costumes for leading roles and the 'Clownes, Hermetes and divers other

52 THE PLAYERSsewtes', then the Company maintained a surprisingly small stock. The 13 Marchinventory lists 13 doublets, 10 suits, 4 jerkins, 8 gowns, 5 coats, 8 pairs of hose, 13cloaks and 6 Venetians. For secondary characters there are some 20 suits, 20 gowns,25 capes, and 23 coats (but only 6 trousers, 5 jerkins, 2 doublets, and 8 pairs of hose).Noteworthy too is the almost total absence of shirts, shoes, and stockings, and thecomparatively meagre supply of female garments such as bodices (3), farthingales (4),head tiers (6), and rebatoes (stiff collars) (4). The size of the inventory correspondsfairly closely to the list of costumes in Alleyn's hand which is probably a schedule ofthe Company's stock about 1602. It itemizes 14 cloaks, 13 gowns, 15 antik suits, 16jerkins and doublets, 10 pairs of hose, and 6 Venetians (Ms I, 30). What the size ofthese inventories suggests is that the actors were responsible for supplying many oftheir own costumes (a practice that continued in the British theatre into the twentiethcentury). This helps to explain Henslowe's occasional confusion between companyand personal loans, and to account for entries such as the loan to William Birde 'to byea payer of sylke stockens to playe the gwisse in' (f. 38v).

The obvious question that arises in connection with these inventories is whathappened to the costumes and other 'divers things' purchased on a fairly regular basisfor new productions? There are two possibilities. One is that the sharers periodicallydivided the stock among themselves and sold it off or pawned it to raise money. Theother is that they gave part of their stock to Henslowe as security against their loan.There is no evidence either way, but the relatively small size of the costume stock (andHenslowe's pawn accounts) suggests that clothing was a readily marketable com-modity in which there was an active second hand trade. There may, therefore, havebeen a fairly rapid turnover of lavish costumes that could be identified with a particu-lar role or play. The stock would then consist mostly of nondescript costumes whichcould be used by the minor characters interchangeably in various productions. Thesewould be supplemented from the sharers' personal wardrobes, and by the costumes itmight be possible to make in the two-week rehearsal period before an opening.

The situation with respect to properties was very different. There would be no greatmarket for such items, and one would expect that they would be less desirable to asharer or creditor than playbooks or costumes. It is not surprising, therefore, thatspecialized items such as Tamburlaine's bridle, the cauldron for The Jew of Malta, thewheel and frame for The Siege of London, or the trees with golden apples fromFortunatus should remain in the playhouse for years. Many large properties such asthe 'frame for the heading' in Black Joan seem to be closely identified with a single pro-duction, probably because the play in question could not be produced without them.

The property inventory provides us with our most concrete evidence of the players'staging practices. Most significant, perhaps, are the many scenic devices that wereapparently employed regularly on the Rose stage. The Company was equipped withnot one but two mossy banks, no less than three trees, as many tombs, and one Hellmouth. All this suggests a stage more cluttered than is sometimes imagined. Inaddition, there are a number of mysterious items such as the 'sittie of Rome, ii stepells,a clothe of the Sone & Mone, Belendon stable, and a payer of stayers for Fayeton'

THE PLAYERS 53which would seem to indicate the use of painted cloths on the stage and possibly anexternal staircase to the upper level.

Almost as surprising as the presence of so many large properties is the inexplicableabsence of some small ones. There are, for example, no chairs or benches in the inven-tory, nor any tables, trenchers, or mugs for the numerous banquet and tavern scenesin Elizabethan drama. The seventeen foils (while certainly more than the four or fivementioned by the chorus in Henry V), seem an absolute minimum to present believ-able battle scenes. There are none of the letters and purses regularly required in playsof the period, nor is any mention made of books, writing materials, and other objectsneeded for 'study' scenes. It would seem that the inventory is only a partial list of theCompany's resources. Many of these smaller items were probably kept backstage orsupplied by the actors.

The light thrown by Henslowe's diary on the activities of the players is fitful andindirect. The entries are written from the landlord's point of view and inevitablyreflect his interests and limited perspective. Henslowe's phrasing is far from consistentor 'scientific' so that his entries sometimes imply a degree of authority he can scarcelyhave exercised. In spite of these drawbacks, the diary remains our most reliable pictureof the Elizabethan theatre and of the activities of all those associated with it.

4 • THE PLAYWRIGHTS

NONE OF THE ACTIVITIES reflected in Henslowe's diary and discussed in theprevious pages would have been possible without the contribution of thedramatists who supplied the plays. The establishment of permanent theatres

and resident acting companies in London was of great significance to writers, becauseit created a new, easily accessible market. In the eyes of many, however, playwritingwas scarcely less vicious than the theatre it served. Playhouses were widely believed tobe haunts of iniquity, sites of riot, and both the final and efficient causes of plague.Moreover, at a time when publishers concerned themselves almost exclusively withworks of religion or popular ballads and broadsheets, plays were hardly considered tobe literature at all. This prejudice was reinforced by the reputation of playwrights suchas Marlowe and Greene, who gave fuel by their conduct to rumour and scandalousspeculation. Young men with talent and ambition contemplating a literary career atthe beginning of the 1590s were caught, therefore, in a perplexing dilemma. On theone hand, those associated with the Court held literature to be a gentlemanly pastime,but were less than generous in inviting new writers into their ranks. On the other, theplayers offered attractive pecuniary inducements, but these could be yielded to only ata cost in pride or reputation. Henslowe's records begin, therefore, at a period of tran-sition. The first generation of playwrights, men such as Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, Peeleand Shakespeare, born in the decade 1555—66 and maturing in the 1580s, haddemonstrated that playwriting could be a viable, even successful, career. Youngerauthors like Thomas Heywood, Ben Jonson, John Marston, or Thomas Dekkercoming to London in the early 1590s and hoping to make a reputation with their pensfound in the public theatres a unique opportunity. Not only did writing for the stageprovide the first real possibility of literary professionalism, but the increasing supportof the theatre by the Court meant that the profession was beginning to acquire amoderate respectability.

Henslowe's diary provides a wealth of information about the new professionalplaywrights, but, as we have come to realize, that information is partial and sometimesambiguous. Indeed, it has been frequently argued that the diary is unrepresentative,and that the 'financial arrangements obtaining in the groups of companies underHenslowe's control were the exception rather than the rule' (Greg 1904: II, 113).Quite apart from the erroneous impression conveyed by the phrase 'under Henslowe'scontrol', this interpretation of the facts is completely without foundation (Bentley1971: 65). The truth is that we know practically nothing about how other companieswere financed (no other account books having survived), and while it is true that theChamberlain's Men owned their playhouse, there is no reason to suppose that the laws

54

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 55of theatre economics operated differently at the Globe than they did at the Rose, orthat 'methods . . . forced on [the Admiral's Men] by their want of capital' (Greg 1904:II, 113) would be in any way unique. Until new evidence is forthcoming we must con-clude that the working conditions of dramatists writing for the Admiral's Men wereprobably typical of the time.

Before examining the evidence of the diary in detail, it will be useful to consider theilluminating correspondence between Robert Daborne and Henslowe in the years1613-14 (Ms I, 70-98). The letters date from the period when Philip Henslowe andJacob Meade were connected with the Lady Elizabeth's Men at the Hope Theatre. Aswe have seen, Henslowe's relationship with this Company differed in certain respectsfrom his association with the Admiral's Men in the late 1590s. Furthermore,Daborne's dealings seem to have been with Henslowe himself, rather than with theplayers. Consequently, the parallels between Daborne's situation and that of the Roseplaywrights is far from exact. Nevertheless the letters illustrate a number of practiceswhich throw light on the diary extracts.

The correspondence reveals that Daborne consistently delivered his manuscript inparts, and that he was paid according to an agreed-upon schedule. In the case ofMachiavelli and the Devil^ for example, he was to receive £6 as a first instalment 'inearnest (possibly for the first act), £4 upon the delivery of three acts, and £10 upon thecompletion of the last scene (Ms I, 70). It was understood that the playwright wouldsubmit copy that was 'fayr written' (that is not his rough draft), and that he would readhis work to Henslowe and Alleyn for their approval as well as to the 'general company'so they could decide whether or not to buy it (Ms I, 75).

Daborne wrote Machiavelli on his own, but he occasionally enlisted the help ofother dramatists. In June 1613 he gave Cyril Tourneur an act of The Arraignment ofLondon to write, presumably to hasten the completion of the play. At another time hecollaborated with Nathan Field and Philip Massinger, and apparently spent 'a greatdeale of time in conference about [the] plott' (Ms 1,100). We could wish that Dabornehad been more descriptive of that conference, but from his comments and entries inHenslowe's diary we can get a general idea of the process by which a play evolved frommanuscript to performance.

Normally the conception for a play originated with the playwright, but there weretimes when a dramatist worked on ideas that were given to him. Daborne, forexample, offered to dramatize 'any other book' of Henslowe's that he would beallowed to read (Ms I, 73). Dekker and others claimed in a deposition drawn up in theseventeenth century that they wrote a play entitled Keep the Widow Waking at thesuggestion of Ralph Savage, book-keeper to the King's Men (Sisson 1936: 161). Insome cases the outline of the story would be set down in an 'author plot' giving basicinformation, such as the sequence of the scenes (Ms I, 26) or details of the setting(Adams 1946: 25). No complete author plot from a public theatre of the time hassurvived, but we know that Jonson showed such a plot to the Company (f. 43v) andthat Chapman wrote a tragedy from Jonson's outline (f. 51v).

An author plot might control the general shape of the drama, but clearly there was

56 THE PLAYWRIGHTSplenty of scope for elaboration of the initial ideas in the process of composition. A fewprinted texts and some sixteenth-century manuscripts such as The Book of Sir ThomasMore illustrate how speeches and scenes were modified as the playwright or play-wrights worked on them. Daborne could not resist improving a scene even though theactors' parts had been prepared and distributed (Ms I, 81).

What is of considerable interest to modern readers is how the playwright (or inmany cases playwrights) developed the germ incorporated in the story idea or the plotoutline into the finished play. Did the dramatist listen to suggestions from the actors?How much was he influenced by his knowledge of the acting company, or by currenttheatrical fashions? When he worked with other dramatists, how was the writingshared? Did the collaborators consult at every stage of the composition, or did theywrite independently from a shared plot outline? Was there a senior writer in charge ofthe project, or were decisions made in committee? How were the playwrights paid?Was money given out only for goods received, or were the playwrights (like Daborne)able to extract advances on promises and hard-luck stories?

Prior to October 1596 Henslowe's accounts tell us virtually nothing about thesematters. The performance records maintained from 1592-7 list titles, but are silent onthe question of authorship. When the players began to borrow money for playbooksand production expenses, however, Henslowe's records of these loans become moredetailed. Information about authors, dates, and fees paid enable us to begin to piecetogether a picture of how the playwrights worked. As usual, however, this process ofreconstruction must be carried out with caution. Only very rarely are Henslowe'srecords complete and unambiguous.

In general, the players borrowed money for three different purposes: to make a lumpsum payment for a completed play, to make an instalment payment for part of a play,or to give a playwright an advance for work to be delivered at a future date. At firstHenslowe did not distinguish clearly among these different purposes. 'Lent vntoRobarte shawe . . . to by a boocke for the company' (f. 37) seems clear enough, but theamount paid out (£2) is puzzling. It is well below the regular fee for a new work so itis impossible to know if the play in question, The Cobbler, is an old work, or whetherHenslowe is simply being asked for the final instalment of a larger payment. The land-lord's usual phrase 'layd owt' causes even more problems. 'Layd owt. . . for A boocke'(f. 37) suggests purchase, but 'Layd owt. . . toward his boocke' (f. 37) implies onlypartial payment. 'Lent vnto Bengemen Johnsone . . . vpon a Bocke . . . wch he showedthe plotte vnto the company' (f. 37v) suggests a very different sort of transaction.Henslowe himself (or the players) may have become aware of the inherent ambiguityof his terminology for he seems to have made an effort to be somewhat more precise.In January 1598 he made 'the laste payment of the Boocke of Mother Readcape'(f. 44v). Thereafter he fairly regularly distinguished between 'part' and 'full' paymentsuntil May 1598, when he introduced a new term, 'in earneste' (f. 45v). It might appearat first that this implies a further distinction between a payment and an advance, butit is not at all clear that Henslowe is consistent in his use of the term. At any rate, by

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 57the spring of 1598, Henslowe's terminology had become established, and in the greatmajority of cases it is possible to determine whether a particular payment representsthe whole or only a fraction of the total, and whether or not a play has been completed.

The majority but not all: occasionally plays we would infer from the paymentrecords had remained unfinished appear from other evidence to have been produced.One source of such outside evidence is the production accounts. The Conquest of WestIndies was never paid 'in full', and yet the fact that the Company borrowed money tobuy costumes (f. 94) suggests pretty conclusively that the work was completed. TableIII shows other examples of apparently unfinished plays which were subsequentlyproduced, including Jephtha (f. 105v) and Judas (f. 95). Troilus and Cressida isanother play which was credited with only partial payments (f. 54v), but a survivingplot of the play indicates it was staged. Similarly, Haughton was paid only £l for AWoman Will Have Her Will (f. 44v), but the title appears in an inventory ofplaybooks, and, of course, the work was published in 1616 as Englishmen for MyMoney. All of these examples show that Henslowe's records do not always give us thefull picture.

A similar uncertainty surrounds the diary's attributions of authorship. Hensloweusually designated the playwright (or playwrights) to whom a particular payment wasbeing made. But in the case of partial payments, we cannot always assume that thenamed dramatists were the only collaborators involved. For example, payments for1 Cardinal Wolsey went to Chettle; Chettle, Munday, and Dnayton; and finally toChettle, Munday, Drayton, and Wentworth Smith (ff. 93, 94, 94v). Table Hl.a showsnumerous instances where important information about collaborators is revealed inlate instalment payments. What this means is that we cannot be certain that the diary'sinformation about unfinished plays is complete. Although all the recorded paymentsgo to a single author, we cannot rule out the possibility that the work is an unfinishedcollaboration. Even full payments may be misleading. The receipt for £8 for 2 HenryRichmond signed by Robert Wilson (f. 65) would suggest that the play was his alone.The letter of authorization approving this payment, however (one of the few suchletters to survive), refers to 'their booke' which implies that the play in question is acollaboration (Ms I, 26). One consequence of this unfortunate ambiguity in therecords is that we cannot be as confident as we would like to be about patterns ofauthorship among the playwrights working for the Admiral's Men.

This is particularly disappointing when it comes to a discussion of collaboration.One of the more surprising features of the dramatic activity at the Rose is the very highincidence of multiple authorship. Just how widespread the practice was is evident inthe following list where we see that collaborated plays (C) were never less than 25%of the total plays negotiated for, and that the proportion of finished collaborated plays(FC) to the total of all finished plays (FT) was very much higher. These figures showthat collaborated plays accounted for 60 per cent of the plays completed in Fall-Winter 1598, and an astonishing 82 per cent in Spring-Summer 1598.

Although these statistics suggest that the syndicates may have been more successful

58 THE PLAYWRIGHTSSeason F O I A Tot. C % FT FC %F - W 1 5 9 7 / 9 8 5 2 3 - 8 2 2 5 52 40S-S1598 11 5 5 - 1 6 10 62 11 9 82F-W 1598/99 15 3 9 2 24 10 41 15 9 60S-S1599 6 - 1 0 - 1 6 5 31 6 3 50F-W 1599/00 8 - 8 1 1 6 6 37 8 3 37S-S1600 7 - 4 - 1 1 4 36 7 4 57

than individual authors in bringing their enterprises to completion, they demonstratelittle else. We would like to know much more about these writing teams. Who deter-mined which playwright or playwrights would dramatize a particular story? Was theassociation of collaborators arranged by the actors who commissioned the play, asLawrence suggests (1927: 341), or did the playwriting syndicates evolve for otherreasons? What were the conditions that made collaboration such a prominent featureat the Rose? Perhaps all we can do is to look at the patterns of collaboration and thesequence of payments to see if we can discern any clues as to the playwrights' methodsof work. As Schoenbaum has pointed out (1966: 226), a play might be divided in avariety of ways: the allocation of scenes might be entirely mechanical (for example byact); one author might supply the plot and another carry out its execution; one writermight take the main action, another the underplot; or one playwright might undertakefarcical scenes while another wrote the serious episodes. There is evidence that all ofthese methods were used. Amateur dramatists in the Inns of Court divided theirlabours by acts (Rabkin 1976: 8), and Lawrence and Bentley (1971) assume this tohave been the usual method among the professionals as well. Both Chapman andChettle wrote plays based on others' ideas, and the practice was likely widespread.Middleton and Rowley almost certainly divided The Changeling along plot lines (Hoy1976: 5).

Most of these theories assume a more or less orderly collaboration between twodramatists, and some of the payments in the diary might reflect such a practice. Butfrequently the entries show no such order, and it is likely that in some cases collabor-ation was more complicated than these theories allow. One unknown is the means bywhich continuity or consistency was ensured when four or five different hands werecontributing to a single piece. Evidence taken in a court of law in the seventeenth cen-tury shows that collaborators worked fairly closely with one another. It was affirmedthat Thomas Dekker 'wrote two sheetes of paper conteyning the first Act of a Playcalled The Late Murder in White Chappell, or Keepe the Widow waking, and a speechin the Last Scene of the Last Act of the Boy who had killed his mother' (Sisson 1936:110). What is surprising about this account is Dekker's contribution of that singlespeech. This kind of close association between collaborators is at odds with the pictureof independent composition of acts, scenes, or plots often put forward as the usualmethod. But it corresponds quite closely with the one surviving example of a dramaticcollaboration, the manuscript book of Sir Thomas More.

Daborne's references to collaboration in his correspondence are relevant here. Hementions that he had 'given Cyrill Tourneur an act of ye Arreignment of london to

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 59write' (Ms I, 78) which suggests that Daborne himself oversaw the allocation of actsand decided upon his collaborators. On the other hand, his collaboration with NathanField, the leading actor of the company, must have been of a different kind. It isimpossible to derive many firm conclusions from the diary entries, but the tables ofplaywrights' income (Table V) show some interesting patterns. For example, itappears that the syndicates often operated on the same seasonal basis as the players.A group of writers associated with one another on several projects during a particularseason will go their separate ways, disappear, or realign themselves when playingceases. For example, Dekker and Dray ton collaborated on seven plays in Spring-Summer 1599, after which Drayton temporarily disappeared (possibly lured away bythe new boys' companies?). Sometimes the groupings appear to have been fluid, atothers fairly static. In Fall-Winter 1599-1600 seven playwrights - Chettle, Dekker,Drayton, Hathway, Haughton, Day and Munday (with the assistance in one play ofWilson) - among them did all the writing for the entire season. The dramatists appearto have been grouped into two 'syndicates'. Drayton and Munday collaborated withHathway and Wilson; Chettle and Dekker worked with Day and Haughton, whoseem to have formed some sort of a partnership. The groups functioned independently- Hathway always collaborating with Drayton and Munday, Haughton only writingwith Chettle, Dekker, or Day.

However organized, the playwrights worked with considerable speed. Henslowe'saccounts indicate that plays were normally finished in four to six weeks. Draytonpromised to complete a book in a 'fortnyght' (f. 49); Chettle and Day promised todeliver Henry I in twenty days (f. 45); Jonson hoped to work his plot into finishedform in the same time (f. 37v).

Carol Chillington (1979) thinks that the patterns of payment to authors indicatethat there were three basic ways in which playwrights collaborated. Some syndicateswere organized from the play's inception, and the collaborating writers collectedmoney from Henslowe together. Haughton and Day shared all payments for 2 BlindBeggar (f. 85v, 86), as did Hathway and Rankins for Hannibal (f. 71), Drayton andDekker for Conan Prince of Cornwall (f. 51). These may be examples of writers par-ticipating equally at every stage of composition. Other syndicates appear to developas the play goes along (as Daborne brought in Tourneur part way through the com-position of The Arraignment of London). The study of playwrights' income showsthat frequently collaborators collected fees individually, or shared the total incomeunequally. This suggests that in such cases there was less consultation, and the writerswere not working as a unit. A third pattern is noticeable in those cases where the wholesyndicate is mentioned in the initial payment, after which instalments are paid toindividuals. This may reflect a system whereby the plot is devised by the group, butindividual dramatists write their own scenes.

Although it is unlikely that collaborating playwrights would be as concerned asindividual dramatists with questions of artistic unity, it would nevertheless be necess-ary for them to work out some method of co-ordination. Daborne's letters, the relativeexperience of different members of some syndicates, and common sense all suggest

60 THE PLAYWRIGHTSthat some kind of hierarchy existed. The possible nature of such a hierarchy is hintedat in Ben Jonson's prologue to Volpone where he affirms:

'Tis known, five weeks fully penned itFrom his own hand, without coadjutor,Novice, journeyman, or tutor.

Jonson does not define his terms, of course, nor can we be certain that they were onesthe players would have used, but he does imply a chain of command in the theatrefrom which he seems pleased to have escaped. It is worth adopting Jonson'sterminology to see if the diary entries are consistent with a hypothetical system ofapprenticeship by which playwrights moved through the stages of novice and journey-man to author.

As we have seen, a number of playwrights mentioned appear first as proteges orassociates of more established authors. Mr Pett, who may have collaborated withWilliam Haughton on Strange News Out of Poland (f. 69), is otherwise unknown. Sois Will Boyle, whose play Jugurth was sold to the Admiral's Men by William Birde(f. 67v). John Day's first play, The Conquest of Brute (f. 49) may have been revised andexpanded into a two-part work by Henry Chettle (ff. 49, 51). Frequently authorsreceived less than the usual £6 fee for their first play. Heywood was paid £1-10 for hisbook in 1596 (f. 23); Porter got £5 and £4 (f. 2.2v); Haughton received ten shillings(f. 43 v); Hathway £5 for King Arthur (f. 45v); Rankins £3 for Mulmutius Dunwallow(f. 50v). The figures may be incomplete, but cumulatively they suggest that some kindof scale of payment may have been in effect.

To what extent, then, did senior dramatists act as 'tutors' of their younger or lessexperienced colleagues? Undoubtedly in some cases a play or dramatic idea wassimply paid for and given to another writer to alter or finish. This is apparently whathappened to Jonson's plot which Chapman worked up into a tragedy. It also seems tohave been the fate of Haughton's Judas completed by Birde and Rowley (f. 95), andpossibly Robinson's Felmalenco (f. 107). Thomas Nashe implies that his work on TheIsle of Dogs was finished by the actors 'without [his] consent, or the least guesse of[his] drift or scope' (1599: sig. B), but this may have been special pleading. On theother hand, there is evidence that in some cases both players and playwrightsencouraged young writers in whom they saw promise. The career of a young dramatistsuch as Day is suggestive.

John Day, son of a Norfolk husbandman, became a sizar at Cambridge in 1592. Hisacademic pursuits may not have been all-consuming, however, for in less than a yearhe had been expelled for stealing a book, and made his way to London to earn hisliving as a writer. By the summer of 1598, when he was just twenty-four, he sold TheConquest of Brute to the Admiral's Men for £2 (f. 49). Whether it was incomplete ordeemed unsatisfactory, the play was given to Chettle, who revised and possiblyexpanded it. Day next appears in the diary in November 1599, when he and Haughtonwere paid £5 for The Tragedy of Cox (ff. 65-65v). During that Fall-Winter seasonDay wrote regularly for the Company, collaborating with Haughton on Thomas

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 61Merry (f. 65v), and with Dekker and Haughton on The Spanish Moor's Tragedy(f. 67v). He also began An Italian Tragedy (f. 67) which probably remained incom-plete. Altogether during the season he earned about £6-10-0. The following springand summer he worked in association with Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton, collab-orating on three plays, and earning about £8-00-0. When the Company moved to theFortune, Day was one of the few dramatists to remain actively associated with it.Between February and May 1601 he had a hand in four plays, mostly with WilliamHaughton, for which he was paid some £7-05-0. Thereafter he contributed regularlyto Admiral's, finally 'by hime sellfe' (f. 105), and when Worcester's moved into theRose in 1602 he wrote for both companies, realizing an income of close to £14 fromthe two sources.

Day's career illustrates how a young writer might 'break in' to the theatre and moveup from novice to 'coadjutor'. Evidence that this progress was sometimes achievedwith the help of a senior, more experienced, writer is provided by the example ofHenry Chettle. Chettle was born about 1560, the son of Robert Chettle, dyer, ofLondon. He was apprenticed to a printer in 1579, and became a stationer himself in1584.Between 1588 and 1591 he was in partnership with the printers John Danter andWilliam Hoskins, and seems to have continued his association with the trade until aslate as 1596 (ES III: 263). It is not known when he began writing for the stage. Hisconnection with playwrights, however, began at least as early as 1592 when he 'edited'Groafs-worth of Wit in which the embittered Greene attacked Shakespeare, andwarned several of his fellow writers to beware of the players. In his epistle to KindHeart's Dream, Chettle disclaimed any acquaintance with the playwrights Greenealluded to, so it may be doubted that he was closely connected with the theatre at thattime. On the other hand, it has been suggested (Sanders 1933: 402) that the con-fessional parts of Groafs-worth of Wit are actually by Chettle — a suggestion recentlyreinforced by computer analysis (Marder 1970: 42) - in which case his knowledge oftheatrical politics may have been more intimate than he was inclined to admit.

Clearly as a young apprentice coming of age in the London of the early 1580sChettle could hardly have been unaffected by the excitement and controversysurrounding the nascent professional drama. It is altogether probable, therefore, butimpossible to prove, that Chettle began writing for the stage in the mid-nineties, a fewyears before Francis Meres listed him among the best English playwrights for comedy.It is not until the Fall-Winter season of 1597-98, however, that we have positive evi-dence of Chettle's dramatic activity. In Henslowe's records of the newly amalgamatedAdmiral's-Pembroke's Men we find him collaborating with Anthony Munday inFebruary and March on a second part of Robin Hood. He may also have contributedto Part One (probably written between 5 January and 15 February 1598), but success-ive editors and critics have failed to find in it unequivocal traces of his work.Altogether Chettle's role in this first season is relatively minor, compared say to thatof Dekker or Munday, and he earned less than £3-00-0 in five months.

In the Spring-Summer season, however, Chettle suddenly became the most prolificand highly paid of the dramatists working for Shaa and Downton. He began in close

62 THE PLAYWRIGHTSassociation with Dray ton, Dekker, and Wilson and shortly after 13 March he receivedabout £2-10 for his share of Henry I (f. 45). By 30 March he had collected some £1-10for work on Earl Goodwin, and a wek later received ten shillings for his part in PierceofExton. Between 2 and 6 May he began work on Black Bateman of the North, butleft it so that he could contribute to a sequel to Earl Goodwin, for which he was paidon 6 May. He finished his part of Black Bateman by 22 May, and wrote more for 2 EarlGoodwin by 10 June. At this point his close association with Drayton, Dekker, andWilson ended. At first he began working with Anthony Munday on The Funeral ofRichard Coeur de Lion (probably a sequel to the two Robin Hood plays), but sincesubsequent payments went to Munday, Drayton, and Wilson, he appears to have leftthe project. He then proceeded to work on a sequel to Black Bateman with HenryPorter, for which he collected about £3-10 by 8 July. The play was probably continuedby Wilson, for by 14 July Chettle had somehow written A Woman's Tragedy, forwhich he collected £5-00-0 on the same day that he picked up a final instalment offifteen shillings for 2 Black Bateman. His unflagging efforts during this season nettedChettle about £18-15-0.

From these accounts it would appear that a busy professional dramatist had to haveboth speed and flexibility. Chettle often moved on to other projects before the playhe had contributed to was finished, so that he was probably not always involved in allparts of a work. Furthermore, he was apparently able to alternate or combineprojects, interrupting one to work on another. In the six-month Fall-Winter season of1598-99 Chettle's activities became even more diverse. By 18 August he had com-pleted Hot Anger Soon Cold with Henry Porter and Ben Jonson. This is Jonson's firstappearance in the diary since the previous year, when his plot was taken over byGeorge Chapman. Porter and Chettle had just finished collaborating on 2 BlackBateman so it is possible that Jonson was brought in as 'coadjutor' in a relatively sub-ordinate role. Whatever his contribution, it was not preserved by the author when hepublished his collected works, and it marks the only appearance of the dramatist in thediary that season. On 26 August Chettle collected five shillings for his contribution toCataline, a play begun by Robert Wilson (f. 49v), and three days later he was paid £lfor Vayvode (f. 49v). In fact, this latter play must have been an old one belonging toEdward Alleyn, for the Admiral's Men purchased it from their former leading actor inJanuary 1599 (f. 53). The work was very likely being rehearsed in August, forcostumes were purchased between 21 and 25 August. The most likely explanation ofChettle's involvement is that he was called in to make some revisions just before theplay opened.

Chettle's next project also looks like one suggested by the actors. Between 8 and16 September, he collected £1-14-0 for 'A Boocke called Brute' (f. 50), probably arevision of Day's Conquest of Brute with the First Finding of Bath (f. 49). That theplay was performed with some success is suggested by the fact that Chettle began workon a sequel which he finished by himself by 22 October (f. 51v). The time he took towrite the play (some thirty-eight days) was longer than typical and, along with otherevidence from the diary, suggests that Chettle may have been having personal prob-

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 63lems about this time. One indication of such problems (whether as symptom or causeit is impossible to say) is his need to borrow money.

The earliest allusion to Chettle's borrowing was on 24 June, when Hensloweentered a loan of ten shillings in the Company accounts, but noted below it thatChettle 'Reastes be syddes in my Deatte' £1-10-0 (f. 46v). There is insufficient infor-mation in the diary to enable us to sort out completely the complicated relationshipsbetween Chettle, on the one hand, and the players and their landlord—banker on theother. This first loan was made at a time when Chettle was working on Funeral ofRichard and collecting frequent small sums (f. 46v). By 16 September the playwright'sindebtedness had grown to £8-09-0, and the diary entry recording this fact makes itclear that the money was owed to the Company (f. 50). Like the earlier entry, too, itspecifies that everything owing to the playwright for parts of books had been paid.This implies some possible uncertainty on the part of one or both parties as to whenpayments were advances for plays and when they were loans (a confusion sometimesreflected in the entries themselves). It also implies that money changed hands onoccasion without Chettle actually delivering a manuscript. Had Henslowe been in thehabit of giving out cash only for papers received, it would presumably have beenunnecessary to specify that Chettle had no more instalments coming to him. By22 October Chettle had increased his liability to £9-09-0, but he acknowledged thefact in a promissory note to Henslowe which was witnessed by Robert Shaa (f. 62).What this implies is that Henslowe was to collect the money for the Company, whichhe began to do towards the end of the season, by crediting the unpaid balance ofChettle's fee for Polyphemus and The Spencers to the playwright's debt (f. 61).

Chettle's need for money may have been no more than a consequence of the fact thathis purse (like Roberto's in Greene's Groat's-worth of Wit) 'Like the sea sometimesweld, [and] anon . . . fell to a low ebbe.' But Henslowe treated Chettle's loans in aspecial way. Whereas advances to other playwrights were usually protected by signedreceipts or bonds, Chettle's loans were often noted casually in the margin of the diary(ff. 51v, 65, 91). Nor is there evidence of an attempt to total these amounts or balancethem against repayments. This informality suggests to me that Chettle had a closer,possibly a more personal, relationship with Henslowe and the players than many ofthe other playwrights. It does not, as some commentators have maintained, reflect adeliberate policy on the part of Henslowe to keep the playwright indebted to him.

The players do seem to have tried to bind their dramatists to them from time to time,eliciting promises from both Porter (f. 54) and Chettle (f. 105) to write for no othercompany, but such schemes seem to have been fruitless. The parallel records forAdmiral's and Worcester's Men in 1602—03 enable us to catch a glimpse of how theplaywrights moved from one management to another. From August 1602 to March1603 most of the Admiral's dramatists were also contributing to the repertoire ofWorcester's Men. While Heywood, Dekker, and Smith did most of their work for onecompany, several playwrights, such as Chettle, Hathway, and Day divided their timefairly equally between the two organizations. If we assume that collaborators sharedtheir income equally (by no means a self-evident conclusion), then it is possible to esti-

64 THE PLAYWRIGHTSmate each playwright's earnings during this particular 31-week period. These can besummarized as follows:

Wors.Adms.

CE7-107-00

DA5-158-00

DE10-053-00

HY6-155-00

HE23-10

3-00

MI1-006-05

SM25-05

2-00

What this table suggests is that the majority of the playwrights mentioned in the diarywere independent agents selling their talents wherever they could. In the period underdiscussion, for example, Day, Hathway, and Smith moved freely from one theatre toanother. On 17 November 1602 they sold Merry as May Be to Downton and Juby atthe Fortune (f. 108). By 24 November, Day and Hathway delivered the first sheets ofBlack Dog of Newgate to John Duke at the Rose (f. 118). On 26 November,Christopher Beeston and Robert Pallant of Worcester's borrowed £2 to pay Day,Hathway, Smith and an unnamed poet for the same play. A month later the work wascompleted and the authors collected the remainder of their fee (f. 118v). By 7 January,Hathway and Smith were writing The Unfortunate General for Beeston and Duke.Day was involved by January, and the work was finished three days later (f. 199v).Within five days the company had begun preparations to stage the play. Work on asecond part of Black Dog began on 29 January on the approval of John Duke, con-veyed to Henslowe by John Lowin (f. 119v). This sequel was finished on 3 Februaryand twelve days later a company tireman collected money from Henslowe to buymaterial for costumes. About that time, however, objections from the actors (orperhaps more probably the censor) necessitated changes in the script. These werebegun on 21 February and continued until 26 February at a total cost of £2 (f. 120).Between 1 and 7 March, Day and Hathway sold Boss of Billingsgate to the Admiral'sMen and were paid £6 on the authorization of Edward Juby (ff. 109—109v). About thesame time (7—12 March), Wentworth Smith sold The Italian Tragedy to Worcester'sMen on the approval of Thomas Blackwood and John Lowin (ff. 120—120v). This isalmost certainly the Italian Tragedy Day had tried to sell to Shaa in January 1599,when he was first beginning his career (f. 67). In all likelihood the work remainedunfinished at that time and now Day contributed his foul papers to the common causeof the syndicate.

The activities of Day, Hathway, and Smith illustrate the fluidity of relationsbetween playwrights and actors. During the first part of the season, Smith collabor-ated with Heywood on Albere Galles (f. 115v) and Marshal Osric (f. 116), wrote TwoBrothers (f. 116v) by himself, and joined the group of Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, andWebster writing 1 Lady Jane (f. 117). This pattern suggests a close association withHeywood and Worcester's Men. As we have seen, however, by November he hadteamed up with Hathway and Day and was contributing to the Admiral's repertoire.The dramatists, for the most part, appear to have been in fairly great demand. It wouldbe surprising if they did not occasionally exploit their position to their own advantage.

There was one way, however (and perhaps only one) by which a playwright mightgain some influence over his employers. This was to become a sharer in a company and

THE PLAYWRIGHTS 65thereby acquire a role in company management. Of all the dramatists mentioned in thediary only one seems to have worked his way into this position. Thomas Heywoodmay have been writing for Admiral's Men as early as 1594 (Greg 1904: II, 284), andcertainly sold a 'bocke' to the Company in 1596 (f. 23). In March 1598 he bound him-self to Henslowe as a 'covenante searvante' (f. 231) to 'play' in no other theatre but theRose. He sold two plays to the Company in the following year, War Without Blows(ff. 52v—53) and Joan as Good as My Lady (f. 53v), both of which he appears to havewritten by himself. He may have joined Derby's Men sometime in 1599 and writtenEdward IV for them, but by 1602 he was a sharer in Lord Worcester's Men at theRose. He played a prominent role in Worcester's Men, authorizing expenditures forboth playbooks and costumes, and collaborating on five plays including Albere Galles(f. 115v). Marshal Osric (f. 116v), 1 Lady Jane (f. 117), Christmas Comes but Oncea Year (f. 117v), and an unnamed work (f. 119). He also wrote additions for CuttingDick (f. 116), and composed Blind Eats Many a Fly (f. 118), and A Woman KilledWith Kindness (f. 120) alone.

One would imagine that in his position as playwright and sharer, Heywood mighthave assumed particular responsibility for the supervision of literary expenditures.But such an assumption is not borne out by the evidence. Heywood was certainlyactive in authorizing literary expenditures, giving altogether eleven approvals duringthe season. But in every case these approvals were for plays on which he himself wasworking. The records do not suggest that Heywood was active in seeking out newdramatists (Middleton was introduced by John Duke), nor does he seem to have takenmuch interest in the work of Day, Hathway, and Smith who among them contributedfour plays to the season. Another surprising feature of Heywood's position withWorcester's Men was that it did not prevent him from writing for the Admiral'sCompany. Between 17 December and 7 January, he and Chettle sold The LondonFlorentine to Admiral's for £6-10-0. If Heywood had any influence over Worcester'sliterary policy in the choice of scripts, selection of playwrights, or scheduling of pro-ductions, the diary gives no idea of how that influence was exerted.

It remains to consider the playwrights' income. Full as they are, the players' literaryaccounts do not always provide us with all we need to know to estimate how much thedramatists earned. Not infrequently the entries are incomplete. Sometimes the namesof the authors are not mentioned (2 Robin Hood f. 44v; Page of Plymouth f. 64), orare entered later in questionable circumstances (Porter f. 46). In other cases, the infor-mation is ambiguous or difficult to interpret. For example, money is frequentlycollected by a third party (Porter for Chettle f. 47; Drayton for Munday f. 49; Chettlefor Wilson f. 49v; Bradshaw for Dekker and Drayton f. 51) and it is not clear whetheror not the sum is to be divided. At other times, two collaborators are mentionedalthough the payment seems to be to one only {Spencers f. 44); or a collaborator ismentioned but unnamed (the 'other Jentellman' f. 64).

When all names, titles, and amounts are included in an entry, however, it is stilloften impossible to be certain how the money was divided. In some instances the totalis not easily divisible (fifty shillings to Drayton, Wilson and Dekker f. 49). But even

66 THE PLAYWRIGHTSwhen such division can be made, it is not safe to assume that it should be apportionedequally. Very occasionally Henslowe specifies how a sum is to be allocated (Draytonthirty shillings, Wilson ten shillings, Munday twenty-five shillings, f. 49), and in thesecases the distribution is never even. There is no way of knowing if Henslowe wasalways aware of how the money he was paying out was to be shared. Very probablyhe was not. On the other hand, it may be that the few times he specified the divisionwere exceptional deviations from the normal practice of sharing a fee equally.

It has been estimated that during the last part of the sixteenth century a school-master earned between £12 and £20 annually which probably did not include otherperquisites such as board or lodging. A workman made sixpence a day with food, andtenpence without. Wages at this latter rate for a six-day week over a full year wouldamount to between £12 and £13. At the other end of the social scale, Thomas Lodgeestimated that a gentleman could live comfortably on £40 a year. Allowing forinflation, therefore, we might suppose that in 1600 an income of £15 a year wouldhave been considered equivalent to a working-class wage, and that to live like a'gentleman' would require two or three times that amount. Against this backgroundwe might conclude that professional dramatists were reasonably well paid for theirefforts. Chettle's earnings varied from £18-15-0 in 1597-8 to £25-05-0 in 1601-2.This income was certainly adequate (better by far than he could have hoped to win byhis pen in any other field). But it may have seemed inadequate to an ambitious indi-vidual surrounded on all sides by displays of ostentatious wealth. Chettle's constantborrowing, his hectic writing schedule, and possibly his periods of imprisonment, allbetoken a man spending beyond his means. This is not at all the same as a man livingin poverty, but from the perspective of the victim it may be no less painful.

The evidence of Henslowe's diary suggests that conditions in the theatre (at least asthey affected the playwrights) probably did not differ much at the beginning of theseventeenth century from how Daborne found them in 1613-14. Except for the fewmost industrious writers, the theatre did not provide an 'assured way to get money'.The life was certainly not the leisured contemplation of the muse that gentlemenundergraduates might have supposed. On the other hand, it was probably no harderthan the life of an actor. For those with the necessary energy and facility it provided areasonable, though not extravagant, livelihood. But there is little doubt that it failedto supply the non-material rewards of prestige or immortality sometimes associatedwith the literary life. Those the ambitious playwright had to find elsewhere.

5 • THE PLAYS

READERS whose interest in the Elizabethan drama is focused primarily on playsusually find Henslowe's diary a disappointment. The pedestrian prose, erratic

t» spelling, chaotic organization, and (especially) the confusing figures seem asremote as it is possible to be from the passion and poetry of the Elizabethan drama.What, such readers wonder, do these endless lists and dry accounts have to do with thework of Shakespeare or Marlowe? While understandable, such an attitude ignores (orunder-emphasizes) the fact that Elizabethan plays (like those of other ages) are rootedin the theatrical conditions of their time, and have developed as they have, at least inpart, in response to those conditions. To understand Shakespeare and his contem-poraries fully, therefore, we must try to imagine their works in their original theatricalcontext. As a guide to that context, Henslowe's diary is indispensable.

Henslowe did not prepare his diary for theatre historians, however, and to under-stand his records it is necessary to recast them. Information that Henslowe recordedchronologically needs to be reconciled with the actors' playing seasons; expenses haveto be set off against income; details relating to individual plays must be collated, anda distinction made between expenditures of different kinds. This abstracting and sum-marizing of information in the accounts has been done in the series of tables appendedto this volume, where interested readers are urged to check out the claims made in thediscursive commentary. What follows is an explanation of the rationale of those tablesand an attempt to suggest some of the things they tell us about the plays in Henslowe'stheatres.

TABULATING THE ACCOUNTS

The diary contains a bewildering variety of information including the titles of plays,the names of players, playwrights, and craftsmen, and a wealth of detail aboutproperties and costumes. This information can be correlated to show anything fromthe box-office receipts of individual plays, to the income of particular playwrights, orthe production schedule of an acting company. In the interest of economy, theappended tables have been limited to five - a list of plays, an abstract of the dailyincome receipts, a condensation of the loan records, a compilation of all income andexpense accounts, and a final series of summaries. These five tables include most of thetheatrical information in the diary, and can be used as a basis for further correlationif required.

What is most striking about the titles mentioned in Henslowe's diary (Table I) ishow few of them can be identified with extant plays. In part this is because fully

67

68 THE PLAYS90 per cent of the works have perished. But difficulties of identification are com-pounded by Henslowe's methods. Sometimes he simply designates a work by itsauthor — 'a boocke by yonge harton' (f. 43v); Ben Jonson's 'plotte' (f. 43v); 'mrchapman . . . for his tragedie' (f. 52v); 'mr maxton in earneste of A Boocke' (f. 64v) —or the circumstances — 'A comodey for the corte' (f. 49); 'for the playe wch hareychettell Layd vnto hime to pane [pawn]' (f. 109v). Occasionally, such entries havebeen corrected by the insertion of the title at a later time (or in a different hand). Butthe impression conveyed by many of these entries is that Henslowe was not vitally con-cerned with the contents of the playbooks for which he was lending money. In manycases, indeed, he may have been completely ignorant of their nature. This raises vexingproblems concerning the true identity of many of the scripts passing through hisplayhouses.

Without any means of verifying the identification of titles in the diary, the readermust constantly remind himself that familiar titles may refer to source plays or earlierversions of extant texts. Take, for example, the question of 'Shakespearian' titles in thediary. Of the seven works mentioned - King Lear (39), Hamlet (43), Henry V (82),Troilus and Cressida (172), Henry VI (11), Titus Andronicus (37), and The Tamingof a Shrew (44), only the last three conform to the orthodox notions concerningShakespearian chronology. Consequently, it is probable (although not, by the natureof the evidence, absolutely certain) that Hamlet and Troilus are lost plays whichShakespeare may have known, and that Henry V and King Lear refer to the oldQueen's Men's plays preserved as The Famous Victories of Henry V, and King Leir.Until the complicated relationship between a Shrew and the Shrew is fully understood,it is impossible to know if Henslowe's title refers to a source play or to Shakespeare'sversion of the story. Similar uncertainties surround both Henry VI and TitusAndronicus, described as 'ne' (new?) plays on 3 March 1592 (f. 7), and 23 January1594 (f. 8v) respectively. Commentators who feel that Titus must have been writtenearlier suggest that perhaps the performance by Sussex's Men was a revision. Ofcourse, all such speculation is completely unverifiable.

In addition to the probability that familiar titles do not refer to the plays we know,there is the certainty that some extant plays lie concealed behind unrecognizablenames. Some obvious examples include Jeronimo (16) for The Spanish Tragedy, TheGuise (26) for The Massacre at Paris, 1 and 2 Robin Hood (125, 127) for TheDownfall and Death of Robert, Earl of Huntington, Woman Will Have Her Will(126) for Englishmen for My Money, Lady Jane (270) for Sir Thomas Wyatt, and TheComedy of Humours (106) for An Humorous Day's Mirth. This last identificationhinges on the appearance of two items ('Verones sonnes hose' and 'Labesyas[Labesha's] clocke') in a surviving playhouse inventory (HD 318, 321). On theassumption that similar evidence for other plays has disappeared, commentators havesuggested possible identifications of other Henslowe titles. Of these, Longshanks (75)for Edward I, and The Devil and His Dame (204) for Grim the Collier ofCroyden aretwo of the least fanciful. In no case, however, is any kind of external verification pro-

THE PLAYS 69vided (or, of course) possible. So it is wise, in identifying extant plays (by italics inTable I) to err on the side of prudence.

If the diary can tell us little about individual plays, it does reveal much about howplays in general were written and prepared for the stage. Some of this information iscontained in the accounts in which Henslowe recorded income from particular per-formances. Starting in 1592, titles and receipts appear chronologically in the diarywith the entries of one week frequently marked off by a line at the beginning of theseries. From these records it is possible to compile a performance calendar (Table II)showing a company's playing schedule over an entire season. In drawing up such aschedule, however, it is necessary to deal with Henslowe's dating. The problem can beillustrated by looking at the accounts for January 1593 (ff. 9-8v). In that month,according to Henslowe's dates, the company missed several mid-week performances(2,11, 26, 27, 29 January), played on one Sunday (14 January), and apparently gavedouble performances on 30 and 31 January. This can be represented as follows:

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

14

On the face of it, this schedule is extremely improbable, and it is easier to believethat Henslowe mistook the date than that the Company produced two plays on thesame day. In his Commentary, Greg adjusted Henslowe's dates and suggested that inthe present example, Strange's Men performed regularly six days a week, and did notplay on Sunday. Greg's schedule is as follows:

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

181522

9162330*30

31017243131

4

1825

5*1219

61320

8152229

291623

310172431

4111825

5*121926*

6132027

The revision seems eminently reasonable and solves a number of problems, such as theSunday performance and the 'double features'. It does not, however, explain why, ifHenslowe's lines indicate a break between weekly groups of playing dates, thereshould be lines against both 6 and 8 January. Nor is it clear why Greg should acceptHenslowe's dating on 31 January, but revise 30 (Tuesday) to 29 (Monday).

Because questions concerning Henslowe's dating cannot be solved unequivocally, ithas been thought wise to leave the matter open. The Performance Calendar (Table II)therefore provides two alternatives. The left-hand calendar shows Henslowe's datingwith the underlined figures designating the first title in each new group, and an asteriskindicating a 'ne' play. The right-hand calendar shows the playing schedule as Greg has

70 THE PLAYSrevised it to avoid Sunday performances. This second calendar shows the date of per-formance (by location), the title of the play (by number) above the line, and the incomerecorded by Henslowe (in pounds, shillings and pence) below the line.

In this right-hand calendar it is possible to look at the record of a particular play andcompare it with those of other works performed in the same season. For example, eachplay can be given a 'profile' made up of the dates of first and last performances, thenumber of times it was played in the season, the range in box-office income, the totalamount taken in, and the average receipts per performance. Just how this might bedone for a particular season is shown in the table.

FALL-WINTER 1592-93No. Title Dates P High Low Total AverageCurrent

1257

1116202123

Friar BaconMuly MolloccoSir JohnJew of MaltaHenry VIJeronimoTitus & Vesp.2 Tamar ChamKnack (Knave)

Totals 9Revivals25

'Ne'2426

CosmoTotals 1

PlaysJealous Com.Guise

Totals 2

10-30/129/12-20/14-31/11/1-1/26-31/130/12-22/16-25/119/131/12-24/1

12-23/1

5/130/1

GRAND TOTALS 12

333323314

25

22

112

29

1-04-03-10-00-12-02-16-02-06-03-08-03-12-01-16-01-10-0

2-04-0

2-04-03-14-0

0-12-01-00-00-09-01-15-01-06-01-00-01-10-0

1-04-0

1-10-0

2-16-05-10-01-13-07-11-03-12-05-10-05-12-01-16-05-07-0

39-12-0

3-14-03-14-0

2-04-03-14-05-18-0

48-19-0

0-18-81-16-80-11-02-10-41-16-01-16-81-17-41-16-01-06-91-11-8

1-17-01-17-0

2-04-03-14-02-19-01-13-8

In such a table, works in the current repertoire can be compared with revivals or 'ne'plays to show the kind of information the players themselves might have consideredin making decisions about their programme.

In the spring of 1596 Henslowe began to lend the players money for various pro-duction expenses and to record these transactions in his diary. The landlord's meticu-lous descriptions of his advances include details about properties and costumes; theylist the names of playwrights and the titles of plays; frequently they include the namesof individuals who have authorized payments or received money; and, of course, theyusually record the date upon which the loan was made. From these details it is possibleto draw up a summary of the players' theatrical expenses (Table III) from which onemay deduce a great deal about how they acquired and staged their plays. The com-piling of such a table, however, involves some difficulties. First there is the problem ofseparating the more or less continuous accounts into seasons. The difficulty here isthat Henslowe's reckonings do not always coincide with the seasons reflected in the

THE PLAYS 71records of income. For example, playing was continuous from 24 July 1598 (f. 48), to24 February 1599 (f. 48v) and this whole period should logically be described as theFall—Winter 1598—99 season. However, Henslowe drew up a balance on 29 July 1598(f. 48), one week into this 'season'. In order to accommodate Henslowe's figures, thebreak between the Spring—Summer 1598 season (Table III.5) and the Fall—Winter1598—99 season (Table III.6) has been set at 30 July. Similarly a division of the seasonfrom 6 October 1599 (f. 48v), to 9 February 1600 (f. 67v), has been made at13 October (Tables III.8, III.9) to coincide with Henslowe's balance on that day(f. 64v).

A second problem involves the division of Henslowe's undifferentiated entries into'literary' and 'production' accounts. In order to focus on the players' relationship totheir writers, payments related to individual plays have been brought together and theinformation contained in them summarized in Table III.a. Only the sums borrowed inthe period specified are included, so many play titles appear in more than one season.Entries in the table are set out as follows:

Fol.44

No.125

Title1 Robin Hood

Dates15/2

ApprovedU

AuthorsMu

StatusF?(P)

Total5-00-0

The folio page on which the earliest entry appears is followed by the number of theplay assigned in the chronological list (Table I) and its title. The dates of its first andlast entries are recorded by day and month (the year being obvious from the season).If the advance was approved, that information is conveyed by the initials of the shareror, if no approval was noted, that is shown by a U (unapproved). The author (orauthors) are indicated by initials, along with the status of the payment (F/full, I/inearnest) and that of the plays (O/old, A/altered). If there is evidence that a play wassubsequently produced, it is shown by the symbol P.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, money borrowed for production expenses was used fora far wider range of purposes than the sums taken to pay playwrights. Henslowe'sentries record a variety of expenses from entertainment or transportation costs, tolicence fees, craftsmen's wages, payments for cloth or copper lace, and occasionallylegal expenses. Sometimes special emergencies, such as the arrest of a player or theinjury of a spectator, involved the actors in unforeseen expenditures. The entriesrecording these expenses suggest how dramatic manuscripts were handled once adecision to produce them was made. These records are summarized in Table Hl.b asfollows:

C-TotalFol.45

No.

125

DetailsGood cheerRobin HoodCostumes

Dates25/328/37/4

ApprovedUUU

S-Total

0-14-0

U-Total0-05-0

1-00-0

Not all of these expenses can be attributed to particular plays, so it is useful to dis-tinguish between 'specified' advances (S-Total) which were lent for the production ofa named play, and 'unspecified' loans (U-Total) for undetermined or alternative pur-poses. In the example above, for example, the players borrowed five shillings on

72 THE PLAYS25 March for 'good cheer' (probably drink during a playreading). Three days laterthey got fourteen shillings to pay for licences for parts 1 and 2 of Robin Hood, the onlyevidence (apart from costumes listed in a playhouse inventory) that the plays were pro-duced. The £1-00-0 borrowed on 7 April for costumes may well have been for thesame work, but since Henslowe does not tell us we cannot be sure.

By bringing together all the information referring to those plays which were actuallyproduced, it is possible to get a clearer idea of a company's production procedures. Inthe summer of 1599, for example, the Admiral's Men mounted two plays - Page ofPlymouth (180), and Polyphemus (168). Payments for the first were made to Jonsonand Dekker between 10 August and 2 September (ff. 63v-64), and to Chettle for thesecond on 27 February (f. 53v). On 12 September the Company borrowed money 'tobye wemen gownes' for Page (f. 64), so presumably they were already rehearsing thepiece they had purchased just ten days before. By contrast, the second play had beenin their possession for some seven months before they borrowed eight shillings to paythe 'little tailor' for divers things for the production of Polyphemus (f. 64v).

A more extensive overview of a company's activities is provided by the Consoli-dated Weekly Accounts (Table IV) which bring together the players' various trans-actions with Henslowe on a weekly basis. The income accounts, representing apercentage of the total gallery income, are laid out in such a way as to reflect acompany's success from week to week and from season to season. This table alsoshows at a glance a company's playing schedule, how frequently new plays werestaged, and how these premieres affected the gallery receipts. When Henslowe beginsto record loans to the players, these advances can be compared with weekly income,and (when payments are recorded) with the actor's ability to pay back their loan. Thisprovides a running balance and shows a company's growing debt.

THE PLAYS IN THE PLAYHOUSE

The tabulation of Henslowe's accounts allows us to form a much clearer picture of theplayers' financial health from week to week, and to observe how the companiesallocated their fluctuating revenue. How we interpret these figures, of course, willdepend on our own preconceptions, and our knowledge of theatre practice drawnfrom other sources. To assess what the diary can tell us about the plays, therefore, itis necessary to review what we believe to have been the practice of Elizabethancompanies in preparing a script for production.

The manuscript delivered to the players was rarely a finished product. Like theproperties and costumes the actors acquired, a script had to meet certain theatricalspecifications. When a doublet did not fit it was altered. When a dramatic manuscriptproved unsatisfactory, all the evidence suggests that it was changed. Elizabethannotions of copyright protected printers and stationers; they did nothing for authors.While most of the changes made to a dramatist's work were probably minor, never-theless the progress of a script through the theatre from rehearsal to productioninvolved continual modifications.

THE PLAYS 73Playhouse alterations could be of several kinds. Some were merely annotations indi-

cating a need for special effects (Captives, lines 651, 867, 2395), designating thenumber of supernumeraries, eliminating small roles, or perhaps even ruling outdiscovery scenes (Greg 1950: 33, note 3). Others were changes in the text itself toreduce the playing time, or to eliminate literary or overly rhetorical passages (Hart1942: 121). That plays were cut in this way we know from the comments of authorssuch as Jonson, Webster, and Brome who asserted that the published versions of theirworks were longer than those presented in the theatre. Furthermore, certain manu-script plays such as Edmond Ironsides (lines 1390,1694) and Thomas of Woodstock(f. 167v) show signs that scenes or characters have been omitted in transcription orperformance.

Once the prompter or book-holder had adapted the dramatist's vision to therealities of the company's resources, he would make a transcription of the manuscriptto serve as the production prompt-book, sometimes annotating it still further to facili-tate its use in the playhouse. Stage directions were sometimes underlined or rewritten,warning cues put in the margin, and actors' names inserted. Occasionally, parts of thetext would be transcribed to another page for the convenience of the prompter (Greg1925: 156). The resulting prompt-book was the foundation upon which a productionwould be built, but it had to be supplemented by two other kinds of stage documents.First there were the actors' parts - long rolls of parchment containing the speeches ofa single character along with brief two- or three-word cues. Since these parts gave noindication of the length of time between speeches, or of the scene in which theyappeared, it was necessary to prepare a scene-by-scene outline of the play to help theactors identify their entrances. This 'plot' was pasted to a board, and hung backstagewhere it could be consulted by prompter and players during performance.

The play which finally reached the stage differed in several respects, therefore, fromthe manuscript which left the playwright's hands. Still further changes might be intro-duced during its life in the theatre. Even in the early performances, it is unlikely thatthe actors reproduced the text of the prompt-book exactly. Actors do not have infal-lible memories even when they are supplied with reliable scripts, and study of the onesurviving part from the period suggests that the scribes who prepared them could bevery careless (van Damm 1929). The fact that the plays were performed infrequentlyin repertoire with many other works led to a different kind of corruption, wherebyspeeches or images from one play would be transferred by the actor's faulty memoryto another. Even more radical changes might be introduced during the run of the piece,particularly if it had a long stage life. Popular works from the 1580s, such as The Jewof Malta or The Spanish Tragedy, were still being performed in the third decade of theseventeenth century, by which time they might have been frequently revised.

Henslowe's diary tells us disappointingly little about the early stages of scriptpreparation and rehearsal. Nevertheless, a comparison of literary and productionexpenses does enable us to work out a rudimentary schedule. The length of timebetween the final payment 'in full' to the playwright and payment for a licence, or forthe first production expense, is a reflection of the time (and possibly the care) taken in

74 THE PLAYSthe first stage of the theatrical life of a work. What is surprising about these figures isthe haste with which plays were often rushed into production. In a great many cases,pre-rehearsal preparations took only about two weeks. A period of a fortnight tostudy, annotate, transcribe, license, and prepare parts for a play is not long, andsuggests perhaps a certain slapdash efficiency. But what are we to make of cases suchas 1 Civil Wars of France (f. 50v), Fortunatus (f. 66), or Jephtha (ff. 105v-106v) whenthe prompt-books were prepared and presumably rehearsals begun in nine, six, andthree days respectively? The figures are only indicative, of course, but they do under-line a basic fact of the Elizabethan repertory system — that everything moved muchmore quickly than in a modern classical theatre, and the attention to detail we expectin contemporary productions was almost certainly impossible.

The reasons for these instances of exceptional haste can only be guessed. In one case,payments to Chettle for Vayvode actually postdated expenditures for production(f. 49v). This play was probably an old work belonging to Edward Alleyn which thecompany had made arrangements to produce, and which they subsequently purchasedfrom Alleyn in January 1599. Chettle's contribution was probably a prologue or alter-ation requested by the actors after rehearsals had begun.

Another example of hasty production is 2 Two Angry Women paid for 'in full' on12 February 1599 (f. 53v), almost two weeks after the first loan for production costs(f. 53). Unless the final payment to Porter was unaccountably delayed, the companyhad begun rehearsing before the play had been completed. The next most rapidstaging was that of 1 Civil Wars, mounted in about nine days. The play was completedby Dekker and Day on 29 September 1598, just twenty-five days after 2 Hannibal &Hermes by the same authors (f. 50, 50v). The actors put it into production in spite ofthe fact that they had other plays on hand, including 1 Brute which they subsequentlyproduced. Civil Wars must have been popular, since a sequel was paid for by3 November 1598 and put into rehearsal immediately.

The speed with which these plays were mounted raises interesting questions abouthow the actors planned their programme. What governed the choice of such plays?Why were they put ahead of other scripts which had been paid for and apparentlynever produced? Generally speaking, the players had to make three kinds of decisionwith respect to their repertoire. In each new season they would have to choose a cer-tain number of plays from those already rehearsed for their current programme, selectthe new plays to be produced, and decide whether or not to revive old plays fromprevious years. It is hard to imagine that such decisions would not be based, at leastin part, on an awareness of a play's popularity with the audience. We do not know ifthe players themselves kept a record of each play's income, but a table such as thatcompiled above for the Strange's Fall-Winter season of 1592-93 enables us to seehow closely programming decisions reflect financial success.

The season in question began late (29 December) after a six-month break. Of theplays that had been performed during the spring, nine were carried over into the newseason. These included five from the current repertoire (Bacon, Mollocco, Mandeville,Jew of Malta, and The Spanish Tragedy), and four of the five 'ne' plays. In some cases

THE PLAYS 75these choices are easily understandable. The Spanish Tragedy, Muly Molfacco andThe Jew of Malta were the three most popular old plays from the previous season,having been performed thirteen, eleven, and ten times respectively, and havingaveraged £1-17-0, £1-12-8, and £2-03-7 at the box office. The inclusion of FriarBacon and Sir John Mandeville, however, is more puzzling. Neither work had beenparticularly popular. Friar Bacon averaged £0-14-1 for four performances and SirJohn £1-05-8 for five, both below the seasonal average of £1-10-1. Here it is likely thatother factors, such as the wishes of the leading actor, may have overridden purelyeconomic considerations. Neither work did particularly well in the new season,averaging only £0-18-8 and eleven shillings, far below the average. Another curiousfeature of the programme is the omission of The Tanner of Denmark, which had beengiven its first (and only) performance on 23 or 26 May. The dropping of this workfrom the repertoire after only one appearance is the more puzzling in view of the factthat Henslowe recorded the second highest daily takings of the season at its premiere.

During this brief six-week Fall-Winter season the players produced two 'ne' playsand staged one revival. The Jealous Comedy opened just seven playing days after thebeginning of the season, so it is probable that rehearsals had begun before playingcommenced. The second 'ne' play, The Massacre at Paris, opened on 28 or 30 January,eighteen playing days after the premiere of The Jealous Comedy. There is some doubtthat this performance in fact represents the first production of Marlowe's play.Attendance reflected in Henslowe's receipts was high, but not significantly higher thanthat recorded at other premieres.

Another curious feature of this season is the revival of a previously unrecorded play,Cosmo, for two performances in January. There is no way of knowing when the playhad last been performed or how much rehearsal was required to ready it for the stage.It was first given on 11 or 12 January, just five playing days after the premiere of TheJealous Comedy, so there would have been ample time to make the necessarypreparations. Cosmo was relatively successful, but it is puzzling why the playersshould have scheduled an old play rather than repeating the one they had just opened.

Close scrutiny of Henslowe's income figures for the years 1592-7 enables us toobserve certain differences between seasons and companies. For example, in 1592Strange's Men performed no less than fifteen different works in the first seventeenplaying days (Table II. 1). Since much, if not all, of their time during this period waslikely to have been taken up with rehearsals of Henry VI (a new play which theyopened just eleven playing days after the beginning of the season), all of these worksmust have been mounted with little or no preparation. What is unusual is the smallnumber of repeated performances (only two in the first seventeen days). Furthermore,fully one-third of the works presented during this period were not staged again.Indeed, if we eliminate the three most popular plays (Muly Mollocco, The Jew ofMalta, and Jeronimo), then the Company gave forty-one performances of fifteen playsfor an average of less than three performances each. This is in sharp contrast to theAdmiral's Men's first season in 1594, when that Company relied on a relatively smallnumber of current works, giving 103 performances of thirteen plays. By 1595 the

76 THE PLAYSAdmiral's Men had a wider selection of plays in their repertoire, and gave a morevaried programme (twenty plays in ten weeks compared to only thirty plays in aseason more than four times as long) with relatively fewer performances of each play.These figures imply that both Strange's in 1592 and Admiral's in 1595 had a substan-tial number of works that they could mount with little rehearsal, and that they gavethe public a wide selection. In 1594 the players apparently had a smaller repertoireready to perform (possibly because their stock of playbooks had been divided whenthe companies split up during the period of plague), and as a result they were forcedto offer them more frequently. The fact that the income in 1594 was not materiallyaffected by the longer runs of individual plays may be explained by the public's thirstfor dramatic entertainment after the long prohibition of playing during most of 1593.

Perhaps the most difficult decisions the actors had to make were those relating to theselection of new plays. The normal period for the preparation of a new work seems tohave been about two weeks, but there were many deviations from this pattern. Some-times openings were delayed. The period of more than a month between Henry VI andTitus and Vespasian (Table II. 1) may have been to avoid Easter week. The opening ofa new play in either the week before or the week after Easter might not have signifi-cantly altered the receipts of those periods, which were traditionally the lowest andhighest of the season. Two weeks later, however, the premiere caused an increase inthe average weekly income. At other times, the failure to produce new plays may havebeen caused by troubles in the company. In the Fall-Winter season of 1596-97, theAdmiral's Men gave only seventeen performances in the first nine weeks. This nodoubt contributed to the delay in mounting the first new play, which was notpremiered until the sixth week of the season. Sometimes, preparations for new playsappear to have been rushed. When the Admiral's Men did begin presenting premieresin December 1596, they did so at the hectic rate of almost one a week for a period ofsome seven weeks (Table II.9).

Closely related to the staging of new plays was the problem of programmingrevivals. It is not always possible to identify such revivals, or to determine how muchtime and money was spent in their preparation. Sometimes Henslowe's records do notgo back far enough to establish the previous performance history of plays such asMuly Mollocco or Jeronimo, which may have been revivals in the first Strange'sseason. At other times, the absence of production expense accounts makes it imposs-ible to know if the players prepared alterations, or ordered new costumes for thestaging of old works between 1592 and 1596. In the first Admiral's season, The Jew ofMalta (performed by Strange's in 1592—93, and by Sussex's in 1594) was played on14 May, just one month after it had appeared in the Sussex—Queen's repertoire on 3April. In the same season, the company revived Guise (last acted by Strange's in 1593)as well as 1 and 2 Tamburlaine and Dr Faustus, which were also old plays by that time.In the Fall-Winter season of 1595-96, The Jew of Malta (last performed in December1594), was staged five days after the premiere of a new play; The Siege of London (lastpresented in March 1595) appeared three days after a new production; and TheWelshman (previously unrecorded) was mounted the day following a premiere. This

THE PLAYS 77ability of the Elizabethan players to revive works which had remained unperformedfor months (or even years) is an aspect of their work that seems particularlyastonishing.

The ratio of revivals to new plays may indicate something about the quality orsuccess of a season. In 1594 the Admiral's Men presented a large number of revivalsof works that had first appeared in the 1580s (Table 11.5). This group is difficult todefine exactly because in several cases the origin of a work is unknown. The two partsof Tamburlaine were performed by the earlier Admiral's Men before 1590, when thefirst part was published. Dr Faustus was probably acted by an unknown companybefore the worsening plague put an end to London playing in January 1593.Mahomet, The Siege of London, and Long Meg may also have been special revivalsand were possibly vehicles for the Company's leading actor, Edward Alleyn. Whatevertheir nature, all of these 'revivals' attracted larger-than-average crowds to their per-formances, and collectively did better business than the new plays presented thatseason.

Some light on the process of revision is also shed by Henslowe's accounts. In theyears from 1596 to 1603 about a dozen works were altered or 'mended' by thecompanies in Henslowe's theatres. Some of these revisions were for special occasions.For example, Thomas Dekker was paid £2-00-0 to alter his play Phaeton for Court(ff. 70v—71). The sum is about one-third of the fee paid for a new play, so it is likelythat the changes were substantial. On the other hand, the 'prologue & a epiloge' whichDekker supplied for 'ponesciones pillet' (Pontius Pilate?), while also probably for aCourt performance, did not likely affect the text of the old play itself (f. 96). Tasso'sMelancholy performed as a 'ne' play by the Admiral's Men in 1595, was restaged atthe Fortune in 1602, at which time Dekker was paid for two sets of alterations (ff. 96,108). Here we have fairly clear evidence of progressive revision which may very wellhave necessitated the alteration or transcription of the prompt-book.

By far the majority of payments for revisions recorded in Henslowe's diary are tosingle authors for changes in other men's work. In some cases we do not know thenames of the original authors, so it is possible (but unlikely) that Dekker, for example,had a hand in writing Fortunatus, Pontius Pilate, or Tasso's Melancholy, all of whichhe revised. But it was Chettle who was paid to revise Munday's 1 Robin Hood (f. 52);and Dekker who mended Sir John Oldcastle by Munday, Drayton, and Hathway(f. 115). Jonson's revisions of The Spanish Tragedy (f. 94), Middleton's alterations ofGreene's Friar Bacon (f. 108v), and Rowley and Bird's changes in Dr Faustus arespecial cases, since the original authors, Kyd, Greene, and Marlowe, were all dead. ButDekker's revisions of his own Phaeton some three years after it was first producedseems to be an exceptional case.

The question of collaborative revision is more complex. There is one series of entriesin the diary which indicates that the process was not unknown. Early in 1602Hathway, Day, and Smith collaborated on a second part of Black Dog of Newgate forWorcester's Men, for which they were paid £7-00-0 in full on 3 February (f. 119v).The Company purchased costumes by 15 February, and were presumably planning to

78 THE PLAYSstage the play shortly thereafter. Between 21 and 26 February, however, they paid thethree playwrights an extra £2-00-0 for 'adicyones' (f. 120). This looks suspiciouslylike last-minute changes necessitated by some unforeseen emergency — possiblyobjections by the censor. In this case the revisions were part of the original collab-orative effort so all of the writers participated. It may or may not be significant thatthe revision was undertaken for Worcester's, not for Admiral's Men, and that itappears to have been done in a rush (since preparations for production were alreadyunder way). From the evidence of Henslowe's diary, however, we would have to saythat the kind of collaborative revision evident in the manuscript play Sir Thomas Moreis apparently not contrary to contemporary practice.

Since the acting companies were primarily self-dependent, commercial organiz-ations, their health (and indeed their survival) depended on their ability to limit theirexpenses to what they could afford. A particularly startling feature of the picture thediary reveals, therefore, is the apparent extravagance of the staging. Compared to£5-00-0 or £8-00-0 paid out for a play, the actors would spend £20-00-0, £30-00-0,or even more on production. These figures may be unusual, and it is true that otherplays appear to have been staged at minimal or even no cost. But the relatively largeproportion of unassignable production expenses, and evidence that the playersoccasionally paid production costs from their own pockets suggest that considerableattention was paid to the physical aspect of production. It is interesting, in this respect,to compare the players' spending on plays and production in the seasons for which wehave records. These expenses, expressed as weekly averages, can be summarized asfollows:

SeasonF-W1597-8S-S 1598F-W 1598-99S-S1599S1599F-W 1599-1600S-S 1600

Literary1-07-94-03-03-14-81-08-41-16-13-19-92-03-5

Production0-14-51-17-06-14-93-13-30-13-92-03-93-07-7

Move to FortuneF-W 1600-01S-S 1601F-W 1601-02

0-14-52-01-62-01-8

S-S-F-W1602-03 2-06-11

1-00-33-09-33-04-41-00-3

Ratio2:12:11:21:22:12:12:3

2:32:32:3p

In this, as in so many other examples, however, the information provided by thediary is ambiguous. The true explanation of the apparently higher production costs incertain seasons may never be known. Similarly, the exact identity of plays such as'harey the vj' must remain a mystery, as must details about the players' organizationand their dealings with dramatists and craftsmen. In the final analysis it could beargued that the diary reveals nothing, or at best merely reflects each reader's precon-ceptions. That may be true. But it is all the more reason why the document should bereturned to again and again. The discursive commentary which makes up the bulk of

THE PLAYS 79this volume is intended to raise rather than to answer questions. The tables are forreaders interested in pursuing certain questions further than they have been followedin the commentary. Together they may stimulate an interest in the theatrical contextof the Elizabethan drama and lead readers back to the diary itself.

6 • TABLES AND SUMMARIES

INFORMATION in the diary has been tabulated in the following pages in a form that,it is hoped, will prove useful to readers wishing to question certain conclusions inearlier chapters, or to follow up other lines of enquiry. The chronological list of the

plays (Table I) establishes a number for each work mentioned in the diary which isoccasionally used as the sole means of identifying a play. This means of identificationhas been resorted to in the Performance Calendar (Table II) where it was impossibleto spell out the titles in full. Consequently, readers consulting the calendar will needto make frequent reference to the list of titles.

As explained in the text, the Performance Calendar, which is based on the 1592-7income accounts, is arranged to show both the dating recorded in the diary (thecalendar on the left-hand side), and an adjustment of those dates that has beensuggested by W. W. Greg (the calendar on the right). In the former the dates of per-formance recorded by Henslowe are shown; the beginning of the playing week isunderlined, and the dates of the 'ne' performances are indicated by an asterisk. Theright-hand calendar shows the date of performance (by location), the title of the play(by number above the line), and the income recorded by Henslowe (in pounds,shillings, and pence below the line). Following Greg's theory, the dates in the right-hand calendar have been adjusted to avoid Sunday performances, and the weeklytotals (based on those adjusted dates) have been recorded in a separate column to pro-vide a basis for comparison with weekly figures in later years.

The loan accounts which Henslowe maintained between 1596-1603 have beenseparated into literary and production expenses which are shown on facing pages. Onthe left, because they usually preceed the production costs, are all advances relating toplays and playwrights with the exception of payments for licences, which areconsidered a production expense. Facing them are the loans for costumes, propertiesand other miscellaneous expenses involved in running the company. All expenses aredivided into seasons (although in the case of payments to authors such a division isrelatively arbitrary). This division enables a reader to see at a glance how thecompanies allocated their funds from year to year.

In the record of literary expenses (Table IILa) payments relating to individual playsare brought together and the information contained in the various entries sum-marized. Dates of the first and last payments are recorded along with the names of thesharers who approved the loans, and those of the authors receiving the money.Whether the sums represent full or partial payment, and whether those payments weremade for an old play or for alterations is recorded to indicate the play's status. If thereis evidence that the play was subsequently produced, this too is reported. Finally, the

80

TABLES AND SUMMARIES 81total amount paid for the work (in that particular season) is specified in the lastcolumn.

The production expenses on the facing pages (Table Ill.b) are arranged somewhatdifferently. In those cases where advances were for a particular play, they are enteredin a 'specified total' column. Payments which cannot be linked to a particular pro-duction, and advances for non-dramatic activities such as loans, entertainment, orwages are listed in an 'unspecified total' column.

Information from both income and loan accounts is brought together in Table IV,and both weekly and seasonal totals recorded. This table consolidates all the theatricalaccounts to show the players' financial dealings week by week, and season by season.From 1596, the weekly income is compared with weekly expenses (including repay-ments to Henslowe), and a running balance is maintained. Where the titles of 'ne'plays are known, they are listed in the column headed 'Details' in the week when thepremiere occurred. After 1597, when the daily performance records cease, the titles ofnew productions are derived from the loan accounts, and the date of the premiere issuggested by the insertion of the title in square brackets.

One final summary (Table V) compiles all the seasonal totals to show how thevarious companies fared year by year.

TABLE 1. A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF PLAY TITLES MENTIONED IN THE DIARY

1 Friar Bacon2 Muly Mollocco3 Orlando4 Don Horatio5 Sir John Mandeville6 Henry of Cornwall7 Jew of Malta8 Clorys and Orgasto9 PopeJoan

10 Machiavel11 Henry VI12 Bendo and Richardo13 Four Plays in One14 Looking-Glass for London15 Zenobia16 Jeronimo (Spanish Tragedy)17 Constantine18 Jerusalem19 Brandimer20 Titus and Vespasian21 2 Tamar Cham22 Tanner of Denmark23 Knack to Know a Knave24 Jealous Comedy25 Cosmo26 Guise (Massacre at Paris)27 God Speed the Plough28 Huon of Bordeaux29 George a Green30 Buckingham31 Richard the Confessor32 William the Conqueror33 Friar Francis34 Abraham and Lot35 Fair Maid of Italy36 KingLud3 7 Titus Andronicus38 Ranger's Comedy39 King Lear40 Cutlack41 Hester and Ahasuerus42 Bellendon43 Hamlet44 Taming of a Shrew45 Galiaso46 Philipo and Hippolito47 Godfrey of Boulogne4 8 Merchant of Emden49 Tasso's Melancholy50 Mahomet51 Venetian Comedy

52 1 Tamburlaine5 3 Palamon and Arcite54 Love of an English Lady55 DrFaustus56 Grecian Comedy57 French Doctor5 8 Knack to Know an Honest Man59 1 Caesar and Pompey60 Diocletian61 Warlamchester62 Wise Man of West Chester63 Set at Maw64 2 Tamburlaine65 Siege of London66 Antony and Vallia67 French Comedy68 Long Meg of Westminster69 Mack70 Seleo and Olympio71 1 Hercules72 2 Hercules73 Seven Days of the Week74 2 Caesar and Pompey75 Longshanks76 Crack me this Nut77 New World's Tragedy78 Disguises79 Wonder of a Woman8 0 Barnardo and Fiammetta81 Toy to Please Chaste Ladies82 Henry V83 Welshman84 Chinon of England85 Pythagoras86 2 Seven Days of the Week87 1 Fortunatus88 Blind B eggar of A lexandria8 9 Julian the Apostate90 1 Tamar Cham91 Phocas92 Troy93 Paradox94 Tinker of Totness95 Vortigern96 Stukeley97 Nebuchadnezzar98 That Will Be Shall Be99 Alexander and Lodowick

100 Woman Hard to Please101 Osric102 Guido

82

103 Five Plays in One104 Time's Triumph105 UtherPendragon106 Comedy of Humours107 Henry I108 Frederick and Basilea109 Hengist110 Martin Swart111 Witch of Islington112 Sturgeflattery113 Hardicanute114 Friar Spendleton115 Bourbon116 The Cobbler117 (Book of Yong Harton)118 Branholt119 (Benjamin's Plot)120 Alice Pierce121 Blackjoan122 Mother Redcap123 Dido124 Phaeton125 1 Robin Hood126 Woman Will Have Her Will127 2 Robin Hood128 The Miller129 Triplicity of Cuckolds130 Henry I and Prince of Wales131 1 Earl Goodwin132 Pierce of Exton133 King Arthur134 1 Black Bateman135 2 Earl Goodwin136 Love Prevented137 Funeral of Richard138 111 of a Woman139 2 Black Bateman140 Madman's Morris141 Woman's Tragedy142 1 Hannibal and Hermes143 Valentine and Orsen144 Pierce of Winchester145 1 Brutus146 (A Comedy for the Court)147 Hot Anger Soon Cold148 Chance Medley149 Cataline150 Vayvode151 2 Hannibal152 1 Civil Wars of France153 Fount of New Fashion154 Mulmutius Dun wallow155 Brute Greenshield

156 Conan, Prince of Cornwall157 (Chapman's Playbook)158 2 Civil Wars of France159 3 Civil Wars of France160 Tis No Deceit161 War Without Blows162 Two Merry Women of Abington163 William Longsword164 Intro to Civil Wars of France165 World Runs on Wheels166 Joan as Good as My Lady167 Friar Fox168 Polyphemus169 Two Merry Women of Abington170 The Spencers171 Four Kings172 Troilus and Cressida173 Orestes174 Agamemnon175 All Fools176 Gentle Craft (Shoemaker's Holiday)177 Pastoral Tragedy178 Stepmother's Tragedy179 Bear a Brain180 Page of Plymouth181 Poor Man's Paradise182 Robert II, King of Scots183 (PlaybyMarston)184 Tristram of Lyonesse185 1 Sir John Oldcastle186 2 Sir John Oldcastle187 Patient Grissell188 Tragedy of John Cox189 2 Henry of Richmond190 Tragedy of Merry191 Orphan's Tragedy192 Arcadian Virgin193 Italian Tragedy194 Owen Tudor195 Truth's Supplication196 Jugurtha197 Spanish Moor's Tragedy198 Damon and Pythias199 Seven Wise Masters200 Ferrex and Porrex201 English Fugitives202 Cupid and Psyche203 Wooing of Death204 Devil and His Dame205 Strange News Out of Poland206 1 Blind Beggar ofBethnal Green207 Judas208 1 Fair Constance of Rome

83

209 2 Fair Constance of Rome210 Fortune's Tennis211 Robin Hood's Pennyworths212 Hannibal and Scipio213 Scogen and Skelton214 2 BlindBeggar of Bethnal Green215 Conquest of Spain216 All is Not Gold that Glisters217 Conquest of West Indies218 King Sebastian219 Six Yeomen of the West220 3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green221 1 Cardinal Wolsey222 Earl of Gloucester223 Friar Rush and the Proud Woman224 2 Tom Dough225 Life of Cardinal Wolsey226 1 Six Clothiers227 2 Six Clothiers228 Too Good to be True229 Spanish Fig230 Prologue to Pontius Pilate231 Malcolm King of Scots232 Love Parts Friendship233 Bristol Tragedy234 Jephthah235 Tobias236 Caesar's Fall237 Richard Crookback238 Danish Tragedy239 Widow's Charm240 Medicine for a Curst Wife241 Samson242 Philip of Spain243 Play of William Cartwright244 Felmelanco

NOTE: Italic titles extant

245 Mortimer246 Earl Hertford247 Joshua248 Randal, Earl of Chester249 As Merry as May Be250 Set at Tennis251 1 London Florentine252 Prologue and Epilogue for Court253 Hoffman254 Singer's Voluntary255 Four Sons of Aymon25 6 Boss of Billingsgate25 7 Siege of Dunkirk258 (PlayofChettle)259 2 London Florentine260 Patient Man & Honest Whore261 Like Unto Like262 Roderick263 (Chettle's Tragedy)264 AlbereGalles265 Marshal Osric266 Cutting Dick267 Byron268 Two (Three) Brothers269 (PlaybyMiddleton)270 1 Lady Jane271 2 Lady Jane272 Christmas Comes But Once a Year273 1 Black Dog of Newgate274 Blind Eats Many a Fly275 Unfortunate General276 (Play by Chettle and Heywood)277 2 Black Dog of Newgate278 A Woman Killed With Kindness279 Italian Tragedy280 Shore

84

II.l

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

Spring-Summer 1592 ( S t r a n g e ' s )

Fol Su

720

Su

Su

7v

30

Su

7

February

Mo

21

28

Tu

29

March

Mo

6

n20

27

Tu

7

14

21

28

We

23

1?92Th

24

1592We

1

8

22

29

APRIL :

Mo

1

10

12

&

Mo

\

Tu

4

We

5

11*12

18

25

19

26

MAY :

Tu

9

We

3

10

Th

9

16

23

30

Fr

25

Fr

y10

17

31

L592Th

6

13

20

27

Fr

7

14

21

Sa

1126

Sa

11

18

25

Sa

1

8

15

22

28*29

L592Th

4

11

Fr

5

Sa

6

n

Sunday

20

27

Sunday

5

12

19

26E

Sunday

2

9

16

23

30

Sunday

7

F e b r» u a r

Monday

21-09-08

0-18-0

Monday

1-11-6

41-09-0

161-18-0

142-15-0

Monday

101-02-0

i^o?Po2

1-10-0

161-08-0

Monday

22-18-0

l^ofco

Tuesdy

2

y 1 !

Wedsdy

40-13-6

March 1592

Tuesdy

113-00-0

164-11-0

0-12-011

3-08-0

Wedsdy

90-15-0

140-07-0

15

180-18-0

23-02-0

5 9 2Thusdy

0-12 6

Thusdy

10

1-02-6

6_

60-13-6

41-19-0

APRIL 1592Tuesdy

_ 7 _2-03-0

20*

230cV6

182^06^0

Wedsdy

112-01-0

121-03-0

14

11-04-0

MAY 1592

Tuesdy

16

111-02-0

Wedsdy

202-17-620

1-10-0

Thusdy

1-02-0

11

l^oS^o20

2^13^02

1^06^0

Thusdy

112II5I0

Friday

186

1-12-0

Friday

11*

21-08-6

163-00-0

Friday

16

161-13-0

111-13-0

21*3-04-0

Friday

2-01-0

211-17-0

Satday

10-17-3

2-10-0

Satday

120-16-011

2-07-6

i^T^o1

- 15 6

Satday

1-10-0

21-03-0

40-17-0

6

Satday

1

infco

Total

0-17-3

7-13-6

Total

8-13-8

11-04-6

9-19-0

4-17-0

Total

15-14-0

8-17-0

10-00-0

10-08-6

10-14-0

Total

13-00-6

8-13-0

85

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

MAY 1592

Fol Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

14 15 16 17 18 19. 20

21 22 23*24 2£ 26 27

29 30 31

JUNE 1592

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

8 5 6 7 8 9 10*

12 13 14 15 16

18 19 20 21 22

MAY 1592

21

28

16 11 _20_ _J_ 2 _6_335510 2-10-0 3-00-0 2-00-0 1^16^6 1-06-011 7 Jt JLl 22» 20

^PPo 1-08-0 1-07-0 3-13-6 1-10-0

11 21 161-04-0 1 15 6 1-03-0

JUNE 1592

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

4

11

18

12 20 _lj£_ «21_ _l6 _ £1-12-0 2-02-0 1-09-0 2-00-0 1^55^0 3-12-0

111-12-0 1-00-0 1-18-0 2-12-0 1-00-0 17

16 11 21 231-11-0 0-15-0 1-12-0 1-07-0

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

Total

8-05-6

8-02-0

24 6-09-0

Total 181-10-5

8v

I I . 2 Fall-Winter 1592-21 (Strange*s)

DECEMBER 1592

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

22 30

31

JANUARY I593

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 3 4 5* 6

8 9 10 12 13

14 rj 16 17 18 19 20

22 23 24 25

20 31

DECEMBER 1592Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

2 7 2 8 ^ ^

Total

31JANUARY 1593

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

23 7 23 i_ 24* 201-10-0 2-16-0 1-09-0 0-12-C

7 _lL- _ 2 _ 1 25f 1-02-0 1-00-0 l o5To 2 o£"C

28

JA0 0-09-0 1-

21- _ J _1__ _ ? _ 21 21-10-0 2^05^0 1-00-0 3-00-0 1^16^0 l CXM)

16 25 23 20 26* 3_1-00-0 1-10-0 1-04-0 1-10-0 37l5::0 0-12-0

— 3 -0-12-0 30

Total

7-03-0

9-10-0

86

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

FEBRUARY 1593

F o l Su Mo Tu We Th F r Sa

8v 1

FEBRUARY 1593

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

2 3 3-13-0

Total 2*8-19-01-15-0

I I . 3 ? a l l Winter 1593-9*+ (Sussex's )

Su

30

Su

20

27

Su

DECEMBER

Mo

31

Tu We

JANUARY

Mo

7

Hi21

28

Tu

1

8

15

22

We

2

9

16

1593

Th Fr

27 28

1594

Th Fr

3 4

10 11

17 18

23*

FEBRUARY

Mo

4

Tu We

6

31

1594

Th Fr

Sa

29

Sa

5

12

Sa

Sunday

30

Sunday

6

13

20

27

Sunday

3

Monday

1-18-0

Monday

3-01-0

1J1033

1-10-0

^ 0 _0-18-0

Monday

2rifeo

DECEMBER

Tuesdy

25

Wedsdy

273-01-0

JANUARY

Tuesdy

2-18-0

1-03-0

-22-1-00-0

1-02-0

2-00-0

Wedsdy

0-18-0

-2L2-12-0

0-11-0

1 * 0

30

FEBRUARY

Tuesdy

5

Wedsdy

2-00-0

1593

Thusdy

28

1594

Thusdy

280-14-0

1-02-0

1-10-0

3-08-0

0-12-0

1594

Thusdy

7

Friday

3Jro

Friday

1-02-0

280-05-0

1-02-0

25

Friday

1

8

Satday

2-11-0

Satday

270-11-0

0-09-0

19

26

Satday

2

9

Total

Total

12-12-0

Total

8-01-0

8-12-0

5-19-0

7-05-0

Total

3-10-0

4-10-0

50-09-0

87

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

I I . k SPRING 159*+ (SUSSEX'S AND QUEEN'S)

APRIL 159*+ APRIL

F o l Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy F r i d a y Satday T o t a l

9 i 2 3 *+ 5 6 E _ 1 _ _ _ _

2-03-0 3-00-0 3-00-0 1-03-0 i^XEo 1-18-0

7 8 7 <-r£-n <-?r-^ 10 11 12

I I . t o SPRING 159*+ (ADMIRAL'S)

MAY 159*+ MAY

I I . t o SPRING 159*+ (ADMIRAL'S & CHAMBERLAIN'S)

JUNE 159*+

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

3 ^ + 5 6 8*

9 10 11-12 13 15

I I . 5 SPRING-SUMMER-FALL-WINTER 159*+-95 (ADMIRAL'S)

JUNE 159*+ JUNE 159**-

1-02-0 2^PT0 1-10-0

88

Su Mo Tu We Th F r Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy F r i d a y Satday T o t a l9 iR lid

j> 15 16 12 13 2 55 0 l^rp) 2 ^ t o 1? l 8 6-03-0

Sunday

2

9

Monday

3

0-17-0

Tuesdy

oi^jgio

JUNE 1«

Wedsdy

0-05-0

59*+

ThusdyJ

oTTo-c

0-09-0

Friday

) 0-12-

0-07-0

Satday

0 OuiI-0

7

Total

Total

2-01-0

2-10-0

4-11-0

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Ftlday Satday Total

1? 18 19 20 22 16 .,42 1 8 4-£L -28 26

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

JUNE 1594

Fol

9

9v

Su

23

30

Su

Su

Mo

24

Mo

8

%1

22

29

Tu We Th

25 26*27

JULY \

Tu We

2 3

9*10

16 17

23 24

30*31

Th

11

18

25

AUGUST 1594

Mo Tu We Th

Fr

Fr

5

12

Sa

Sa

6

13

19*20

26

Fr

27

Sa

nd 5 6 J I3

10

11*12 13 14 15 17

18 19 20 21 22 24

10 25*26 27 28 29

SEPTEMBER 1594

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13

l i 16 17*18 19 20 21

JUNE 1594

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

38 7 40 26 45* 4023 2-19-0 1-03-0 1-05-0 l^

30

3-021-0 1-16-

Total

12-03-0

JULY 1594

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

7 42 26 40 38 422-01-0 2-02-6 1-11-0 1^0*M) 0-18-0 1-

26 46* 7 42 45 467 1-07-0 3-02-0 1-07-0 1-07-0 2-06-0 2-00-0

14

21

40 26 38 .46 47* 421-15-0 1-11-0 0-15-0 1-13-0 3-11-0 1-07-0

7_ 45 46 42 47 261-11-0 1-11-0 1-10-0 2^05^0 2-07-0 1-02-0

OP *+0 48* 42^ 1-09-0 3-08-0 l^OM)

AUGUST 1594

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy .Friday Satday

38 46

Total

9-10-6

11-09-0

10-12-0

10-09-0

i-03-6

4

11

18

470-13-6 1-10-0 1-03-6

26 7 40-17-0 1-09-0 1-03-6 0-17-6 0-13-6

42 49* 45 47 50 46l-13-O 335510 0-18-0 1-09-0 3-O5-O 1-01-0

26 49 421-00-0 2-07-0 1-01-0

JS5_ JiL-6 1-01-6 1-03-6

25 *+6 51* 47 50 52 42-> 1-08-0 2-10-6 1-07-6 2-00-0 3-11-0 1-00-6

SEPTEMBER 1594

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

1 7 . ^9 46 51 40 26

1-03-6 2^0g-0 1-02-0 1^1516 oZTTIo (M7^6

2-00-0 1-15-0 1-05-0 1-04-6 2-05-0 1-

15 -5 i - _28 _52 491-16-6 0-15-0 2-ii-o I^OTC

46 4717P6 I^ICM

Total

9-11-0

7-07-6

11-10-0

7-07-6

11-17-6

Total

7-16-6

9-09-6

8-14-6

89

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

SEPTEMBER 1594

SU MO TU We Th Fr Sa

10 22 23 24*25 26 28

29 30

OCTOBER 1594

SEPTEMBER 1594

6 7 8 9 11

12 14 15 16 1? 18

10v 20 21 22*23 24 25

27 28 29 30

NOVEMBER 159*+Su~Mo Tu We Th F r Sa

1 2

4 5 5 7 8* 9

11 12 13 14 15 16*

18 20 21 22 23

£5 26 27 28 29 30

DECEMBER I594

Su" Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

I 2* 3 4 6

8 9 10 12 13 14*

11 17 19 20

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday51 4^_ 54* 26 4022 1-08-0 1-05-0 (M?^6 2-07-0 0-14-0 0-13-0

OCTOBER 1594

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

2 3 ** 0-17-0 3-12-0 0-10-0 0-17-0 l^ttTo

6 IToaro (M2To 1-07-0 2^05^0 n

13 J±2_ _io J1-> 1-02-0 1^05^0 1-

_2L -52- _2_0 1-07-0 2-00-0 1-02-0_Z_ -55- J2H J£- -2L Jii-

0-13-0 1-13-0 2-00-0 1-03-0 1-03-0 o-ii-o

27 _£L _57_ _J_ 72-07-0 0-15-0 2-07-0 0-15-0

NOVEMBERSunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

58 423-03-0 0-07-0

53120

Total

7-03-0

Total

8-13-0

5-19-0

8-O5-O

1-03-0

* 1-19-0 1-18-0 0-15-0 2 05="0 3-02-0 0-12-010 -2L JSL JSL 59 42 60*

1-01-0 1-05-0 0-15-0 1-15-0 CM2lO 2^15^017 1Q 55 58 60 56

1-07-0 ~ 0-18-0 1-00-0 2-03-0 0-10-0

1-12-0 0-13-0 1-02-0 l^o5To 1-00-0 1^15^0

DECEMBER I594Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

1 _j6 62* 49 Dy0-04-0 1-13-0 (T06^0 0-11-0 6

8 - 5 5 . 7 59 61 58 63*0-15-0 0-03-0 0-12-0 0-15-0 0-12-0 2-04-0

15 1 6

Total

9-14-0

10-10-0

8-02-0

5-18-0

7-08-0

Total4-08-0

5-01-0

4-15-0

90

DECEMBER 1594

Fol Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

11 2^ 26 27

22 30

JANUARY 1595Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa'

1 2 3 ^

2 9 10 11

12 14 15 17 18

19 21 22 23 24 25

27 28 29 30 31

FEBRUARY 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

H) 11*12 13 14 15

llv 17_ 18 19 20 21*22

24 25 26 27 28 29

MARCH 1595

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

DECEMBER 1594

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

22 23 24 25 2 i O 3 | : o 2 4 2 : o 8-01-°2 g 62 52^ 3-02-0 1-02-0

JANUARY 1595Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

64 JSJL1 0 1 0

66

5

12

62 501-04-0

58 5L -55-Toglo 1-04-0 1-01-0 0-18-0

o —SL J21 62 65 68y 1-00-0 2-10-0 2-13-0 1-09-0 3-09-0

16

23

52 64 62 68 69* 561-10-0 l^ISTo 2^55T0 2^08^0 3^0010 l ^

-22- _SL ^ . _67_ 622-14-0 1-00-0 1-04-0 2-00-0 1-19-0

MARCH 1595

2 4 5* 6 65 68 70* 591 06 0 3-00-0 3-00-0 1-00-0

10-02-03-02-0 1-04-0 1-01-0 0-11-0j j c£ j^g

8 1-02-0 1-08-0 1-00-0 i^12-0

9-06-0

1-02-065 62 63 59 __

l-13-O 1-08-0 3-00-0 1-05-0 1-05-0 0-15-0

1 9 2 0 l TSIO 1-12-0 3^05^0 1-04-0 0-15-0 8-13-0

9fi 52 63 64 5? 56co 1-10-0 1-07-0 2-07-0 0-18-0 1-08-0

FEBRUARY 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

8-14-0

9-18-0

12-00-0

12-00-0

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

8-06-0

91

MARCH 1595

^ Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

llv 10 11 12 13 14

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

MARCH 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

9 J LTotal

_2L_ J!t- JL- JLL1-10-0 1-02-0 1-08-0 0-14-0

Total 339-07-0

APRIL 1595

I I . 6 SPRING-SUMMER, 1595 (ADMIRAL'S)

APRIL 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday SatdaySu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

21 23 24 25 26

27 29 30 31

MAY 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

iL L J l1-09-0 1-07-0 1-02-0

MAY 1595

1 2 3

J2 6 7* 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16 17

12v 12 20 21 22 23*24

26 27 28 29 30 21

JUNE 1595

68

-2L JL. J 11-03-0 2-00-0 3-13-0

67 68

i r 5 g r I g

2-10-0 2-10-0 0-11-0

51 70 J ^1-10-0 1^06^0 1-09-'

62

11-0

09-0

T o t a l

15-06-0

1ft 52 641 0 2 0 1 0 51-03-0 3-09-0 1-02-0 1-05-0 3-10-0 1-02-0

JZ- -2L- _Z2_ ^ 2 _ j ^ 6?1-11-0 3-00-0 3-02-0 1-09-0 0-09-0 0-15-0

JUNE 1595

Total

9-09-0

11-01-0

8-08-0

11-11-0

10-06-0

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday Total

3* 4 5 6 7

2 10 11 12 13 14

3-10-0 1-02-0 0-17-0 2-

73 62 71 72

0-15-0

sun

73 18-00-02-15-0 3-06-0 2-07-0 3-01-0 3-02-0 3-09-0

92

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

JUNE 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa"

12v 16 17 18*19 20 21

23 24 25 26

Sunday

22

Monday

161-05-0

3-05-0

Tuesdy

671-01-0

JUNE

Wedsdy

2-15-0

1595

Thusdy

681-02-0

JZfL1-00-0

Friday

661-00-0

Satday

0-13-0

28

Total

Total

7-16-0

107-02-0

II.7

AUGUST 1595

FALL-WINTER 1595-96 (ADMIRAL'S)

AUGUST 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

25 26 27 28 29*30

SEPTEMBER 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5* 6

£ 10 11 12 13

13 nd 1J5 16 17*18 19 20

2222 23 24 25 26

28 29 30

OCTOBER 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2* 3 ^

I 7 8 9 10

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

3 £2_ _71_ 68 75* 657-0 1-19-0 2-13-0O-17-

31

-13-0 0-17-0 2-00-0 0-18-0

SEPTEMBER 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

71 72 73 70 76* 663-04-0 3-00-0 2-12-0 0-18-0 3-01-0 0-13-0

7 _£2_ J£_ J£_ JJL J£L §8^ 2-04-0 3-00-0 1-12-0 3-00-0 1-18-0

21

-5L. J£L- J22!L - 2 - J5 J l l .1-01-0 1-00-0 3-05-0 0-17-0 Oul^O 0-17-0

73 71 72 76 77 55

76 ^ 2 .3^06^0 0-15-0

OCTOBER 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

68

62J2L002-00-0 0-17-0 1-12-0 1-

75 78* 701-12-0 2-03-0 0-15-0 0-11-0

'6 J§6_ 2 § _0-10-0 1-09-0

Total

9-04-0

Total

13-08-0

12-10-0

7-16-0

9-11-0

Total

9-02-0

7-14-0

93

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

OCTOBER 1595 OCTOBER 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

13 12 13 14 15*16 17

12 20 21 22 23 24 2£

26 27 28*29 30

NOVEMBER 1595

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2 3 4 5 6 nd

14 2 1° 12 13 14*15

18 19 20 21 22

24 25 26 27 28*29

21

DECEMBER 1595

Su~Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2 3 4 6

8 10 12

14 16 18

22 25 26

28 29 30

JANUARY 1596

J l JZX.-10-0 1-08-0

19

26

-22. 31- _1-09-0 1-05-0 0-17-0 2-13-0 0-

62 76 75 77 79 760-17-0 1-01-0 1-10-0 1-13-0 1-03-0 1-03-0

71 66 78 80* 731-12-0 1-07-0 0-19-0 2-02-0 0-13-0

NOVEMBER 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

1-09-072 77 79 76 80 6279 76 80 62

1-08-0 1-09-0 1-07-0 1-04-0 0-17-0 1-00-052 64 81* 73

0-18-0 1-12-0 2-11-0 0-18-076 80 79 81 70

1-04-0 0-06-0 1-00-0 1-01-0 0-04-6

o 33- JZL. -2L- J§i- -81*. 31-y 1-13-0 0-15-0 0-18-0 1-12-0 2-11-0 0-18-0

16 1JJ1_ 72 J?l_ JEL J*|* 830 1-00-0 (M5^0 0-18-0 0-18-0 3 06 0 0-07-0

30

DECEMBER 1595

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

81 82 80

7

14

21

28

0-12-0 1-15-0 0-07-0-§2- o -ZJL

2-03-0

JZ2_1-00-0

9

821-09-0

23

1-10-0

17

24

11 1-11-6

3k-0-15-0

13

19 20

2 5 3-02-0 2^HP)82 75 62

231310 1-12-0 1-02-0

JANUARY 1596

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

1 2 3*73 76 84*

2-02-0 0-09-0 2-10-0

Total

8-02-0

7-07-0

Total

8-02-0

7-05-0

8-07-0

3-15-6

7-05-0

Total

4-03-0

5-04-6

3-06-0

7-00-0

Total

10-11-0

94

JANUARY 1596

Fol Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

14 j> 6 7 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 I6*nd

14v 18JL9 20 21 22*23

25 26 27 28 29 30

FEBRUARY I596

Su~Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2 3 ^ 5 6 7

2 10 11 12*13

lj) 16 17 18 19 20

22 23 24 25 26 27

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

JANUARY 1596

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

. 82 JJ1_ _J8_ _77_ _ 7 81* 1^05^0 3-00-0 1-00-0 0-18-0 2^16^0 0-18-0

u _§i_ Jl- -Zi. J±- -§2. -62.11 2-10-0 0-15-0 1-03-0 1-07-0 3-01-0 0-18-0

1-18-0 1-00-0 0-11-0 1-13-0 3-00-0 l^f£

77-14-0 1^

860-1

84 8 71-O5-0

79* -1-01-0 1-10-0 1-05-0 0-11-0

FEBRUARY 1596

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

1 7 87 62 75 82 762-17-0 3-00-0 0-12-0 cuTM) 0-I8-0 0-19-0

8 87 84 88* 550 0 0 1 0 0

85l 1 5

88 70 88 87

Total

9-18-0

9-14-0

9-18-0

6-05-0

Total

9-00-0

8 utifco 2 00 0 l OOTo y^Q 1 ^ 0 ^ ^°^°1 c o^ 00 ( (v 00 or i n r*£ o1 5 1-15-0 3^05^0 l^ooio (JiToro 2^T>o 1^02^0 1 0 - ° 6 - °

22 88 851-14-

840 2^

73 88 75 11-16-01-00-0 3-00-0 1-10-0

Total 224-15-0

I I . 8 SPRING-SUMMER 1596 (ADMIRAL'S)

APRIL 1596 APRIL 1596

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

15v 12 13 14 15 16 17

1£ 20 21 22 23 24

26 27 28 29*30

88 58 621-10-0 1-19-0 0-18-0 2-00-0 0-11-0 1-10-0

85 84la - 5 1 . _Z_ . 2 1 . JLL J§!L 821 0 0-12-0 1-00-0 0-14-0 0-18-0 1-00-0 0-15-0

88 77 75 89* 622 5 , 2-00-0 1-09-0 1-00-0 2-07-0 0-10-0

Total

8-08-0

4-19-0

95

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

MAY 1596 MAY I596

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy

21v

2

16

23

3

10

17

24

4

11

18

25

5

12

6*

13

19*20

26 27

7

14

22

2

9

16

23Whit-30sun

84 88 8 551 0 0 01-00-0 1-15-0 1-00-0 1-00-0

89 87 90 88l OcPo C^uPO 2-05-0 2-00-0

84 90 88 91*1-13-0 2::Oo O 2-09-0 2-05-0

85 91 87 901-07-0 1-19-0 O^PM) 1-00-0

Friday

_22*2-07-0

1-04-0

0-14-0

821-03-0

Satday

1-02-0

JZL.0-18-0

15

22

840-09-0

Total

8-08-0

8-00-0

7-13-0

9-07-0

6-12-0

3-00-0

JUNE 1596 JUNE 1596

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

_2L_ J22-1-11-0 1-08-0

20

27

7

Hi

21

1

8

15

CM CMCM CM

2

9

16

23

3

10

17

4 5

11*12

12

2£ 26

6

13

20

27

84 75 880-03-0 3-00-0 2-01-0

76 62 81 901-08-0 1-00-0 0-18-0 1-08-0

213-00-0 0-17-0

1-10-0 1-03-0 1-00-0 1307^ 1 8 1 9

90 21 7 91l^lo^O 1-15-0 0-13-0 2-10-0

92* 2k3-09-0 0-12-0

0-19-0 1-10-0 1-00-0

Total

11-03-0

8-11-0

5-00-0

10-15-0

JULY 1596

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1* 2 3

* I 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 14 15 16 17

18*

JULY 1596

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

93* 92 552-05-0 l^&M) 0-14-0

88

11

18

91 65 62 211-02-0 0-15-0 O lo O 1-03-0 0£l*M) 0-17-0

92 90 75 82 42 171-09-0 0-14-0 0-15-0 (KPM) 1-15--09-0

81 -85-0-15-0

82

-15-0

92 91 94*

Total

7-12-0

5-07-0

8-04-00-10-0 1-02-0 1-02-0 1-01-0 1-09-0 3-00-0

Total H5-O6-O

96

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

I I . 9 FALL-WINTER 1596-97(ADMIRAL'S)

F o l S u

25

Su

25v

Su

12

19*

Su

OCTOBER 1

Mo Tu We

22

NOVEMBER

Mo Tu

1 2

8 9

13

We

3

10

DECEMBER

Mo Tu

14

* 21

27 28

We

8

22

29

L596

Th Fr

28 29

1596

Th Fr

* 5

11 12

23 26

1596

Th Fr

2

10

16 17

23 24

30*31

JANUARY 1597

Mo Tu

2 9

We

5

Th Fr

6 7

Sa

Sa

6

13

27

Sa

4*

11*

Sa

8

Sunday

2 ,

Sunday

31

7

14

21

28

Sunday

5

12

19

26

Sunday

2

Monday

25

Monday68

2-07-081

0-13-0

J2-0-12-0

22

29

Monday

6

2-00-0

1-05-0

3-08-0

Monday

2-02-0

OCTOBER 1596

Tuesdy

26

Wedsdy

ailfeoThusdy

1 * 0

NOVEMBER 1596

Tuesdy84

0-17-0

J2L0-14-0

16

23

30

Wedsdy

-2.0-15-0

840-10-0

17

24

Thusdy

0-17-0

J22L1-15-0

18

680-11-0

DECEMBER 1596

Tuesdy

-2L1-15-0

14

l^oS^o

3-04-0

Wedsdy

1

8

J25-I-I5-O

<£o>o

1-02-0

Thusdy88

1-00-088

0-10-0

0-09-0

0-12-098*

2-10-0

JANUARY 1597

Tuesdy

oifgro

Wedsdy

0-05-0

Thusdy

2-02-0

Friday

0*0

Friday66

88

19

0-17-0

Friday

3

2-00-0

17

24

Friday

163-00-0

Satday

30

Satday88

1-10-0

0-17-0

20

810-11-0

Satday

2-10-0

0-09-0

1-10-0

25

Satday

2-05-0

0-12-0

Total

4-14-0

Total

6-11-0

5-05-0

0-12-0

1-19-0

Total

3-10-0

4-14-0

5-14-0

3-06-0

Total

12-15-0

8-17-0

97

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

JANUARY 1.597

F o l Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

25v 10 11 12 13 14*15

17 IB 19 20 21 22

26 24 25 26 27*28 29

FEBRUARY 1597

Su"Mo T U We Th Fr Sa

7 8 9 10 11*12

JANUARY 1597

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

996 16 97 98 99* 88

1-08-0 2-00-0 0-13-0 1-02-0 2-15-0 0-09-016 98 97 96 95 16

1-00-0 0-15-0 0-10-0 0-11-0 0-12-0 0-19-0

JL. 88 97 100* 68 1000-17-0 0-19-0 0-09-0 2-11-0 0-07-0 2-03-0

16

16

23

30

FEBRUARY 1597

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

100 98 101 100 951-05-0 1^15^0 1-09-0 1-08-0 1-09-0

t 101 100 16 96 99* 99•-17-0 0-18-0 3-05-0 1-14-0

Total

8-07-0

4-07-0

7-06-0

Total

8-13-0

Total 95-07-0

MARCH 1597

11.10 SPRING 1597 (ADMIRAL*Si

MARCH 1597

Su Mo Tu We Th ^r Sa Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

26 2 5 1 2

, 100 160-09-0

7 8 9

14 15

20 21 22

28 19 30 31

12

19* 13 8 8 96V iJ> 0-18-0 1-05-0

1-05-0 1-01-0 1-16-0

16

10

17

20 -22- -2Z-^u 0-17-0 0-05-0 l^

Easter 1 0 0 99 1 0 2 ^ 2

^ 1-11-0 2-01-0 2-17-0 1-15-0

18

-22-1-15-011 ofeo102*2-00-0

26

Total

2-04-0

5-00-0

4-03-0

2-06-0

98

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

APRIL 1597 APRIL 159?

^ol Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

26 1 2

4_ 5 6 7* 8 9

26v lj. 12 13 14 15 16

18*19 20 21 22 23

25 26 27 28 29*30

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday

88

102

1 0

24

O-05-O 0-04-099 98 103* 100

1-08-0 1-02-0 0-07-0 2-01-0 0-05-0 7

42 99 104 96 103 1001-00-0 0-14-0 1-05-0 0-17-0 1-08-0 0-05-0

67* 42 103 16 67 1022-00-0 0-09-0 0-19-0 0-17-0 1-02-0 0-16-0

103 67 99 42 105* 98l-13-O 1-02-0 1-02-0 1-00-0. 2^14^0 0-14-0

Total

8-13-0

5-03-0

5-09-0

6-03-0

MAY 1597 MAY 1 5 9 7

Su"~Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

2 3 ^ 5 6 7

2 10 11*12 14

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 24 25 26 27 28

27 22 31

JUNE 1597

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3* 4

6 ? 8 9 10 11

13 1;+ 15 16 17 18

20 21 22 23 24 25

27 28 29 30*

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday1 67 105 16 67 103 121.

0-14-08

sun22

1-00-0 1-05-0 0-11-0 1-07-0 0-16-0 0-14-099 100 106* 105 <o 103

orpPo 0-17-0 2-03-0 0-17-0 1Jr 0-07-0105 gg 96 106 42 67

2-19-0 3-00-0 1-12-0 2-15-0 0-10-0 o-14-o103 106 16 107* 100 99

1-00-0 2-18-0 0-19-0 2-10-0 0-05-0 0-13-0

0-19-0 3^04^0

JUNE 1597

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday_67_ 105 108*. 106

O-13-O 0^16^0 2-02-0 3-06-0106 107 108 103 106

12

19

26

_ _ _ i2l_ _ _0-10-0 3-10-0 0-12-0 1-00-0 0-11-0 2-18-0105 107 42 67 106 108

1-00-0 0-14-0 0-13-0 0-07-0 2-10-0 0-11-016 106

0-14-0 3-00-0

- -- ~ i-02-O 2=t>!

67 107 420-08-0 0-14-0 0-07-0

Total

5-13-0

4-18-0

11-10-0

8-O5-O

Total

9-01-0

5-15-0

5-09-0

99

PERFORMANCE CALENDAR

JULY 1597

^ o l Su Mo Tu We Th F r Sa

27 1 2

>± 5 6 7 B 9

2?v 12 13 14 IS 16

jLB 1 9

27 28

JULY 1597

Sunday Monday Tuesdy Wedsdy Thusdy Friday Satday107 67

0-04-0

3

10

17

24

108 98 110 106 62 1101-00-0 0-10-0 2-10-0 1-18-0 1-00-0 1-13-0

62 106 l_ll_ 99 6711

620-18-0 1-10-0 1-07-0 0-08-0 0-09-0

161-10-0 1-00-0 20 21

111

22

29

23

30

Total

5-14-0

8-11-0

4-12-0

2-10-0

2-02-0

Tota l 132-06-0

11.11 FALL-WINTER 1597 (ADMIRAL" S)

OCTOBER 1597

Su Mo Tu We

11

19

NOVEMBER

Su Mo Tu We

2

Th Fr Sa

1597

Th Fr Sa

3 * 5

Sunday

9

16

23

30

Sunday

Monday

10

17

24

2^00^0

Monday

OCTOBER

Tuesdy

162-00-0

18

25

Wedsdy

1062-00-0

19

26

NOVEMBER

Tuesdy Wedsdy

115

1597

Thusdy

- 5 5 -

113046^0

27

1597

Thusdy113

Friday

14

21

2 8

Friday106

n 1A nu— 10— u

Satday

15

22

29

Satday

rCTZJZTo

Total

Total

4-00-0

0-16-0

Total

4-16-0

9-12-0

100

TMLE III

LITERARY AND PRODUCTION EXPENSES

KEY

Dates14/10

ApprovalsUsEARABeBiBlDnDoDuHdJeJoJiiLoMaPaRoShSISpThToLtDTT

14 October

Unspecified authorizationSpecified authorizationEdward AlleynRichard AlleynBeestonBirdBlackwoodDonstonDowntonDukeHeywoodAnthony Jef f esJonesJubyLouinMasseyPallantRowleyShaaSlaterSpenserThareTowneLittle TailorDover the TailorTyreman

AuthorsCaCeDaDeDrHyHnHdJoMlMuPoRaSmWeWi

StatusFI0AP

ChapmanChettleDayDekkerDraytonHathwayHaughtonHeywoodJonsonMlddletonMundayPorterRanfcLnSmLthWebsterWilson

In PullIn EarnestOldAlterationsPlay produced

101

LITERARY EXPENSES

in.2a FALL-WINTER (14 OCT. - 12 FEB.) 1596-97

Fol. No. Title Dates Approved Authors Status Total

23

22v

Hawodes Bocke 14/10 U

Totals (not in subsequent accounts)

ABoockeMr. Porter

14/1016/12

UU

Hd

Po

In?

Fu?

Total

1-10-0

1-10-0

2-10-05-00-0

7-10-0

III.3a SPRING-SUMMER (3 MAR. - 30 JULY) 1597

Fol. No. Title Dates Approved Authors Status Total

22v Mr. Porter 7/3 Po ?

Total

4-00-0

4-00-0

102

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

I H . l b SPRING-SIMER 15%

Fol . No. D e t a i l s Dates Approved S-Total U-Total C-Total

71v Lent AlleynLent AlleynLent AlleynLent AlleynLent AlleynLent AlleynLent AlleynLent Alleyn

2/510/513/515/516/525/5n.d.n.d.

EAEAEAEAEAEAEAEA

Totals 32-03-4 32-03-4

i n . 2 b FALL-WIMER (14 OCT. - 12 FEB.) 15% - 97

Fol. No. Details Dates Approved S-Total U-Total C-Total

23 Feache FleacherFeache BrownFor Thomas Honte

SIUEA

Totals

0-06-00-10-00-06-8

1-02-8

NOT INCLUIM) IN SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS

23

22v 95

%

LoanLoanLoanTo Give FleatcherVortigernThingsCostumesStukeleyLoanLoan

?

???28-29/113/12?8/1211/1214/12

USIUSl,Dn,JuSl,DnUEAUSl,DnSI

8-05-0

>O0-0

2-10-01-10-01-10-01-0O-0

3-10-04-00-0

2-00-01-00-0

Totals 11-05-0 17-00-0 28-05-0

i n . 3 b SPRING-SlffCR (3 MAR. - 30 JULY) 1597

Fol .

22v

No.

102

Details

The CarmanGuLdoLoan

Dates

?

14/325/3

Approved

UEAEA

Totals

S-Total

4-09-0

4-09-0

U-Total

0-02-0

5-14-0

5-16-0

C-Total

10-05-0

103

Fol.

43v

44

44v

Fol.

45

45v

45v

46

46v

47

47v

48

No.

116117119122124125126127128129

No.

1301311321331341261357172859199136

137138

139140141142143144

in.4a

Title

iheCoblerBook of HaugfrtonBengemerTs PlotMother RedcapPhaeton1 Robin HoodWoman Will Have2 Robin HoodThe MillerTriplicity ofCuckolds

in.5a

Title

Henry I1 Earl GoodwinPierce of ExtonKing Arthur1 Black BatemanWoman Will Have2 Earl Goodwin1 Hercules2 HerculesPythagorasPhocasAlexander & Lod.Love PreventedLoan to ChapmanFuneral of RichardI U of a WomanLoan to Chettle2 Black BatemanMad Man's MorrisA Woman's Tragedy1 Hannibal & HermesValentine & Orsen

LITERARY

FALL-WINTER (21

Dates

21/105/113/1222/12-5/115/115/218/220/2-8/322/2

1/3

EXPENSES

OCT. - 8 MAR.) 1597-98

Approved

Sh,EASh,EAUUuuShSh,DoU

Sh,Do,Ju

SPRING-SIM1ER (13 MAR. - 28 ,

Dates

13-25/325/3-30/3n.d.11-12/42-22/5n.d.6/5-10/616/516/516/516/516/530/510/613-26/616/5-15/624/626/6-14/731/6-10/714/717-28/719/7

Pierce of Winchester n.d.

Approved

UUuuDoDoDoUUUUUDoUBiSh,Bi,JuUUUShUSh,JuU

Authors

HnJoDr,MuDeMuHnCe,MuLee

De

JULY) 1598

Authors

Ce,De,DrCe,De,Dr,WiCe,De,Dr,WlHyCe,De,Dr,WiHnCe,De,Dr,WL

Po

Ce,Dr,Mu,WiCa

Ce,Wi,Pd?De,Dr,WlCeDe,Dr,WlHy,MuDe

Status

Old?In?In?FunF? (P)F? (P)InF (P)Old?

Fun?

Total

Status

F(P)F (P)IFF? (P)IF (P)Old (P)OldOldOldOld (P)F?

F?I

FF(P)I?FFI

Total

2-00-00-10-01-00-06-00-04-0O-O5-00-01-00-05-00-01-O0-0

5-00-0

30-10-0

Total

6-05-06-00-02-00-05-00-07-00-01-00-04-00-0

7-00-0

4-00-00-10-05-15-04-00-00-10-06-00-06-00-05-00-06-10-05-00-00-1O-0

Total 83-00-0

104

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

i n . 4 b FALL-WINTER (21 OCT. - 8 Mflt.) 1597 - 9 8

Fol.

43v

44

No.

118

120

123

124

Details

BranholtFor Borne's GownAlice PierceFor i j GygesDidoLicensesPhaetonDischarge Dekker

Dates

26/111/128-10/1212/128/1n.d.26-28/14/2

Approved

ShShEA,Ju,Sh,MUUDnDoDn

Totals

S-Total

4-00-0

2-02-7

1-10-0

5-00-0— — _

12-12-7

U-Total

0-09-0

O-06-S

0-09-0

2-00-0

3-04-8

C-Total

15-17-3

i n . 5 b SPRINO-SUM1ER (13 MAR. - 28 JULY) 1598

Fol.

45

45v

4646v47v

48

No.

130

125

131

134135

71

140

Details

For Reading Henry IFor the CarmanGood Cheer1 & 2 Robin Hood (lie.)Costume1 Earl GoodwinCostumesCostumes1 Black Bateman2 Earl GoodwinFor a Picture1 Hercules3 licensesMad Man's MorrisA Woman's Gown

Dates

n.d.n.d.25/328/37/411/429/49/513-14/626-27/614/716/724/725/728/7

Approved

UUuuuDouuDoDoBiDoUBiU

S-Total

0-14-0

1-04-0

8-00-06-10-0

2-00-0

4-13-4

IKTotal C-Total

O-05-O0-03-00-05-0

1-00-0

2-06-87-00-0

0-05-0

1-01-0

1-13-4

Totals 23-01-4 13-19-0 37-00-4

105

LITERARY EXPENSES

III.6a FALL-WINDER (30 JULY - 16 FEB.) 1598-99

Fol.

49

49v

535050v

51

51v

52

52v

52v53

53v

No.

144145147148149150150151152153154155156119157158159125160

161162163164165

166167168

Title

Pierce of Winchester1 BruteHot Anger Soon ColdChance MedleyCatalineVayvode" bought from EA

2 Hannibal & Hermes1 Civil WarsFount of New Fash.ttilmutius Dun.2 BruteConanPlayChapman's Tragedy2 Civil Wars3 Civil Wars1 Robin HoodTis No DeceitLoan to ChapmanWar Without Blows2 Two Angry WomenWilliam LongswordIntro. Civil WarsWorld RunsLoan PorterJoan as GoodFriar FoxPolyphemus

Dates

8/8-10/830/7-16/918/819-24/821-29/829/821/130/8-4/929/91-12/103/1012-22/1016-20/1023/1023/10-8/13/1118/11-30/1218-25/1125-28/111/126/12-26/122/12-12/220/120/122/1-13/217/110-12/210/216/2

Approved

USiUuuDoUuuuuuuSh,JuSh,JuuShShShShShDoDoJuDoBi,RADoDo,RoRo

Authors

De,Dr,WiCe,DaCe,Jo,Po

Ce?De?Dr,Mu,WiCe,WiCe

De,DrDe,DrCaRaCeDe,DrCaCaDe,DrDe,DrCeCe

HdPoDrDeCa

Hd

Ce

Status

F (P)In(P)FFI0? A? (P)0FF? (P)F (P)I?FF?IFF? (P)F?0AI

FF (P)III

FF?I

Total

5-00-03-14-06-00-06-00-01-O5-01-00-02-00-05-00-06-00-O4-00-03-00-06-00-06-00-0?2-00-077-0OO6-00-06-00-070-15-071-05-00-1O-05-00-07-00-02-00-03-00-04-00-01-00-05-00-05-10-01-00-0

Total 111-19-0

i n . 7 a SPRINS-SlMfiR (26 FEB. - 9 JUNE) 1599

Fol. No. Title Approved Authors Status Total

53v 168 Polyphemus 27/2 Do169 2 T\*> Merry Women 28/1 Sh,Do170 The Spencers 4-22/3 Sh

54v Loan Porter 7/4 Do54v 172 Troilus & Cressida 7-16/4 Do63 174 Agamemnon 26-30/5 Sh

165 World Runs 2/6 Sh

CePoCe,Po

Ce,DeCe,DeCa

F(P)IF (P)

IF (P)I

2-10-02-00-06-00-01-00-O4-00-04-15-01-O0-0

Total 21-05-0

106

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

in.6b FALL-WINIER (30 JULY - 16 FEB.) 1598 - 99

Fol.

49v50

50v

51v

52

52v

53

No.

150

144

152153

158

145

162

Details

VayvodeAgreement with LangleyPierce of WinchesterCostumeCostumesRichClockeTwo Clockes1 Civil WarsFount of New FashionBye a SackebuteDebt to Henslowe2 Civil WarsCostumesCostumes1 BruteInstrumentsDischarge ChettleCostumesDischarge Dekker2 Two Angry WomenCostumes

Dates

21-25/819/923/9-12/1028/91/104/1028/98-11/108-14/1110/114/1119-24/1127/1128/1112/1222/1217/126/130/131/1-12/21/2

Approved

Sh,DoUDoJuUUDoDoJu,Sh,DoDoUJu,ShShURoJnDoDoDoDoSh

S-Total

17-05-0

29-02-0

10-00-017-00-0

20-00-0

1-04-0

11-00-0

U-Total C-Total

35-00-0

4-00-01-00-0

19-00-012-10-0

2-00-02-00-0

2-18-04-00-0

2-00-01-10-02-15-03-10-0

4-10-0

Totals 105-11-0 96-13-0 202-04-0

i n . 7 b SPRING-SUM1ER (26 FEB. - 9 JUNE) 1599

Fol.

54

54v

63

No.

17114599

170

174

Details

LicensesFour Rings (lie.)Greenshield (Lie.)Alexander & Lod.To go to CorteThe SpencersCostumesLoanTo the lace manAgamemnon (He.)The lace man

Dates

8-18/3n.d.n.d.31/37/49-16/411/417/426/53/62-8/6/99

Approved

DoUUJuTo,RADoUShUuuTotals

S-Total

O-O7-00-07-05-00-0

30-00-0

0-07-0

36-01-0

U-Total C-Total

1-08-0

0-10-0

0-10-01-10-05-00-0

10-00-0

18-18-0 54-19-0

107

Fol.

6363v

64

64v

No.

165176177179

180181178182183184

III.

Title

World RunsGentle CraftPastoral TragedyBear a BrainLoan to DekkerPage of PlymouthPoor Man's ParadiseStepmother's Trag.Robert IIPlay by MarstonTristram

LITERARY EXPENSES

8a SIMJER (21

Dates

21/6-2/715/717/71/81/810/&-2/920-25/823-25/83-27/928/913/10

JUNE - 13 OCT.)

Approved

Do,Bi,JuDo,RoDoShShDo,M,JuDoDo,Bi,JuSh,Do,Ro,BiBiDo

1599

Authors

CaDeCaDe

De,JoHnCeCe,De,JoMa

Status

FI?IF

F(P)I?IIII?

Total

3-10-0MXH)2-00-02-00-01-00-08-0O-01-10-02-00-04-10-02-00-03-00-0

Total 32-10-0

III.9a FALL-WINDER (14 OCT. - 16 FEB.) 1599 - 1600

Fol.

6565

65v

6666v

67v

No.

185178

186187

18818987

190191871921931941951%197198

Title

1 OldcastleStepmother's Trag.Benefit Performance2 OldcastlePatient GrisselLoan to WilsonCox of Collumpton2 Henry RichmondFortunatusAdvance to ChettleThomas MerryOrphan's TragedyFortunatusArcadian VirginItalian TragedyOwen TudorTruth's SupplicationJugurthaSpan. Moor's Trag.Damon & Pythias

Dates

16/1014/10n.d.16/10-26/12n.d.-29/121/111/14/118/119-30/1110/1121/11-6/1227/111-12/1213-17/1210/1n.d.18-30/19/213/216/2

Approved

DoShRoDoSh,RoShSh,DoShSh,DoDoShUShUShDoToBiUU

Authors

Dr,Hy,Mu,WiCe

DrCe,De,Hn

Da,HnWiDe

Da,HnCeDeCe,HnDaDr,Hy,Mu,WiDe,Hn?BoyleDa,De,HnCe

Status

F?F

F? (P)I? (P)

FFF

F (P)IAIIIII?II

Total

77-00-04-00-00-10-077-00-010-1O-O0-10-05-00-08-00-06-0O-00-10-05-00-00-10-03-00-00-15-02-00-04-00-02-O0-01-10-03-00-01-0O-0

Total 71-15-0

108

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

I H . g b SUM1ER (21 JUNE - 13 OCT.) 1599

Fol.

63v

6464v

No.

180168

Details

Copper lacettwrfpfli instrumentsPage of PlymouthPolyphemus

Dates

5/713/712/94/10

Approved

DoDoJu,ToU

Totals

S-Total

10-00-00-08-0

10-08-0

U-Total

0-12-41-10-0

2-02-4

C-Total

12-10-4

I I I . 9 b FALL-WINTER (14 OCT. - 16 FEB.) 1599 - 1600

Fol.

66

66v

67

67v

No.

87

190187

Details

CostumesFortunatusLicensesTo pay tailorThe lace manThomas Merry (Lie.)Patient GrisselLace manTo by a dromeInstrumentsLace manCoach manFather Qgell

Dates

1/12

n.d.n.d.9/1/00n.d.26/128/16/27/29/29/210/2

Approved

DoDo-ShShUShSh,DoUShUuDo

&-Total

10-00-0

0-07-01-00-0

U-Total C-Total

10-00-0

0-14-01-05-05-00-0

3-00-00-11-61-02-03-00-03-00-00-10-0

Totals 11-07-0 28-02-6 39-09-6

109

LITERARY EXPENSES

I K . 1 0 a SPRING-SIMER (17 FEB. - 12 JULY) 1600

Fol.

67v

6868v

69

69v

No.

198199200201202203

205206207208

209

Title

Damon & PythiasSeven Wise MastersFerrex & PorrexEnglish FugitivesCupid & PsycheWooing of DeathLoan to ChettleStrange News1 Blind Beggar B.G.Judas1 Fair ConstanceTo Chettle & Day2 Fair Constance

Dates

10/3-6/5l-S/33/3-13/416-24/4n.d.27/4-14/56/517/526/527/53-14/619/620/6

Approved

Sh,BiRo,BiShUShURAShShUShShSh

Authors

CeCe,Da,De,HnHnHnCe,Da,DeCe

Hn,PettCe,DaHnDe,Dr,H7,Mu

De?Dr7Hy,Mu?

Status

F(P)F (P)F (P)IF (P)I

F(P)FI (P)F

I

Total

Total

5-0O-06-00-04-15-01-10-06-CXH)1-00-00-05-06-00-05-10-00-1O-05-09-00-10-01-00-0

43-09-0

i n . l l a FALL-WINTER (6 SEPT. - 25 FEB.) 1600 - 1601

Fol.

70v70v

71

85v

No.

210124211212213214

Title

Fortune's TennisPhaetonRobin Hood's Pen.Hannibal & SdpioScogan & Skelton2 Blind Beggar B.G.Advance to Rankin

Dates

6/914-22/1220/12-13/13-12/123/1-25/229/1-10/28/2

Approved

ShRoRo,BiURo,To,EARoU

Authors

DeDeHnHy,RaHy,RaDa,Hn

Status

I?A(P)I?FII

Total

1-O0-02-00-04-00-06-00-05-00-03-10-00-02-0

Total 21-12-0

i n . 1 2 a SPRDC-SCEMSR (8 MAR. - 13 JUNE) 1601

Fol.

86

8787v

No.

213214215216217218219220221222

Title

Scogan & Skelton2 Blind Beggar B.G.Conquest of SpainA n Is Not GoldConquest W. IndiesKing SebastionSix Yeomen3 Blind Beggar B.G.Life Cardinal W.Earl of Gloster

Dates

8/310/3-5/524/3-16/431/3-6/44/4-21/518/4-22/520/5-8/621/55/613/6

Approved

URoRoRoRoJu,EARoRoRoDo

Authors

Da,HnHy,RaCeDa,Hn,SmCe,DeDa,HnDaCeWadeson

Status

FF (P)IFIFF (P)III

Total

0-18-02-10-01-19-06-00-04-05-06-00-05-00-00-10-01-O0-01-00-0

Total 29-02-0

110

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

III. 10b SPRING-SIM1ER (16 FEB. - 12 JULY) 1600

Fol.

68

68v

69

69v

No.

186

199

200198205202

Details

Discharge Haughton2 OldcastleStay printing GrisselSeven Wise MastersCostumesCopper laceSilk manTo go to WlnswarthFor copper laceFerrex & Porrex (lie.)Damon & Pythias (Lie.)Strange NewsCupid & PsycheTo pay E. Alleyn

Dates

10/312/318/325/3-2/42/4n.d.13/427/46/5n.d.16/525/55/6n.d.

Approved

ShShShShShShShUShUUShDoU

S-Total

1-10-0

38-00-0

0-07-0O-O7-03-00-02-00-0

U-Total C-Total

0-10-0

2-00-0

2-00-02-00-02-00-02-10-00-08-0

11-00-0

Totals 45-04-0 22-08-0 67-12-0

MWE TO FORTUNE

I l l . l l b FALL-WINTER (6 SEPT. - 25 FEB.) 1600 - 1601

Fol.

70v

71

85v

No. Details

CostumesCostumesLent to ShaaTo pay E. AlleynLent to companyTo pay tailor

124 PhaetonTo pay scrivenerFor Bristoe's wages

Dates

14/816/829/8-12/9n.d.11/1120-23/122/16/3?

Approved

ShUShUuuBiUU

S-Total U-Total C-Total

3-00-03-12-07-08-01-12-04-00-01-19-0

1-00-01-07-66-09-0

Totals 1-O0-0 29-07-6 30-07-6

i n . 1 2 b SPRINg-SUbfER (8 MAR. - 13 JUNE) 1601

Fol. No. Details Dates Approved S-Total U-Total C-Total

86v

87

87v

21488

7

Costumes2 Blind Beggar B.G.Blind Beggar Alex.To get boy to hospitalCopper laceMercerJew of MaltaMr. Heath (mercer)Copper lace

20/4/0127/4/012-29/5n.d.8/5/0113/5/0119-20/55/6/016/6/01

UU (LT)U (LT)UUUJu,ShUu

1-10-09-03-4

5-10-0

0-16-0

0-10-00-05-010-00-0

14-15-06-00-0

Totals 16-03-4 32-06-7 48-09-11

111

Fol.

92

91v

929393v

94

94v95

9696

104

No.

2172202212222232245062191162252262272289520722923049572676223

in.13a F

Title

Conquest W. Indies3 Blind Beggar B.G.1 Cardinal W61.Earl of GlosterFriar Rush2 Tom DougfrMahometWiseman W. ChesterOrphan's Trag.JeronliDORising Cardinal W.1 Six Clothiers2 Six ClothiersToo Good To Be TrueVortigernJudasSpanish FigPontius PilateTasso's MelancholyFrench DoctorGuiseCrack Me This NutFriar Rush

LITERARY

ALL-WINTER (28

Dates

5/8-1/918-30/728/6-18/8n.d.4/7-29/1130/7-11/922/819/924/925/924/8-12/1112-22/10n.d.14/11-7/120/1120-24/126/112/116/118/118/118/121/1

EXPENSES

JUNE - 7 FEB.)

Approved

RoRoRo,EAUSh,RoShEAEARoEAShRoSh,RoSh,To,EAEARo,MEAUUEAEAEASh

1601 - 1602

Authors

Da,HnDa,HaCeWadesonDa,HnDa,Hn

CeJoCe,Dr,Mu,SmHy,Hn,SmHy,Hn,SmCe,Hy,Sm

Ro,Bi

DeDe

Ce

Status

I(P)F (P)F (P)I?FI0(P)0IAF (P)II?F0FIAA00 (P)0(P)A

Total

2-10-06-00-05-00-00-10-05-00-04-00-02-00-02-00-00-10-02-00-07-O0-O5-00-02-O0-06-05-02-00-06-00-03-00-00-10-01-00-02-00-02-00-02-0O-O0-10-0

Total 68-15-0

112

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

I K . 1 3 b FALL-WINTER (28 JUNE - 7 FEB.) 1601 - 0 2

Fol.

91

91v92

92v

93

93v

94

94v95

95v

96104

No.

219

50

221

220220221

21726

7671

207

Details

Six YeomenCopper laceCopper laceMahometSupperlife of Cardinal W.Copper laceDinner and jury3 Blind Beggar B.G.3 Blind Beggar (lie.)Wblsey (Uc.)TavernConquest W. IndiesGuiseLent companyCrack This NutHerculesPropertiesLent to ShaaCostume materialJudasCostumesTo Spencer etc.Copper lace

Dates

l-*/7-Ol1-3/7/0110-23/7/012-4/8/013/8/017-21/8/01n.d.29/8/0127/8-23/9/013/93/921/9/011/10-21/1/023-26/11/019/11/014/12/0114-18/12/0121-25/12/0126/12/011-2/1/023/1/02n.d.21/1/0225/1-7/2/02

Approved

Sh,JeUUU (DT)UJu,ShUUU (DT)UUUEA,Ju,ShJuUU(LT)U (LT)U (LT)ShShJeUEAEA

S-Total

6-01-0

3-12-4

38-12-2

6-06-10O-07-00-03-0

14-07-97-14-6

0-05-01-05-0

1-10-0

U-Total C-Total

4-06-03-16-10

1-00-O

0-05-61-16-0

3-12-9

0-07-6

2-04-00-17-33-12-6

O-16-01-08-0^2-07-0

Totals 80-04-7 25-19-4 106-03-11

113

Fol.

105

105v

106v

107

107v

108

108v

109

109v

No.

23123223323422123523623716238239240241242752432442472124849249552501

251253254255256257

259

in.

Title

Lent to ChettleMalcolm King Scots

Love Parts FriendBristol TragedyJephtha1 Cardinal W61.

TobiasCaesar's FallRLchard CrookbackJeronliDODanish TragedyWidow's CharmMedicine Curst WifeSamsonPhilip of SpainLongshanksWilliam CartwrigfrtFelmelancoJoshua2 Tamar ChamRandalTasso's MelancholyMerry As May BeDr. FaustusSet at TennisFriar BaconPrologue & EpilogueLondon FlorentineHoffmanSinger's VoluntaryFour Sons of AymonBoss of Billings.

Siege of DunkirkFor Play in Pawn2 London Florentine

LITERARY EXPENSES

14a (23 PEB. -

Dates

25/318/4

4/54-28/55/515/516/5-27/622-29/522/622/67/79/7-11/919-31/729/78/88/88/99-27/927/92/1021/10-9/113/11-4/125-17/1122/112/1214/1229/1217/12-7/129/1213/110/121-12/37/37/312/3

12 MAR.) 1602

Approved

Do,EAUDoRo,Ju,ToUDoDoDoM,EABi,EADoDo,Bi,JuDo,JuRo,JuEAEABi, Ju,ToDo,JeRoEAJuM,EADo,JuRo,BiJuDoDoDoDoUShJiiJuUDo

- 1603

Authors

MasseyCe,SmDaDe,MiCeCe

De,Dr,Mi,Mu,WeJoJoCeMu?De

HnCeRo

MiDeDa,Hy,SmBi,RoHiMiCeCe,HdCeSinger

Da,HyMasseyCeCe

Status

F? (P)F? (P)FI(P)AFFIAIIIF?00I?FF0FAFAFAAFIF?0?FII?I

Total

3-00-05-00-06-00-05-00-05-00-01-0O-O6-05-08-00-077-00-073-OG-O1-0O-01-10-04-00-06-0O-O2-0O-02-00-02-10-06-00-07-00-02-00-06-00-03-00-08-00-04-00-03-00-00-05-00-05-06-10-00-05-05-00-02-00-06-00-02-00-01-00-01-00-0

Total 131-10-0

114

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

i n . 14b SPRIN&-SUM1ER-FAIX-WINIER (23 FEB. - 12 MAR.) 1602 - 03

Fol.

105

105v

106

106v107107v

108v

No.

231

225

232234

245246

Details

Paid to AlleynCostumesMalcolmCostumesWine at tavern2 Cardinal W61.Copper laceLove Parts FriendshipJephthaCostumesMortimerEarl HertfordMercer

Dates

23/221/427/416/5n.d.18/5-2/631/531/58/5-5/716/710/9n.d.18/12

Approved

EAEADoUUDoDoDoDoEAJuUU

S-Total

1-10-0

11-06-0

2-10-013-17-0

6-1&-01-12-0

U-Total C-Total

1-07-62-00-0

4-10-00-02-0

1-0O-0

1-10-0

8-18r-0

Totals 37-13-0 19-07-6 57-0O-6

115

Fol.

115

116115v116

116v

117v

118

119119v120

No.

185263240

264265266268269270271272273

274275276277278277279

III.15a

Title

OldcastleA TragedyMedicine for WifeBonus to DekkerAlbere GallesMarshall OsricCutting DickTwo BrothersA Play1 Lady Jane2 Lady JaneChristinas Comes1 Black DogTo SmithTo ChettleBlind EatsUnfortunate Gen.A Play2 Black DogWoman Killed2 Black DogItalian Tragedy

LITERARYI EXPENSES

WORCESTER'S MEN

FALL-WINTER (17 AUG. - 12 MAR.

Dates

17/8-7/924/8-9/927/8-2/927/94/92O-30/920/91-15/103/1015-21/1027/102-26/1124/11-20/1212/1112/1124/11-7/17-19/114/129/1-3/212/2-6/321-26/27-12/3

Approved

ThDuUUUHdHdDuDuTh.HdDuDu,HdDu,Be,PaLoLoHdDu,BeHdDu,LoHdDu,BlLo,Bl

) 1602 - 1603

Authors

DeCeDe

Hd,SmHd,SmHdSmMi

Ce,De,Hd,Sm,WeDeCe,De,Hd,WeDa,Hy,Sm

HdDa,Hy,SmCe,HdDa,Hy,SmHdDa,Hy,SmSm

Status

A ( P )IF

FF (P)AF (P)IF(P)IF (P)F (P)

FF (P)IF (P)F (P)AF

Total

2-10-0?2-00-06-00-00-10-06-00-06-00-01-0O-O6-00-01-00-08-00-00-05-07-00-06-00-00-10-00-03-06-00-07-00-02-00-07-00-06-O0-02-00-06-00-0

Total 88-18-0

116

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

I I I . 15b WORCESTER'S FALL-WINTER 1602 - 1603

Fol.

115

115v116116v

116v

117117v

118118118v119

119v

120

120v

No.

185

267

268

265270

272

273

275

277278

Details

Oldcastle etc.Costumes & Props.TavernCostumes & Props.CostumesWagesTo pay ShaaTargetsBironPropertiesTtoo BrothersCostumesCostumesCostumesMarshal Osric1 Lady JaneCostumes from ShaaChristmas ComesCostumes1 Black DogCostumesUnfortunate Gen.Costumes2 Black DogWanan KilledCostumesClothes etc.

Dates

21/818/-27/821/8/0228/8-4/910/911/1019/921-30/925/^-3/10n.d.15-23/1022/1026/102-12/113/116/116/129/11-9/1218/12-1/110-16/110-16/124/124/1-7/215/2/5/2-7/316/2-4/316/3

Approved

Du,ThDu,BlUDuThUBlThDuUTh, (Ty)UBeUUDuUUTh,DuDu,FrULo,CaUUBl,HdUU

Totals

S-Total

15-00-0

5-13-0

3-09-0

1-06-05-00-0

5-08-8

1-02-0

2-10-0

5-02-07-03-0

51-13-8

U-Total C-Total

15-19-00-09-011-07-42-16-40-10-00-16-02-00-0

0-01-2

20-00-01-00-01-16-8

17-00-0

2-09-0

3-06^

3-02-0

2-00-08-100

93-02-10 144-16-6

117

00

7v

TABLE IV

CONSOLIDATED WEEKLY ACCOUNTS

IV.1 SPRING-SUMMER 1592 (STRANGE'

Date Details Per. Gallery Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total. Fol. Repay Balance

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

192641118251815222961320273101724

Henry VI

Easter Week

Titus & Vespasian

2 Tamar Cam

Whitsun WeekTanner of Denmark

Knack (Knave)

166655666666666665-5

0-17-37-13-68-13-811-04-69-19-04-17-015-14-08-17-010-00-010-08-010-14-013-00-68-13-013-16-612-03-68-05-612-03-08-02-06-09-0

Totals 105 181-10-05

IV.2 FALL-WINTER 1592-93 (STRANGE"S)

Fol. Date Details Per. Gallery Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay BalanceDec. 30Jan. 6 Jealous Comedy

132027 Guise

8v Feb. 3

Totals

26666

29

6-18-0ll-03-O7-03-010-12-09-10-03-13-0

48-19-0

IV.3 ^ALL-WINTER 1593-9*+ (SUSSEX'S)

Fol. Date Details Per Gallery Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay BalanceDec. 29 Christmas WeekJan. ^

^ 12-12-06 8-01-06 8-12-0

FALL-WINTER 1593 (SUSSEX'S)

Fol. Date Details

8v Jan. 1926 Titus Andronicus

Feb. 29

Totals

Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

3_2

30

5-19-07-05-03-10-0^-10-0

50-09-0

IV.^ SPRING 159^ (SUSSEX & QUEEN'S)

Fol. Date Details

9 Apr. 6 Easter Week13

Totals

May 18

Totals

Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

12-0^-03-12-0

8 15-16-0

13

(ADMIRAL'S)

June 815

Totals

6

10

2-01-02-10-0

(ADMIRAL'S & CHAMBERLAIN'S)

IV.5 FALL-WINTER 1594-95 (ADMIRAL'S)

Fol. Date9 June 22

299v July 6

132027

9v Aug. 3101?2431

Sept. 714

21 2128

Oct. 51219

10

lOvNov. 2

9162330

Dec. 7

11

Jan .

l l v '

21284

11IB25

^eb . i8

1522

Mar. 1R

15

Details

Galeaso

Phillipo & Hip.Godfrey

Merchant of E.

Tasso

Venetian

PalamonGrecian Comedy

Knack (Honest)

Caesar & PompeyDiocletian

Wise ManSet at Maw

Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

French ComedyThe Mack

Seleo

Totals

Tots. Adm. & Ch

6666'66666666666

66666

6

63

6

6

66666

218228

10-05-012-03-09-10-611-09-010-12-01P-09-09-11-07-07-611-10-07-07-611-17-67-16-69-09-68-14-67-03-68-13-05-19-08-05-07-03-09-14-010-10-08-02-05-18-07-08-04-08-05-01-04-15-08-01-010-02-04-12-09-06-08-13-08-14-09-18-012-00-012-00-010-15-08-06-05-18-0

339-07-0

343-18-0

IV.6 SPRING-SUMMER 1595 (ADMIRAL'S)

Fol. Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

llv Apr.May

12v

Jun.

26310172h317

212R

Easter Week

1 Hercules

2 Hercules

Seven DaysWhitsun Week2 Caesar

Totals

666666566k57

15-06-09-09-011-01-08-08-011-11-010-06-08-08-018-00-07-16-06-17-0

107-02-0

IV.7 FALL-WINTER 1595-96 (ADMIRAL'S)

Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

l?v Aug.Sept

13

Oct.

Nov.

Ik

Dec.

Jan.

30. 6132027

111825181522296132027310

LongshanksCrack Me Nut

New World's Trag.

Disguises

Wonder of a Worn.

Barnardo

Toy

Henry V

Chinon

6666666666665653336

9-0 -013-08-012-10-07-16-09-11-09-02-07-1^-08-02-07-07-08-02-07-05-08-07-03-15-67-05-0J+-03-05-0 -63-06-07-00-010-11-09-18-0

Fol. Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Reijay Balance

1414v

Jan,

Feb.

1724317142128

Pythagoras2 Seven Days

Blind Beggar A.

6666

66

9-I/4.-O9-18-06-O5-O9-00-08-O5-O10-06-011-16-0

Totals 150 224-15-0

IV.8 SPRING-SUMMER 1596 (ADMIRAL*S)

Fol• Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

15v Apr. 17 Easter Week 624 6

May 1 Julian Apostate 68 1 Tamar Cham 6

^ 1 5 5to 22 Phocas 5*° 21v 29 6

June 5 Whitsun Week 612 2 Tamar Cham 619 426 Troy 6

July 3 Paradox 610 617 524 Tinker of Totnes 6

8-08-04-19-08-08-08-00-07-13-09-07-06-12-011-03-08-11-05-00-010-15-07-12-05-07-05-07-08-04-0

Totals 85 H5-O6-O

7lv 11-00-07-03-42-00-01-10-0

7-10-0*

3-00-0*

32-03-4

71v 9-12-08-07-0

71v 21-13-4 4-07-0

3-04-0

6-04-04-13-03-02-0

71v 32-03-4 71v 39-09-0 (7-05-8)

exact date unknown

IV.9 FALL-WINTER 1596-97 (ADMIRAL'S)

Fol. Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

Oct.

25Nov.

25vDec.

Jan.

26Feb.

1623306132027411182518152229512

Begin 27 Oct.

ValtegerStewtley

NebuchadnezzarThat Will Be

Alexander & Lod.

Woman Hard T.P.

Totals

3661323

5666666675

4-14-06-11-05-05-00-12-01-19-03-10-04-14-05-14-03-06-012-15-08-17-08-07-04-07-07-06-0*8-13-08-17-0

95-07-0

231-10-0

2-10-0

5-00-0

0-16-00-06-8

6-10-0

5-00-010-15-05-00-01-00-0

23 2-12-8 /2-12-87 0-00-023 1-00-0

1-00-0

9-00-05-00-0

4-00-0

7-10-0 28-05-0 22v 35-15-0 23 20-00-0 I5-I5-O

5-column accounts begin

IV.10 SPRING-SUMMER 1597

Fol. Date Details Per. Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

tvJ

26

26v

27

27v

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

May

June

July

19265121926291623307142128411182529162330

Begin March 3

Guido

Easter WeekFive Plays

French ComedyUther Pendragon

Comedy of HumoursWhitsun WeekHenry IFrederick & Bas.

Martin Swart

2433656sO

66566666666522

Totals

0-02-02-04-05-00-0 22v 4-00-04-03-0 4-09-02-06-0 5-14-08-13-05-03-05-09-06-03-08-05-05-13-04-18-011-10-08-05-011-00-09-01-05-15-05-09-05-14-08-11-04-12-02-10-02-02-0 _____

109 132-06-0 22v 4-00-0 10.05-0

8-11-0

14-05-0

IV.11 FALL-WINTER 1597-S

Fol. Date Details Per, Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

27v Oct.

Nov.

36v Oct.

Nov.

3^v Nov.Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

1522295

222951219

2631017ok3171421284111825411

3egin Oct. 11 3

1Friar Spendleton 5

4-00-1

0-16-04-16-0-

Five-column accounts end

Friar Spendleton

5-01-11*3-U-105-18-102-07-02-08-8

* Weekly quarter gallery income

/Branholt/

/Alice Pierce/

Christmas Week

C ? 7/Phaeton/

/Mother Redcap//Triangle of Cuckolds/

Totals

2-04-02-04-01-06-02-09-0

7-16-01-10-02-10-03-09-01-08-95-00-02-16-43-09-04-15-05-H-3—

65-16-0

43v

43v

44

44v

44v ;

2-00-0

0-10-0

1-00-0

3-00-00-05-02-15-04-00-0

6-00-02-10-05-05-03-05-030-10-0

4-00-00-09-02-02-70-06-8

1-10-00-09-05-00-02-00-0

15-17-: 44v 46-07-3 46-07-3

IV.12 SPRING-SUMMER 1598

Fol. Date Details Income Pol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Pol. Repay Balance

ON

36v Mar. 18.25

35 Apr. 18152229

May 6132027

June 310

3*; June 1724

3a&ly 181522

29

& Robin Hood?

Easter

K Earl Goodwin/Z2 Robin Hood?

Whitsun Week

.1 Black Bateman?'S Earl Goodwin/

1-06-03-07-62-17-06-03-62-12-64-02-65-02-04-06-03-04-62-12-65-16-73-16-05-07-05-18-32-11-7

45v

46

46v47

47v

2-00-08-05-02-00-02-00-05-00-0

1-00-02-00-0

9-00-07-00-04-00-03-10-02-10-03-15-05-00-03-00-010-00-09-10-0

0-13-00-14-01-00-01-04-0

2-06-8

7-00-0

8-00-0

6-10-0

0-05-02-00-0

Henslowe begins to collect the "wholle gallereys11 and to credit half to the players

/l Hercules/ 10-14-0* 48 3-10-0 7-17-8 48 10-14-0

Totals 59-03-5 48 83-00-0 37-00-4 48 120-00-4 48 10-14-0 109-06-4

Grand totals

* Estimated other half gallery revenue

166-07-7 155-13-7

IV.13 FALL-WINTER 1598-99

Fol. Date Details Income Fol. Literary Product, Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

5121926

Sept. 29

162330

Oct. 72128

48v Nov. 41118

48v Nov. 25Dec. 2

9162330

Jan. 6132027

Feb. 31017 ,24-

/Mad Man's Morris/

/Vayvode/

/fierce of Winchester/

/ l Civil Wars/

/Fount of New Fashion/

fe Civil Wars/

At Court 27 / l Brute7At Court 6

z Two Angry Women/At Court 18

Totals

7-10-0*9-09-08-12-08-02-08-14-09-03-06-18-08-02-05-14-06-03-07-15-0

10-14-05-19-08-02-05-03-06-16-04-16-06-16-07-16-04-03-04-05-0

12-10-07-17-08-11-08-13-07-06-0

10-17-07-10-07-10-0

15-03-0

49v50

50v

51

51v

5252

52v

5353v

2-00-05-00-0

10-05-02-10-04-00-03-19-00-05-06-00-06-00-01-10-09-00-05-10-06-00-0

1-10-00-10-01-10-0

3-00-0

5-00-05-00-03-00-03-00-06-00-07-00-08-10-06-00-0"

48

17-05-0

518-00-032-10-015-02-6

7-00-014-00-020-00-06-18-0

1-04-02-00-0

1-10-02-15-0

17-00-0

2-00-0

48v

48v

7-10-09-09-08-12-08-02-08-14-09-03-06-18-08-02-05-14-06-03-07-15-0

10-14-05-19-08-02-05-03-06-16-04-16-06-16-07-16-04-03-04-05-0

12-10-07-17-08-11-08-13-07-06-0

10-17-07-10-07-10-0

15-03-0236-O9-O* 53v 111-19-0 202-04-0 53v 314-03-0 48v 236-O9-O 77-14-0

* Income estimated equivalent to half-gallery repayments

IV. 14 SPRING-SUMMER 1599

Pol. Date Details Income Fol. Literary Product« Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

00

Mar.

Apr.

May

MayJune

3101724317142128512192629

Easter Week/The Spencers/Gap in Records?/Four Kings/

/Brute/

Whitsun Week^Agamemnon7

Totals

Grand totals

———

3-18-0*2-02-03-08-013-07-013-16-011-05-08-10-09-00-011-11-010-08-016-12-0

——103-17-0*

54v

63

4-10-00-10-0

5-10-0

4-00-0

1-00-0

1-10-04-05-0

63 21-05-0

0-14-0

1-01-05-07-00-10-025-10-06-10-0

5-00-05-00-05-07-0

54-19-0

48v 3-18-02-02-03-08-013-07-013-16-0ll-05-O8-10-09-00-011-11-010-03-016-12-0

76-04-0 103-17-0 (27-13-0)

556-14-7 b8v 351-00-0 205-14-7

* Estimated income equivalent to half gallery repaymentsOn folio 63 of his diary Henslowe estimates that he has advanced the actors a total ofL586-12-7 or L29-18-0 more than is recorded in the surviving records. It may be thatthis figure includes money lent between April 23 and May 19 for which the accounts havebeen lost, or that it adds the L30-00-0 debt of the Admiral's Men from 25 March, I597 (f. 22v).

IV.15 SUMMER 1599

Fol. Date Details Income Fol* Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

June 2330

July 7142128

Aug. 4111825

Sept. 1815 ^?age of Plymouth/2229

Oct. 6 r f

13 ^Polyphemus/

Totals

Grand totals

63

63v

64v5-03-0*2-00-0

7-03-0*

2-00-0

1-10-0

5-00-0

3-00-02-00-0

3-10-0

8-00-01-00-00-10-03-00-0

0-12-41-10-0

10-00-0

64v 41-

45-00-4

601-14-11

5-03-02-00-0

7-03-0

358-03-0

37-17-4

243-11-11

When Henslowe balances his account with the players on 13 October 1599 (f. 64v)^ n ^ ^ " w f ^ * * * 1 t h e Playerst d e b t « * his own advances seem to be just aboutL^u-uu-u too high.

IV.16 FALL-WINTER 1599-1600

Fol. Date

48v Oct.

62v Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

613

202731017241815222951219262916

Details

/Polyphemus/

Sub totalsBalance forward

Henslowe reckons

^ortunatus/

Christinas Week

/Thomas Merry/

^Patient Grissel/

Income

5-03-02-00-0

7-03-0

Fol.

64v

the company's

4-03-0*3-14-08-16-06-09-02-17-07-04-05-13-04-00-02-17-03-03-010-08-09-09-06-16-03-02-01-16-07-1^-07-13-0

65

65v

66

66v

67

67 v

Literary

3-00-0

3-00-0

indebtedness

14-00-01-00-01-10-012-00-03-00-03-10-03-10-03-10-02-10-03-05-010-10-0

2-00-05-00-0

1-00-01-10-04-00-0

Product. Fol. Total

0-08-0

0-08-0 3-08-0

601-14-11

as 27^-00-0 (fol. 64v)

10-00-0

10-00-0

1-19-0

5-00-00-07-01-00-03-00-07-13-60-10-0

Fol. Repay

48v 5-03-02-00-0

7-03-0

358-03-0

62v 4-03-03-14-08-16-06-09-02-17-07-04-05-13-04-00-02-17-03-03-010-08-09-09-06-16-03-02-01-16-07-14-07-13-0

Balance

(3-15-0)

243-11-11

Totals 95-14-0* 67v 71-15-0 39-09-6 111-04-6 62v 95-14-0 15-10-6

IV, 17 SPRING-SUMMER 1600

Fol. Date

62v Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

1 '815222951219263101724317142128512

Details

[?. Oldcastle/

Easter Week

/Seven Wise Masters/

/Ferex & Porex/Whitsun Week/Damon & Pythias/

/Strange News/

/Cupid & Psyche/

Totals

Income

3-13-0*6-00-04-17-011-14-06-02-05-10-06-14-04-10-04-07-04-15-012-04-04-07-04-17-06-11-03-13-07-02-05-08-04-12-04-12-0

111-08-0

Fol.

67 v68

68v

69

69v

69v

Literary

2-00-04-00-01-06-01-00-00-05-00-07-03-03-00-10-02-10-03-14-04-05-07-10-0

6-00-03-05-02-04-01-10-0

43-09-0

Product. Fol. Total

2-00-02-00-030-00-010-00-02-00-02-00-0

2-10-00-15-00-07-0

3-00-02-00-0

ll-OO-O(nd)

67-12-0 111-01-0

Fol. Repay

62v 3-13-06-00-04-17-011-14-06-02-05-10-06-14-04-10-04-07-04-15-012-04-04-07-04-17-06-11-03-13-07-02-05-08-04-12-04-12-0

62v 111-08-0

Balance

(0-07-0)

Income estimated equivalent to half-gallery repayments

MOVE TO FORTUNE THEATRE

IV.18 FALL-WINTER 1600-1601

Fol. Date Details Income Fol, Literary Product. Fol, Total Fol. Repay BalanceAug. 16

2330

Sept. 6132027

Oct. 4111825

Nov. 18152229

Dec. 6132027

Jan. 310 /Phaeton/172431

Feb. 7142128

Mar. 7

70v

71

85v

1-00-0

Totals

1-10-02-00-02-00-00-10-06-00-00-10-03-10-01-00-01-12-0

2-00-0

21-12-0

6-12-0

4-00-00-08-03-00-0

4-00-0

1-12-01-00-00-19-01-00-0

85v 51-19-6 51-19-6

IV.19 SPRING-SUMMER 1601

Fol. Date Details Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol, Total Fol. Repay BalanceMar.

Apr.

May

June

212841118252 /Blind Beggar B G/916 /Blind Beggar Alex .72330 /Jew of Malta/613

Totals

86

86v

87

87 v

2-08-0

0-10-0^-05-06-00-01-C&-0

0-15-00-10-02-00-05-05-0

3-15-02-10-0

0-16-04-10-03-05-010-00-05-10-03-13-420-15-7

29-02-0 48-09-11 87v 77-11-11

IV. 20 FALL-WINTER 1601-1602

Fol. Date Details Income Fol. Literary Product, Fol, Total Fol. Repay Balance

Blind Beggar/

Indies/

July 4

11 /Six Yeomen71825

Aug. 18 ^Mahomet/

22 /Z\f e of29

Sept. 5121926

Oct. 310172431

Nov. 7

2128 w u

Dec. 5 /Srack Me This Nut/121926

Jan. 2

i t - -2330

Feb. 613

Totals

9192

92v93

93v

Hercules/

95

95v

96

104

4-00-0

3-O5-O2-10-03-15-00-10-01-00-03-00-01-10-03-10-00-10-02-00-02-10-00-10-02-00-02-00-03-00-0

2-10-04-15-02-00-0

1-00-0

6-00-0

9-00-01-10-06-10-0

68-15-0

8-07-0

4-12-0

1-04-0

6-09-435-10-81-10-03-06-03-03-60-13-4

5-02-910-13-93-04-0

4-17-62-00-0

1-04-60-05-0

1-05-03-01-33-12-61-10-0

3-19-0

0-12-0

106-03-11 174-18-11

IV.21 WINTER-SPRING-FALL-WINTER l602-l603

Pol. Date Deta i l s Income Fol . Literary Product. Fol . Total Fol. Repay BalanceFeb. 20

27Mar. 6

132027

Apr. 31017

Apr. 24May 1

8 /Malcolm/152229

June 512 / i l Cardinal Wolsey/19 /Love Parts Friendship/26

July 310 /Jephtha/172431

Aug. 7142128

Sept. 411 /Mortimer/1825 /Earl Hertford/

Oct. 29162330

105

3-00-0

J+-00-0

1-07-6

105

105v

106

106v

107

107v

108

5-00-0

12-00-01-00-06-00-07-00-01-00-0

13-00-01-05-01-10-0

2-00-08-00-0

0-05-00-10-05-15-00-10-02-10-09-00-0

2-00-01-10-0

10-07-04-05-04-16-0

10-00-0

1-10-01-05-01-02-01-10-0

6-18-01-12-0

Fol. DateNov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Details61320275

121926291623306132027613

Income Fol. Literary Product. Fol. Total Fol. Repay Balance

108v

109

109

109v

/J.-00-02-00-06-00-0^-00-0

0-15-05-00-00-10-01-00-05-00-0

2-00-0

2-00-08-00-0

8-18-0

ON Totals 131-10-0 57-00-6 188-10-6 493-00-10

IV.22 WORCESTER'S ( 1602-03)

Fol, Date Details Incoae Pol, Literary Product, Pol, Total Pol, Repay Balance

Aug. 2128

Sept, 4111825

Oct. 29162330

•Nov. 6132027

Dec. 4111825

Jan. 18

Jan. 152229

Feb. 5121926

Mar. 51219

/Oldcastle/

/Biron7

^Two Brothers/

^Marshal Osric/

^ady Jane^

^Christmas

[l Black Dog/

/Dnfortunate General/

/2 Black Do§/

/Woman Killed/

Totals

115115v

116

H6v

117117v

118

118v

119119v

120

120v

2-00-0-10-0

11-10-02-00-0

4-00-05-10-01-00-06-10-05-10-0-05.03-00-0-13-0

11-00-0

1-10-02-00-0

3-00-03-10-04-00-03-00-04-00-03-00-0

23-09-016-03-03-13-*2-16-4

6-16-01-13-0-01-2-10-0

23-09-01-00-07-02-81-00-0

22-08-81-19-0

-10-0

-18-43-10-03-10-07-15-01-00-06-02-0

1-00-0-10-08-10-0

1^5-06-6 233-14-6

V.I SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE INCOME

Season

s-s 1592F-W 1592-93F-W 1593-94s 1594s 1594s 1594S-S-F-W 159^95S-S 1595F-W 1596s-s 1596

CompanyStrange'sStrange9sSussex*8Sussex's -Queen'sAdmiral'sAdmiral's k Chamberlain'sAdmiral'sAdmiral'sAdmiral'sAdmiral's

Total181-10-548-19-050-09-015-16-06-03-04-11-0

339-07-0107-02-0224-15-0115-06-0

Vks

19572I2

39102715

Average9-11-09-15-07-04-17-18-06-03-02-05-68-14-0

10-14-08-06-57-13-9

Per.

1052930

83

10218

5715085

Average1-14-61-13-81-13-71-18-62-01-0-09-0

1-11-11-17-61-09-111-07-1

OO V.2 SUMMARY OF LITERARY EXPENSES, APPROVALS. AND COLLABORATIONS

Season

F-WS-SF-WS-SF-WS-SsF-WS-SROSE

F-WS-SF-W

ret,

1596-9715971597-9815981598-99159915991599-001600

Wks162222203015181820

2 T0TALS196

1600-0116011601-021602*03

30143356

, TOTS. 133

Total7-10-04-00-0

30-10-083-00-0

111-19-021-05-032-10-071-15-043.O9-O

405-18-0

21-12-029-02-068-15-0

131-10-0250-19-0

Average-09-4-O3-4

1-07-94-03-03-14-81-08-41-16-13-19-92-03-52-01-4

-14-52-01-62-01-82-06-111-17-7

F

511153387

52

156

14

26

0

253

16'

710

17

I

3593784

29457

10

26

A

2

1

1

4611

S

71020

715231698

10163041

97

U218

343032

1?8

100

78

141241

Sh Do Ro

53842

12

46

1

11

12

349497

1

2122

2

221

7 J

713134

37

Bi

31

612

258

Ju

121

3

7

1

1112

EA

1185I?

Ca

1412

8

, Ce

18942554

35

1018

Da

1

438l443

12

, De

2882453

Dr

188

31

32 21

21249

112

Hy Hn

2

22

"5"2232

2

165

14

2361

12

Hd

2

2

11

Jo

1

1

2

4

12

3

Mu

321

21

9

4*?

Po11

222

5

Ra

1

1

22

4

Sm

1

1326*

Wi

83

3

[If

C

210103286

41

697

V.3 SUMMARY OP PRODUCTION EXPENSES AND APPROVALS

Seasons-s 1596F-W 1596-97S-S 1597F-W 1597-98s-s 1598F-W 1598-99S-S 1599S 1599F-W 1599-1600S-S 1600

ROSE TOTALS

F-W 16OO-16O1S-S 1601F-W 1601-02S-S-F-W 1602-03

FORTUNE TOTALS

Wks

15162222203015181820

30

3356

S-Total

11-05-004-09-00

12-12-0723-01-04

105-11-0036-01-0010-08-0011-07-001^5-0 -00

259-18-11

1-00-0016-03-0480-04-0737-13-00

135-00-11

U-Total

17-00-005-16-003-04-08

13-19-0096-13-0018-18-002-02-04

28-02-0622-08-00

208-03-06

29-07-0632-06-0725-19-0419-07-06

107-00-11

C-Total32-03-0428-05-0010-05-0015-17-0337-00-04

202-04-0054-19-0012-10-0439-09-0667-12-00

500-05-09

30-07-0648-09-11

106-03-1157-00-06

242-01-10

Average2-02-101-15-01-09-04-14-05

1-17-006-14-093-13-03-13-09

2-03-093-07-07

1-00-033-09-033-04-041-00-03

S88288

26738

11

89

51

1716

2?

u

413968145

41

712436

08

EA8121

12

437

SI Dn

6 3

2

6 5

Ju Sh Do

1

1

411

2.

141

7T

3

51

510

25419

14

26

174241

36

1212

Bl

12

1

1

Je LT

1

2

1

1

5

513

18

DT Ty

1

1

4

4

V.4 SUMMARY OP PLAYWRIGHTS1 INCOME

ADMIRAL'S MEN (1597 - 1603)

Season

P-W 1597-98S-S 1598P-W 1598-99S-S 1599S 1599F-W 1599-00S-S 1600

P-WS-SP-W

P-W

1600-0116011601-021602-03

1602-03

Ca

4-1017-101-005-10

Ce2-05

19-1515-097-103-10

10-1814-00

8-109-00

23-05

7-03

Da

2-00

9-107-00

1-156-008-007-00

3-14

De9-009-10

20-054-05

11-0015-152-15

3-004-10-10

10-05

11-05

Dr3-00

13-0519-05

8-131-10

-151-15

Hy

7-10

2-121-10

Hn Hd1-101-00

10-00

1-108-02

11-05

Jo Mi1-00

2-00

5-10

MOVE TO FORTUNE6-101-094-106-00

5-155-15

11-152-10 2-00

2-0010-00 7-15

WORCESTER'S MEN (1602-03)8-04 26-05 1-00

Mu10-153-151-05

4-131-19

2-007-00

Po

4-0010-008-10

Ra

3-00

4-121-08

SB Wi We

4-05

-10

5-00 1-00

23-14

Total30-1083-00

111-1921-0532-1071-1543-09

21-1229-0268-15

131-10

88-18

V.5 CONSOLIDATED WEEKLY ACCOUNTS SUMMARY

Season Wks Per Income Literary Product. Fol. Total Average Repay Balance Cum, BalanceS-S 1592F-W 1593-93F-W 1593-94S-SS-SS-S 59F-W 159^-95S-S 1595F-W 1595-96s-s 1596F-W 1596-97S-S 1597F-W 1597-98S-S 1598F-W 1598-99S-S 1599S 1599p_tf 1599-1600S-S 1600

7212

19 1056 29

3083

1039 21810 5127 15015 8516 7522 10922203015181820

Rose Totals

F-W 1600-1601 30S-S 1601 1**F-W 1601-1602 33S-S-F-W- 1602-03 56

Fortune Totals

Rose Totals

Grand Totals

181-10-548-19-050-09-015-16-06-03-0

339-07-0107-02-0224-15-0115-06-095-07-0

132-06-065-I6-O59-03-5

236-09-0103-17-0

7-03-095-14-0

111-08-0

7-10-04-00-030-10-083-00-0111-19-021-05-032-10-071-15-043-09-0

405-18-0

21-12-029-02-068-15-0131-10-0250-19-0

405-18-0

656-17-0

32-03-428-05-010-05-015-17-337-00-4202-04-054-19-012-10-439-09-667-12-0

500-05-9

30-07-648-09-11106-03-1157-00-6

242-01-10

500-05-9

742-07-7

71v22v22v44v4853v6364v67v69v

85v87 v104109v

32-03-4-35-15-014,-05-046-07-3120-00-431/4,-03-076-04-045-00-4111-04-6111-01-0

906-03-9

51-19-677-11-11174-18-11188-10-6493-00-10

906-03-91399-04-7

2-02-102-04-80-12-72-02-16-00-010-09-55-01-72-10-06-03-65-11-0

1-14-85-10-95-06-03-07-4

39-09-020-00-0

10-14-0236-O9-OIO3-I7-O7-03-095-14-0111-08-0617-08-4

/93-00-11

/93-00-11

(7-05-8)15-15-014-05-046-07-3

109-06-477-14-0

(27-13-0)37-17-4.15-10-6(0-07-0)

288-15-5

15-15-030-00-076-07-3

185-13-7263-07-7235-1^-7273-11-11289-02-5288-15-5

211090 211090188-10-6 400-00-6

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, John Quincy. 1917. The dramatic records of Sir Henry Herbert. New Haven, Yale Univer-sity Press.

1934. The Massacre at Paris leaf. Library, fourth series, 14: 447—69.1946. The author plot of an early seventeenth century play. Library, fourth series, 26: 17-27.

Albright, E. M. 1927. Dramatic publication in England, 1580-1640. New York, Heath.Arber, Edward (ed.). 1875-94. A transcript of the registers of the Company of Stationers of

London: 1554—1640 A.D. 5 vols. London, Birmingham.Ashe, Dora Jean. 1954. The non-Shakespearean bad quartos as provincial acting versions.

Renaissance Papers, 57-62.Baldwin, T. W. 1927a. The organization and personnel of the Shakespearean company. Princeton,

Princeton University Press.1927b. Posting Henslowe's accounts. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 26: 42—90.

Beckerman, Bernard. 1971. Philip Henslowe. In The theatrical manager in England and America,ed. J. W. Donohue, Jr. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Bentley, G. E. 1971. The profession of dramatist in Shakespeare's time, 1590—1642. Princeton,Princeton University Press.

1984. The profession of player in Shakespeare's time, 1590—1642. Princeton, Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Bevington, David. 1962. From mankind to Marlowe. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Brombert, Murray. 1950. The reputation of Philip Henslowe. Shakespeare Quarterly, 1: 135—9.Byrne, M. St. Clare. 1932. Bibliographical clues in collaborate plays. Library, fourth series, 13:

2 1 ^ 8 .1966. Prompt book's progress. Theatre Notebook, 21: 7-12.

Cerasano, C. P. 1985. Revising Philip Henslowe's biography. Notes & Queries 230: 66-71.Chambers, E. K. 1923. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Chillington, Carol. 1979. Philip Henslowe and his 'diary'. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Univer-

sity of Michigan.1980. Playwrights at work: Henslowe's not Shakespeare's Book of Sir Thomas More. English

Literary Renaissance, 10: 439-79.Collier, John Payne. 1845. Henslowe's Diary. London.Defoe, Daniel. 1738. The complete English tradesman. 2 vols. Fourth edn. London.De Roover, Raymond. 1948. Money, banking and credit in mediaeval Bruges. Cambridge, Mass.

Mediaeval Academy of America.Edwards, James. 1960. Early bookkeeping and its development into accounting. Business History

Review, 34: 446-58.Evans, G. Blakemore. 1973. An Elizabethan theatrical stock list. Harvard Library Bulletin, 21:

254-70.Fleay, F. G. 1890. A chronicle history of the London stage 1559—1642. 2 vols. London, Reeves and

Turner.1891. A biographical chronicle of the English drama 1559-1642. New York, B. Franklin.

Foakes, R. A. (ed.). 1977. The Henslowe papers. London, Scolar Press.Gossen, Stephen. 1579. The School of Abuse. London.Gray, Henry D. 1917. The purport of Shakespeare's contribution to 1 Henry VI. Publications of the

Modern Language Association, 32: 367—92.

142

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 143Greg, Walter Wilson (ed.). 1904-8. Henslowe's diary, 2 vols. London, A. H. Bullen.

(ed.). 1907. Henslowe's papers. London, A. H. Bullen.1919. 'Bad' quartos outside Shakespeare — Alcazar and Orlando. Libnary, third series, 10: 193—

222.1922. Two Elizabethan stage abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar and Orlando Furioso.

London, The Malone Society.1925. Prompt copies, private transcripts, and the 'playhouse scrivener'. Library, fourth series, 6:

148-56.(ed.). 1931a. Malone Society Collections II, 3. London, The Malone Society.(ed.), 1931b. Dramatic documents from Elizabethan playhouses. 2 vols. Oxford, Clarendon

Press.1937. From manuscript to print. Review of English Studies, 13: 190-205.1939. A fragment from Henslowe's diary. Library, 19: 180-4.(ed.). 1950. The tragical history of the life and death of Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe:

a conjectural reconstruction. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Greg, W. W. and E. Bothwell (eds.). 1930. Records of the court of the stationers' company. London,

Bibliographical Society.Guiney, L. 1.1919. Ben Jonson and Henslowe. Notes & Queries, 136: 271.Haaker, Ann. 1968. The plague, the theatre and the poet. Renaissance Drama, new series, 1: 283—

306.Hart, Alfred. 1932a. The time allotted for representation of Elizabethan and Jacobean plays.

Review of English Studies, 8: 395^14.1932b. The length of Elizabethan and Jacobean plays. Review of English Studies, 8: 139—54.1934. Acting versions of Elizabethan plays. Review of English Studies, 10: 1—28.1941. Did Shakespeare produce his own plays? Modern Language Review, 36: 173—83.1942. Stolen and surreptitious copies. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.

Holdsworth, William. 1903—66. A history of English law. 16 vols. London, Methuen.Hoppe, Harry R. 1946. John of Bordeaux: a bad quarto that never reached print. In Studies in

Honor of A. H. R. Fairchild. University of Missouri Studies 21: 121-32.Howard-Hill, T. H. 1983. The censor and four English promptbooks. Studies in Bibliography, 36:

168-77.Hoy, Cyrus. 1976. Critical and aesthetic problems of collaboration in Renaissance drama. Research

Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 19: 3—6.Hudson, Kenneth. 1982. Pawnbroking: an aspect of British social history. London, The Bodley

Head.Hume, Robert D. (ed.). 1980. The London theatre world, 1660-1800. Carbondale, Southern

Illinois University Press.Hyde, Mary C. 1949. Playwriting for Elizabethans 1600-1605. New York, Columbia University

Press.Ingram, William. 1971. The closing of the theatres in 1597: a dissenting view. Modern Philology,

69:105-15.1978. A London life in the brazen age. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Isaacs, J. 1933. Production and stage management at the Blackfriars theatre. London, Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Jenkins, Harold. 1934. The life and work of Henry Chettle. London, Sidgwick and Jackson.Kirschbaum, Leo. 1938. A census of bad quartos. Review of English Studies, 14: 20—43.

1945. An hypothesis concerning the origin of the 'bad quartos'. PMLA, 60: 697—715.1955. Shakespeare and the stationers. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University Press.1959. The copyright of Elizabethan plays. Library, fifth series, 14: 231-50.

Klein, David. 1967. Time allotted for an Elizabethan performance. Shakespeare Quarterly, 18:434-8.

Lambarde, W. 1970 [c. 1596]. Perambulation of Kent. Bath, Adams and Dart.Langhams, Edward A. 1975. A Restoration Actor's part. Harvard Library Bulletin, 23: 180—5.

144 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHYLawrence, William J. 1927. Pre-Restoration stage studies. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University

Press.Lesko, Kathleen M. 1979. A rare Restoration manuscript prompt-book: John Wilson's Belphegor

corrected by the author. Studies in Bibliography, 32: 215-19.McMillin, Scott. 1972. The ownership of The Jew of Malta, Friar Bacon and The Ranger's Comedy.

English Language Notes, 9: 249—52.1973. The plots of The Dead Man's Fortune and 2 Seven Deadly Sins: inferences for theatre his-

torians. Studies in Bibliography, 26: 235—43.1976. Simon Jewell and the Queen's men. Review of English Studies, 27: 174-7.

Marder, Louis. 1970. Chettle's forgery of The Groatsworth of Wit and the 'shake-scene' passage.Shakespeare Newsletter, 20: 42.

Milhous, Judith. 1979. Thomas Betterton and the management of Lincoln Inn Fields, 1695—1708.Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

1980. Company management. In Robert D. Hume (ed.), The London Theatre World 1660-1800, pp. 1-34. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

1981-2. United Company finances, 1682-92. Theatre Review, 7: 37-53.Miller, Edwin Haviland. 1959. The professional writer in Elizabethan England. Cambridge, Mass.,

Harvard University Press.Nashe, Thomas. 1599. Lenten Stuff. London.Peele, James. 1569. The pathewaye to perfectnes in the accomptes of debitour, and creditour.

London.Rabkin, Norman. 1976. Problems of collaboration. Research Opportunities in Renaissance

Drama, 19: 7-14.Ramsay, G. D. (ed.). 1962. John Isham: mercer and merchant adventurer. Northants Record

Society, 21.Ramsay, Peter. 1956. Some Tudor merchants' accounts. Studies in the history of accounting, ed.

A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey. London.Rhodes, Ernest L. 1976. Henslowe's Rose: the stage and the staging. Lexington, University Press of

Kentucky.Rhodes, R. Crompton. 1923. Shakespeare's first folio. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.Ringler, William A. 1968. The number of actors in Shakespeare's early plays, in G. E. Bentley (ed.),

The seventeenth century stage. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.Rutter, Carol Chillington. 1985. Documents of the Rose playhouse. Manchester, Manchester Uni-

versity Press.Sanders, Norman. 1953. Greene and his editors. PMLA, 48: 392-417.Saunders, J. W. 1964. The profession of English letters. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Schoenbaum, S. 1966. Internal evidence and Elizabethan dramatic authorship. Evanston, Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.1975. William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sheavyn, P. 1909. The literary profession in the Elizabethan age. Revised J. W. Saunders, 1967.Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Sisson, C. J. 1936. The lost plays of Shakespeare's age. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.1954. The Red Bull company and the importunate widow. Shakespeare Survey, 7: 57-68.1960. The laws of Elizabethan copyright: the stationers' view. Library, fifth series, 15: 8—20.1972. The Boar's Head Theatre. Edited by Stanley Wells. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Van Dam, B. A. P. 1929. Alleyn's player's part of Greene's Orlando Furioso and the text of the Qof 1594. English Studies, 11: 182-203; 209-20.

1934. The Collier leaf. English Studies, 16: 166-73.Wallace, Charles W. 1909. Three London theatres of Shakespeare's time. University Studies IX,

no. 4. Lincoln, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press.1910—11. The Swan theatre and the Earl of Pembroke's servants. Englishe Studien, 43: 340—95.1966 [1913]. The first London theatre. New York, Benjamin Blom.

Yamey, B. S. 1940. The functional development of double-entry bookkeeping. London, Publi-cations of the Accounting Research Association No. 7.

GENERAL INDEX

Ackley, John, 6 Daborne, Robert, 55,56, 58, 59, 66Alleyn, Edward, 1, 2,5, 6, 8,15, 21, 24,25,26, Dame, Nicholas, 6

29, 33, 35, 39,43,45,46,47,49, 52, 62, 74, Danter, John, 6177,102,104,105,106,110, 111, 112,113, Davenant, Sir William, 40114,115

Alleyn, Joan, 4, 5Alleyn, Richard, 37,106,107Authorizations, 35, 47, 48, 65

Banking, 22Baxter, Richard, 38Beeston, Christopher, 35,36,39,43,64,116,117Bird, William, 11-12,26,32, 33, 39, 52, 60, 77,

104,105,106,108,110, 111, 112,114Blackwood, Thomas, 64,116,117Book-keeping, sixteenth century, 5, 7,47,49,50,

55currency conventions, xii

Boyle, Will, 60,108Bradshaw, Richard, 10, 65Brayne, John, 15, 20Brome, Richard, 73Brown, Mr, 103Burbage, Cuthbert, 15Burbage, James, 15, 16, 20, 36

Chamberlain's Men, 17, 54Chambers, E. K., 18Chapman, George, 55, 58, 60, 62, 68,104,106,108,117Chettle, Henry, 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61-3,

64,65,66,68,72,74,77,104,106,107,108,110,112,113,114,116

Chettle, Robert, 61Cholmley,John, 14,15,20Clarke, Roger, 36, 38Collaboration, 57, 58, 59Collier, J. Payne, ixCraftsmen

car man, 39lacemakers, 39mercers, 39milliner, 39silk man, 39

Cross, Thomas, 36Cumber, John, 35Curtain Theatre, 37

Daves, Hugh, 9Dawes, Robert, 37Day, John, 50, 59, 60-1, 63, 64, 65, 74, 77,106,

108,110,112,114,116Dekker, Thomas, 51,54, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64,

65,72,74,77,104,105,106,107,108,110,112,114,116

Derby's Men, 65Diary entries,

cancellation, 23cessation of daily, 20corrections, 6,17dating, 16five-column entries, 18,19, 21grouped entries, 16irregular, 16marginal, 23, 25, 28posting, 17retranscription, 6, 7,11,15, 26weekly, 21

Donstone, James (Donstall), 24, 45,102,105Dover (the tailor), 38Downton, Thomas, 11,12,26,33,35,38,48,49,

51, 61, 64,104,105,106,107,108,109,111,114,115

Draper, Harry, 10Drayton, Michael, 26,48, 57, 59, 62, 65, 66, 77,

104,106,108,110,112,114Duke, John, 39, 64, 65,116,117Duke's Theatre, 36Dulwich College, ix, 8

Field, Nathan, 31, 55,58Fleay, F. G., ix, xFletcher, Lawrence, 45,103Foakes, R. A. and R. T. Rickert, ix, x, 1,2, 8,15,

16,18,21,69,80Fortune Theatre, 21, 29,48,49, 50, 61, 64, 77Freshwater, William, 39Fuller, Richard, 10

Gallery income, 15Globe Theatre, 55Greene, Robert, 54, 77

145

146 GENERAL INDEXGreg, Walter, ix, x, 1, 2, 8 ,15 ,16 ,21 , 69, 80Gresham, Sir Thomas, 5Grigges, John, 14Groafs-worth of Wit, 61, 63

Hathway, Richard, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 77,104,108,110,112,114,116

Haughton, William, 50, 59, 60, 61, 68,104,108,110,111,112,114

Hearne, Thomas, 33, 38Heywood, Thomas, 41,45, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65,

102,104,106,114,116,117Hoskins, William, 61Heath, Mr (mercer), 39, 111Henslowe, Agnes, 1,4Henslowe, Anne, 3Henslowe, Edmond, 1, 2, 3 ,4 , 7Henslowe, Francis, 2 ,4 , 22, 23, 43Henslowe, John (brother), 5Henslowe, John (nephew), 2, 3, 4Henslowe, Margaret, 1Henslowe, Margery, 3, 4Henslowe, Mary, 3, 4Henslowe, Philip,

apprenticeship, 1, 2, 7bonds, 6 ,12,29, 30, 32, 33book-keeping, 5, 6, 7; balancing, 6,7, 15, 25,

27,28,29,47; cancellation of entries, 10,11;cash book, 8; corrections, 6,17; day book, 8,17; ledger, 8,17,30; marginal entries, 16,63;rent book, 8; retranscription of entries, 6, 7,11, 15; sub-totals, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 28

executor, 3, 7honours, 2loans, actors: interest, 24, 47; repayments, 24,

26,27,29,32,44—7; security on loans, 32,53loans, personal, 6,8,10; interest, 22,23,27,30;

promissory notes, 10; repayments, 12;security, 13; witnessed notes, 10, 26

managerial role, 32, 33marriage, 1Mastership of the Bears, 11memorandum book, 13partnership, 14pawnbroking, 2,12, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 52real estate investments, 1, 8, 9rent, 8, 9, 20, 21, 27, 31, 32sales, 10

Henslowe, Richard, 2Hope Theatre, 20, 55Housekeepers, 15Hunt, Thomas, 103

Income accounts,gallery, 18, 21, 31, 36, 39 ,40 ,42outer door, 18, 19,21,40sharer's income, 42weekly accounts, 19

whole galleries, 42Inventories

costumes, 51, 52playbooks, 49,57properties, 52,53

Jeffes, Anthony, 26Jeffes, Humphrey, 21, 26 ,41 ,42 ,113 ,114Jones, Richard, 8, 26,29, 33,43Jonson, Ben, 26,32,48,50,54,55,59,60,62,68,

72, 73, 77 ,104,106,108,112,114Juby, Edward, 24,26,45,64,102,104,105,106,

107,108,109, 111, 113,114,115

Kendall, William, 38Keyes, Mrs, 8Kind Heart's Dream, 61King's Men, 55Kyd, Thomas, 54, 77

Lady Elizabeth's Men, 31,32, 37, 55Langley, Francis, 15, 20,46, 51Langworth, Arthur, 5, 6Lee, Robert, 104Lennox's Men, 2Lent, 46Licenses,

for theatre, 18for plays, 18,41

Little tailor, 26Lodge, Thomas, 66Lord Nottingham's Men (Admiral's), 28Lowin, John, 64,116, 117

Magett, Steven, 10Malone, Edmund, ixMalthouse, John, 8Marlowe, Christopher, 54, 67, 77Marston, John, 54, 68,108Massey, Charles, 114Massinger, Philip, 55Master of the Revels, 20

license fees, 18payments to, 17,18

Meade, Jacob, 4, 31, 55Meres, Francis, 61Middleton, Thomas, 58, 65, 77,114,116Munday, Anthony, 26,48, 57,59, 61, 62, 65, 66,

77,104,106,108,110,112,114

Nashe, Thomas, 60

Ogell, Father, 109

Pallant, Robert, 64,116Pawnbroking, 22, 23

account books, 23interest charges, 22

GENERAL INDEX 147pledges, 22,23

Pembroke's Men, 20,21, 25,29, 33,43Perkins, Richard, 35Pett,Mr,60,110Players' finances

borrowing, 43-7gallery income, 15,18,21,25,31,36,39,40,42literary expenses, 47-50outer door income, 18,19,21, 40production expenses, 50-1

Players' income, 39-43Players' organization

agreements, 40apprentices, 34, 36articles of agreement, 34contracts, 37doubling, 37gatherers, 15, 20, 21, 39, 40hired men, 22, 34, 36,37regulations, 37, 38rehearsals, 37, 74salaries, 38sharers, 31, 32, 34,41tailors, 38tiremen, 38touring, 38treasurer, 36

Players' inventoriescostumes, 50, 51,52playbooks, 49, 57properties, 52, 53

Players' stock, 49,50, 51, 52Playwrights

apprenticeship, 60collaboration, 57, 58, 59, 65, 77commissioning of, 55payments to, 48, 56,57reading to actors, 55revision, 77, 78syndicates, 59

Plotauthor's, 26, 55, 56theatrical, 73

Porter, Henry, 11,33,46,60,62,63,65,74,102,104,106

Prince's Men, 43Privy Council, 33,46

Queen Anne's Men, 35, 39, 43Queen's Men, 2, 35, 38, 43, 68

Radford (tailor), 38Rankins, William, 60,106,110Red Bull Theatre, 35, 36,41Repayments (discretionary), 21

Robinson, Mr, 60Rose Theatre, 14 ,19,21, 29, 37 ,41 ,43 ,48 , 50,

51,55,57,58,65Rowley, Samuel, 35,48,49, 58, 60, 77,106,108,

110,112,114Russell, John, 39

Savage, Ralph, 55Shaa, Robert, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35,43, 46,47,

48,61,63,64,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,113,117

Shakespeare, William, 49, 54, 67, 68Sheldon, Mr, 10Singer, John, 26,114Slater, Martin, 11, 24 ,45,49, 50,102Sly, William, 8Smith (mercer), 35, 39Smith, Wentworth, 57, 63, 64, 65, 77,110,112,

114,116Spencer, Gabriel, 11, 26, 33,42Stone, Mr, 39Strange's Men, 15,17, 51, 69, 75, 76Sussex's Men, 68, 76Sussex—Queen's Men, 76Swan Theatre, 15, 20,25, 33,46

Thare, John, 116,117Theatre, the, 15,16,20Theatrical documents

actor's part, 56, 73annotations, 73author plot, 26, 55, 56corruption, 73prompt-book, 73revision, 77, 78stage directions, 73theatrical plot, 73transcription, 73

Tilney, Edmond, 17Tourneur, Cyril, 55, 58Towne, Thomas, 26,107,108,109,110,112,114

Wadeson, Anthony, 110,112Watson, Goody, 23Webster, John, 64, 73,114, 116White, William, 38Willett,John,39Wilson, Robert, 32, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66,104,106,

108Woodward, Agnes, 1, 8Woodward, Elizabeth, 1Woodward, Henry, 1Woodward, Joan, 1Worcester's Men, 39, 61, 63, 64, 65, 77, 78Worth, Ellis, 35

INDEX OF PLAYS

Abraham and Lot (34), 87Agamemnon (174), 106,107,128Albere Galles (264), 64,116Alexander and Lodowick (99), 46,49, 98, 99,

100,104,107,123Alice Fierce (120), 26,105,125Alleyn the Pirate, see Siege of DunkirkAll Fools but the Fool (175)All is not Gold that Glisters (216), 110Andronicus see Titus AndronicusAntony and Vallia {66), 91, 93, 94Arcadian Virgin (192), 108Arraignment of London, 55, 58, 59As Merry as May Be (249), 64, 114

Barnardo andFiammetta (80), 94, 95,121Battle of Alcazar, 37Bear a Brain (179), 108Beech's Tragedy, see Tragedy of MerryBellendon (42), 88, 89, 90, 96, 98, 99Bendo andRichardo (12), 85Better Late than Never (Bear a Brain})1 Black Bateman of the North (134), 62,104,105,

1262 Black Bateman (139), 62,1041 Black Dog of Newgate (273), 64, 77,116,117,

1372 Black Dog (277), 64,116,117,137Black Joan (121), 49, 52Blind Beggar of Alexandria (88), 44, 95, 96, 97,

98,99,111,122,1331 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green (206), 110,1332 Blind Beggar (214), 59,110, 1113 Blind Beggar (220), 110,112,113,134Blind Eats Many a Fly (274), 65,116Boss of Billingsgate (256), 64,114Bourbon (115), 49, 100Brandimer (19), 85Branholt (118), 105,125Bnsfo/ Tragedy (233), 114Brwte Greenshield (2 Brutus) (155), 1061 Brwtas (145), 49, 50, 51, 60, 62, 74,106,107,

127,128Buckingham (30), 87Byron (267), 117,137

1 Caesar and Pompey (59), 90, 91, 93,1202 Gzesar <zmf Pompey (74), 93,121

(),Captain Thomas Stukeley, see Stukeley1 Cardinal Wolsey (Rising) (221), 57,112,113,

114,1342 Cardinal Wolsey (Life) (225), 110,112,115,135Cataline's Conspiracy (149), 50, 62,106Chance Medley (148), 49,106Changeling, 58C/?mo« of England (84), 44, 94, 95, 96, 97,121Christmas Comes But Once a Year (272), 65,116,

117,137Civil Wars of France, Introduction (164), 1061 Qw7 Wars of France (152), 74,106,107,1272 Cii/i/ Wars (158), 106,107,1273 Civil Wars (159), 106C/orys rf«d Orgasto (8), 85Confer ofQueenhithe (115), 56,104Comedy of Humours (Humourous Day's Mirth)

(106), 19,49,68,99,100,124Conan, Prince of Cornwall (156), 59,106Conquest of Brute, see BrutusConquest of Spain (215), 110Conquest of West Indies (217), 57,110,112,113,

134Constantine (17), 85Cosmo (25), 70, 75, 86Cox of Collumpton, see Tragedy of CoxCrack Me this Nut (76), 44, 93, 94, 95, 96,112,

113,121,134Cupid and Psyche (202), 110, 111, 131Cutlacke (40), 88, 89, 90Cutting Dick (266), 65,116

Damon and Pythias (198), 108,110, 111, 131Danish Tragedy (238), 114Devil and His Dam (Grim the Collier ofCroyden})

(204), 68Dido and Aeneas (123), 105Diocletian (60), 90,120Disguises (78), 93, 94,121Doctor Faustus (55), 19,44,49, 76, 77, 90, 91,

92,93,95,96,97,100,114Don Horatio (4), 85, 86

1 Earl Goodwin (131), 62,104,105,1262 Earl Goodwin (135), 62,104,105,126Earl of Gloucester, Honourable Life of (222),

110,112

148

INDEX OF PLAYS 149Earl of Hertford (246), 115,135Edmund Ironsides, 73Edward IV, 65English Fugitives (201), 110Englishmen for My Money, see Woman Will Have

Her Will

1 Fair Constance of Rome (208), 1102 Fair Constance (209), 110Fair Maid of the Exchange, 36Fair Maid of Italy (35), 87, 88Felmelanco {244), 60, 114Ferrex andPorrex (200), 110, 111, 131Fii/e Pfcrys m Owe (103), 99,100,1241 Fortunatus (87), 44, 52, 74, 77, 95, 96,108,

109,130Fortune's Tennis (210), 110Fount of New Fashions (153), 106,107,127Four Kings (171), 107,128Fowr Pfoys in One (13), 85Four Sons of Aymon (255), 114Frederick andBasilea (108), 37,99,100,120,124French Comedy (67), 91,92,93,99,100,120,124French Doctor (57), 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97,112Friar Bacon (1), 70, 74, 75, 77, 85, 86, 88,114Friar Fox {167), 106Friar Francis (33), 87Friar Rush (223), 112Friar Spendleton (114), 49,100,125Funeral of Richard Coeur de Lion (137), 49, 62,

63,104

Galiaso (45), 89, 90,120Gentle Craft (Shoemakers' Holiday) (176), 108George a Green (29), 87Godfrey of Boulogne (47), 89, 90, 92, 93,120God Speed the Plough (27), 87Golden Ass, see Cupid and PsycheGrecian Comedy (56), 90, 91, 92, 93,120Guido (102), 46, 98, 99,103,124Guise (Massacre at Paris) (26), 68, 70, 75, 76, 86,

88,89,90,112,113,118,134

Hamlet (43), 68, 881 Hannibal and Hermes (142), 49,1042 Hannibal and Hermes (151), 74,106Hannibal and Scipio (212), 59,110Hardicanute (113), 49,100Hengist (109), 99Henry I (Life and Death) (107), 59, 62, 99,100,

124Henry I and Prince of Wales (130), 104,105Henry V (Famous Victories of) (82), 37,44, 68,

94, 95, 96,121Henry VI (11), 68, 70, 76, 85, 86,118Henry of Cornwall (6), 85, 862 Henry of Richmond (189), 32, 57,108

1 Hercules (71), 49,92,93,94,95,104,105,113,121,126,134

2 Hercules (72), 49, 92, 93, 94, 104,121Hester and Ahasuerus (41), 88Hoffman (253), 114Hot Anger Soon Cold (147), 49, 62,106Humourous Day's Mirth, see Comedy of

HumoursHuon of Bordeaux (28), 87

III of a Woman (Fount of New Fashions) (138),49,104

Isle of Dogs, 60Italian Tragedy (193), 61, 64,108,116

Jealous Comedy (24), 70, 75, 86,118Jephtha (234), 57, 74,114,115,135Jeronimo (The Spanish Tragedy) (16), 19,49, 68,

70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 85, 86, 93, 97, 98, 99,100,112,114

Jerusalem (18), 85Jew of Malta (7), 44,52,70,73,74,75,76,85,86,

87,88,89,90,95,96,111,133Joan as Good as my Lady (166), 65,106Joshua (247), 114Judas (207), 57, 60,110,112,113,134Jugurtha (196), 32,60,108Julian the Apostate (89), 44, 95, 96,122

Keep the Widow Waking, 55, 58King Arthur (133), 60,104King Lear (39), 68, 88King Lud (36), 87King Sebastian of Portugal (218), 110Knack to Know a Knave (23), 70, 86,118Knack to Know an Honest Man (58), 90, 91, 92,

93, 95, 97,120

1 Lady Jane (270), 64, 65,116,117,1372 Lady Jane (Sir Thomas Wyatt) (271), 68,116Like Unto Like (Devil and His Dam}) (261), 191 London Florentine (251), 65,1142 London Florentine (259), 114Long Meg of Westminster (68), 77,91,92,93,97,

98Longshanks (75), 68, 93, 94, 95, 96,114,121Looking Glass (for London and England) (14), 85Love of an English Lady (54), 90Love of a Grecian Lady, see Grecian ComedyLove Parts Friendship (232), 114,115,135Love Prevented (136), 49,104

Machiavel (10), 85Machiavelli and the Devil, 55Mack (69), 91,120Madman's Morris (140), 104, 105,127Mahomet (50), 77, 89, 90, 91,112,113,134Malcolm, King of Scots (231), 114,115,135

150 INDEX OF PLAYSMarshal Osric (265), 64, 65,116,117,137Martin Swart (110), 99,100,125Massacre at Paris, see GuiseMedicine for a Curst Wife (240), 114,116Merchant of Emden (48), 89,120Miller (128), 50, 104Mortimer (245), 115,135Mo^er Rofcap (122), 56,104,125Mulmutius Dunwallow (154), 60,106Muly Mollocco (2), 70, 74, 75, 76, 85, 86

Nebuchadnezzar (97), 46, 97, 98,123New World's Tragedy (77), 93, 94, 95,121

Oldcastle, see Sir John OldcastleOld Fortunatus, see FortunatusOrlando Furioso (3), 85Orphan's Tragedy (191), 108,112Osric (101), 98OM^H Tudor (194), 108

Page of Plymouth (180), 65, 72,108,109, 129Palamon and Atcite (53), 89, 90,120Paradox (93), 44, 96, 122Pastoral Tragedy (177), 108Patient Grissell(187), 108,109,130Phaeton (124), 77,104,105,110, 111, 125,132Philipo and Hippolito (46), 89, 90, 120Philip of Spain (242), 114Phocas (91), 44,49, 96,104,122Pierce ofExton (132), 50, 62, 104Pierce of Winchester (144), 104, 106,107,127Polyphemus (168), 63,106,109,129,130Pontius Pilate (230), 77,112Poor Man's Paradise (181), 108Pope Joan (9), 85Pythagoras (85), 44,49, 95, 96,104,122

Randal, Earl of Chester (248), 114Ranger's Comedy (38), 88, 89, 90, 91Richard Crookback (237), 114Richard the Confessor (31), 87Robert II, King of Scots (182), 1081 Robin Hood (Downfall of Robert, Earl of

Huntington) (125), 70,72,77,104,105,106,126

2 Robin Hood (Death of Robert, Earl ofHuntington) (127), 61,65,72,104,105,126

Robin Hood's Pennyworth (211), 110Roderick (262), 19

Samson (241), 114Scogan andSkelton (213), 110Seleo and Olymp(i)o (70), 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,120Set at Maw (63), 90, 91,120Set At Tennis (250), 1141 Seven Days of the Week (73), 92,93,94,95,97,

121

2 Seven Days of the Week (86), 95,1222 Seven Deadly Sins, 37Seven Wise Masters (199), 110, 111, 131Shoemakers' Holiday, see Gentle CraftSiege of Dunkirk (257), 114Siege of London (67), 45, 52, 76, 77, 91, 92, 93,

95,96Singer's Voluntary (254), 114Sir John Mandeville (5), 70, 74, 75, 85, 861 Sir John Oldcastle (185), 77,108,116,117,1372 Sir John Oldcastle (186), 108, 111, 131Sir Thomas More, 56, 58, 78Sir Thomas Wyatt, see 2 Lady Jane1 Six Clothiers (226), 1122 Six Clothiers (227), 112S/x Yeomew o/>/7<> West (219), 110,113,134Spanish Fig (229), 112Spanish Moor's Tragedy (197), 61,108Spanish Tragedy, see JeronimoSpencers (170), 63, 65,106,107,128Stepmother's Tragedy (178), 108Strange News out of Poland (205), 60,110, 111,

131Stukeley (Captain Thomas Stukeley) (96), 97, 98,

99,103Sturgflaterey (12), 49

1 Tamar Cham (90), 44, 96, 97,1222 Tamar Cham (21), 44,45, 70, 85, 86, 96,114,

118,1221 Tamburlaine (52), 76,77,89,90,91,92,93,942 Tamburlaine (64), 76, 77, 90, 91, 92, 94Taming of a Shrew (44), 68, 88Tanner of Denmark (22), 75, 86,118Tasso's Melancholy (49), 77,89,90,91,112,114,

120ThatWillBeShallBe (98),46,97,98,99,100,123Thomas Merry, see Tragedy of MerryThomas of Woodstock, 73Three (Two) Brothers (268), 64,116,117,137Time's Triumph and Fortune's (104), 99Tinker ofTotnes (94), 45, 96,122'Tis No Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver (160), 106Titus Andronicus (37), 68, 87, 88,119Titus and Vespasian (20), 70, 76, 85, 86,118Tobias (235), 1142 Tom Dough (224), 1122 Tom Strowd, see 2 Blind Beggar ofBethnal

Green3 Tom Strowd, see 3 Blind Beggar ofBethnal

GreenToo Good to be True (228), 112Toy to Please Chaste Ladies (81), 94, 95, 96, 97,

121Tragedy of Cox (188), 60,108Tragedy of Merry (190), 60,108,109,130Triplicity of Cuckolds (129), 104,125Tristram ofLyonesse (184), 108

INDEX OF PLAYS 151Troilus and Cressida (172), 57, 68, 106Troy (92), 44,45, 96,122Troy's Revenge, see PolyphemusTruth's Supplication to Candlelight (195), 1082 Two Angry Women ofAbington (162), 74,106,107,127Two Brothers, see Three BrothersTwo Merry Women ofAbington (169), 106Two Shapes (Caesar's Fall?)

Unfortunate General (275), 64, 116, 117,137Uther Pendragon (105), 99, 124

Valentine and Orson (143), 49,104Valteger, see VortigernVayvode (150), 49, 62, 74,106,107, 127Venetian Comedy (51), 89, 90, 91,120Volpone, 60Vortigern (95), 45, 97, 98, 99, 103,112,123

War Without Blows and Love Without Suit (161),106

Welshman (83), 76, 94Widow's Charm (239), 114William Cartwright (243), 114William Longsword (163), 106William the Conqueror (32), 87Wise Man of West Chester (62), 45,90,91,92,93,

94,95,96,100,112,120Witch of Islington (111), 100Woman Hard to Please (100), 46, 98, 99,123Woman Killedwith Kindness (278), 65,116,117,

137Woman's Tragedy (141), 49, 62,104Woman Will Have Her Will (Englishmen for My

Money) (126), 50, 57, 68,104Wonder of a Woman (79), 94, 95, 96,121Wooing of Death (203), 110World Runs on Wheels (165), 106,108

Warlamchester (61), 90, 92 Zenobia (15), 85