We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2009
The archaeological digs at the sites of the Rose and Globe theatres have given us a fund of new information about the theatres, and not least about the composition of their central, open yards. Those of us who took part in the campaign to protect the Rose from the great caterpillar-tracked machines that loomed over it in May 1989 will remember the surprisingly pristine look of its mortar yard, smashed through to be sure by the concrete piles of the 1950s office block that had by then been removed, and damaged around its perimeters by Elizabethan erosion of one sort or another. Yet much of it still looked clean and smooth after its four centuries of watery slumber. One day it was thrown open to an invited audience of celebrities, and bystanders could watch as Dustin Hofman—then playing The Merchant of Venice at the Phoenix—trod where the groundlings had stood long ago, or as Judi Dench—not yet a Dame—picked her way across the yard, her narrow heels apparently doing no damage at all.
1. Bowsher, Julian M.C. and Blatherwick, Simon, ‘The Structure of the Rose’, in New Issues in the Reconstruction of Shakespeare's Theatre: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Georgia, February 16–18, 1990, edited by Hildy, Franklin J. (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 66.Google Scholar
2. It might be wise to be a little sceptical about this ‘drip line’. The first yard lasted something less than five years, during which it was once relaid and more frequently repaired. Was there time enough for an erosion line to form if only the run-off from the eaves was responsible?
3. Bowsher, Julian and Blatherwick, Simon, ‘The Rose Theatre’, Rescue News 48 (1989), 2.Google Scholar
4. ‘The prologue for the Court’, to The Staple of Newes in The workes of Benjamin Jonson. The second volume (1640), sig. Aa3v.
5. ‘The epilogue at Black-friers,’ to The citye match (Oxford, 1639), sig. S2v.
6. ‘You Squirrels that want nuts, what will ye do?/Pray do not crack the benches …’ Shirley, James, ‘A Prologue at the Globe to his Comedy call'd The Doubtful Heire, which should have been presented at the Black-Friers’ (1646)Google Scholar, sig. D5r. Shirley seems to indicate that nut-cracking was a private theatre luxury, but Tucca, in Dekker, Thomas's Satiro-mastix (1602)Google Scholar, speaks of a gentleman or citizen ‘in your pennie-bench Theaters, with his Squirrell by his side cracking nuttes …’, (sig. H2r). Presumably he alludes to the Globe, where the play was performed, but the Fortune, the Boar's Head and the Rose were also open at the time.
7. At 50 bushels to the load, the common measure for lime. There were 25 bushels to the ‘hundred’ (i.e. 100 pecks), and two ‘hundreds’ to the load. See Blackman, Michael E., ed., ‘Ashley House (Walton-on-Thames) Building Accounts 1602–1607’, Surrey Record Society XXIX (Guildford: Surrey Record Society, 1977), xv–xvi, 18–19 and 42.Google Scholar
8. McCudden, Simon, Report on Evaluation at Anchor Terrace Car Park, Park Street, SE1 (London: Museum of London, 1989), 17.Google Scholar
9. My thanks are due to John Dillon of the London Archaeological Service for permission to study these documents.
10. Hazlitt, W. Carew, The Livery Companies of the City of London (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1892), 140.Google Scholar A Royal Proclamation concerning Soape and Soap-makers of 26 January 1633/4 sought to prevent ‘all frauds and deceits in the making of Soape with Forraine or vnsweete Materialls, and to preuent the excessiue Rates in the sales thereof that formerly had been practized by the Soape-boylers, being no Body Politique, nor gouerned by any good Orders regulating their Trade, but being a few singular persons, who endeavoured onely to enrich themselues, to the wrong and preiudice of Us and Our Louing Subiects in generall’ (3).
11. Monier-Williams, Randall, The Tallow Chandlers of London Vol. 4: Ebb and Flow (London: Kaye and Ward, 1977), 24Google Scholar, citing Chandlers, Tallow' Letter Book X, f. 269.Google Scholar
12. Monier-Williams, R., 26, citing Tallow Chandlers' Journal 31, f. 231b.Google Scholar
13. Survey of London XXII, St. Saviour and Christ Church, Southwark (Bankside) (London: London County Council, 1950), 83.
14. Monier-Williams, R., 27, citing Guildhall Library MS. 6153, vol. 1, 4 June 1611.Google Scholar
15. Details of the site are given in Monier-Williams, M. F., Records of the Worshipful Company of Tallow Chandlers (London: Whittingham, 1897), Appendix C, 215–53.Google Scholar
16. Victoria County History: Surrey, II. 402.
17. See Henslowe Papers, Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe's Diary, edited by Greg, Walter W. (London: A.H. Bullen, 1907)Google Scholar, 60n and 61n. A merchant called Bromfield whose first name is not given had dealings with Henslowe between July 1601 and March 1603: Henslowe's Diary, edited by Foakes, R. A. and Rickert, R. T. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 177, 182 and 208.Google Scholar
18. [Plat, Hugh,] A new, cheape and delicate Fire of Cole-balls, wherein Seacole is by the mixture of other combustible bodies, both sweetened and multiplied (1603), sig. C4.Google Scholar
19. Henslowe's Diary, 11.
20. ‘And alsoe the saide fframe and the Staircases thereof to be sufficyently enclosed withoute with lathe lyme & haire …’. Henslowe's Diary, 308.
