ction.

Upon our early English stage the "super" had frequent occupation; the
Shakespearean drama, indeed, makes large demands upon the mute
performers. The stage at this time was not very spacious, however,
and was in part occupied by the more pretentious of the spectators,
who, seated upon stools, or reclining upon the rushes which strewed
the boards, were attended by their pages, and amused themselves with
smoking their pipes and noisily criticising the performance. There was
little room therefore for any great number of supernumeraries. But
spectacles--to which the "super" has always been indispensable--had
already won the favour of playgoers. Sir Henry Wotton writes in 1613
of a new play produced at the Globe Theatre, "called 'All is True,'
representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII., which
was set forth with many extraordinary circumstances of pomp and
majesty, even to matting of the stage; the knights of the order with
their Georges and Garter, the guards with their embroidered coats and
the like; sufficient, in truth, within a while to make greatness very
familiar, if not ridiculous." "Supers" must surely have been employed
on this occasion. It is clear, however, that the money-takers, or
"gatherers," as they were called, after the audience had assembled,
and their presence was no longer needed at the doors, were accustomed
to appear upon the stage as the representatives of guards, soldiers,
&c. An early play refers to the combats of the scene being
accomplished by "the blue-coated stage-keepers," or attendants. And
the actors were classified at this time, according to their
professional standing, as "whole sharers," "three-quarter sharers,"
"half sharers," and "hired men," or "servitors." The leading players
were as joint proprietors in the undertaking, and divided the receipts
among them according to a prearranged scale. Minor characters were
sustained by the "servitors," who were paid, as our actors are at the
present time, by weekly wages, and had no other interest in the
success of the theatre with which they were associated, beyond desire
that its exchequer might always be equal to their claims upon it.
Philip Henslowe's "Diary" contains an entry regarding a non-sharing
actor: "Hiered as a covenant servant Willyam Kendall--to give him for
his said servis everi week of his playing in London ten shillings, and
in the countrie five shillings, for the which he covenaunteth to be
redye at al