Philip Henslowe (* c. 1550; † 16 January 1616) was born in Lindfield, West Sussex. In 1570 he came to London, where he married the widowed Agnes Woodward. From 1577 he lived in Southwark. Seven years later he bought the property there, The Little Rose, and built the Rose Theatre on it. It became the favourite playhouse of the Admiral’s Men in 1591. The following year, Henslowe’s stepdaughter married Edward Alleyn, the company’s leading actor. Until Henslowe’s death, he and Alleyn were also associated in business. Henslowe was involved in a wide variety of business activities: Timber trading, money lending, renting, dyeing, etc. He noted down a large part of his economic activities in the so-called Henslowe Diary, which gives posterity a unique insight into the Elizabethan theatre business. But it is precisely the academics of later centuries who prove less than grateful to Henslowe for this. His free handling of orthography – which, by the way, was no worse or better than that of his writing contemporaries – and of the date was long considered proof of his poor education. Moreover, from the singularity that his records represent, it has been concluded that only he ran a theatre company in this way.
"I quite agree with Fleay that Henslowe’s methods were not those best adapted to the free development of the dramatic energies of the company, being such as were forced upon them by their want of capital, […]"1
In fact, the Chamberlain’s Men and the Admiral’s Men had a number of similarities in terms of the structure and financial management. The fact remains, however, that if Richard Burbage or anyone else of the Chamberlain’s Men made records similar to Henslowe’s, they have not yet appeared. Nevertheless, it would be completely illogical to assume that Burbage’s company only worked for the joy of performing and did not also think about making money.
"[…] for we do not know whether Henslowe’s arrangements with his companies were typical of the period, there is little justification for drawing a contrast between Henslowe, as a mercenary capitalist, and the Burbages; the evidence suggests that they were all capitalists."2
Not knowing the exact playbill of the Chamberlain’s Men – apart from Shakespeare’s dramas – did not prevent some from making another comparison, in which Henslowe also did not fare well. He was "[…] an ignorant man, whose spelling bears witness to a complete lack of acquaintance with literature"3. No wonder, then, that according to R. B. Sharp, he only satisfied the tastes of a second-rate audience with domestic murder mysteries, romances and Bible-themed dramas. This should be a warning to all theatre directors. This should be a warning to all theatre directors. One might perhaps in later years conclude both their level of education and that of their audience on the basis of their notebook and account management. So it remains to be seen whether Henslowe was an uneducated capitalist or a theatre lover versed in financial matters. None of these views can be verified by his diary. However, one thing should not be overlooked. The Henslowe Diary is unique in its kind. There is nothing similar by any other theatre manager of the Elizabethan period. However informative the diary may be, one important question remains unanswered. Why did Henslowe write all this down? Perhaps the fact that he at least attached so much importance to his actions and his financial situation that he kept accounts of them at regular intervals sheds a different light on a man whom science has long regarded as an art philistine and the entertainment industry has portrayed as a buffoon since the Romantic period.
