requested, with the use of his name because a "statute touching
retainers" had been revived. ⁴

The power of protection of noblemen over companies was
largely curtailed by the statute 1 Jas. I, c. 7 ( March, 1604),
which deprived barons and other noblemen of power to "free
or discharge said persons [the actors] from pains and punish-
ments of said statute [that of 39 Eliz., c. 4]. At the same time
there came a change of policy with reference to the court actors
and the public players. There were in the time of James ( 1607-
09) five court troupes of actors: the Chamberlain's, under
patronage of the King; Worcester's, under the Queen; the Lord
Admiral's, under the Prince of Wales; and two children's com-
panies, under the King and the Queen. These facts have led to
the statement that noblemen thereafter had no legal rights to
be considered patrons of companies of actors. But the patent
to Sir John Astley on May 22, 1622, gave him power over
"every player and players, with the playmakers, either belong-
ing to any noblemen or otherwise." ( Chalmers, Apology, 497.)
Also it is quite certain that traveling companies continued to
enjoy some sort of patronage of noblemen. The statute of 1604
fixed personal responsibilities for conduct upon the individual
actor, rather than the patron.

Because of the recurrent classification of strolling actors with
rogues and vagabonds in the statutes, the enemies of the stage
(particularly the Puritans) seized upon the idea and perpetuated
it so successfully that many modern historians of the stage
seriously assert that even the leading companies of Shakes-
peare's London were regarded by contemporaries as extremely
low in the scale of society. This is a complete misconception.
The strolling actor was a potential menace (1) because he
strolled, and (2) because he was a masterless, and therefore
irresponsible, component of the society of that day. As he could
not be prevented from strolling without forbidding his pro-
fessional activities altogether, and as there was a very general
demand for the peripatetic drama, the next best thing was to
provide him with a master. The constant insistence by the
sovereigns that opportunities for practice be allowed their
companies, the complimentary wordings of the patents and

-8-