Download The Organization and Ownership of the Globe Theatre: The Role of the Housekeepers and more Exams Acting in PDF only on Docsity!
ModernPhilology
VOLUMEXVII May1p99 NUMBERI
THE HOUSEKEEPERS OF THE GLOBE
The Globe playhousewas jointlyoperatedby two distinctbusi- ness organizations,the membersof which were known (^) respectively as the "housekeepers" and the "actors." The (^) "housekeepers" were the proprietorsof the building; the "actors" were the chief players of the troupe. The^ "housekeepers" at^ their own cost provided the theatre,and agreed to keep it in good repair.' In returnforthistheyreceivedone-halfof (^) theincomefromthe (^) galleries, boxes, and tiring-housedoor.2 The "actors" not only did the bulk ofthe (^) acting; theypaid thewages ofthehiredmen(i.e., thoseplayers, or "hirelings," who were not membersof the "company," as the organizationof "actors" was called), of the boys (who wereneeded to play the r6les of women),and of the musicians; providedall the costumes and properties; met the charges of the poets (who were sometimes (^) paid by the play and sometimesengaged at a fixed salary); and settledforall the^ otherexpensesconnectedwithoperat- ing the playhouse.3 In returnforthis they receivedthe otherhalf of the incomefromthe galleries,boxes, and tiring-housedoor, (^) and, in addition,the whole of the incomefromthe outerdoors4-that is, the money paid for general admission,which, of course, did not includeadmissionto the (^) galleriesand boxes. (^1) See the Petition of Benfleld, Swanston, and (^) Pollard, with the other documents relating thereto, printed by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of William Shakespeare, eleventh edition, 1907 (hereafterreferredto as Petition), pp. 313, 316. (^2) Ibid., pp. 312, 313, 317. (^) s Ibid., pp. 312, 313, 316. (^4) Ibid., pp. 312, 313, 317. 1] 1 [MODERN (^) PHILOLOGY, May, 1919
2 JOSEPH QUINCY ADAMS
The two organizations,though distinct,were interlocking,for most of the "housekeepers" were also "actors." At firstall the "housekeepers" werealso "actors," except CuthbertBurbage (who, in all probability,originatedthe scheme of the Globe, and was mainlyresponsibleforthe^ erectionofthe^ building). Later, however, at the death of some of the "housekeepers,"who lefttheirproperty to relativesor (^) friends,a fewoutsiderswereadmitted. The practical resultof this systemof interlockingwas the harmoniousoperation of the theatreforthe mutual benefitof the two organizations. Each (^) organizationdistributedits profitsby means of shares; but one mustalways carefullydistinguishbetweensharesin thehouse and shares^ in the company. Shakespeare is referringto shares in the companyin Hamlet,III, ii, 289-94: Hamlet:Wouldnotthis,sir,and a forestoffeathers,-iftherestofmy fortunesturnTurkwithme-withtwoProvincialroseson (^) myrazedshoes, getmea fellowshipin^ a cryofplayers,sir? Horatio:Halfa share. Hamlet:A wholeone,I. The presentarticledeals onlywiththe sharesin the house. The organizationof the housekeeperswas formedin December, 1598, by the two brothers,Richard and CuthbertBurbage, forthe specificpurpose of erectingthe Globe playhouse.' Accordingto theirplan the Globe propertywas to be divided into two separate and distinctmoietiesor (^) halves; the one moietywas to be held (^) by the Burbages as the originatorsof the scheme; the othermoietywas to be held by five of the actors, probably chosen by the Burbages, namely,William Shakespeare,John^ Heminges,AugustinePhillips, Thomas Pope, and William (^) Kempe. When on February21, 1599, the formallease of the land was signed with Sir Nicholas Brend, this divisioninto moietieswas carefullyobserved; to the Burbages Sir Nicholas leased one-halfof the propertyat a yearly rental of ?7 5s., and to the actors he leased the other half at the same rate. The actors immediatelytook their (^) moiety and, dividingit into fiveequal parts,proceededto arrangetheirholdingsin the form of a "joint tenancy." 1 For a (^) complete history of the erection of the Globe (^) see Adams, Shakespearean Playhouses, p. 234. (^2) So Cuthbert Burbage states; see Petition, p. 317.
4 JOSEPH QUINCY ADAMS
jointly.1 Mary soon marriedthe well-knownactor^ JohnEdmonds, a memberofQueen Anne'scompany. The shareis thereafterreferred to as beingin the hands of "Basilius Nicoll [a scrivener,the executor of Pope's will, and here, possibly,representingThomas Bromley, who was a minor2],JohnEdmonds,and Mary his wife."3' In May, 1605,AugustinePhillipsdied,and his sharein the Globe passed to his widow.4 Shortlyafterwardshe marriedJohnWitter, who thenceforthheld the sharein his wife'sright.' At some date not long afterJuly,1605, two distinguishedmem- bers ofthe company,WilliamSly and HenryCondell,were admitted to the actors' moiety. The shares were thereuponincreased to twelve,distributedas^ follows:
RichardBurbage (^) ........ 3 CuthbertBurbage. (^) ....... 3
WilliamShakespeare. (^) ...... 1 JohnHeminges (^) ........ 1 HenryCondell^ ......... 1 WilliamSly.. (^)....... 1 BasiliusNicoll,etc. (^) ........ 1 JohnWitter......... 1
In August, 1608, William Sly died, and by a nuncupativewi11l left his share in the Globe to Robert Brown,presumablythe well- knownactor. The share,however,soonpassed,probablybypurchase,
1 For the will see J. P. Collier, Memoirs of the (^) Principal Actorsin the (^) Plays of Shake- speare, p. 125. (^2) Ibid., pp. 127, 128. a See the Osteler vs. Heminges documents, printed by Mr. (^) Wallace in the (^) Times, London, October 2 and^ 4, 1909; in^ Advance Sheets from Shakespeare, the Globe, and Blackfriars, 1909; and in the Shakespeare Jahrbuch,Vol. XLVI. 4 See J. P. Collier, Memoirs of the^ Principal Actors,p. 85. (^5) Witter vs. Heminges and Condell, pp. 47-76. (^6) Mr. Wallace is in error, I believe, when he says (e.g., in the Times, London, Octo- ber 2, 1909) that Condell was not admitted as a sharer in the house until 1610, and that the number of shares in the Globe was not increased fromthe original ten until that year. The evidence on which I base (^) my statement is clear and positive, and was discovered and printed by Mr. Wallace himself. It is to be found in the Witter vs. Heminges and Condell documents, pp. 49, 57. ?For the will see George Chalmers, Apology,p. 441.
THE HOUSEKEEPERS OF THE GLOBE (^5)
to John (^) Hemingesand Henry Condell, and the distributionof the Globe propertynow stood:
RichardBurbage. (^3) CuthbertBurbage. ....... 3 JohnHeminges (^) ... HenryCondell.....^ 1.. WilliamShakespeare. (^) ...... 1 BasiliusNicoll,etc. (^) ........ 1 JohnWitter (^) ......... 1 On February 20, 1611, the famous (^) player William Ostelerwas admittedto the actors' (^) moiety. This increasedthe total numberof the sharesto fourteen,whichwere distributedas follows: RichardBurbage. 3. CuthbertBurbage. (^) 3? JohnHeminges (^). 1 HenryCondell^ ......... 1? WilliamShakespeare (^) ....... 1 WilliamOsteler (^) .... .... 1 BasiliusNicoll,etc. (^) ........ 1 JohnWitter (^) ......... 1 On July29, 1613,the destructionof (^) the (^) playhouseby fireled the housekeepersto erect^ at great expensethe Second Globe.^ For this purposean assessmentof "?50^ or ?60"^ was made upon each share. JohnWitter,by failingto contributehis part whencalled upon, for- feitedhis share.2 JohnHeminges,as the businessmanager,there- upon confiscatedthe share and gave one-halfof it gratisto Henry Condell, each, of course, contributingthe requisite assessment. Thus, afterthe^ rebuilding,the^ propertywas held^ as follows: RichardBurbage. (^31) CuthbertBurbage. 31 JohnHeminges (^) ........ 2 HenryCondell.^ ........ 2 WilliamShakespeare. (^) ...... 1 WilliamOsteler (^) ........ 1 BasiliusNicoll,etc. (^1) 1 Osteler vs. Hemings; Witter vs. Hemings and Condell, p. 61. 2 Witter vs. Heminges and Condell, pp. 60, 61. (^8) Ibid., pp. 61, 62.
THE HOUSEKEEPERS OF THE GLOBE 7
and of Thomasine (^) Osteler,' Hemingesand Condell managed to get into theirhands all of the actors' moiety.2 The distributionof the sixteensharesstood thus: Mrs.Robinson (^) ......... 4 CuthbertBurbage. ....... 4 JohnHeminges (^) ........ 4 HenryCondell. (^) ........ 4 In December, 1627, Henry Condell died, leaving his fourshares to his widow. The only actor now representedamong the housekeeperswas John Heminges, and he, we are told, had "given over playing." This was a state ofaffairsnot (^) originallycontemplated,and, ofcourse, far from desirable. Accordinglya reorganizationwas secured by whichJosephTaylor and JohnLowin, the two most eminentmem- bers of the company, were admitted as (^) housekeepersand each allotted two shares. This was accomplishedby takingtwo shares fromMrs. Condell,one share fromJohnHeminges,and halfa share fromCuthbert (^) Burbage and fromMrs. Robinson.5 Thus for the firsttime the integrityof the Burbages' moietywas affected,and fromnow (^) on, so faras I can discover,no distinctionis made between the two moieties. The shares afterthe reorganizationstood: Mrs.Robinson..... (^) 3? CuthbertBurbage. (^) ...... 3j JohnHeminges (^) ........ 3 Mrs.Condell 2....... (^).. 2 JosephTaylor.^ ........ 2 JohnLowin 2......... On October 10, 1630, JohnHemingesdied, and his threeshares passed to his son William.6 In 1633 William, (^) being in pecuniary straits, sold one share to John Shanks, a memberof the Globe (^1) For her suit against her father to recover the share, see the Osteler vs. Heminges documents. (^2) Petition, p. 312. s See J. P. Collier, Memoirs of the^ Principal Actors,p. 145; Petition, p. 312. (^4) Petition, p. 316. (^5) Ibid., p. 312. 6 See his will, J. P. Collier, Memoirs of^ the^ Principal Actors,p. 73;^ Petition,p. 316.
8 JOSEPH QUINCY ADAMS
company; and a year later,forthe same reason,he sold the other two shares to Shanks.1 The distributionnow stood: Mrs.Robinson. (^) ......... 3 CuthbertBurbage. (^) ...... 32 JohnShanks (^) ......... 3 Mrs.Condell......... 2 JosephTaylor.^2 JohnLowin 2......... The followingyear, 1635, threeothermembersof the company, Robert Benfield,Elliard Swanston,and Thomas Pollard, believing that their"labours, accordingto theirseveral ways and abilities," wereequal to thoseof JohnShanks,petitionedthe Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery,the Lord Chamberlain,to be admittedas house- keepersto the^ Globe, suggestingthat^ CuthbertBurbage,Mrs. Robin- son, and John Shanks each be required to sell them one share. The petitionwas granted,3and the new distributionof the shares was as follows:
Mrs.Robinson.. ... ..... 21
CuthbertBurbage..... (^)... 2 Mrs.Condell (^) .. (^) ....... 2 JohnShanks^ ......... 2 JosephTaylor.^ ........ 2 JohnLowin. (^) 2........ RobertBenfield. (^) ........ 1 ElliardSwanston.... (^).... 1 ThomasPollard (^) ....... 1 So faras our knowledgegoes this was the finaldispositionof the shares. The lease which the housekeepersheld fromBrend was rapidlydrawingto a close; indeed,Brend^ soughtto regainpossession of his (^) propertyon December (^) 25, 1635,but the housekeepersbrought suit in the Court of Requests and forcedan extensionof the lease until December (^) 25, 1644. (^) The outbreakof the Civil War,however,
put an end to the usefulnessof^ the Globe beforethat date.^ Brend, it would (^) seem,did not wait forthe lease to expire,but "on Monday the 15 of April, 1644," pulled down the building "to make tene- mentsin the roomof (^) it.'' JOSEPH (^) QUINCY ADAMS CORNELL UNIVERSITY (^1) Petition, (^) pp. 312, (^) 313, 314, 316. (^2) Ibid., pp. 312, 314. (^) 3 Ibid., p. 313.
October 28, 1882, p. 314.^4 The manuscript notes in the Phillipps copy of Stow's^ Annals;^ see The Academy,
