The account given by Willis receives general confirmation from the numerous entries with regard to players exhumed from the municipal archives not only of Gloucester itself, but of many other towns, and notably Canterbury, Dover, Southampton, Winchester, Exeter, Plymouth, Barnstaple, Oxford, Abingdon, Marlborough, Bath, Bristol, Shrewsbury, Chester, York, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leicester, Coventry, Stratford-on-Avon, Maldon, Ipswich, Cambridge, and Norwich.[944] As a rule the information consists of a record in the annual accounts rendered by the Chamberlains or other borough treasurers of the 'rewards' paid to the companies for performing the 'Mayor's play'. These are often stated to have been paid at the 'appointment' of the Mayor, or of the Mayor and the Aldermen or other body who were his 'brethren'. The name of the company is generally given; sometimes the date of the performances, and more rarely the name of the play or some other detail which struck the fancy of the Chamberlains, is added. Sometimes, moreover, there is subsidiary expenditure to record; a stage has to be put up and lit;[945] damage done has to be repaired;[946] the players are entertained with the municipal courtesy of 'wine and sugar', or with a 'drinkinge', 'banket', or 'breakfast' at their inn.[947] At Gloucester the entertainment, of 'wine and chirries', took place in the house of 'Mr. Swordbearer', an official of the corporation. In the main the customs of the different towns seem to have been singularly uniform, but here and there variations of detail present themselves. Thus the mayor's play was not everywhere, as at Gloucester, open to all comers. A 'free' play is noted at Newcastle; at Bath and Canterbury on the other hand there was a 'gathering', supplemented by the town's reward.[948] At Leicester the same arrangement prevailed up to the end of the sixteenth century. The 'gathering' was levied upon the members of the two councils known as the 'Twenty-four' and the 'Forty-eight'; and orders are upon record limiting this liability to performances by the royal companies or the servants of privy councillors.[949] In 1590-1 collections were also taken 'at the hall dore'.

A Bridgnorth order of 1570 that no charge should be put upon the town fund appears to be exceptional at this date, and did not prove permanent.[950] The 'rewards' entered in the accounts are generally round sums; where they are broken, they probably went to make up the results of the 'gatherings' to round sums. At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign the amounts often do not exceed a few shillings, but a general tendency to increase is apparent throughout the next half-century, and by 1616 rewards of £2 and even £3 are not uncommon. The establishment of the Queen's men in 1583 led to a rise in the rate of reward for that company, which in course of time brought about increased generosity to others.[951] The highest sums I have noted were £4 to the Queen's men at Ipswich in 1599, and to various companies at Coventry from 1612 onwards. Nottingham distinguished itself by economy, and did not go beyond 20s. at the best. In most places the rates fluctuate considerably to the end; being determined partly by the importance of the 'lord' and his relations to the town, partly in all probability by the opinion of the stage held by the mayor or the town, partly, one may hope, by the merits of individual plays and their interpreters. Commonly enough, the mayor's play took place in the guild-hall, in spite of the criticisms of those who, whatever their real motives, alleged the damage done and the interruption to municipal business.[952] For subsequent performances other quarters had often to be found. These were ordinarily in an inn;[953] occasionally in the church itself or the churchyard.[954] Great Yarmouth had its specially provided 'game house'; a theatre contemplated at York in 1608-9 was to have its own company, as 'a means to restrayne the frequent comminge of other stage players', but the scheme was never actually carried out.[955]

To some extent the evidence of the accounts can be eked out by that of other records throwing a more direct light upon the responsibilities assumed by the civic authorities in regard to plays. Singularly interesting is the register of the Mayor's Court at Norwich, in which are recorded the attendances of players on their arrival in the town to submit their credentials and obtain leave for their performances.[956] The patent companies produced their letters patent in original or in exemplification, in addition to which the Court seems to have expected some instrument of deputation, if none of the men actually named in the document were present.[957] The nature of the evidence forthcoming from other companies is not so clearly specified, but no doubt it consisted of the warrant of appointment by their lord, and after 1581 of the confirmatory licence from the Master of the Revels. Worcester's men were in a difficulty at Leicester in 1583 because, although they could produce the warrant from their lord, their licence from the Master had been purloined by another company.[958] It was probably as a quite special privilege that, when Strange's and Sussex's men travelled in 1593, they carried with them letters of assistance from the Privy Council itself. It may be gathered from the terms of the Norwich entries that the Court regarded its own permission or 'licence' as essential before players were entitled to set up their 'bills' or give their performances within its jurisdiction. The lord's warrant might protect his servants from the penalties of vagabondage; but it was not necessarily accepted, in the provinces any more than in London, as overriding the traditional right of the municipal governments to control the entertainments which might have serious results both upon the morality and the order of their areas. On the other hand, even if the plays had been less popular than they were, the livery of the Queen or of a powerful noble was not a thing to be lightly flouted. Perhaps the difficulty was solved by taking the warrant at its face value as a courteous letter of recommendation, and letting the licence to play and the 'reward' stand as return courtesies from the corporation to their very good lord. This fiction, however, can hardly have been applicable to the terms in which the Master of the Revels may be supposed to have worded his licence, and still less to those of the royal patents, which claimed to give direct authority to play 'within anie town halls or moute halls or other conveniente places within the liberties and freedoms of any cittie, vniversitie, towne or boroughe whatsoever within our realmes and domynions'. The corporations were not very likely to act upon the advice attributed to the Lord Coke in 1606 that such licences from the Crown were ultra vires.[959] No doubt they remained the arbiters as to what places were 'conveniente'. They also prescribed times and seasons, forbidding plays at their discretion on Sunday[960] or at night,[961] or in Lent,[962] or during divine service,[963] and laying down for each company the number of days during which it was at liberty to perform, or the interval which must elapse between one visit and the next. At Norwich the number of days ranged from one to eight, sometimes one performance and sometimes two being allowed on each day. The royal signet warrants which came into use about 1616 authorized the companies holding them to stay fourteen days in any one town. Sometimes Dogberry and Verges found good reason for refusing leave to play. It was a season of plague or of social disturbance in the town.[964] In 1603 when the Admiral's men visited Canterbury, 'it was thought fit they should not play at all in regard that our late Queen was then ether very sick or dead as they supposed'. Or even if the public playing was allowed, the corporation might be too busy for a Mayor's play to be appropriate. In either event the players generally got their fee all the same, and the Chamberlain, if punctilious, entered it not as a 'reward' but as a 'gratuity', and noted in his book that the company 'did not playe'.[965] Certain indications show themselves here and there that the Puritan controversy had spread to the provinces, and even that the desire to have done with plays altogether was not wholly confined to London. As early as 1590 there was a dispute in the corporation of Maldon between an ex-bailiff of the town and certain colleagues whom he abused as 'a sort of precisians and Brownists' because they forbade a performance on a Sunday evening.[966] In 1596 the Chester corporation made an order for the suppression of plays, and fixed a 'gratuity' of 20s. for the Queen's men, and 6s. 8d. for those of any noble. But it does not seem that the resolution was persisted in, and in 1615 the city was still suffering from 'the common brute and scandal' of 'obscene and unlawfull plaies or tragedies', and did no more than bar them out from the Common Hall and confine them to the day-time.[967] At Hull too fines were enacted against citizens resorting to plays and landlords harbouring them in 1598.[968] The players did not always prove conformable to municipal discipline. Several cases are recorded at Norwich, in which companies played contrary to orders, and were punished by committal to prison, or by threats that their lord should be certified of their contempt, and that they should never more have reward of the city.[969] One of the mutinous companies in 1583 was Worcester's, who in the following year repeated their offence at Leicester, going 'with their drum and trumppytts thorowe the towne in contempt of Mr. Mayor' and using 'evyll and contemptyous words' of that dignitary, who had given them an angel (3s. 4d.) towards their dinner. The threat of reporting them to their lord reduced them to submission, and after all they were allowed to play, and made a public apology to Mr. Mayor as a prologue.

The worst of travelling was that, after all the tramping of bad roads, and all the wrangling with jacks-in-office, there was but a scanty living to be made out of it, even with the aid of the few shillings to be picked up in the larger villages, from such a windfall as is described in Ratseis Ghost,[970] or from the generous hospitality of a friendly manor.[971] The competition was considerable, for in the provinces the London companies found rivals in the shape of other companies which rarely or never came to London at all, but were none the less substantial and permanent organizations. Thus Queen Elizabeth's men travelled for years between their last London appearance in 1594 and the end of the reign, and continued all the time to secure the exceptionally high rates of 'reward' which were due to the royal name. Other famous provincial companies, each of which can be traced through a period of years, were those of the Duchess of Suffolk (1548-63), and the Lords Mountjoy (1564-78), Stafford (1574-1604), Sheffield (1577-86), Berkeley (1578-1610), Chandos (1578-1610), Morley (1581-1602), Darcy (1591-1603), Mounteagle (1593-1616), Huntingdon (1597-1606), Evers (1600-13), and Dudley (1600-36). Some of these had a comparatively limited range; others covered the whole country. Their presence in the field, and that of many minor companies, must have made it difficult for the Londoners.[972] The charge of travelling, again, as Strange's men complained to the Privy Council about 1592, was intolerable, and the necessity for dividing the larger companies, so as to cover more ground, led to disorganization. Pembroke's men, when they travelled in 1593, could not save their charges, and had to pawn their apparel and return home. The years of plague and travellings were the lean years which sent the books of plays into the hands of the publishers.[973] And for a company to part with the books and garments that formed its stock in trade was a confession of failure.

The wanderings of English actors were by no means confined to England itself. They crossed the border to Scotland, where towards the end of the sixteenth century they incurred the hostility of the Kirk Sessions, which did not prevent James I from appointing one or more of them as Court comedians, and bringing them back with him in 1603 to figure in the lists of the patented royal companies.[974] Somewhat later they braved the Irish Channel, and are found at Youghal.[975] And on the Continent they ranged far and wide.[976] Notices of them in France, indeed, are rarer than might be expected, perhaps because of the barrier of religion, perhaps because the Italians had already occupied the ground, perhaps only because the archives have not been thoroughly searched. To Italy and to Spain they just penetrated. In northern Europe, on the other hand, in the Netherlands, in Germany, even in Denmark, Sweden, and Poland, they found a constant welcome, until their movements were checked by the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War in 1620. A pioneer company, which made its way from Leicester's head-quarters at Utrecht to the Courts of Copenhagen and Dresden in 1586, included members who afterwards became fellows of Shakespeare as Lord Chamberlain's men. The shifting relations of the numerous bands which followed them are beyond research, but the initiative in organizing the raids seems to have been largely taken by two men. One of these was Robert Browne, who paid not less than five visits abroad between 1590 and 1620, and appears to have had many associates, of whom the most important was John Green. The other was John Spencer, who first appears in 1604, and whose operations were probably quite independent of Browne's. The industry of German scholars has made it possible to trace in outline the stories of Spencer and of a group of companies owing their origin more or less directly to Browne. Their adventures were clearly much facilitated by the existence of numerous petty German courts, under cultivated rulers who were glad to take a troop of actors into their service for a year or two at a time, and then let them go for a while on their travels from one to another of the great towns. Conspicuous amongst such patrons were the Electors Joachim Frederick (1598-1608) and John Sigismund (1608-91) of Brandenburg, the Electors Christian I (1586-91), Christian II (1591-1611), and John George (1611-56) of Saxony, Henry Julius (1589-1613) Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and Maurice (1592-1627) Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. Naturally, also, the actors made their way to Heidelberg, whither the Elector Palatine Frederick V brought his English bride in 1613. These were Protestant princes, but Catholic Germany, although less often visited, was not closed to the English, who found particular favour with the house of the Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, afterwards the Emperor Ferdinand II. Of the great cities of Germany the most hospitable to actors, so far as our knowledge goes, were Cologne, Strassburg, Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremberg, and above all Frankfort, where the two great marts or fairs held annually at Easter and in the autumn served as a rallying-point for travellers and entertainers of every species. The early successes of the English in Germany are reported by Fynes Moryson, who was at Frankfort for the autumn fair of 1592:

In the Netherlands the English players, according to Moryson, brought themselves into a singular difficulty. Here, too, was no native stage:

Moryson's account finds confirmation in the praise lavished upon English acting by German writers, such as Erhard Cellius in 1605, Joannes Rhenanus about 1610, and Daniel von Wensin in 1613.[978] Undoubtedly the German stage, which had been slow to develop on professional lines, owed a great impetus to the invasions. Germans attached themselves to the English companies, and in course of time imitated the English methods in companies of their own. The English plays served as models for German dramatists, of whom Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick and Jacob Ayrer of Nuremberg were the best known.[979] On the other hand, the invaders themselves became denizened, at any rate to the extent of learning to give their performances in the German tongue. Moryson found Browne's company handicapped by their use of English at Frankfort in 1592. A Münster chronicler tells us that an anonymous company which visited his town in 1601 still played 'in ihrer engelschen Sprache', but that between the acts the clown amused the audience with 'bôtze und geckerie' in German.[980] In 1605 actors who petition for leave to appear at the Frankfort fair advertise their intention to give their comedies and tragedies 'in hochteutscher sprache', and there can be little doubt that, whatever may have been the case in Anglomaniac courts, theirs was the practice which ultimately prevailed in the cities.[981] Such portions of the repertories of the English actors as have been preserved are without exception in German. They are of singularly little literary value, fully bearing out Moryson's description of them as no more than 'peeces and patches' of English plays. But occasionally one of them possesses a critical interest as representing a play now lost or some earlier version of its model than that extant in an English text. In addition to actual plays, enough lists of performances are upon record to give a fair notion of the range of the travelling repertories. Both recent productions of the London stage and more old-fashioned pieces were drawn upon for adaptation. The choice was doubtless determined by the availability of prompter's copies or printed texts, as the case might be, when a company was collecting a stock-in-trade for its adventure. Sometimes variety was obtained by using the experiments of a German dramatist, or one of those scriptural comedies, Susanna and the Elders, The Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, which had been the delight of the German, even more than the English, Renaissance.

The most obvious thing about the life of the English actor on the road in Germany is that it was uncommonly like his life on the road in England. Perhaps this is hardly surprising when it is borne in mind that, as already pointed out, the player away from his permanent theatre reverted to the status of the minstrel, and that throughout the ages the minstrel had been cosmopolitan. That in a land of alien speech, even more than at home, the strict arts of comedy and tragedy had to be eked out with music and buffoonery and acrobatics goes without saying. Even as late as 1614 and at the court of Berlin the terms on which actors were engaged bound them to render service 'mit Springen, Spielen und anderer Kurzweil', as their lord might require.[982] Away from court, in Germany as in England, they were mainly dependent upon the goodwill of the civic magistrates, to whom on approaching each town they addressed elaborate petitions, of which many are preserved, in which they recited their own merits, and made play with the names of any princes whose servants they were entitled to call themselves, or whose recommendation some successful display had enabled them to gain. There was always the chance that, on the strength of plague or some other pretext, they might be refused admission altogether. At the best, they must expect to have the length of their stay, the days and hours of their performances, the sums they might charge for standing-room and seats, most thoughtfully and minutely regulated for them. And when all the preliminaries were gone through, and the Rathaus or an inn-yard put at their disposal, and the creaking boards set up, and the tattered frippery extracted from the hamper, it might perhaps after all, as at Brunswick in 1614, be a case of 'kein Volk' and the Council might give them a thaler out of charity and send them on their way.[983] In Germany too, as in England, they had to make their account with the wise, to whom their performances were folly, and the 'unco' guid', to whom they were an offence.[984] Evidently they were not always discreet in their choice of themes. At Elbing in 1605 a company received a gratification of twenty thalers for a performance before the Council; and the record continues, '... daneben aber auch ihnen zu untersagen, dass sie nunmehr zu agiren aufhören sollen in Anmerkung, dass sie gestern in der Comödie schandbare Sachen fürgebracht'.[985] Even princes sometimes got into trouble by encouraging these foreigners of doubtful respectability. There was glee in Cassel when Landgrave Maurice decided to disband the 'verfluchten' English in 1602. Possibly in this case it was the taxpayer rather than the Puritan who felt relief; but when the Duke of Pommern-Wolgast and his mother allowed the Schlosskirche at Lötz to be used for a performance in 1606 they brought upon themselves a shower of letters from Hofprediger Gregorius Hagius, which precisely re-echo the familiar English diatribes of Stephen Gosson and John Rainolds.[986] Presumably the whole business paid its way, or Browne would not have gone over four or five times or Spencer spent fifteen years in the country. A recent investigator, who has made a far more elaborate analysis of all the financial material than I have room for, calculates that, what with court salaries, and what with admission fees to public performances at the rate of about three kreuzers or less than a penny a head, an actor might hope to make on the average about £60 a year.[987] This was enough to live upon, even if, as was sometimes the case, wife and children accompanied the expedition. It seemed attractive enough to poor Richard Jones, who was making at home 'some tymes a shillinge a day and some tymes nothinge'. But it hardly bears out the statement of Erhard Cellius that the English returned home 'auro et argento onusti'. And in fact those who essayed a career in Germany were the failures of London. 'Some of our cast dispised stage players', Moryson calls them, and many years later, in 1625, the same tale is told by the words put into the mouths of actors in The Run-away's Answer: 'We can be bankrupts on this side and gentlemen of a company beyond the sea: we burst at London, and are pieced up at Rotterdam.'[988] There were, indeed, those who made their fortunes abroad, but they were those who, like Thomas Sackville, forsook the stage and devoted their energies to an honest trade.

XI
THE ACTOR'S ECONOMICS

WITHAL the actors, or the more discreet of them, prospered. This fact peeps out from the diatribes of their critics, and is indeed part of the case against them. The theatres are thronged, while the churches are empty. The drones suck the honey stored up by London's laborious citizens. Already, in 1578, John Stockwood estimates the aggregate gain of eight play-houses, open but once in the week, at £2,000 by the year. The players began to ruffle it, in garments fit only for their betters. 'The very hyrelings', says Gosson in 1579, 'which stand at reuersion of viˢ by the weeke, iet under gentlemen's noses in sutes of silke, exercising themselues too prating on the stage, and common scoffing when they come abrode, where they looke askance ouer the shoulder at euery man, of whom the Sunday before they begged an almes'; and in like vein Walsingham's correspondent of 1587 bewails to him the 'wofull sight to see two hundred proude players jett in their silkes, wheare five hundred pore people sterve in the streets'. It is, however, possible to lay undue stress upon the public finery as an evidence of prosperity, for this was apt to be borrowed from the tiring-house wardrobe, and in time it was found that the advertisement earned hardly justified the detriment to the common stock of apparel. The articles signed by those joining the Lady Elizabeth's men about 1614 bound them amongst other things not to go out of the theatre with any of the apparel on their bodies. The surest economic sign of a growing industry is the capacity to spend money on building, and it was a true instinct that led Stockwood to discommend the gorgeous playing-places erected at 'great charges' in the fields, and William Harrison to note it as 'an evident token of a wicked time when plaiers wexe so riche that they can build suche houses'. And when Robert Greene wanted to paint a picture of a typical successful actor in 1592, he made him describe himself as one who had once travelled on foot and carried his properties on his back, but now his very share in playing apparel would not be sold for £200, and he was reputed by his neighbours able 'at his proper cost to build a windmill'.[989] James Burbadge was 'the first builder of playhowses', and thereby laid the foundations of the prosperity of his family. He had been a joiner, before he became a player, and perhaps this suggested the enterprise of the Theatre, which he put up in 1576 upon borrowed capital. When his son Richard died in 1619 he was reckoned worth £300 a year in land. Even more fortunate was Edward Alleyn, who was in a position to retire from the stage before he was forty, to purchase the manor of Dulwich for £10,000, to build the College of God's Gift, and thereafter to spend upon the maintenance of his household and his foundation at the rate of some £1,700 a year. Other actors, mainly of the King's company, can be shown to have made their more modest piles. Thomas Pope, Augustine Phillips, Henry Condell, all appear from their wills to have been substantial men when they died. John Heminge is described in 1614 as 'of greate lyveinge wealth and power'. The Restoration story that Shakespeare spent £1,000 a year at Stratford is probably apocryphal, in view of the fact that his known investments only amount to a little over £1,000; but at least he returned as a moneyed man to the scene of his father's bankruptcy, and enjoyed consideration as the owner of the best house in his native town. Aubrey's statement that he left property worth about £200 or £300 a year, which gives him a fortune about equal to Richard Burbadge's, seems not unreasonable.[990] Like true Englishmen, the successful players sought after less material proof of their worth than was afforded by their lands and houses. Alleyn, having long been lord of a manor, and having connected himself by marriage with the Dean of St. Paul's, was desirous in 1624 of 'sum further dignetie', probably a knighthood. Others were content with acquiring or assuming a claim to armorial bearings, which would entitle them to rank as 'gentlemen'. Shakespeare in 1596 obtained a confirmation of a grant of arms made to his father as bailiff of Stratford nearly thirty years before; and in 1599 sought additional authority to impale the coat of his mother's family, the Ardens.[991] Heminges obtained a confirmation of arms in 1629. Such grants did not go altogether unstrictured by heraldic purists, and the cases of Shakespeare and of his fellow Richard Cowley formed part of the material for a charge of making grants to 'base and ignoble persons' brought by a rival against the responsible king-of-arms. Augustine Phillips and Thomas Pope did not trouble the heralds, but went to an heraldic painter, and bought, the one the arms of Sir William Phillips, Lord Bardolph, and the other those of Sir Thomas Pope, Chancellor of the Augmentations.[992] These ambitions of the players, no less than their investments, yielded stuff both for moralizing and for satire. Henry Crosse, in his Vertues Common-wealth (1603), rebukes the pride of the 'copper-lace gentlemen' who 'purchase lands by adulterous playes'.[993] And in the tract of Ratseis Ghost (1605), already cited, Gamaliel Ratsey speaks of those 'whom Fortune hath so well favored that, what by penny-sparing and long practise of playing, are growne so wealthy that they have expected to be knighted, or at least to be conjunct in authority and to sit with men of great worship on the bench of justice'; and he advises the country player, with whom he has fallen in, to get him to London, 'and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee some place or lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy mony may there bring thee to dignitie and reputation'. The player too heard 'of some that have gone to London very meanly, and have come in time to be exceeding wealthy'. Ratsey then knights him 'Sir Simon Two Shares and a Halfe', and tells him he is 'the first knight that ever was player in England'.[994]

Certainly all players did not grow rich, even in London. Some of them to the end, perhaps the majority, remained threadbare companions enough; in and out of debt, spongers upon their fellows, frequenters of pawnshops, acquainted with prison. Partly it was a matter of character. Those who had to do with the stage were not all such riff-raff as a hasty reading of the Puritan literature might suggest. Gosson, indeed, admits as much, allowing that some among those professing 'the qualitie' are 'sober, discreete, properly learned honest housholders and citizens well thought on amonge their neighbours at home'; while on his side Thomas Heywood is quick to maintain the harm wrought by the licentious to a calling in which many are 'of substance, of government, of sober lives and temperate carriages, house-keepers and contributory to all duties enjoyned them', and to plead that if there be a few of degenerate demeanour, his readers will not 'censure hardly of all for the misdeeds of some'.[995] Doubtless there is a certain instability of temperament, which the life of the theatre, with its ups and downs of fortune, its unreal sentiments and its artificially stimulated emotions, is well calculated to encourage; and we may perhaps find the victims of such a temperament in certain actors who, although clearly of standing in their profession, seem to have been constantly shifting from company to company, without attaining any secure position or, as one may conjecture, reaping any substantial harvest from their labour and their skill. One of these was Richard Jones, originally a fellow of Alleyn with Lord Worcester's men, presently selling to Alleyn his share of clothes and books, at one time reduced to 1s. a day or nothing, at another setting out to tour the Continent with Robert Browne, then back again with Alleyn amongst the Admiral's men, then transferring himself to the Swan and returning a few months later to the Rose, and finally allowing himself to be bought out for £50 and passing into obscurity. Another was Martin Slater, also at one time one of the Admiral's men, whom he left and went to law with, then a wanderer with Laurence Fletcher in Scotland, and afterwards successively traceable with Lord Hertford's men, with Queen Anne's, as a member of the King's Revels syndicate, and with Queen Anne's again as manager of one of the provincial companies travelling under the Queen's warrant. Perhaps it is merely another way of stating the same issue to say that the financial success of a player depended on his obtaining an interest, not merely in the day-to-day profits of a company, but also in the permanent investment represented by a theatre. This becomes readily apparent upon an analysis of the business methods employed in the organization of the dramatic industry. The basis of this organization was the banding together of players into associations or partnerships, the members of which acted together, held a common stock of garments and play-books, incurred joint expenditure, and daily or at other convenient periods divided up the profits of their enterprise. In a legal document an associate of such a company is described as 'a full adventurer, storer and sharer among them';[996] the term in ordinary use was 'sharer'. No doubt the sharing arrangement was in origin traditional; it is described in 1614 as 'accordinge to the custome of players'.[997] But it became convenient to formulate it in a legal agreement or 'composition', which provided for the co-operation of the sharers and defined their relations to each other. Thus the composition of the Duke of York's men in 1610 bound them to play together for three years, and deprived a member who left without the consent of his fellows of any interest in the common stock. Under that of Queen Anne's men about 1612 a retiring sharer was entitled to a payment at the rate of £80 for a full share. Such provisions, which were intended to obviate the breaking up of a stock, and of themselves indicate a substantial investment of capital, seem to have been usual. Alleyn had £50 on leaving the Admiral's men in 1597, Jones and Shaw £50 in 1602; under the composition of the same company, then the Prince's men, in 1613, a sharer retiring with consent was entitled to £70. Both the Queen's and the Prince's men made a similar allowance to the widow of a sharer. Each of the sharers signed a bond for the observance of the composition, which also covered certain disciplinary regulations imposed by the company on its members. Thus the articles signed by Robert Dawes, on joining the Lady Elizabeth's men in 1614, not only made him a partaker in the contractual and financial liabilities of the company, but also exposed him to penalties if he missed plays or rehearsals, or came late or in a state of intoxication, or took apparel or other common property away from the theatre. As the compositions grew more detailed and the enterprises more important, it proved convenient that one of the sharers should be appointed, formally or informally, to act as trustee and manager for the rest, to receive and make payments, to hold the composition, bonds, licences, and other legal papers, and generally to look after the business interests of his fellows. Thus it is pleaded in a lawsuit concerning Queen Anne's men that Thomas Greene was 'one of the principall and cheif persons of the said companie', and did 'laie out or disburse' moneys on their behalf; and that, after his death in 1612, the company 'did put the managing of thier whole businesses and affaires belonging vnto them ioyntly as they were players in trust' unto Christopher Beeston, by whom they were 'altogether ruled'. John Heminge seems to have acted in a similar capacity for the King's men, and to have had the custody of their deeds. He regularly appears as their payee at Court, and it is probable that he gave up acting in order to devote himself to business management. The members of a company did not invariably share and share alike. It is possible that in some cases the manager or a leading actor had a preponderant interest.[998] Tucca, in The Poetaster, at the end of his interview with Histrio, bids him commend him to 'Seven Shares and a Half'. So, too, Gamaliel Ratsey knights his player as 'Sir Simon Two Shares and a Halfe'. Perhaps this is only the chaff of the satirists. In any case one hopes that there is no foundation for the further suggestion of Tucca, when he offers to take the players into his service, and 'ha' two shares for my countenance'.[999] We know what Ratsey's corresponding threat to 'share with thee againe for playing under my warrant' means, for Ratsey was a highwayman, and levied his share not by 'composition', but at the end of a pistol. An actual example of a privileged share is that held by Alleyn in the Admiral's company about 1600, which seems to have been free of any liability to contribute towards the upkeep of the stock or other current expenses.[1000] The shares were often subdivided, so that some members of the company were full sharers, others half sharers or three-quarter sharers.[1001] The number of shares varied; an ordinary London company may be taken to have consisted of about ten or twelve sharers.[1002] For travelling purposes it is probable that separate compositions were entered into, except perhaps for short summer tours, and that the numbers were smaller.[1003] It should be made clear that the companies of players, although based upon the bodies of royal or noble servants constituted under patents or other warrants of appointment, were not precisely identical with these. Each company had to get the authority of such a warrant, before it was licensed to act at all, but the legal bond of association between its members was not the warrant, but the composition. As a rule the terms of the patents give or imply a power to those named in them to associate themselves with others. New members could doubtless be sworn into the service of the lord without any need for a fresh patent. But it cannot be held that every fellow sharer was necessarily a servant of the same lord, and still less that every servant named in a warrant was necessarily a sharer of any particular company acting under that warrant. Thus there is no proof that Laurence Fletcher, who is named first amongst the King's servants of 1603, ever acted with the King's men. Similarly Martin Slater and certain other Queen's servants and Gilbert Reason, a Prince's servant, did not, during long periods, act with the corresponding London companies, but toured the provinces with companies of their own, taking out for this purpose duplicates or exemplifications of the patents, a practice which came to be regarded by the authorities as an abuse.[1004] On the other hand, the servants of two lords sometimes played as a single company.[1005] Thus Lord Oxford's men and Lord Worcester's were 'ioyned by agrement togeather in on companie' at the Boar's Head during 1602. Similarly Lord Hunsdon's men and Lord Howard's came as a single company to Court in 1586; the Queen's men and Lord Sussex's were 'togeather' at the Rose in 1594, while Rosseter's patent for the Porter's Hall theatre in 1615 contemplates its use by no less than three companies, the Lady Elizabeth's, the Prince's, and the Queen's Revels, probably as a united body. Or the servant of one lord might attach himself as an individual to the company passing under the name of another. Thus Alleyn was still an Admiral's man when he toured with Lord Strange's men in 1593, possibly as the last representative of a more complete combination between two companies. Similarly Robert Pallant remained a Queen's man while playing successively with the Lady Elizabeth's and the Duke of York's in 1614-16, and William Rowley appeared in the Prince's livery at King James's funeral in 1625, although he had probably joined the King's men some two years before.[1006]

The sharers did not, however, take the whole risk of a theatrical enterprise; the owner or owners of the play-house stood in with them. This arrangement certainly goes back to the days of the elder Burbadge, 'the first builder of play-houses'. I do not know whether it had also prevailed in the London inn-yards. Instead of paying a fixed rent for the building placed at their disposal, the sharers assigned to the owner a fixed part of the takings at each performance. Originally Burbadge had the whole of the payments made at the entrances to the galleries; his successors contented themselves with half these payments, together with, at the Globe, half those made at the tiring-house door. The other half, and the full payments at all other outer doors went to the sharers. The owner was apparently allowed to safeguard his interests by appointing the 'gatherers' or money-takers for the galleries.[1007] When the Globe was opened in 1599 the Burbadges of the second generation hit upon the device of binding the interests of some of the leading actors more closely to their own by giving them a share in these profits of the 'house'. To this end the site was conveyed by lease in two distinct moieties. One the Burbadges held; the other was divided amongst five of the actors. Subsequently it was several times redivided into a varying number of fractions, according as one man dropped out, or it was desired to admit another to participate in the benefits. The tenures of the fractions, while such as to secure joint control, did not prevent the alienation of the profits attached to them. This gave rise to some trouble, owing to the remarriage of widows with persons who were not members of the company at all. Incidentally it enabled John Heminge and Henry Condell, who had business capacity, to buy up by degrees the whole moiety. There was a rent payable to the ground landlord, and to this each holder of a fraction made a proportionate contribution. A levy was also called when the Globe had to be rebuilt after a fire in 1613. The Burbadges claimed to have been at the cost of the original building and to have raised a loan for the purpose. We know that they pulled down the Theatre and carried the materials across the water. The lease of the Globe formed a precedent for a somewhat similar transaction when the King's men took over responsibility for the Blackfriars in 1608. In this case the freehold belonged to Richard Burbadge, who leased out the play-house in sevenths, keeping one fraction himself, and allotting the rest to his brother, to the representative of a former tenant, and to four of the players. At some later date the interest was divided into eighths instead of sevenths. It is to be noted that it was only certain selected men who thus acquired rights in the profits of the houses, and one of the effects of the policy adopted was to set up a distinction amongst the members of the association itself, of whom some were both 'housekeepers', as they came to be called, and ordinary sharers, while others were ordinary sharers alone. At the Blackfriars from the beginning, and at the Globe as rights under the leases were alienated, there were also housekeepers who were not sharers at all, and might even be members of rival companies. A dispute arising from these anomalies throws light upon the responsibilities undertaken and the advantages enjoyed by housekeepers and sharers respectively. It is of late date, but there is no reason to think that the conditions revealed were substantially different from those of earlier years. About 1630 all the rights in both houses were held, mainly through deaths and alienations, by persons who were not actors. Shortly afterwards two or three of the leading members of the company were allowed to acquire interests, and in 1635 three other sharers brought the state of things before the notice of the Lord Chamberlain, who exercised some equitable control over the affairs of the company as a part of the royal Household, and petitioned that they too might be admitted to the same privilege of purchasing fractions of the leases 'at the usuall and accustomed rates'. The pleadings and the orders of the Lord Chamberlain form the record known as the Sharers Papers.[1008] From them it emerges that the housekeepers were entitled to receive a full moiety, 'without any defalcation or abatement at all' of all takings from the galleries and boxes in both houses and from the tiring-house door of the Globe. The sharers had the other moiety, together with the takings at the outer doors. If a man was a sharer as well as a housekeeper, he claimed under both heads. The outgoings were also apportioned, and in the view of the sharers, most unfairly. The housekeepers only had to pay the rent and the cost of repairs. The sharers had to find hired men and boys, and to meet all charges for apparel, poets, music, lights, and so forth. The Lord Chamberlain was apparently impressed by the justice of the representation, and made an order for a transfer of interests in both houses.

The method of organization adopted by the Burbadges was subject to abuses, both from alienation and from the agglutinative tendencies of Heminge and Condell. But, at any rate during the earlier years of its working, it seems to have served its purpose of attaching the individual King's men, by means of a capital investment, to the welfare and stability of their company. It was adopted by their principal rivals, by the Queen's men at the Red Bull from the beginning of the reign, by Alleyn and the Prince's men at the Fortune from a somewhat later date. Certainly these companies rested upon a firmer foundation than those which had to look for their theatre to an outside capitalist, especially when that outside capitalist was Philip Henslowe. I have more than once had occasion to mention Henslowe, whose personality stands out, more clearly perhaps than any other, from the stage history of our whole period. It is to the labours of my friend Dr. Greg that we owe an adequate presentment of that personality. He appears to have been a younger son of a good family, originally of Devonshire, but settled in Sussex, where his father was Master of the Game in Ashdown Forest and Brill Park. He had evidently had little formal education, and was a poor man when, probably at some date in the 'seventies, he married Agnes Woodward, a wealthy widow, to whose former husband he had been 'servant'. Agnes had a daughter Joan, who in 1592 married Edward Alleyn, between whom and Henslowe, ever after if not before this event, the closest business and personal relations existed. The occupation which Henslowe thus, in the traditional manner of apprentices, acquired may have been that of a dyer; he is described in documents of about 1584-7 as 'citizen and dyer of London'. But he had a shrewd business capacity, which he turned to many other ways of making money. He was at one time engaged in the manufacture of starch. From at least 1587 onwards he was interested in theatrical property. Between 1593 and 1596 he was carrying on, through agents, a pawnbroking establishment. By 1592 at latest he had obtained an appointment as Groom of the Chamber at Court.[1009] In 1603 he was promoted to be Gentleman Sewer of the Chamber to King James. About 1594 he began to finance the Southwark bear-baiting, under a licence from the Master of the Royal Game of Paris Garden, and by arrangement with Alleyn who held the Bear Garden, and Jacob Meade who was Keeper of the Bears. After more than one unsuccessful attempt, Henslowe and Alleyn secured a transfer to themselves of the joint Mastership of Paris Garden in 1604. Meanwhile Henslowe was steadily amassing house property, most of it in Southwark, and some of it, at least by origin, of a rather questionable character.[1010] His own residence is given in 1577 as in the Liberty of the Clink, more precisely in 1593 as 'on the bank sid right over against the clink', whereby is doubtless meant the prison which gave its name to the Liberty; and in the Clink he continued to dwell to the end. For subsidies he was regularly assessed at £10. He filled parochial offices, becoming vestryman of St. Saviour's, Southwark, in 1607, churchwarden in 1608, and governor of the free grammar school in 1612. His death on 6 January 1616 was followed almost immediately by that of his widow in April 1617, and most of his property passed into the hands of the Alleyns, together with a mass of papers, which are now amalgamated with Alleyn's own at Dulwich. The collection is of the first importance both for dramatic and for social history. It contains title-deeds of theatres, agreements, and bonds entered into by companies of players, private correspondence between the members of Henslowe's family and with the poets and actors dependent upon him, inventories of stage costumes, book-holder's 'plots' or outlines of plays, and many other documents touching in innumerable ways upon the finance and control of the stage. It also contains Henslowe's famous 'Diary'. This is not in fact a diary at all, but a folio memorandum book, which Henslowe used principally during 1592-1603, and in which he entered in picturesque confusion particulars of accounts between himself and the companies occupying his theatres, together with jottings on many personal and business matters, and records of loans, which are often written, signed, or witnessed in the autographs of players and poets.

From the diary and the related documents it is possible to reconstruct in its main outlines the history of Henslowe's theatrical enterprises, and to contrast his policy as a capitalist with that of his rivals, the Burbadges. During the earlier years covered by our information, the theatre with which he was mainly concerned was the Rose, which he had himself built on the Bankside, although he appears also to have had an interest in the distant and practically disused house at Newington Butts. At one or other of these he entertained a succession of companies for the short periods during which playing was possible in the plague-stricken period of 1592-4. In the autumn of 1594 he settled down with Alleyn and the Admiral's men at the Rose, and this combination lasted, with some reorganization of the company in 1597, until 1600, when the Admiral's men moved to the newly built Fortune, and were succeeded a couple of years later at the Rose by Lord Worcester's men. It seems clear from an analysis of the accounts which he kept during 1592-7, that Henslowe, like the housekeepers at the Globe, was in the practice of taking his profits as landlord in the form, not of a fixed rent, but of a share of the daily takings at the theatre, and in his case also the sum allotted seems to have been half the proceeds of the galleries as distinct from the outer doors of the play-house. He was responsible for keeping the building in repair, and for the fees to the Master of the Revels for licensing its use; all other outgoings had presumably to be met by the company. If, as sometimes happened, the theatre was put at the disposal of some fencer or other performer not belonging to the company, the profits of the subletting were apportioned between Henslowe and the actors.[1011] It should be added that, under an agreement entered into when the building of the Rose was being planned in 1587, Henslowe had assigned half his profits for a term of eight years and a quarter to one John Cholmley in return for fixed quarterly payments. The covenants of the agreement entitled the parties jointly to appoint actors to perform in the play-house, and gatherers to collect the entrance fees, and reserved to each of them the right 'to suffer theire frendes to go in for nothinge'. They were to share the cost of repairs and Cholmley, who was a grocer, was to have the monopoly of selling drink on the premises. The agreement was probably terminated by Cholmley's death; if not, it would have served Henslowe for an insurance over the lean years of the long plague.[1012]

The character of Henslowe's entries in the diary changes towards the end of 1597, but the indications do not suggest any alteration in the conditions upon which the Admiral's men remained his tenants. On the other hand, the new series of accounts reveals certain relations between himself and the company for which there is no known analogy in the organization of the King's men. Quite apart from payments for the use of the theatres, the players had to meet divers costs of maintenance, including the purchase of play-books from dramatists and the provision of properties and garments for new productions. These charges were heavy and fluctuating, and proved a difficulty for men who lived from hand to mouth, and had acquired the thriftless habit of sharing their takings weekly or even daily, and keeping no reserve fund. Henslowe, as a capitalist, came to the rescue. Perhaps tentatively at first, but certainly from 1597 as a regular system, he met the claims of poets and tradesmen as they fell due, and debited the sums advanced to a running account with the company, which forms the main subject-matter of the diary. Of course he had to recoup himself from time to time; and Dr. Greg has made it pretty clear that, when the system was in full working, he did this by claiming a lien upon the residue of the gallery takings which, although collected by his own 'gatherers', would otherwise, under the tenancy agreement, have been handed over to the sharers. For a time he seems to have satisfied himself with reserving half of this residue towards his account. In July 1598, however, he notes in the diary 'Here I begyne to receue the wholle gallereys'. Even so the repayments did not keep pace with the expenditure, and from time to time he struck a balance and took an acknowledgement from the company of the amount of their outstanding debt. Most of Henslowe's advances were either for properties and apparel or for the writing of plays, and I see no reason to doubt that substantially the whole expenditure of the company under these two heads passed through his hands. Sometimes, but not always, he paid the fee demanded by the Master of the Revels for the licensing of a new play; and occasionally he put his hand in his pocket for travelling or legal expenses, or for the shot of a corporate jollification at a tavern. On the other hand, there were certain regular outgoings with which he had nothing to do, and for which the company must have had to make provision in other ways; for lighting and cleaning and the rushes which obviated the need for cleaning, for music, for the wages of stage attendants and those actors who were not sharers, the 'hirelings', as they were called from an early date.[1013] Probably the boys who took the female parts were apprenticed to individual sharers; in one case a boy was apprenticed to Henslowe, who charged the company or one of its members a weekly sum for his services.[1014] It is, however, interesting to observe that in the case of the Admiral's men, the legal instruments which secured the continuity of the services of individual actors sometimes at least took the form, for sharers no less than for hirelings, not of bonds given to their fellows, but of contracts of service entered into, under penalties for breach, with Henslowe himself. As it was open to Henslowe to terminate these contracts, the constitution of the company was to a certain extent dependent upon his good will, and in fact he more than once refers to them as 'my company'.[1015] He was not, however, in any strict sense the 'director' or even the 'manager' of the company. Dr. Greg more aptly describes him as their 'banker'.[1016] The entries of his advances on their behalf are so worded as to imply that they were made on specific authorities given by one or more leading members of the company; and some of these authorities in fact exist in the shape of letters asking Henslowe to make payments to poets in respect of plays which the company have heard and approved. That in practice the banker had a considerable say in influencing the policy of the company is probable enough; and also that to the poor devils of poets he, rather than the actors, must have often appeared in the welcome guise of paymaster. Both poets and actors were under frequent personal obligations to him for small loans;[1017] and he sometimes found the capital sum necessary to enable an actor to become a sharer, and took it back by instalments.[1018]

Henslowe's method of financing the Admiral's men endured for some time after their transference to the Fortune. Here, however, they prospered, and he notes himself in the diary as 'begininge to receue of thes meane ther privet deates which they owe vnto me'. The diary is practically closed in 1603. An exceptional entry in 1604 records that he 'caste vp all the acowntes from the begininge of the world vntell this daye' with the Prince's men, as they had then become, and found 'all reconynges consernynge the company in stocke generall descarged & my sealfe descarged to them of al deates'. It is possible that henceforward the relations of the company were less with Henslowe than with Alleyn, with whom they had entered into some kind of 'composicion' in 1600. Certainly the few remaining documents with regard to the Prince's men now at Dulwich seem to be of Alleyn rather than Henslowe provenance. Henslowe had, however, by agreement with Alleyn, a half interest in the 'house' of the Fortune, an arrangement which may have been modified if, as seems probable, some of the sharers were taken into partnership as housekeepers in 1608. Henslowe had a running account with the Earl of Worcester's men at the Rose from 1602; and these relations had probably also terminated when, as the Queen's men, they set up on an independent basis at the Red Bull in 1604. About 1611-15, however, we again become able to study Henslowe's finances, shortly before his death, in a group of related documents which illustrate and are illustrated by the diary in an extremely interesting way.[1019], The first of these is a bond in £500 given to Henslowe by the Lady Elizabeth's men in 1611 for the observance of certain articles. Unfortunately the articles are not annexed, but it may perhaps be taken for granted that they constituted an agreement under which the company were to play at a house provided by Henslowe. This may in the first instance have been the Swan, but in the spring of 1613 Henslowe probably acquired an interest in the Whitefriars, and in the following autumn he and his partner Jacob Meade entered into a contract with a builder to convert the old Bear Garden into a house capable of being used for plays, as well as for baiting. At this, which was renamed the Hope, the Lady Elizabeth's men certainly performed. The second document, in fact, consists of articles between Henslowe and Meade on the one side and Nathan Field on behalf of the company on the other, whereby the former undertake during a term of three years to house the company, to give them the use of an existing stock of apparel, including a suitable supply for travelling purposes if necessary, and to disburse such sums upon the furnishing of new plays with apparel as four or five sharers, whom Henslowe and Meade are to name for the purpose, may require. They also undertake to make similar disbursements for plays, receiving repayment after the second or third day's performance, to remove non-conforming players at the request of a majority of the company, and to hand over all forfeits for failures to attend rehearsal and the like. The close of the document is mutilated, but it is pretty clear that it provided for a nightly account of gallery takings, out of which Henslowe and Meade were to retain half for rent, and the other half towards the repayment of disbursements on apparel and of an outstanding debt of £124 until this should be extinguished. It is to be noted that, since the days of the Admiral's men, Henslowe had differentiated between the procedure for recovering his advances on account of apparel and of play-books respectively. The articles contemplate that individual players will be under contracts with Henslowe and Meade, and the third document is such a contract, dated 7 April 1614, with one Robert Dawes, who then joined the company. Certain covenants therein with regard to the personal conduct of the actor have already been described. In addition he bound himself to play for three years as a sharer in such company as Henslowe and Meade might appoint, and to consent to the retention by them of a moiety of the gallery and tiring-house takings for the use of the house, and of the other moiety towards the cost of apparel and the debt of £124. Henslowe and Meade also reserve the right to use the house for baiting on one day in each fortnight. The fourth document is the most illuminating of all. It is divided into two sections, one headed Articles of Grieuance against Mr. Hinchlowe, the other Articles of Oppression against Mr. Hinchlowe; and although unsigned was evidently drawn up by the company in the spring of 1615, for reference to some arbitrator, or perhaps to the Lord Chamberlain. The charges against Henslowe are partly of definite acts of dishonesty in the manipulation of his accounts with the company, partly of an oppressive use of his legal position to his own advantage and their detriment. If the allegations are well founded, he had cheated them by failing to bring to account sums due to them and to make a heavy payment with which they were debited, by charging the common stock with loans made to individuals, by putting an inflated value upon apparel taken over from himself, by saddling them with the cost of an excessive number of gatherers and with bonuses which he had promised out of his own pocket, in order to induce particular actors to join the company. Under these heads they claim a heavy rebate against the debt of £600 which he was maintaining to be due from them. They assert that, to gain his ends, he had bribed their own representative Field; that while bonds had been taken from them to an amount far in excess of their real obligations, the articles binding Henslowe and Meade had never been signed; that Henslowe had taken advantage of this to repudiate his liability to hand over the apparel and play-books, for the greater part of which the company had already paid; and that he had similarly taken advantage of the fact that the agreements with the hired men were in his name to withdraw these men, and thus force a reconstruction of the company, whenever it suited his convenience. Thus, they say, 'within three yeares hee hath broken and dissmembred five companies'. It is a little difficult to make up the number of five companies, even if the Children of the Revels, who during the years covered by the statement were absorbed for a time in the Lady Elizabeth's men, are included. But the transactions described serve well to illustrate the distinction between the status of a company as a body of household servants and its status as a legal association, since there is no reason to doubt that, throughout all the shifting phases of its relations to Henslowe, a continuous body of players performed in public and at Court under the title of the Lady Elizabeth's men, and by authority of the patent issued to these men in 1611. One other point, in which Henslowe's earlier practice appears to have undergone modification by the period of his connexion with the Lady Elizabeth's men, emerges from his correspondence with the playwright Robert Daborne. Instead of merely paying for Daborne's plays as agent for the company, as had been his practice for the Admiral's and Lord Worcester's men, he appears to have bought the plays himself, and resold them, probably at a profit, to the company.[1020]