Charles Nicholl, below, and Nicholas Robins, right, look at studies that place Shakespeare’s theatre in context.

Little material legacy of any sort is examined in Jean Wilson’s account of Shakespeare’s life - not even a discussion of his London lodgings, which might profitably have been scrutinised upon the so-called “Agas” map (1561-70) and which would have added something to Samuel (?) Schoenbaum’s exemplary Compact Documentary Life - and it is a mystery why the author thought this an avenue worth exploring.

Similarly, many of the observations made on medieval drama, religious and civic pageantry, outdoor entertainment, stage costume and the “theatricality of everyday life”, while well made, cannot be said to have added anything to the readily available labours of Glynne Wickham or Andrew Gurr. It is useful to see inns and inn yards given their proper place in the history of the stage - that is, as interior performance spaces - but Wilson has almost nothing to say about the animal-baiting arenas, for which a respectable amount of visual evidence is extant.

She conducts a useful round-up of what we do know (materially) about every one of the various Elizabethan theatres - both indoor and out - but where the book comes into its own is in the remarks it makes upon the usefulness of Elizabethan monumental sculpture in reconstructing an image of the interiors of these theatres. Tombs are studied not only to provide clues to theatrical gesture and costume, but also for possible evidence about the appearance of the tiring house facades of both indoor and outdoor theatres - and particularly that most vexing vacuum known as the “discovery space” (think of the discoveries of the dead Polonius or the chess playing Miranda and Ferdinand).

Interesting analyses are offered of conventions such as that demonstrated by the tomb of Lady Savile at St Nicholas Hurst, Berkshire, in which a stone curtain is beguilingly withdrawn to reveal the family at prayer: the curious may be encouraged to enhance their understanding of the Elizabethan stage by reaching for Pevsner. The pictures, incidentally, which are monochrome throughout, are of rather varying quality: most are adequate, but some are rather grey and a few very poorly aligned.

Useful, too, is the excellent survey of the implications of the archaeological digs at the sites of the Rose and the Globe (to date), although aspects of historic relevance do become rather thickly involved with details of the politics of their excavation - interesting though they may be. Wilson also rather teasingly raises the ghost of Mrs Thrale, the friend of Dr Johnson, who claimed that she saw the ruins of the Globe (95 per cent of which are still buried), but does not quote the passage in question: now that’s an aspect of the material legacy not usually credited which might have deserved close re-examination.

I have only one real grouse. In her discussion of the most important physical synthesis of this evidence, the new Globe Theatre on Bankside - insistently referred to as “Wanamaker’s Globe” - she is slighting about those parts of the theatre which have not yet been built. This was indeed rash: some elements, such as the lantern on the tiring house roof, have long been removed from the design; others, such as the shape of the stage, are currently under review since the experimental “workshop” season held in the theatre this summer. Neither is the new Globe as slavishly dependent upon the evidence provided by Hollar’s famous “Long View” of London as she claims elsewhere. I take it, too, that it is not the Shakespeare Globe Trust which is in her mind as having failed to take an “interdisciplinary” approach to its research: that really would be kicking at an open door.

Nicholas Robins is publications manager, Shakespeare’s Globe