[1] Sir John Davies, ‘[An Entertainment at Harefield] [A Lotterie]’, in The Poems of Sir John Davies, ed. by Robert Krueger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 207-214. [2] Sir John Davies, pp. 208-214. [3] Convinced by the infamous forger J. P. Collier, R. Warwick Bond attributes it to Lyly and publishes it in his three volume edition of Lyly’s Complete Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 499-504. [4] Sandra K. Fischer, Econolingua: A Glossary of Coins and Economic Language in Renaissance Drama (Newark: University of Delaware Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1985), p. 157. [5] See Johannes Fabricius, Syphilis in Shakespeare’s England (London, Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley, 1994), pp. 23-24. [6] William Munk, The Roll of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 2nd edn, 3 vols (London: Royal College of Physicians, 1878), vol 1, p. 41. [7] Walter J. Friedlander, The Golden Wand of Medicine: A History of the Caduceus Symbol in Medicine (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), p. 87. [8] Joseph A. Porter, Shakespeare’s Mercutio: His History and Drama (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), p. 51. [9] Betty Radice, Who’s Who in the Ancient World (London: Anthony Blond, 1971), p. 90. [10] Stephen Batman, The Golden Book of the Leaden Gods (1577), A4. [11] Diehl, p. 40. [12] Scott McMillin, ‘The Rose and the Swan’, in The Development of Shakespeare’s Theater, ed. by John H. Astington (New York: AMS Press, 1992), pp. 159-83 (p. 177). [13] Andrew Gurr, ‘The Rose Repertory: What the plays might tell us about the stage’, in New Issues in the Reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Theatre, ed. by Franklin J. Hildy (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), pp. 119-34 (p. 133). [14] Titus Andronicus, 1.1.69.7; Gurr, ‘The Rose Repertory’, p. 128. [15] Robert Weimann, Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function (Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 79. [16] Robert Weimann, Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare’s Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 194-95. [17] Weimann, Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice, p. 212. [18] Manfred Pfister, The Theory and Analysis of Drama, trans. by John Halliday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 138. [19] With special thanks to Simon Cuerdon, period card game expert. [20] Pfister, p. 140, 4.5.3.3. [21] Andrew Gurr, ‘Stage doors at the Globe’, Theatre Notebook, 53 (1999), 8-18 (p. 10). [22] Marginal stage direction in the folio. [23] Mariko Ichikawa, Shakespearean Entrances (Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), p. 91. [24] Jean Wilson, The Archaeology of Shakespeare: The Material Legacy of Shakespeare’s Theatre (Stroud: Sutton, 1995), p. 170. [25] Henry Porter, The Two Angry Women of Abington, ed. by Michael Jardine and John Simons, (Nottingham: Nottingham Drama Texts, 1987). [26] Henry Porter, The Two Angry Women of Abington, ed. by Marianne Brish Evett (New York, London: Garland, 1980), 8.134. [27] Maria Clara Versiani Galery, ‘Staging Practices in the Elizabethan Theater: Titus Andronicus at the Rose’, in Foreign Accents: Brazilian Readings of Shakespeare, ed. by Aimara da Cunha Resende (Newark: University of Delaware Press; London: Associated University Presses, 2002), pp. 100-13 (p. 109). [28] Alan C. Dessen, Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 20. [29] Dessen, Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters, p. 97. [30] Catherine Richardson, ‘Properties of domestic life: the table in Heywood’s A Woman Killed with Kindness’, in Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama, ed. by Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 143. Michael Hattaway makes a similar observation of ‘larger non-portable properties’, describing them as ‘metonymic rather than representational’; see Michael Hattaway, Elizabethan Popular Theatre (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 36. [31] William B. Long, ‘Stage-Directions: A Misinterpreted Factor in Determining Textual Provenance’, TEXT, 2 (1985), 121-37 (p. 125). Long explains that the role of the bookkeeper extended beyond prompting to the addition of markings to the text to highlight theatrically complex passages of action. [32] Gabriel Egan, ‘ “Geometrical” hinges and the frons scenae of the Globe’, Theatre Notebook, 52 (1998), 62-4. [33] Gurr, ‘Stage doors at the Globe’, p. 9. [34] The commentary at this point refers to the printed text of the play, published as An Humorous Day’s Mirth in 1599. [35] George Chapman, An Humorous Day’s Mirth, ed. by Charles Edelman (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010), 7.81n; M. Tulli Ciceronis, De Officiis, ed. by Hubert Ashton Holden (Cambridge, 1899), p. 119. [36] English Literary Autographs 1550-1650, ed. by W.W. Greg, J.P. Gilson, Hilary Jenkinson, R.B. McKerrow and A.W. Pollard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925-32). [37] L.A. Cummings, Geo: Chapman his Crowne and Conclusion: A Study of his Handwriting (Salzburg: Universität Salzburg, 1989). [38] Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, 22 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921-22), IV, p. 809. [39] For examples of cancellaresca corsiva see A. J. Fairbank and R. W. Hunt, Humanistic Script of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), specimens 18-21; Anthony G. Petti, English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden (London: Edward Arnold, 1977), p. 18. [40] Samuel A. Tannenbaum, The Handwriting of the Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930; repr. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1967), p. 61. [41] Beth Goldring, ‘Cor.’s Rescue of Kent’, in The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of ‘King Lear’, ed. by Gary Taylor and Michael Warren (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 143-51. [42] Goldring, p. 147; R. B. McKerrow, ‘The Treatment of Shakespeare’s Text by his Earlier Editors, 1709-1768’, Annual Shakespeare Lecture of the British Academy, 1933 (1933), p. 19.