1Original Performances

The plays were first performed in the Fortune Theatre: 1 The Honest Whore in 1604, and 2 The Honest Whore almost certainly in 1605. The popularity of 1 The Honest Whore is evident from the early, almost simultaneous appearance of The Honest Whore and The Converted Courtezan (see Textual Introduction), publications which were clearly intended literally to cash in on the play’s outstanding success in the theatre. The play was reprinted in quarto form several times during a lengthy period: the last quarto appeared in 1635, mentioning on its title-page a performance by ‘Her Majesty’s servants with great applause’. This almost certainly refers to a revival by Queen Henrietta’s company, c.1630, in the Cockpit, mentioned by Andrew Gurr.[1]

The Fortune was a large, ‘public’ amphitheatre, open to the sky, of the kind built in the ‘suburbs’. It arose in a spot very close to where the Theatre, one of the earliest amphitheatres, had been, viz. in Shoreditch, an area in the north of greater London which like Southwark was known because of prostitution as well as other entertainment.The Fortune The Fortune was in effect built as a replacement of the Theatre, by Philip Henslowe, in 1600. It and the Globe south of the Thames (which was built a little earlier, and used timbers from the Theatre) were competitors, as were the companies which used these theatres. Henslowe built the Fortune for the Admiral’s Men, ‘whose status as runner-up to the King’s Men [Shakespeare’s company] was confirmed in 1603 when they were assigned to Prince Henry’. The contract for the Fortune was drawn up with the builder Peter Street, who also built the Globe for the King’s Men. In contrast to the Globe, the Fortune was a square building, but otherwise there were only very minor differences between the two theatres. The Fortune was ‘80 ft each way on the outside and 55 ft each way on the inside, [while] the stage was 43 ft wide and perhaps 27 ft 6 in. deep’. The total capacity of the Fortune was probably about 2300 people.[2]

The Globe and the Fortune were so constructed that on the whole the stage actions and audiences in the one theatre must have resembled those in the other. Thus it is not difficult, on the basis of what is known about stage business, movements, etc. on Shakespeare’s stage, to envisage something similar for Dekker’s. Moreover, the stage actions for 1 and 2 The Honest Whore are not on the whole complicated and demanding. The hardest thing for an editor working with the original quartos is that the number of stage directions is far too small. In most cases it is not difficult to infer what is happening on the stage, so that a modern editor can readily supply many necessary editorial stage directions (in square brackets), but in some instances there is room for doubt: these I have discussed in the commentary on both plays.

There is only one further matter in relation to stage action that I should briefly like to discuss here, and that is the use of the so-called ‘discovery space’.The Fortune There is no doubt, and it is generally accepted, that the façade at the back of the stage of the Fortune had three doors, the central one for an opening which could be, and was, normally covered with curtains so as to enable its use for certain kinds of action otherwise difficult to accommodate. It is in this area, for example, where Infelice is ‘discovered’ on a bed early in 1 The Honest Whore, 1.3 . There is some variation of opinion as to how Candido’s shop is to be envisaged. Habitually it is seen as being within the discovery space, but Andrew Gurr, who generously spent an afternoon discussing staging matters with me, has totally persuaded me that a far more likely procedure would have been to carry the shop – in effect a stall, or a booth – on to the stage from the discovery space rather than to leave it in that. It is known that some stalls used for merchandise did actually have handles for carrying. If placed well in front of the discovery space the ‘shop’ would have been visible to many more members of the audience, and the actors could have moved about far more easily, not least in a forward direction. I have no doubt that Gurr’s solution is the correct one. As he explained to me, the stall would have been put back into the discovery space when not needed. It could, of course, have been a structure that might have ‘doubled up’ as e.g. a bed inside the discovery space.[3]

5Dekker did not write primarily for an elite audience. Indeed, the public theatres were intended to cater for a wide range of people. From around 1600, with the growth of indoor private theatres, it would appear that some of the wealthier people came to the public theatres less often, and tended to prefer the convenience, and the different social make-up, of those smaller buildings. The private theatres charged more, and many people literally could not afford to visit them. The nature of the demographic shift that occurred is sometimes much exaggerated, but that is not to deny that a change did take place.

Even so, until about 1600 visitors to the public theatre covered a very wide spectrum, and it is not as though by 1604 there would have been no members of, for example, the gentry left to attend the Honest Whore plays. Andrew Gurr discusses the composition of the audiences in great detail in his Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London.[4] From what he says we may conclude that, around 1604, gallants, law students, wealthy citizens and members of the nobility did not restrict their visits to private theatres, though their numbers within the public theatres had perhaps diminished somewhat. The audience certainly contained many ‘ordinary’ citizens’ wives, as well as their husbands, and Gurr is inclined to think that these members of the audience in a theatre like the Fortune probably formed the staple. There would also have been large numbers of artisans and apprentices. And there were servingmen as well as whores (either to watch the play or to recruit customers or both), and e.g. ex-soldiers, as well as a small number of pickpockets. It will be clear that Dekker went to considerable trouble to create plays in which many members of his audience could recognise themselves and other members of London society.