Before we even begin to evaluate who attended the theatre at any one given moment in history, we must first recognise the fact that the individual attends a performance with certain expectations, values and prejudices that have already been determined. Also, we must acknowledge the fact that a diverse collection of people constitutes an audience, so in fact we are analysing the history of audiences.
             Gurr, A. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London
             Theatre historians regard Andrew Gurr's book, Playgoing in Shakespeare's London as an authority of the Shakespearean period, "an indispensable quarry for information on theatres ad audiences" . John F. Andrews also endorses Gurr as one of the world's leading historians, recognising him as "one of our most lucid and reliable interpreters of what it was like to attend a play in the age of Shakespeare."
             Gurr's article addresses the value and significance of the audience in performances of the period. He examines the effect of historical change on the change in the physical nature of the auditorium, audience tastes and the social composition of the playgoers. He attempts to patch together evidence from the physical conditions of performances, demographics, and contemporary commentary and loosely seeks to sketch a picture of the mental composition of the audience through anecdotal evidence. The latter two types of evidence are so fragmentary and highly unsubstantiated that it seems that we can't take much of what Gurr says as absolute.
             Gurr acknowledges that much is known about how the plays were staged, but that very little is known about the interaction between players and playgoers to create performances of the 1600s. Even though Gurr tries to categorise the typical London playgoer as either a London artisan who attended the Globe or an elite or privileged member of society who attended the Blackfriars, it is difficult to gain insight as ...