| Popis: |
IT WAS NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO that scholars believed in something called The Elizabethan Playhouse. We now know that there was no such thing; there were only playhouses, several of them, each with its own characteristics and problems. So too with the shadowy entrepreneurs who financed those playhouses; though dim in outline, they all used to look like the mythological Phillip Henslowe, complete with horns and tail. We have been slower to individuate them, perhaps out of a sense that they are less central than playhouses to the study of the drama. But this is arguable. In any event, we can and should know more about these investors. There were many of them, not just a few, and we need to see them individually, as we already see their playhouses and are coming to see the other object of their investment, the players and playing companies that tenanted those houses. Let me begin with a few obvious distinctions. The men who financed playing and playhouses in the Elizabethan period fall into two main groups: those who were themselves involved in some way with the business of playing, like the Burbages, Ned Alleyn, Robert Browne, Thomas Swinnerton, or Christopher Beeston; and those who had no such involvement, whose interest seemed to be largely if not wholly financial. There are two kinds of men in this latter group: those who built and maintained playhouses, like Henry Laneman, Francis Langley, Oliver Woodliffe, or Aaron Holland; and those who speculated in leases of playhouses or in company properties or management, like Thomas Woodford, Phillip Rosseter, or Robert Keysar. These lists are far from exhaustive; my most obvious omission, Phillip Henslowe, had, if not a hand, then at least a main finger in all three groups. We can explain the financial engagement of the men in the first group as a natural consequence of their personal interest iri the theatre. We diminish the breadth of their involvement if we suggest that they were in it only, or even primarily, for the money. It is harder to discover why the men in the latter groups were involved. The London money market was full of opportunities for an eager investor: joint stock companies of all sorts; the venturing companies to Muscovy, Virginia, or the Levant; speculation in commodities; traffic in moneylending or in the sale and resale of defaulted bonds. All of these had their risks and their rewards. It isn't clear where, in such a spectrum, playhouses and playing companies might fit. Given this economic climate, what sort of speculator would be attracted to investing in the theatre? And-the converse of that question-what characteristics of theatrical investment might make it attractive to a certain sort of speculator? The latter question is more central, I think, but its proper answer requires that the former question be answered as well. |
