Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookluna.

com

(eBook PDF) Personality: Theory and Research, 14th

Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-personality-theory-
and-research-14th-edition/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookluna.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

(eBook PDF) Personality, 14th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-personality-14th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Personality Theory 2nd Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-personality-theory-2nd-
edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Personality: Classic Theories and Modern

Research 6th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-personality-classic-theories-
and-modern-research-6th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Motivation: Theory, Research, and Application

6th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-motivation-theory-research-
and-application-6th-edition/

ebookluna.com
(Original PDF) Effective Group Discussion Theory and
Practice 14th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/original-pdf-effective-group-discussion-
theory-and-practice-14th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Business Research Methods 14th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-research-
methods-14th-edition/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Introduction to Victimology Contemporary

Theory, Research, and Practice

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-introduction-to-victimology-
contemporary-theory-research-and-practice/

ebookluna.com

(Original PDF) Development Economics: Theory, Empirical

Research, and Policy Analysis

https://ebookluna.com/product/original-pdf-development-economics-
theory-empirical-research-and-policy-analysis/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Methods in Behavioral Research 14th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-methods-in-behavioral-
research-14th-edition/

ebookluna.com
vi Preface

in Personality Theory. The intellectual activity that is personality theory did not cease at the
close of the millennium. Investigators continue to pursue the challenges that motived the Grand
Theorists of the 20th century. Four such developments are found in within coverage of the four
theoretical perspectives that receive multi-chapter coverage in the text: psychodynamic theory,
phenomenological theory, trait theory, and social-cognitive theory. The four 21st-century theories
that are included were selected not only “on their own merits” but also because each addresses
limitations in 20th-century theorizing in a particularly direct manner. The Contemporary Devel-
opments in Personality Theory material thus is another opportunity for students to think critically.
Readers are encouraged to consider limitations in prior theorizing as a prelude to the coverage
of new developments.
In addition, Chapter 2 (The Scientific Study of People) contains a section on Contemporary
Developments in Personality Research. Readers learn about computerized text analysis methods
through which researchers infer personality characteristics by analyzing spontaneous language
use in social media.
Finally, material that previously appeared in print in Chapter 15, Assessing Personality Theory
and Research, has been moved to the online Instructor Companion Site at www.wiley.com/go/
cervone/personality14e. Because that material is a reflection on prior chapters and the state of
the professional field, it is not absolutely necessary for understanding the personality theory and
research covered in Chapters 1–14. Nonetheless, highly engaged students may wish to revisit
topics, contemplate the field, and consider ways in which they themselves can advance it by
reading C­ hapter 15 online.
Professor Pervin and I always hoped that Personality: Theory and Research will enable stu-
dents to appreciate the scientific and practical value of systematic theorizing about the individual,
to understand how evidence from case studies and empirical research informs the development of
personality theories, and to discover a particular theory of personality that makes personal sense
to them and is useful in their own lives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the Psychology staff at John Wiley & Sons not only for their continued support but also
for their suggestions that have strengthened the text. I am also grateful to many students and
instructors who have sent me questions and suggestions for future coverage; feel free to keep
sending them to [email protected].
I also thank Dr. Walter D. Scott, of Washington State University, for giving permission to
include the case study that appears in Chapter 14. Dr. Scott was the therapist for the case, whose
assessment tools and case report were prepared collaboratively by Dr. Scott and the author.
I am particularly grateful to Professor Tracy L. Caldwell of Dominican University. Dr. ­Caldwell
prepared the extensive set of supplementary material available at the book’s Instructor Companion
Site at www.wiley.com/go/cervone/personality14e, suggested the “toolkit” metaphor that appears
in ­Chapter 1, and has provided invaluable input on both science and pedagogy that has strengthened
this text across multiple editions.
Daniel Cervone
Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago
Contents

Prefaceiv

1 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations

to Systematic Theories   1
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 2
Defining Personality, 3
Why Study Personality?, 4
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist, 5
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically: Understanding Structures,
Processes, Development, and Therapeutic Change, 8
Important Issues in Personality Theory, 15
Evaluating Personality Theories, 21
The Personality Theories: An Introduction, 22
Major Concepts, 25
Review, 25

2 The Scientific Study of People   27

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 28
The Data of Personality Psychology, 29
Contemporary Developments in Personality Research: Social Media
and Language-Based Assessments 30
Goals of Research: Reliability, Validity, Ethical Behavior, 37
Three General Strategies of Research, 39
Personality Theory and Personality Research, 50
Personality Assessment and the Case of Jim, 51
Major Concepts, 52
Review, 52

3 A Psychodynamic Theory: Freud’s Psychoanalytic

Theory of Personality   53
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 54
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939): A View of the Theorist, 54
Freud’s View of the Person, 56
Freud’s View of the Science of Personality, 60
Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality, 60
Major Concepts, 84
Review, 84
vii
viii Contents

4 Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: Applications,

Related Theoretical Conceptions, and Contemporary
Research  85
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 86
Psychodynamic Personality Assessment: Projective Tests, 86
Psychopathology, 91
Psychological Change, 95
The Case of Jim, 100
Related Theoretical Conceptions, 102
Contemporary Developments in Personality
Theory: Neuropsychoanalysis, 116
Critical Evaluation, 121
Major Concepts, 125
Review, 125

5 A Phenomenological Theory: The Personality Theory

of Rogers   127
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 128
Carl R. Rogers (1902–1987): A View of the Theorist, 128
Rogers’s View of the Person, 130
Rogers’s View of the Science of Personality, 132
The Personality Theory of Carl Rogers, 133
Major Concepts, 146
Review, 146

6 Rogers’s Phenomenological Theory: Applications,

Related Theoretical Conceptions, and Contemporary
Research  147
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 148
Clinical Applications, 148
The Case of Jim, 155
Related Conceptions: Human Potential, Positive Psychology,
and Existentialism, 156
Developments in Research: The Self and Authenticity, 163
Contemporary Developments in Personality Theory: Personality Systems
Interaction Theory and the Integrated Self, 170
Personality Systems Interaction Theory, 171
Illustrative Research, 174
Implications for Rogers’s Self Theory of Personality, 174
Critical Evaluation, 175
Major Concepts, 179
Review, 179
 Contents ix

7 Trait Theories of Personality: Allport, Eysenck,

and Cattell   180
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 181
A View of the Trait Theorists, 182
Trait Theory’s View of the Person, 182
Trait Theory’s View of the Science of Personality, 183
Trait Theories of Personality: Basic Perspectives Shared
by Trait Theorists, 185
The Trait Theory of Gordon W. Allport (1897–1967), 186
Identifying Primary Trait Dimensions: Factor Analysis, 189
The Factor-Analytic Trait Theory of Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998), 191
The Three-factor Theory of Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997), 195
Major Concepts, 204
Review, 204

8 Trait Theory: The Five-Factor Model and Contemporary

Developments  205
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 206
On Taxonomies of Personality, 206
The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Research Evidence, 207
Five-Factor Theory, 218
Maybe We Missed One? The Six-Factor Model, 220
Cross-cultural Research: Are the Big Five Dimensions Universal?, 221
Contemporary Developments in Trait Theory: Reinforcement Sensitivity
Theory, 224
The Case of Jim—Factor-Analytic Trait-Based Assessment, 230
The Person-Situation Controversy, 233
Critical Evaluation, 236
Major Concepts, 240
Review, 240

9 Biological Foundations of Personality   241

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 242
Temperament, 243
Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, and Personality, 248
Genes and Personality, 255
Mood, Emotion, and the Brain, 266
Plasticity: Biology as Both Cause and Effect, 270
Neuroscientific Investigations of “Higher-Level” Psychological Functions, 271
Summary, 272
Major Concepts, 272
Review, 272
x Contents

10 Behaviorism and The Learning Approaches

To Personality   273
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 274
Behaviorism’s View of the Person, 274
Behaviorism’s View of the Science of Personality, 275
Watson, Pavlov, and Classical Conditioning, 278
Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning, 288
Critical Evaluation, 297
Major Concepts, 300
Review, 300

11 A Cognitive Theory: George A. Kelly’s Personal

Construct Theory of Personality   301
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 302
George A. Kelly (1905–1966): A View of the Theorist, 303
Kelly’s View of the Science of Personality, 304
Kelly’s View of the Person, 306
The Personality Theory of George A. Kelly, 307
Clinical Applications, 320
The Case of Jim, 322
Related Points of View and Recent Developments, 324
Critical Evaluation, 325
Major Concepts, 328
Review, 329

12 Social-Cognitive Theory: Bandura and Mischel   330

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 331
Relating Social-Cognitive Theory to the Previous Theories, 331
A View of the Theorists, 332
Social-Cognitive Theory’s View of the Person, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory’s View of the Science of Personality, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality: Structure, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality: Process, 344
Social-Cognitive Theory of Growth and Development, 349
Major Concepts, 360
Review, 360

13 Social-Cognitive Theory: Applications, Related Theoretical

Conceptions, and Contemporary Developments   362
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 363
Cognitive Components of Personality: Beliefs, Goals, and Evaluative
Standards, 363
 Contents xi

Contemporary Developments in Personality Theory: The KAPA Model, 373

Clinical Applications, 380
Stress, Coping, and Cognitive Therapy, 384
The Case of Jim, 388
Critical Evaluation, 390
Major Concepts, 393
Review, 393

14 Personality In Context: Interpersonal Relations,

Culture, and Development Across The Course of Life   394
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 395
Interpersonal Relationships, 396
Meeting Academic and Social Challenges: Optimistic Strategies and Defensive
Pessimism, 401
Personality Development in Socioeconomic Context, 402
Personality Functioning Across the Life Span, 403
Persons in Cultures, 406
Putting Personality in Context into Practice, 411
Summary, 416
Major Concepts, 416
Review, 416

Glossary417
References429
Author Index 470
Subject Index 477
 1
Personality Theory: From Everyday
Observations to Systematic Theories

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

Defining Personality
Why Study Personality?
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically: Understanding
Structures, Processes, Development, and Therapeutic Change
Important Issues in Personality Theory
Evaluating Personality Theories
The Personality Theories: An Introduction
Major Concepts
Review

C h a p t e r Fo c us
I can be selfish, but I believe it is because I try to be perfect. Perfect in the sense
I want to be an “A” student, a good mother, a loving wife, an excellent employee,
a nourishing friend. My significant other thinks I try too hard to be “Mother Teresa”
at times—not that that is a bad thing. But I can drive myself insane at times. I have
led a hard childhood and adulthood life; therefore I believe I am trying to make up
for all the bad times. I want to be productive, good—make a difference in my world.
I’m a real jackass. I’m intelligent enough to do well in school and study genetics but
have no idea when to shut up. I often am very offensive and use quite abrasive lan-
guage, although I’m shy most of the time and talk to few people. I’m sarcastic, cruel,
and pompous at times. Yet I’ve been told that I’m kind and sweet; this may be true,
but only to those I deem worthy of speaking to with some frequency. I’m very fond of
arguing and pretty much argue for fun.
I have always been described by others as cynical and/or as having integrity. I would
describe myself as inquisitive, philosophical and justice-oriented. I craze organization,

1
2 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations to Systematic Theories

but my room is the messiest one I have seen thus far … like the room of a toddler. I am
introspective but I don’t reach many conclusions about myself. I seem very passive and
mellow – but I am just too tired to get fired up.
This person is shy at times. They tend to open up to some people. You never know
when they’re happy or sad. They never show their real feelings, and when they do it’s
so hard for them. They did have a trauma experience that closed them up—where
they seem to be afraid to let their real self show. They are funny and do have a lot of
fun and are fun to be around, but at times it’s hard to know if they’re really having a
good time. The person is loved by a lot of people and is an extremely giving person
but doesn’t like “seriousness.”

These sketches were written by people just like you: students beginning a course
on the psychology of personality. When I teach the class, on Day 1, I ask people to
describe their personality and that of a friend. Two things happen. First, students can
answer the question; when asked to “describe your personality,” they rarely say “I
don’t know how to do that; it’s only the first day of personality class.” Second, as you
see here, their answers are often detailed, nuanced, and insightful—so much so that
one is tempted to ask: Is the class filled with personality theorists?
In a sense, it is. We’re all personality theorists. We ask about ourselves and others:
“Why am I so shy?” “Why are my parents so weird?” “Am I so shy because my parents
are so weird?” Even before taking a personality class, we devise answers that are sophis-
ticated and often accurate. You already hold ideas about personality and put them to
work to understand the events of your day, to anticipate the events of your next day, and
to help yourself and your friends handle the stresses, bumps, and bruises of life.
“But”—you may be asking yourself—“if I already know so much about personality,
what will I learn in this class? In other words, “What is the professional personality psy-
chologist doing that I’m not doing already?” This chapter addresses this question by
introducing the scientific goals and methods of psychologists who study personality.
But first, we will define our key term and comment on the status of this scientific field.

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

1. How do scientific theories of personality differ from the ideas about persons that you
develop in your daily life?
2. Why is there more than one personality theory and in what general ways do the theories
differ?
3. What are personality psychologists trying to accomplish; in other words, what aspects of
persons and individual differences are they trying to understand and what factors are so
important that they must be addressed in any personality theory?
 Defining Personality 3

Defining Personality
Personality psychology is concerned with the dynamics of intra-individual functioning and the coher-
ence and thematic unity of particular lives.
Block (1992, p. xiii)

You already have an intuitive understanding of “personality.” Is a formal definition even neces-
sary? It is because—as so often happens with words—different people use the word “personal-
ity” in different ways. The differences can create confusion in both an introductory course and
the professional field (Cervone, 2005). Let us therefore examine some ways in which the word
“personality” is used. We then will provide a formal definition of the term.
In one common usage, people say, for example, that “Ellen DeGeneres has a lot of personal-
ity” or “My psych professor has no personality.” Personality here means “charisma”. This is
not the way that personality psychologists use the word; this book is most definitely not about
“Charisma: Theory and Research”.
Professional psychologists use the word “personality” in two ways. Specifically, they propose
two types of personality variables, that is, two types of concepts for understanding people and
how they differ.
1. Dispositions. One type of variable is personality dispositions. In general, in the sciences,
dispositions are descriptions; dispositional terms describe what a person or thing tends to
do. A glass vase tends to break if you bump into it. “Fragile” is a dispositional term that
describes this tendency. Some types of turtles tend to live very long lives. “Longevity”
describes this tendency (turtles are “high in longevity” compared to many other species). In
the study of personality, psychologists try to identify the personality dispositions that best
describe individuals and the major ways that people differ from one another.
People have a lot of tendencies: sleeping when tired, eating when hungry, bored when
reading a textbook. Which count as personality dispositions? You can figure this out for
yourself. Think about how you use the word “personality,” and you will quickly realize that
you employ the word to describe psychological characteristics with two qualities: “person-
ality” tendencies are (a) enduring and (b) distinctive.
• By “enduring,” we mean that personality characteristics are at least somewhat consist-
ent across time and place. If one day you find yourself acting a little strange—maybe
because you are stressed about something—you likely would not say that your “person-
ality has changed” on that day. You use the word “personality” to describe characteristics
that endure for long periods of time: months and years and perhaps your entire life.
• By “distinctive,” we mean that personality characteristics differentiate people from one
another. If asked to describe your personality, you would not say, “I tend to feel sad when
bad things happen but happy when good things happen.” Everybody feels sad/happy
when bad/good things happen. These tendencies are not distinctive. But if, like one of
our opening sketches, someone is “shy most of the time … sarcastic, cruel, and pomp-
ous at times … yet kind and sweet to those deemed worthy of speaking to,” then that is a
distinctive—and is therefore a (rather complex) personality disposition.
2. Inner Mental Life. A second set of concepts refers to inner mental life. Personality psy-
chologists study the beliefs, emotions, and motivations that comprise the mental life of
the individual. Conflicts between alternative desires; memories that spring to mind and fill
you with emotion; emotions that interfere with your ability to think; long-term goals that
4 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations to Systematic Theories

make otherwise mundane tasks meaningful; self-doubts that undermine efforts to achieve
these goals—these and more are the features of mental life targeted by the personality
psychologist.
A technical term—used in the quote above, from the personality psychologist Jack
Block—for this scientific target is “intraindividual functioning”. Personality psychology is
not only concerned with differences between people or interindividual differences. Person-
ality psychologists are fundamentally concerned with the interplay of thoughts and emo-
tions within the mind or intraindividual mental functioning.
Many branches of psychology study mental life. What’s unique about personality psychol-
ogy? One distinctive feature is the field’s concern with how multiple aspects of mental life
are connected to one another or “cohere” (Block, 1992; Cervone & Shoda, 1999). Compare
this interest to the primary interests in other branches of psychology. A cognitive psycholo-
gist may study memory. A social psychologist may study self-concept. An educational psy-
chologist might address perfectionistic tendencies at school. But the personality psychologist
is concerned with how these distinct systems cohere in the life of an individual. You just saw
such personality coherence in the opening quote above; the person’s memory (of a hard life)
was connected to her self-concept (being a productive person who makes a difference to the
world), which, in turn, explained her perfectionism (“striving to be perfect”).
A useful concept to describe these connections is “system”. A system is any connected
set of interacting parts that comprise whole. Personality can be thought of as a system.
Distinct psychological qualities—beliefs, values, emotions, goals, skills, memories—influ-
ence one another and comprise the person as a whole (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Nowak,
Vallacher, & Zochowski, 2005)
We now are in a position to define personality. In psychology, personality refers to psycho-
logical systems that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of experience
and behavior. As you can see, the definition combines the two meanings above. Ideally, the per-
sonality psychologist will be able to identify psychological systems (aspects of inner mental life)
that help to explain people’s distinctive experiences and actions (their dispositions).

Why Study Personality?

Why take a course in personality? One way to answer this question is to compare the material in
this course with other courses in psychology. Consider intro psych—the typical Psych 101. Stu-
dents are sometimes disappointed with its content. The course does not seem to be about whole,
intact people. Instead, one learns about parts of people (e.g., the visual system, the autonomic
nervous system, long-term memory, etc.) and some of the things people do (learning, problem-
solving, decision-making, etc.). “Where in psychology,” one reasonably might ask, “does one
learn about the whole, intact person?” The answer is here, in personality psychology. Personality
theorists address the total person, trying to understand how different aspects of an individual’s
psychological life are related to each other and relate also to the society and culture in which the
person lives (Magnusson, 2012). One reason for studying personality psychology, then, is that
it addresses psychology’s most complex and interesting topic: the whole, integrated, coherent,
unique individual.
Another reason is the impact of personality psychology on the wider intellectual world. Per-
sonality theories have been influential not only within scientific psychology. They also have
influenced society at large. In fact, they have been so influential that they probably have affected
your thinking even before you enrolled in this course. Have you ever said that someone has
a big “ego”? Or called a friend an “introvert”? Or asked whether a slip-of-the-tongue reveals
 Three Goals for the Personality Theorist 5

something about the hidden beliefs of the speaker? If so, you were already using terms and ideas
that come from personality psychology.
Here are three indications of the influence of personality psychology:
• At the end of the 20th century, scholars (Haggbloom et al., 2002) identified the most influen-
tial scientific psychologists of the 20th century. Who made the list? In the top 25, the majority
were investigators who contributed to the psychology of personality.
• The end of the century was also the end of the millennium. A television network polled his-
torians and others to determine the 100 most influential people—of any sort—of the past
1000 years. The only psychologist to make the list—and easily, at #12—was a personality
theorist: the psychodynamic theorist, Sigmund Freud (A & E’s Biography: 100 Most Influ-
ential People of the Millennium https://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus150/biography100.html).
• In 2007, a statistical analysis identified the highest-impact book authors in the humanities or
social sciences (fields including not only psychology, but also political science, philosophy,
linguistics, literary criticism, sociology, and cultural studies). The singularly most-cited liv-
ing author was a personality theorist: the social cognitive theorist Albert Bandura (https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/most-cited-authors-of-books-in-the-humanities-
2007/405956.article).
Here, in personality theory and research, you will find the most influential ideas in the history
of the psychological sciences.

Three Goals for the Personality Theorist

Now let’s return to an earlier question: What is the professional personality psychologist doing
that you, the reader, are not?
Consider what you do. You interact—in person and electronically—with friends and family.
You observe people not only in person, but also in movies and videos, and (through writing) in
books, magazines, and blogs. You think about yourself: your strengths and weaknesses, hopes
and plans, and responsibilities to others. And you learn how others do these same things, when
they tell you about themselves, their friends and families, and their hopes and dreams. Somehow,
from this everyday observations, you develop thoughts about human nature and the main ways
that people differ from one another.
For most people, that is plenty of thinking about personality. But personality psychologists are
not “most people.” Psychologists who study personality pursue three goals that distinguish their
activities from the nonprofessional who is interested in persons.

1. Scientific Observation
Personality psychologists do not observe people casually. Instead, they pursue scientific obser-
vation. The features that make observations “scientific” vary from one science to another. In
personality psychology, three stand out:
1. Study diverse groups of people. Psychologists cannot base personality theories merely
on observations of people they happen to run into in daily life. They must observe diverse
groups of individuals, to ensure that conclusions about personality represent the lives the
world’s citizens. This need is particularly critical because people from different nations and
cultures may differ in ways that become apparent only once they are studied within their
specific life contexts (Cheng, Wang, & Golden, 2011). Not only nations and cultures, but
6 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations to Systematic Theories

also subcultures—associated with ethnicity, spiritual beliefs, or economic circumstances—

may display distinctive psychological characteristics (Oyserman, 2017).
In today’s personality science, researchers often succeed admirably in reaching such
diverse participants group. For example, one research team summarized self-descriptions of
personality from participants in 56 nations (Schmitt et al., 2007). Another studied personal-
ity tendencies across regions of the globe and found that more mild climates foster more
outgoing (sociable, open-minded) personality styles. The ability to study global popula-
tions is made easier by a technological advance. By analyzing “big data”—large bodies of
information acquired by recording computer users’ preferences and statements on social
media and other internet sites (Bleidorn, Hopwood, & Wright, 2017)—researchers can get
information about people throughout the world.
These trends, however, are recent. Before the 21st century, the majority of participants
in psychological research were from Europe and North America—which contain less than
20% of the world’s population, combined. This is significant in that all of the major theories
of personality developed prior to the present century.
2. Ensure that observations of people are objective. A second requirement is “objectiv-
ity”. Information that is not influenced by the subjective personal opinions and desires of
the person getting the information is called “objective”. If you step on a scale and it tells
you your weight, the scale is “objective”: It is not influenced by your own subjective desires
for a different weight. Psychologists strive for scientific methods that provide information
about personality that is objective.
Objective methods promote a key goal of science: replicability. Whenever one scientist
reports a finding, others should be able to replicate it; in other words, they should be able
to repeat the procedures and get the same result. Using an example above, if one team of
researchers found that mild climates predict outgoing personality styles, you should be able
to repeat their procedures and find the same thing.
It turns out that replicability is difficult to achieve—so much so that psychology recently
has experienced a “replication crisis” (Shrout & Rodgers, 2017). Researchers have sometimes
found it hard to replicate well-known findings. Although these difficulties primarily have
occurred in branches of the field other than personality psychology, the overall question of rep-
licability is significant in our field—particularly so because one valuable source of evidence
in personality psychology cannot, even in principle, be replicated: case studies. Case studies
are in-depth examinations of a particular individual (see Chapter 2). For example, a therapist
might report a case study of a client in therapy. As a general rule, case studies cannot be rep-
licated; if you read a clinical case study, you cannot contact the client and repeat the study.
3. Use specialized tools to study thinking, emotion, and neurobiological systems.
­Psychologists observe people, just as you do. But they also make observations using spe-
cialized tools. These tools often are designed to overcome specific obstacles to obtaining
scientific information. Here are two examples. Suppose that you want to learn about the
personality characteristics of large numbers of people. An obstacle is the sheer cost and
difficulty of contacting people and having them complete personality tests. A specialized
tool researchers use to overcome this obstacle is computer software that assesses personality
characteristics by analyzing the language use in social media (Park et al., 2014). A second
example is that, if you try to study people’s feelings—their moods and emotions—by asking
them how they feel, some people are reluctant to discuss their feelings openly. Researchers
have developed tools to assess moods and emotions without ever explicitly asking people to
talk about themselves (Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl, 2009). For example, if research participants
are asked to describe the emotion expressed in an abstract image, their descriptions reveal
their own emotional state (Bartoszek & Cervone, 2017).
 Three Goals for the Personality Theorist 7

2. Scientific Theory
The fundamental goal of science is to explain events (Salmon, 1989). Scientists develop explana-
tory frameworks—that is, theories—to explain their scientific observations.
What exactly is a scientific theory? The word “theory” can be used in different ways. For
example, you might say that you “have a theory that my friend Liliana is anxious because she’s
really attracted to some guy and hasn’t told him.” Even if you are right, your idea about Liliana is
not, in and of itself, a scientific theory of Liliana’s personality. Scientific theories of personality
have three distinctive qualities; they are systematic, testable, and comprehensive.
1. Systematic. As we have noted, you already have developed lots of different ideas about
different people. But you probably have not gone to the trouble of relating all of them to
one another. Suppose that on one you say “Liliana is anxious because she’s really attracted
to some guy and hasn’t told him” and on another you say “My mother gets anxious all the
time; she must have inherited it.” If so, you usually do not have to relate the statements
to each other; people don’t force you to explain why one case had an interpersonal cause
(relationship breakup) and another had a biological cause (inherited tendencies). But per-
sonality psychologists must relate all their ideas to one another, to create a systematically
organized theory.
2. Testable. If you tell a friend “My parents are weird,” your friend is not likely to say
“Prove it!” But the scientific community says “Prove it!” any time a scientist says anything.
The personality psychologist must develop theoretical ideas that can be tested by objective
scientific evidence. This is true of any science, of course. But in personality psychology,
attaining the goal of a testable theory can be particularly difficult. This is because the field’s
subject matter includes features of mental life—goals, dreams, wishes, impulses, conflicts,
emotions, unconscious mental defenses—that are enormously complex and inherently dif-
ficult to study scientifically.
3. Comprehensive. Suppose that you have just rented an apartment and are considering
inviting in a roommate to share rent costs. When deciding who to invite, you might ask
yourself questions about their personalities: Are they fun loving? Conscientious? Open-
minded? And so forth. Yet there also are a lot of other questions that you do not have to
ask: If they are fun loving, is it primarily because they inherited this quality or learned it?
If they are conscientious now, are they likely to be more or less conscientious 20 years
from now? When thinking about persons, you can be selective, asking some questions
and ignoring others. But a personality theory must be comprehensive, addressing all sig-
nificant questions about personality functioning, development, and individual differences.
This is what distinguishes personality theory from theorizing in most other branches of
psychology. The personality theorist cannot be satisfied with studying “parts” of persons.
The personality theorist is charged with comprehensively understanding the person as
a whole.

3. Applications: From Observation and Theory to Practice

As the quotes from students that open this chapter make clear, people formulate insightful ideas
about personality prior to studying personality psychology. Yet, in everyday life, people rarely
convert their personal insights into systematic applications. You may recognize that one friend’s
problem is a lack of self-confidence and that another’s is an inability to open up emotionally.
Yet, after realizing this, you probably don’t design therapies to boost people’s confidence in
themselves or enable them to open up. Personality psychologists, however, do this. They aim not
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 “Well-fare the Wise-man yet on the Bankside
My friends the Waterman. They could provide
Against thy furie, which to serve their needs
They made a vulcan of a sheafe of Reedes
Whom they durst handle in their holyday coates
And safely trust to dresse, not burn their boats
But O these Reeds’ they mere disdaine of them
Made thee beget that cruell stratagem
Which some are pleased to stile but thy madde pranck
Against the Globe, the Glory of the Bancke
Which though it were the Fort of the whole Parish,
Flank’d with a Ditch and forced out of a Marish,
I saw with two poorchambers taken in
And razed ere thought could urge this might have been.
See the World’s Ruins! nothing but the piles
Left, and wit senate cover it with tiles.”

Ben Jonson, in his “Execration upon Vulcan,” published among his

Miscellaneous Poems in a book called Underwoods, wrote a short
poem commemorating the fire.

“As gold is better when in fire tried,

So is the Bankside Globe that late was burned,
For where before it had a thatched hide
Now to a stately Theatre ’tis turned.”

In the Prologue to the “Doubtful Heir,” a play by Shirley.

The day following the fire, two ballads in the event were entered
at Stationers’ Hall; one was entitled “The Sodayne Burninge of the
Globe on the Bankside in the Play tyme of St. Peter’s Day last, 1613.”
The other was called “A doleful ballad of the generall overthrowe of
the famous theatre on the Bankside called the Globe, etc.,” by
William Parrat. Both these ballads have perished, but one of them
may be identified, in a manuscript volume of poems in the library of
Sir Mathew Wilson Mart. One stanza runs as follows:

“Some lost their hattes and some their swords,

Then out runne Burbage, too;
The Reprobates, though drunck on Monday,
Prayed for the foule-Foole and Henry Condye.
Ther with swolne eyes, like druncken Fleminges,
Distressed stood old struttering Heminges.”

Both Heminge and Condell were the editors of the famous First
Folio.
An interesting reference to the burning of the Globe Theatre will
be found in a quaint volume entitled, “A Concordancy of Yeares,
containing a new easie and most exact Computation of Time
according to the English Account. Also the use of the English and
Roman Kalendar, with briefe Notes, Rules and Tables as well,
Mathematical and legal, as vulgar for each private man’s occasion.
Newly composed, digested and augmented.”

“Nicholas Okes for Thomas Adams, 1615. By Arthur

Hopten, Gentleman.”

This first edition is not in the British Museum, but a copy of the
second edition, dated 1616, will be found in that institution. At the
end of the volume is a calendar, or what we should term a diary, of
chief events of the year. The calendar commences from 1066 until
the date of publication. In the British Museum copy of the second
edition the events are jumbled together without mentioning the
date, but in the first edition, which by good chance I happened to
see at Sotheby’s auction rooms, most of the events are dated thus:
Middleton’s Waterworks finished 1611; the House of Correction,
Clerkenwell, opened 1615. In the year 1613 three events are
chronicled: Death of Prince Henry, the marriage of Princess Elizabeth
to the Palatine, and the play-house on fire, which last event
happened on June 29th, 1613. I did not have time to consult the
diary carefully, but I think in all other years only one event is given
to each year.
In 1644 Sir Mathew Brand, the son of Nicholas Brand, the original
owner of the ground on which both the first and second Globe
Theatres were built, pulled down the building and erected
tenements, which in course of time were likewise demolished, giving
place to a dwelling-house; on the latter being cleared away,
warehouses were erected which are standing at the present day.
The sign of the first Globe Theatre was a figure of Atlas
supporting the Globe, bearing underneath an inscription: “Totus
mundus agit histrionem.” A rendering into English occurs in Jacques’
soliloquy in “As You Like It”: “All the world’s a stage.”
 THE FORTUNE
The opening of the Globe Theatre in the spring of 1599 proved
from the outset a most successful venture, seriously curtailing the
profits of its near rival, the Rose; this latter theatre gradually
discontinued the legitimate drama, diverting its energies in an
entirely different channel.

The First Fortune Theatre. Built in 1600. Situated midway between Golden Lane
and Whitecross Street.
Henslowe, the proprietor of this neglected playhouse, was a man
of varied resources, combined with unbounded capital, two great
advantages in speculative undertakings. Foreseeing that the
opposition would eventually overwhelm him, a swift plan of action
was devised which enabled him in continuing uninterruptedly his
theatrical prosperity. Without hesitating, he formulated a scheme of
erecting a new theatre on the north side of the Thames. The
building was far removed from the keen competition, such as was in
vogue at the Globe, of the Lord Chamberlain’s servants. The Fortune
Theatre, for such was the name of Henslowe’s latest enterprise, was
situated in a district northwest of the heart of the City.
 The Roaring Girle,
OR
Moll Cut-Purse.
As it hath lately beene Acted on the
Fortune-stage by
the Prince his Players.
Written by T. Middleton and T. Dekkar.

Printed at London for Thomas Archer, and are

to be sold at his
shop in Popes head-pallace, neere the Royall
Exchange. 1611.
My case is alter’d, I must worke for my liuing.
(Original Image)
 In searching for the exact site, the enquirer must walk straight
down Aldersgate Street until he strikes the Barbican, then follow the
Barbican until Beech Street is reached; at each end of this
thoroughfare two streets branch off, both leading to Old Street;
midway between these two streets, named respectively Golden Lane
and Whitecross Street, stood the Fortune Theatre. A distant
reminder of the past will be noticed by a street called Playhouse
Yard, a turning off Golden Lane. Why this place should be termed a
yard is rather puzzling, as outwardly it bears the monotonous look of
an ordinary London street, which most readers will agree is far from
picturesque.
Professor Lawrence, in his exhaustive list of the early London
theatres, can find no view of this theatre; on the other hand,
Professor Baker gives an illustration of this theatre, taken from
Ryther’s Map of London, dated 1604. “In the district I have
described is to be seen a building from the top of which a flag is
flying; on the churches marked in the map a cross is seen.” This
distinction is decidedly in favour of Professor Baker’s theory.
In the last month of the year 1600 the Fortune was opened to
the public, meeting with bitter opposition from the City Authorities
and the Puritanical section of the people. Notwithstanding all those
obstacles, coupled with innumerable complaints, Henslowe and
Allen, his son-in-law, steadily proceeded with their undertaking,
being eventually rewarded for all the anxiety and persecution by the
complete success of their new venture.
The documentary evidence in proof of the opposition they
encountered has been preserved in a letter addressed by the Earl of
Nottingham, the Lord Admiral: “To all and every of her Majesty’s
Justices and other Ministers and Offices in the County of Middlesex
requiring them to suffer his servant Edward Alleyn to proceed
unmolested in the founding of his new playhouse near Redcross
Street.” This letter does not seem to have produced the desired
effect; thereupon, Allen caused a petition to be drawn up by the
most influential inhabitants of Finsbury, in whose Lordship lay the
site of the Fortune, beseeching the Lords of the Privy Council that
the erection of the new house might be allowed to proceed, on the
grounds that the site was conveniently chosen, so as to cause no
annoyance, and that the projectors had promised a weekly
allowance to the poor of the parish. Twenty-seven names were
attached to this petition, which was engrossed on the first week in
April, 1600.
On the 8th of April a warrant was issued on behalf of the Privy
Council, and signed by the Earl of Nottingham, Lord Hunsdon, the
Lord Chamberlain, and Robert Cecil, to the following effect: “To the
Justices of Peace and the County of Middlesex, especially of St.
Giles, without Cripplegate.” The document refers to the petition of
the inhabitants, and adds that Allen’s choice of a site in Golden Lane
is recommended by some of the Justices themselves.
Another item mentioned is that of an old theatre to be pulled
down; this would lead one in inferring that when the new theatre
was licensed that either the Rose or the Curtain would be
demolished, and presumably promises were given to that effect.
However, the said theatres continued their career for many years
after these interdicts. Even after the warrant from the Privy Council
certain parties were still clamouring for the reduction of the number
of playhouses, as is evident by a letter from the Privy Council
addressed to the Lord Mayor for the restraint of the immoderate use
and company of playhouses and players.
In reading the Privy Council’s Bill of Complaint, one would
conclude that the Lords of the Council played a double part, one in
urging the restriction of the playhouses and actors, the other in
protecting the same. The latter proceeds to state: “That there shall
be about the City two houses and no more allowed to serve for the
use of the common stage plays. And forasmuch as their Lordships
have been informed by Edmund Tylney, esquire, her Majesty’s
servant and Master of the Revels, that the house now in hand to be
built by the said Edward Alleyn is not intended to increase the
number of playhouses but to be instead of another, namely, the
Curtain, which is either to be ruined and plucked down, or to be put
to some other good use, as also that the situation thereof is meet
and convenient for that purpose, it is likewise ordered that the said
house of Alleyn shall be allowed to be one of the two houses, and
namely for the house to be allowed in Middlesex for the company of
players belonging to the Lord Admiral, so as the house called the
Curtain be as it is pretended, either ruined or applied to some other
good use, and for the other house allowed to be on the Surrey side,
whereas their Lordships are pleased to permit to the company of
players that shall play there to make their own choice which they will
have of divers houses, that are there, choosing one of them and no
more, and the said company of players being the servants of the
Lord Chamberlain and that are to play these have made choice of
the house called the Globe, it is ordered that the said house and
none other shall be allowed there. And speedily it is forbidden that
any stage plays shall be played as sometimes they have been in any
common inn for public assembly in or near about the City. Further, it
is ordered that the two several companies of players assigned unto
the two houses allowed may play each of them in their several
houses twice a week and no oftener, and specially they shall refrain
to play on the Sabbath day upon pain of imprisonment and further
penalty, and that they shall forbear altogether in the time of Lent
and likewise at such times as of extraordinary sickness or infection
of disease shall appear to be in or about the City.”
This document sums up the position of theatrical matters in the
last year of the sixteenth century, and, frankly speaking, the outlook
was not a particularly rosy one.
However, this order of the Council was quite a dead letter and
need not have been written. Theatrical managers took no notice of
these commands, and the threatened theatres remained
undisturbed.
There must have been some reason why this order was
disobeyed; many critics contend that the Lord Admiral and the Lord
Chamberlain were desirous of creating a monopoly for their
servants, others with more show of reason point out that the Privy
Council tried to sugar over the feelings of the City Authorities by
writing polite letters, but when the fatal moment arrived they
refused the permission granted in the correspondence. Perhaps the
Queen took a greater share in these transactions than is generally
supposed by the historians of the theatre, protecting in her own
person the poor player.
All these points are merely surmises; further documents may
enable us to discover the true solution of this interesting enigma.
Fortunately the contract for the building of this theatre is still in
existence. The extreme importance attaching to this document
warrants its transcription in full, respecting the chief items. The
contract was made out on the 8th day of January, 1599, between
Philip Henslowe and Edward Allen on one part and Peter Short,
citizen and carpenter, of London, on the other, for the building and
setting up a new House and stage for a playhouse in and upon a
certain plot of ground near Goldinge Lane, in the parish of St. Giles,
without Cripplegate. “The frame of the house to be set up square,
and to continue 80 feet of lawful assize every way square, without
and 55 feet of like assize square every way within, with a good, sure
and strong foundation of piles, brick, lime and sand both without
and within, to be wrought one foot of assize at the least above
ground, and the said frame to contain three stories in height, the
first a lower storey to contain twelve foot of lawful assize in height,
the second storey eleven foot of lawful assize in height, and the third
or upper storey nine foot. All which storeys shall contain twelve foot
and a half of lawful assize in breadth throughout, besides a jutty
forwards in either of the two upper storeys of ten inches, with four
convenient divisions for gentlemen’s rooms and other sufficient and
convenient divisions for twopenny rooms, with necessary seats to be
placed and set as well in these rooms as throughout all the rest of
the galleries, and with such like stairs, conveyances and divisions
without and within, as are made and contrived in and to the late
erected play house on the Bank, in the said parish of Saint Saviour’s,
called the Globe, with a stage and tiring house to be made, erected
and set up within the said frame, with a shadow or cover over the
said stage, which stage shall be placed and set, as also the
staircases of the said frame in such sort as is prefigured, in a plot
thereon drawn, and which stage shall contain in length forty and
three foot of lawful assize, and in breadth to extend to the middle of
the yard of the said house, the same stage to be paled in below with
good strong and sufficient new oaken boards, and likewise the lower
storey of the said frame withinside, and the same lower storey to be
also laid over and fenced with strong iron piles. And the said stage
to be in all other proportions contrived and fashioned like unto the
stage of the said Playhouse called the Globe, with convenient
windows and lights glazed to the said tiring house. And the said
frame, stage and staircases to be with tile, and to have sufficient
gutter of lead, to carry and convey the water from the covering of
the said stage to fall backwards, and also the said frame and the
staircases thereof to be sufficiently enclosed without with lath, lime
and hair. And the gentlemen’s rooms and twopenny rooms to be
ceiled with lath, lime and hair, and all the floors of the said galleries,
storeys and stage to be boarded with good and sufficient new deal
boards of the whole thickness where need shall be. And the said
house and other things before mentioned to be made and done, to
be in all other contrivitions, conveyances, fashions, thing and things
effected, finished and done according to the manner and fashion of
the said house called the Globe, saving only that all the principle and
main posts of the said frame and stage forward shall be square and
wrought pilaster wise with carved proportions called Satyres, to be
placed and set on the top of every of the same posts, and saving
also that the said Peter Short shall not be charged with any manner
of painting in or about the said frame house and stage or any part
thereof nor rendering the walls within nor ceiling any more other
rooms than the gentlemen’s rooms, twopenny rooms and stage
before mentioned. That the said Philip Henslowe and Edward Allen
will well and truly pay to the said Peter Short the full sum of four
hundred and forty pounds (£440) of lawful money of England.”
 The second Fortune Theatre, 1621.

This contract is noteworthy as affording the means in some

measure of reconstructing the Globe, also corroborating the
evidence of the Swan sketch, especially with regard to the
auditorium, which corresponds in most particulars with the plans
formulated in the Fortune indenture. During Henslowe’s lifetime—he
died in 1616—the only company of players which appeared at the
Fortune were those of the Lord Admiral, which in former days had
their headquarters at the Rose. The last entry in Henslowe’s Diary is
a note detailing the accounts received from the Fortune in 1608,
beginning at the Christmas holidays.
For many years past the Diary had ceased chronicling the name
of the plays acted day by day, as we find in the Rose accounts,
consequently nothing is known of the repertoire of this theatre. The
Admiral’s men continued acting at this house until its total
destruction by fire in 1621. Allen notifies this event in his diary. “This
night at 12 of the clock the Fortune was burnt.”
On the death of his father-in-law, Allen took control of all his
property, either by bequest or in right of his wife. The estate
included the Fortune Theatre. Henslowe’s will was at first disputed
by his nephew, John Henslowe; this action must have failed, as Allen
became the sole possessor of his father-in-law’s property.
 SWEINAM,
THE

Woman-hater,
ARRAIGNED BY
WOMEN.
A new Comedie,
Acted at the Red Bull, by the late
Queenes Seruants.

LONDON,
Printed for Richard Meighen, and are to be sold at his
Shops
at Saint Clements Church, ouer-against Essex House, and
at Westminster Hall. 1 6 2 0.
(Original Image)
 In 1616 Allen leased the theatre to the Admiral’s men, thus
becoming responsible only for the building. The loss of everything
else through the fire fell upon the shoulders of the company. An
account of the burning of the Fortune Theatre is recorded under the
date of December 15th, 1621, in a letter written by John
Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton. “On Sunday night there was a
great fire at the Fortune, in Golden Lane, the fayrest playhouse in
this town. It was quite burnt downe in two hours and all their
apparell and playbooks lost, whereby the poor companions are quite
undone.”
A new Fortune arose three years later on the site of the old one,
namely in 1624. An improvement in the building was effected by
constructing the house of brick. Allen possessed shares in the new
theatre, otherwise he had no interest or responsibility in the
undertaking.
During the Civil War the theatre was dismantled, and the
playhouse ceased for evermore its connexion with the drama. In
1682, Church Services were held there, and finally it became many
years later a fully established brewery. The shape of the interior of
the second Fortune is a matter of controversy, well known experts
disagreeing on this point. The exterior is illustrated in Wilkinson’s
Londonia, and shows a square-shaped building.
The house took its name from the image of a Goddess which
stood in front of the theatre, but whether it was a sculptured sign or
a painting must remain undecided.
 THE RED BULL THEATRE
The next theatre on our list is the Red Bull, until lately
unanimously assigned to the year 1609. Professor Lawrence, in his
second series of Elizabethan studies, would antedate this reckoning
by nearly a decade; unfortunately no reference is given for this early
date. After spending many fruitless hours in search of fresh
discoveries, I inserted a note in Notes and Queries, receiving by
return one private communication, and a few answers through the
journal itself. Although my note was perfectly clear, the information
was what was already known, and dealt chiefly with the later
fortunes of the Red Bull.
Professor Baker, even as late as 1907, dates the opening of the
theatre after 1608. The observant reader will readily perceive that
the history of the early English stage is in a state of chaos. Scholars
such as Mr. Greg, Mr. Chambers, Sir Sidney Lee, and Prof. Lawrence,
who are especially endowed with thorough knowledge of the
subject, should for the benefit of posterity undertake the colossal
task of re-writing the history of the stage during the Shakesperean
period. Mr. Fleay’s chronicle history of the stage is much too
fragmentary, from the theatrical point of view, for the guidance
either of the general student or readers interested in the subject.
In my opinion all Collier’s works must be entirely discarded as
this dishonest littérateur forged documents, notes, and even whole
books, in order to substantiate his theories. Certainly he possessed
great knowledge of the matter, and may well be termed the pioneer
in scientific research, but his criminal methods require that the
student must verify all his statements, therefore if the reader is wise,
all this author’s works should be rejected on account of the difficulty
of distinguishing the true from the false.
 The site of the Red Bull is situated near the Clerkenwell Road end
of St. John Street, formerly called St. John Street Road. On the left
hand side, going towards the Angel, Islington, is Hayward’s Place;
close by is Woodbridge Street, on this space stood the Red Bull.
Previous to the year 1609 nothing is heard of this theatre in the
annals of the stage. Recently documents have come to light proving
its earlier existence, and, as stated above, Professor Lawrence would
place the date as early as 1600. A well-known print of this theatre,
of which I possess the original copy, is generally styled “The inside
of the Red Bull Theatre.” This engraving first appeared in a book
called Kirkman’s Wits or Sport upon Sport, published in two parts, a
second edition being reissued in one volume in 1673, with the
engraving as frontispiece, the original print does not bear any
inscription; this is found only on the modern reproduction issued in
1809. The print was sold separately which may possibly account for
the fanciful description. One glance at the drawing will convince the
student that the print can in no way be associated with the old Red
Bull Theatre. The Red Bull was a public theatre, being open to the
sky, with a thatched roof, performances being given only in the
daytime. Now the print plainly indicates by the inclusion of
chandeliers hanging from the roof, as well as a row of rabbit-eared
footlights along the front, that if a contemporary theatre is
represented a private one is intended.
 Reproduced from an original engraving in the possession of the Author.
Erroneously inscribed as the interior of the Red Bull Theatre. Now generally
identified as the inside of a theatre during the Commonwealth.

The massing of spectators on either side of the stage is evidence

that the drawing is an imaginary one, made up partly from an early
Elizabethan stage, combined with the Restoration Stage of Charles
II.
Possibly it may represent a real stage of the latter period, but
cannot under any circumstances resemble the old Red Bull
Playhouse during any time of its existence. Seven characters are
represented on the stage, illustrating a few of the plays that could
be acted by a strolling company. The principal motive of Kirkman’s
book is “for those players who intend to wander or go a strolling;
this very Book and a few ordinary properties are enough to set them
up and get money in any Town in England.”
1. Sir J. Falstafe and Hostes represent characters of that name in
Shakespeare’s “Henry IV.”
2. The figure emerging from behind the curtain is Green, the
actor, who took the part of Bubble, the City Gallant, whose answer
to every complaint is “Tu quoque,” the play on this account being re-
christened “Tu quoque.” The play was published in 1614, and is still
extant. There is evidence that the drama was acted at the Red Bull
in the year 1611.
3. Clause is one of the chief characters in the “Lame
Commonwealth,” taken from “The Beggar’s Bush,” a tragic-comedy,
by John Fletcher, circa 1615. The scene is laid somewhere in
Flanders, but the play is named after a well-known tree, called “The
Beggar’s Bush,” between Huntingdon and Coxton. The play was first
printed in 1647. On looking up an old theatrical dictionary, dated
1792, this play is ascribed to Beaumont and Fletcher, and is written
“The Beggar’s Bush.”
4. “French Dancing Mr.,” a droll taken from the Duke of
Newcastle’s play called “Variety,” printed in 1647. The dictionary adds
that this play was acted with very great applause at the Black Fryars.
5. “Simpleton” seems to be an independent farce, in which one,
Robert Cox, an actor, made a great hit and caused roars of laughter
from the unsophisticated audience by eating a huge slice of bread
and butter, and complaining that a man cannot be left undisturbed
to eat a little bit for his afternoon luncheon.
6. The “Changling” is a character in Middleton’s tragedy of that
name. Antonio, who pretends idiocy in order that he may gain
access to the wife of a mad doctor. This play was acted before the
Court at Whitehall in 1624.
The history of this theatre still awaits an historian.
Its most enthusiastic supporters were the rougher elements of
the population, who then, as now, chiefly delighted in lurid
melodrama of a very pronounced type. The Chancery proceedings,
in 1617, elicit the fact that certain members of the Red Bull company
were sued for money owed; further proceedings state that they
were unable to satisfy the claim—certain evidence that their finances
were anything but prosperous.
This theatre cannot claim any Shakesperean associations,
although enjoying a longer lease of life than any other playhouse of
that period, being last named as a theatre as late as the year 1663.
Pepys, the celebrated Diarist, visited the Red Bull in 1661. Mr. Barton
Baker, in his history of the London stage, suggests that the Red Bull
Theatre was originally an inn-yard, theatrical performances taking
place there; he also casually mentions an accident caused by the
collapse of the auditorium. By the word auditorium I presume he
means the galleries that surrounded the yard on three sides. Mr.
Baker does not give any references for these statements, or give
further details of the event.
An interesting notice of this theatre, which existed during the
early days of the Commonwealth, will be found in Randolphe’s
“Muses’ Looking Glass.”

THE GLOBE.
 Wherein, quoth he, reigns a whole world of vice,
Had been consumed, the Phœnix burnt to ashes,
The Fortune whipped for a blind—Blackfriars,
He wonders how it escaped demolishing
In the time of Reformation; lastly he wished
The Bull might cross the Thames to the Bear-gardens
And there be soundly baited.

Edward Allen, the Elizabethan actor, also mentions this theatre in

a manuscript note preserved at Dulwich College: “Went to the Red
Bull and received for the Younger Brother (a play) but £3 6s. 4d.”
In 1629 a company of French comedians acted here for one day
only. After being deserted by the actors, the Red Bull offered various
entertainments to the public. There is extant a bill which was
formerly in possession of Mr. Eliot Hodgson, advertising a fencing
match at the Red Bull on Whit Monday, 30th May, 1664. This is
surmounted by a large woodcut of the Royal Arms, and is printed on
a sheet of coarse paper, measuring 5 ⅚ inches by 7½ inches. No
authentic view of either the interior or the exterior is in existence.
Above the illustration of the Red Bull Theatre check will be found
a facsimile of an admission to the Roman Coliseum, built A.D. 72.
This rare specimen is perfectly genuine, and was purchased by me
many years ago at the Buxton Forman sale. It is an interesting
souvenir of ancient theatrical times; the numerals, VII, on the
reverse refer to one of the sections of the vast building, and may
have been a complimentary ticket before the tax on deadheads
came into vogue.
When the building was finally demolished is likewise uncertain.
An interesting metal check ticket, giving admittance to the Upper
Gallery of the Red Bull, is extant, the date of which is between the
Restoration and the closing of the Red Bull as a theatre, namely,
1660–1663. The obverse has the head of a bull, within a wreath,
tied in a knot with ribbons; a double ring encircles the entire figure.
The reverse has simply the words Upper Gallery one above the other,
a star is over the second P in upper, and another under the second L
of Gallery; the whole is within a double lined circle.

Facsimile of an admission ticket to the Roman Coliseum. Circa A.D. 90.

Reproduced from a genuine ivory ticket in the possession of the Author.

Ticket of Admission to the Red Bull Theatre.

The writer of an article on Shakespeare, in which an illustration

appears, considers this check as a souvenir of the Globe; this
ascription may be due to a clerical error. Most writers on
Shakesperean matters, unless they are expert students, are seldom
accurate in their statements; they are too apt in seeking information
from paragraphs culled from ancient encyclopædias, a very unsafe
medium for sound knowledge. Almost every sentence requires
patient research; in some instances a dozen or more books must be
consulted in verifying quite an ordinary statement, and very few
writers possess the necessary patience for such monotonous work.
For suchlike people I would recommend novel writing—a much
easier task, and which can be pursued without interruption.

The large theatre in the foreground is the Second Globe Theatre, 1614. The small
one is the Hope.