Page:The Elizabethan stage (Volume 2).pdf/194

 company. There was a 'composicion' or agreement, in connexion with which a payment of £4 was made to him on 11 November. The next entry, which is undated, runs, 'P^d vnto my sonne Alleyn for the firste weckes playe the xj parte of xvij^{ll} ix^s which came to therti & ij shellinges'. There are no further entries of the same kind until the date of a reckoning in February 1602, when Henslowe paid Alleyn 27s. 6d. 'dew to my sone out of the gallery money'. Probably this was a share of some small residue, the origin of which cannot now be traced. The earlier payment suggests that Alleyn received one full share of the actors' takings, for, if I am right in supposing that the brothers Jeffes only held half a share each, there would have been just ten sharers besides himself. Or possibly his share may have been limited to the actors' moiety of the gallery takings, and the outgoings may all have been charged to the receipts from the yard. Certainly Alleyn does not seem to have had any responsibility for these outgoings. His name is never put with those of other sharers to Henslowe's periodical reckonings, and if his play-books were used, they were bought from him. On the other hand, he sometimes, although not so often as some of his fellows, 'appointed' payments, and he received the Court money for the company, alike in 1601, 1602, and 1603. That his share did not pass through Henslowe's hands after the date of the first instalment is perhaps explained by the assumption that, as the owner and joint occupier with Henslowe of the Fortune, the appointment of a 'gatherer' for the gallery money may naturally have fallen to him.

Some such change in the financial arrangements may also account for the fact that, while Henslowe's record of advances continues on the same lines as that for 1597-1600, the notes of weekly repayments are now discontinued. As a result it is no longer possible to determine with any exactness the length of the theatrical seasons, since, naturally enough, the outgoings did not altogether stop while the house was closed. Their course, however, suggests intervals in February and March 1601, February to April 1602, August 1602 and January and February 1603. It is possible, although not very likely, that there was no cessation of playing during the summer of 1601. I find no evidence of further provincial travels before the end of the reign. These were, I think, years of prosperity. The players still required small personal

Dr. Greg relies mainly on the appearance of his name in the plot of ''The Battle of Alcazar'', which, he says, 'almost certainly belongs to 1598'. But I can find no reason why it should not belong to 1600-2; cf. p. 175.]
 * [Footnote: was back on the stage by 1598; cf. my criticism in M. L. R. iv. 410.