Critics have long attested to the various irregularities of Dom Juan ou le Festin de pierre, one of Molière's most unusual plays. In its time, according to W. D. Howarth, it was regarded as “a curious freak.” Numerous mysteries surround the creation and production of Dom Juan. Molière wrote it to fill in a gap created by the recent interdiction of Le Tartuffe ou l'Imposteur at a time when he needed a successful play to dress up a somewhat limited and worn-out repertory. In searching for a success, it was natural that Molière should choose the highly popular Don Juan theme. Following the lead of Tirso de Molina in Spain and of Cicognini and Giliberto in Italy, the French were taking their turn: Dorimon's Le Festin de pierre ou le Fils criminel premiered in Lyon in 1658; the same year the Italian actors mounted their own commedia dell'arte version called Il convitato di pietra in Paris in the theatre of the Petit Bourbon which they shared with Molière; and the actor Villiers's version, which had the same title as Dorimon's, premiered at the Hôtel de Bourgogne in 1659. It is quite possible that all three played concurrently in Paris in the early 1660s, and Molière and his actors may well have gone to see their competitors' renditions.

It is a commonplace regret of theatre historians that, for the Hôtel de Bourgogne (as, indeed, for the Théâtre du Marais) there exists no continuous record of performances analogous to that maintained by La Grange in respect of Molière's troupe. Thus one cannot always be certain which plays were performed, still less when. Such dates as are certain—or even, virtually certain—are so, only because they arise in the writings of contemporaries. In particular, the gazetiers (Loret, Robinet, and others) are an invaluable source of information. One can say, for example, that the first performance of Quinault's Stratonice took place on January 2, 1660 at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, that of Pierre Corneille's Sertorius on February 25, 1662 at the Théâtre du Marais, that of Racine's Andromaque on November 17, 1667 in the Louvre (given by the troupe of the Hôtel), and that of Quinault's Pausanias at the Hôtel on November 16, 1668—provided, of course, that the gazetiers are not mistaken (and, as a fact, they are not infallible). Clues may also be found in other miscellaneous writings (one such, to be mentioned again below, establishes the date of Racine's Bérénice).

The Museo Correr Codex 1040 is a collection of fifty-one three act scenari for the commedia dell'arte. As such, it is an important source for anyone concerned with the history and development of that form of popular entertainment. It assumes greater significance than simply being another collection of texts because two of the most crucial features of the Venetianstyle commedia dell'arte appear fully formed in these scenari, namely the devices of maschera and lazzi (cf. Royce 1986).

Hundreds of itinerant players under civic, ecclesiastical, and aristocratic patronage were criss-crossing England from at least 1426, when Henry VI rewarded a troupe of the Duke of Exeter's boys playing interludes, to the closing of the public theatres in 1642. Public and private financial accounts mark the passage of such troupes, but rarely provide any information about them beyond what year they appeared and who acted as their patron. We know that the players existed and that they travelled, but we know virtually nothing about the day-to-day lives of the touring players, about their touring strategies and methods. How many plays were in a typical repertoire, ready to be performed for any audience? How did players gain admittance to performing spaces, and how were they received? Who was responsible for the administrative details governing rewards, bed and board, and production procedures? Who decided what, where, and why the players performed, and what kind of reception could players expect? No extant primary source document addresses any of these questions.

Samuel Foote, the prototypical self-made man, assisted the careers of Edward Shuter, Tate Wilkinson, Henry Woodward, and Thomas Weston, some of the finest comic actors of the mid-eighteenth century, by supporting them with positions in his Haymarket troupe. Nevertheless, Foote was plagued throughout his own career by conflicts with actors and actresses, theatre managers and owners. Shuter frequently acted at rival houses, while Wilkinson and Woodward were as often offended as encouraged by Foote. Weston, however, received special treatment from the Haymarket master and reciprocated in what became a most unusual symbiotic exchange: Foote taught Weston that his theatrical survival depended on exploiting his natural proclivity for low comedy, and Weston's subsequent success helped to finance Foote's dramatic experiments, aiding his creative development both as a comic actor and playwright.

Mercy Otis Warren, wife of General James Warren and sister of James Otis, was one of the most vocal supporters of the patriot cause during the American Revolution. Called “a definite stimulator of the Revolutionary leaders” (Christ 7), she wrote extensively: poems, sketches, letters, and plays, and was praised by John Adams as a “political pen which has no equal that I know of in this country” (Quinn 34). Of her plays, The Adulateur (1773), The Defeat (1773), The Group (1775), The Blockheads (1776), and The Motley Assembly (1779), she claimed only one, The Group, and that long after publication; all of her work was published anonymously. This anonymity poses no real problem for authorship for most of the plays, for there is reasonably strong documentary or internal evidence indicating that she wrote The Adulateur, The Defeat, and The Motley Assembly, as well as The Group, and there is general agreement that she wrote these plays.

The nineteenth-century theatre saw the rise of the outspoken, intelligent leading lady. In a period in which actors were just shedding their status as second-class citizens, and women still were second-class citizens in society as a whole, three actresses established themselves as major interpreters of Shakespeare. Fanny Kemble, Helena Faucit Martin, and Ellen Terry had the double advantage of rising to the top of their profession and of being highly articulate writers as well, leaving records of their thoughts about acting and about the playwright who inspired them. This reading of their letters, memoirs, and criticism suggests answers to several questions: What do the actresses notice about Shakespeare's plays? How do their views relate to those of the literary critics of the time? And finally, do they ever consult formal scholarship when preparing for a role?

In 1938, at the age of eighteen, Uta Hagen made her debut on Broadway as Nina in The Sea Gull with the Lunts—a fairy tale story come true. A young girl from the provinces—in this case, Madison, Wisconsin—comes to New York to be an actress, and within two months, with the most illustrious American actors of her time, she is playing the role of a young girl from the provinces who wants to be an actress.

Aspiring young actors traditionally leave their hometowns to seek training and performance experiences in America's theatre centers. Many choose to study and perform in New York City, and they carry with them to New York the naive assumption that only in the “Big Apple” can a theatre artist's dreams come true. But some become disenchanted with the New York theatre scene and gain a determination to create significant, non-commercial theatre in another part of the country. And, on occasion, they erect their alternative stages in the very towns from which they sprang.