[50] Ibid., pp. 9 (1521), 21 (1534), 26 (1535), 27-29 (1536), 33 (1541), 38 (1546), 39 (1556), 41 (1561), 47 (1568), 53 (1581), 58 (1601), 59 (1602).
[51] Ibid., pp. 18 (1529), 37 (1540), 46 (1566), 47 (1568).
[52] Charles M. Clode, The Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors (London, 1888), II, p. 267. For Harper, see II, p. 267; For the Merchant Tailors Company, I, p. 187.
[53] The Dramatic Records of the City of London, The Malone Society, Collections, Volume II, Part III (1931). See p. 311 for example.
[54] Clode, I, p. 187.
[55] Robert Withington, English Pageantry (Cambridge, Mass., 1918–1920), II, p. 23.
[56] Gotch, p. xxii; Summerson, pp. 22 ff.
[CHAPTER FOUR]. THE ACTING
[1] Alfred Harbage, “Elizabethan Acting,” P.M.L.A., LIV (1939), 687. Although Professor Harbage modified his views later (“B. L. Joseph, Elizabethan Acting,” S.Q., II (1951), 360-361. A Review.) and arrived at the position that I describe on pp. 157 ff., his original thesis has served as the basis for most discussion of the subject and may well be used as a point of departure. In Theatre for Shakespeare (Toronto, 1955), he reprints his original article as a “personal indulgence.”
[2] W. F. McNeir, “E. Gayton on Elizabethan Acting,” P.M.L.A., LVI (1941), 579-583; Robert H. Bowers, “Gesticulation in Elizabethan Acting,” So. Folklore Quarterly, XII (1948), 267-277; A. G. H. Bachrach, “The Great Chain of Acting,” Neophilologus, XXXIII (1949), 160-172; Bertram L. Joseph, Elizabethan Acting (London, 1951). In a later book, The Tragic Actor (London, 1959), Joseph disclaims any intention of associating formality with oratory. Both acting and oratory “had the same object, the imitation of human emotions as they are to be recognized in human beings in life” (pp. 19-21). In effect, he adopts the position of the naturalists (p. 27).