Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-n7x5d Total loading time: 0.222 Render date: 2021-12-07T16:28:25.523Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Book contents

The Rose and its Stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2007

Peter Holland
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

The archaeological discovery of the remains of the Rose playhouse in 1989 was a momentous revelation for the world of Shakespearian theatre studies. For the first time concrete evidence for the plan and layout of an Elizabethan playhouse was revealed. This immediately belied the tired documentary evidence hitherto used to create the image of a ‘typical Shakespearian theatre’. A thorough study of those divergent documents should have revealed differences but the Rose remains forced the issue wide open: there was no ‘typical Shakespearian theatre’.

As scholars came to visit the excavations, two questions were paramount: how many sides did the Rose have and where and what shape was the stage. A fourteen-sided polygon did indeed ruffle some feathers but nearly every aspect of the stage, the one essential component in a theatre, caused a surprise. I shall not only examine all its physical aspects but also emphasize its function. In particular I want to examine the views of Andy Gurr and Jon Greenfield that the Rose might have been used as a venue for animal baiting before being converted into a playhouse. They acknowledge that their arguments were written before funding allowed a complete post-excavation analysis of the findings. This analysis is now virtually complete and should be referred to for full details on all aspects of the Rose (and Globe) but the arguments presented here will concentrate on correcting some of the misapprehensions and suppositions in the articles in question and will present an alternative reasoning.

Type
Chapter
Information
Shakespeare Survey , pp. 36 - 48
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
2
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×