1. The only earlier picture of characters from a play by Shakespeare is attributed to Henry Peacham in a manuscript of Titus Andronicus. See Wilson, J. Dover,‘“Titus Andronicus” on the Stage in 1595’, Shakespeare Survey I (1948), 17–24.Google ScholarNewton, Stella Mary, Renaissance Theatre Costume and the Sense of the Historical Past (London, 1975)Google Scholar notes: ‘A scene from Titus Andronicus shows the male principals wearing Roman armour, the Queen of the Goths a reasonable attempt at mediaval (i.e. “Gothic”) dress, and the men-at-arms in attendance, uniforms of a Swiss/German pattern of round about Shakespeare's day,’ n.21, p. 298. Newton does not discuss The Wits frontispiece, presumably because it lies beyond the chronological limits of her study.

2. The Wits or Sport Upon Sport, ed. Elson, John James (Ithaca, New York, 1932), p. 427.Google Scholar Elson identifies the other characters on stage as ‘The Changeling’ from Middleton and Rowley's The Changeling, probably written in 1622 and first published in 1653; ‘Tu Quoque’ from J. Cook's Greene/s Tu Quoque, probably written in 1611 and first published in 1614; ‘Simpleton’ from Robert Cox's Simpleton the Smith, probably written about 1650 and first published in 1656; ‘French Dancing Master’ from Cavendish's The Variety, probably written in 1641 and first published in 1649; ‘Clause’ from Fletcher's Beggar's Bush, probably written in 1612 and first published in 1647. Dates given here are from Harbage, Alfred, Annals of English Drama, 2nd. ed., revised by Schoenbaum, S. (Philadelphia. 1964).Google Scholar

3. Hosley, Richard, ‘Three Renaissance English Indoor Playhouses’, English Literary Renaissance, III (1973), 166–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAlbright, Victor E., The Shakesperian Stage (New York, 1909)Google Scholar does not accept The Wits drawing as evidence about the Elizabethan stage presumably because it does not concur with his own – now generally discredited – ‘Typical Elizabethan Stage’ pp. 40–3. Adams, Joseph Quincy, Shakespearean Playhouses (Boston, 1917)Google Scholar suggests that the frontispiece may represent the Phoenix, or Cockpit in Lane, Drury, p. 297.Google ScholarChambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage, II (Oxford, 1923)Google Scholar asserts; ‘[The Wits] drawing must be taken to show the type of stage on which the “drolls” contained in the book were given when the publique theatres were shut up.’ 520. Reynolds, George F., The Staging of Plays at the Red Bull Theatre, 1605–25 (New York, 1940)Google Scholar maintains: ‘The small curtain conceals the only entrance, an impossible arrangement for most Elizabethan plays.’ p. 30. Hodges, C. Walter, The Globe Restored (London, 1953)Google Scholar reproduces the frontispiece from the Kirkman 1672 edition; this apparently leads him to suggest that the drawing shows ‘a popular performance in Restoration times, evidently indoors’ p. 26. Harbage, Alfred, A Theatre for Shakespeare (Toronto, 1955)Google Scholar observes: ‘Although late and less authoritative than the drawing of the Swan, The Wits frontispiece agrees with it in showing actors upon a bare platform accessible only from the rear and overlooked by a gallery.’ pp. 22–3. Wickham, Glynne. Early English Stages, 1300 to 1660, II, ii (New York, 1972)Google Scholar accepts the drawing as ‘a general indication of theatrical conditions in London during the interregnum’ 247.

4. Goldsmid, Edmund, Explanatory Notes of a Pack of Cavalier Playing Cards Temp. Charles II, Forming a Complete Political Satire of the Commonwealth (Edinburgh, 1886)Google Scholar, cites Clarendon's History of the Rebellion (Oxford, 1726): ‘A new form [Cromwell] did erect never before heard of.… called the High Court of Justice, the number of judges was about a hundred and fifty.… [John] Bradshaw [1602–59] was named president … and with great humility accepted the office, which he administered with all the pride, impudence, and superciliousness imaginable,’ As cited by Goldsmid, pp. 6–7.

5. See Davenport, Millia, The Book of Costume, I (New York, 1948), 349–59.Google Scholar For helpful advice in preparing this paper, I am grateful to Millia Davenport, Catherine Lucas, and the late Dr. Phillis Cunnington.

6. See Hind, A. M., Engravings in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Part III, compiled from the notes of the late A. M. Hind by Margery Corbett and Michael Norton (Cambridge, 1964), Plate 4.Google Scholar

7. Dictionary of National Biography.

8. For permission to publish this photograph of a rubbing from the monument, I am grateful to the Reverend H. R. Chisnell, Rector of East Burgholt, who advises that this is ‘the only brass remaining in the East Burgholt Church. It may be that Robert Alfounder's brass escaped “defacing” at the time of the Puritans because he was a worthy man and the local people had respect for his memory.’ Letter dated 15 March 1975. The early registers of East Burgholt Church are in the custody of the Archivist, East Suffolk County Council, Ipswich. Patricia Woodgate, Assistant Archivist, reports that Robert Alfounder served as churchwarden in 1625–6 and in 1635. A note signed by C. P. states: ‘On the floor of the nave of East Burgholt Church lies the well-known brass of Robert Alfounder, who died in 1639. It shows the effigy of a man in Carolean costume with a cloak, sword, and spurs, the figure measuring 23 by 10 inches… He was the son of Robert A. of Dedham (1552–1630) by Joan Jenney of East Burgholt.’ ‘Arms on Alfounder Brass in East Burgholt Church.’ East Anglia Miscellany (1936), p. 11.

9. Bentley, Gerald EadesThe Jacobean and Caroline Stage, VI (Oxford, 1968), 76–7, 112–14.Google Scholar