We may pause to consider that there were various forms of theatre hypothetically available to Shakespeare for which, whether by choice or otherwise, he did not write. If he did see any of the Princely Pleasures at Kenilworth, he did not himself script any such occasional drama for royalty or aristocracy. These were often scripted by gentlemen amateurs like George Gascoigne, using their pens to seek other forms of advancement; but Shakespeare’s friend and rival, Ben Jonson, a true literary professional, eventually built a career around writing such entertainments, especially the court masques which graced the court of King James and Queen Anne almost every year from 1605 to 1625. Shakespeare might offer a representation of such shows in Love’s Labor’s Lost or The Tempest, but never the real thing. Nor did he write shows for the artisans of the great London livery companies (trade guilds). Although the mystery plays had been suppressed in the provinces, the guilds were still involved in theatricals in London, most notably in the Lord Mayors’ Shows which developed from the mid‐sixteenth century. Every year on October 28 the new Lord Mayor was installed in the City; on the following day he went upriver to Westminster to take the oath to the king, and that day became an occasion for revelry both on water and on land, with pageants paid for by the livery company to which this Lord Mayor belonged. George Peele, Anthony Munday, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Middleton, John Webster, and Thomas Heywood all wrote “books” for these shows – but not William Shakespeare (Bergeron, 2003; Lancashire, 2009).
And one final omission: although Shakespeare wrote many memorable female roles for the boy actors who were recruited into his companies, he never wrote for any of the all‐boy companies (see p. 270). The Children of the Queen’s Chapel and the Children of Paul’s (early favorites of Queen Elizabeth and both mentioned in the 1578 Privy Council letter) went out of business, the one in 1584, the other shortly after 1590, but both were revived around 1599/1600. As we shall see, the Children of the Chapel – the “little eyases” mentioned in the folio text of Hamlet (2.2.338–62) – have a role in Shakespeare’s career, but he never wrote for them or their ilk: unlike John Marston, Ben Jonson, George Chapman, Thomas Middleton, John Day, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and others (see Shapiro 1977, 2009; Bly 2000, 2009; Munro 2005). All of these omissions may have arisen from the contractual conditions Shakespeare negotiated with the companies for whom he did write, but they do make his career distinctively different from those of many of his contemporaries.
To the best of our knowledge, Shakespeare wrote exclusively for adult playing companies, normally performing in the purpose‐built outdoor amphitheaters in the London suburbs. Over time we know that his plays were performed specifically at Newington Butts, the Theatre, the Curtain, and the Globe. They were also performed at inns within the city. And latterly they were performed at the indoor Blackfriars playhouse. But they were also performed at court, in a variety of royal palaces: Hampton Court, Greenwich, Richmond, and Whitehall. And at other great establishments, such as the Inns of Court (law schools), as in the 1594 fiasco when they performed The Comedy of Errors in impossible conditions at Gray’s Inn (see p. 132); and at the London houses of grandees such as their patron, the younger Lord Hunsdon (e.g. March 6, 1600, when they performed 1 Henry IVfor the visiting Flemish Ambassador). But there were occasions, usually dictated by the plague, when they had to take to the roads, just as those companies which visited Stratford in his youth had done; the 1603 first quarto of Hamlet tells us that it had “been divers times acted … in the City of London: as also in the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere” (title page). The university authorities, particularly at Cambridge, often tried to prevent professional players from performing near the colleges (though there was an active tradition of amateur playing and play‐writing within them). But the players found venues just outside university jurisdiction, to which students and scholars flocked (White 2009; EPT, 113–16).
And these would just have been two of the stops in tours which took in numerous guildhalls, inns and great houses (such as that of Sir John Harington of Exton at Burley on the Hill in Rutland, where it was probably Shakespeare’s company who performed Titus Andronicus on New Year’s Day 1596).14 Elizabethan plays had to be portable in this sense, which meant that they had to be adaptable – few venues outside of the professional playhouses, for example, would have had upper stages or trapdoors; but it does not follow that they were all written to the same blue‐print. Shakespeare’s Theatre aims to trace such differences and the circumstances which generated them.
Notes
1 Somerset’s volume awaits publication, but scholars such as Elza Tiner (2006) and J. R. Mulryne (2007) have been allowed access to his findings. Details of the REED project can be found at its web site, http://www.reed.utoronto.ca/. Of particular value is their Patrons and Performances Web Site (http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/).2 Many records relate to a fiscal year spanning two calendar years and cannot be dated more precisely. A payment to Worcester’s “players” in 1568–9 is much lower than others and may refer to musicians rather than to actors. Several other payments are similarly open to interpretation.3 As early as 1571–2 Liverpool denied use of their town hall to all but the most prestigious companies, and even they had to pay 5s. in advance against the cost of subsequent repairs (George, 1991, 39).4 The seating plan for “Shakespeare’s Globe” allows for 857 bodies, plus 700 standing “groundlings.” The original was said to hold 3,000. Fire regulations partly explain the reduction, but body size seems to be the main contributing factor.5 MacLean, 2001, 8–9, kindly shared with me by the author. Her internal references are (a) “Tittler, 1991, 105–18”; and (b) “see Nelson, 1994, 16‐60 for full discussion and diagrams of the Queens’ and Trinity College hall stages in particular. For a popular (but I think erroneous) view of lower end hall staging, see J. Leeds Barroll et al., 1975, 128–30.” In private correspondence, Professor MacLean adds: “Evidence accumulated since that time has not changed my view, by the way.”6 Quoted from Langham, 1575. Langham is only identified from some clues within the letter. The Letter might be a joke at his expense, possibly by William Patten, another courtier who was certainly at the Kenilworth entertainments.7 “Mystery” here is an old term for a trade or craft and refers to the performers, not to the subject‐matter of theplays.8 The correspondence about the suppression of the mystery plays in Coventry is not very revealing. But see EPT, 64–9, for that relating to York, Chester, and Wakefield.9 Strictly speaking the Red Lion, built in Mile End in 1567, was the first purpose‐built Elizabethan theatre but it seems not to have thrived beyond its first season. See Ingram, 1992, 92–113.10 This section is particularly indebted to Wallace, 1913; Ingram, 1992; and Edmond, 2004.11 This presumably refers to being bound over to keep the peace, or held responsible for keeping order, rather than physically restrained. The issue was one of authority over someone in the service of a senior minister of the Queen.12 A commission of Oyer and Terminer (Anglo‐French, literally meaning “to hear and determine”) was one under which a judge of assize sat. He was charged with enquiring into all treasons, felonies and misdemeanours committed in its jurisdiction and resolving it by law. Burbage doubtless assumed that such a court would respect his status as Hunsdon’s man more than Fleetwood did.13 The boy companies did not need this permission. The Blackfriars playhouse was outside the City’s jurisdiction (see p. 197), while Paul’s playhouse was in the cathedral precinct, on church property.14 The element of doubt is when the Lord Chamberlain’s Men acquired ownership of Titus, which was written before Shakespeare joined them. The 1594 quarto tells us that it had been “been played by the Right Honourable the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Derby, and the Earl of Sussex their servants” – probably successively, as companies broke up and reorganized during the prolonged plague. The 1600 quarto adds “and the Lord Chamberlain” to the list.