Chapter XV: Introduction

[1] C. W. Wallace, _The First London Theatre_ (Lincoln, Neb., 1913), p. 24.

[2] Gerald E. Bentley, “Shakespeare and the Blackfriars Theatre,” _Shakespeare Survey_, I (1948), p. 47.

[3] Peter Streete agreed, in this contract dated January 8, 1600, to complete his construction by July 25, 1600 (E. K. Chambers, _The Elizabethan Stage_ (Oxford, 1923), II, p. 438), a period of about twenty-eight weeks. However, it was covenanted that “the saide Peeter Streete shall not be chardged with anie manner of pay[ntin]ge in or aboute the saide fframe howse or Stadge or anie parte thereof, nor rendringe the walls within” (Chambers, II, p. 437). Consequently, we must add to the twenty-eight weeks an indeterminate period during which the playhouse was painted, thus bringing the estimated completion of the Fortune to some time in August at least. It is probable that in computing the schedule for the Fortune, Streete utilized his experience at the Globe, particularly since the new stage was to be so much like the Globe’s. Streete would find such computation easy after allowing for differences in building conditions. On the one hand the fact that the timber from the Theatre was to be used for the Globe suggests that the frame for the Globe took less time to erect. On the other hand, the fact that the Globe had to be built on piles might reasonably suggest that laying its foundations required more time. If Henslowe’s notation of payment “to the laberers at the eand of the fowndations the 8 of maye 1600” (Philip Henslowe, _Papers_, ed. W. W. Greg, p. 10), correctly reflects the time consumed in erecting these of the Fortune, a matter of about sixteen weeks, then we must assume that the base of the Globe was not ready to take a frame until the middle of June. As Henslowe’s _Diary_ and _Papers_ indicate, Streete probably consummated his portion of the contract somewhat later than he had estimated, that is, about the first week in August (Henslowe, p. 11). But even if there were some delay, as Greg believes, Streete had erred merely by a matter of two weeks. I believe that his initial estimate, fundamentally reliable, reflected his experience at the Globe.

[4] Among others Heminges testified that he shared in profits from the presentation of plays at Blackfriars for four years previous to 1612 (Kirkham vs. Painton, as reprinted in F. G. Fleay, _A Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (London, 1890), pp. 225, 235, 238, 244, 249). The only time when the plague bills declined sufficiently to permit the possibility of performances was in March, 1609. The weekly count of plague deaths was thirty-two as of March 2, forty-three as of March 9, and thirty-three as of March 16. Thereafter, the plague increased in severity and the weekly number of deaths fell below forty only once again before December, 1609. (Statistics from John Bell, _London’s Remembrancer_ (London, 1665) as reprinted in J. T. Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_ (London, 1910), II, pp. 186-187.)

[5] E. K. Chambers, _William Shakespeare_ (Oxford, 1930), I; Alfred Harbage, _Annals of the English Drama_ (London, 1940); William Shakespeare, _The Complete Works of_, ed. G. L. Kittredge (New York, 1936); James McManaway, “Recent Studies in Shakespeare’s Chronology,” _Shakespeare Survey_, III (1950), 22-33. In composing the list of plays performed by the Globe company, I have relied on Chambers, compared with Harbage and Kittredge, and checked against McManaway’s survey of studies in the chronological order of Shakespeare’s plays. Later theories on particular plays have been examined when relevant.

[6] _Twelfth Night_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1930); Leslie Hotson, _The First Night of_ Twelfth Night (New York, 1954).

[7] Percy Allen, “The Date of Hamlet,” _T.L.S._, January 2, 1937, 12; Chambers, _William Shakespeare_, I, p. 423; also “The Date of _Hamlet_,” _Shakespearean Gleanings_ (London, 1944), pp. 68-75; _Hamlet_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1936), 2nd ed.; H. D. Gray, “The Date of _Hamlet_;” _J.E.G.P._, XXX (1932), 51-61; L. Kirschbaum, “The Date of _Hamlet_,” _S.P._, XXXIV (1937), 168-175.

[8] Leslie Hotson, “Love’s Labour’s Won,” _Shakespeare’s Sonnets Dated_ (New York, 1949), 37-56.

[9] A. Hart, “The Date of _Othello_,” _T.L.S._, October 10, 1935, 631; A. Cairncross, “A Reply to Hart,” _T.L.S._, October 24, 1935, 671; Richmond Noble, “A Reply to Hart,” _T.L.S._, December 14, 1935, 859; W. W. Greg, “The Date of _King Lear_ and Shakespeare’s Use of Earlier Versions of the Story,” _Library_, XX (1940), 377-400.

[10] Chambers, _William Shakespeare_, I, p. 522.

[11] _Macbeth_, ed. J. D. Wilson (Cambridge, 1947), pp. xl-xlii. Wilson offers a fanciful argument to support his theory that the play was first performed before James in Edinburgh in 1601-1602. Kenneth Muir (Arden edition, 1951), p. xxvi, reviewing this argument, concludes, “It is reasonable to assume that the play was first performed in 1606, first at the Globe, and afterwards at Court--perhaps with a few minor alterations.”

[12] Leslie Hotson, _Shakespeare vs. Shallow_ (Boston, 1931), pp. 111-122; P. Alexander, _Shakespeare’s Life and Art_ (London, 1939), p. 125; William Green, _Shakespeare’s Garter Play_ (unpublished dissertation, Columbia University, 1959), believes that Lord Hunsdon commissioned Shakespeare to write the play for performance on April 23, 1597. However, his explanation for the omission of the play’s title from Meres’ list is essentially hypothetical (pp. 249-251).

[13] Eight early plays of Shakespeare’s were actually revived during the Globe period, or supposedly revived according to the title pages of early editions. These plays were _The Comedy of Errors_, _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, _The Merchant of Venice_, _A Midsummer Night’s Dream_, _Richard II_, _Richard III_, _Romeo and Juliet_, and _Titus Andronicus_. Seven of the eight, all but the first, were printed in quartos. However, the texts of later editions were set up from the early editions without appreciable alterations. The Folio text of _Dream_ does include some additions to the stage directions which may be illuminating but which do not change the theatrical elements. The Fourth Quarto (1608) of _Richard II_ is the first edition to contain the abdication scene, and the Folio text of _Titus Andronicus_ contains additional stage directions and a new scene. But these omissions in the early copies do not seem to be a result of staging conditions. There are two possible inferences. Either the later texts had no connection with the playhouse and therefore merely copied the earlier texts, or the productions did not change sufficiently over the years to cause variations in the texts. As a result I have decided to use these plays for occasional reference only.

[14] The dating of these and the succeeding plays is based upon Chambers, _Elizabethan Stage_, III, pp. 214, 293, 431, 513; IV, pp. 1, 8, 12, 27, 30, 42, 54.

[15] Baldwin Maxwell, _Studies in the Shakespeare Apocrypha_ (New York, 1956), pp. 99-106, dates the play between 1599 and 1600.

[16] _A Yorkshire Tragedy_ has been identified with _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ by F. G. Fleay and others. Mark Friedlaender, “Some Problems of _A Yorkshire Tragedy_,” _S.P._, XXXV (1938), 238-253, in his reconsideration of the evidence rejects this theory. He suggests that both plays were made from a single original play. In a more recent study Baldwin Maxwell (pp. 153 ff.) considers the plays to be independent works. Whatever the theory, it is certain that both plays were staged and must be enumerated separately.

[17] Thomas Kyd, _The Works_, ed. Frederick S. Boas (Oxford, 1955), p. xlii. Chambers, _Elizabethan Stage_, IV, p. 23, suggests that the present text was the one presented at the Globe about 1604. However, the suggestion is hedged with so many qualifications that I thought it better to exclude this piece.