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 all houres to play in the house of the said Philip, and in no other.”  It may be noted that Shakespeare’s first connection with the Globe Theatre is shown upon fair evidence to have been originally that of a “servitor.”  In that case the poet must often have been required to appear in very subordinate characters—­perhaps even characters not entrusted with speech.  Will it inflame too violently the ambition of our modern “supers” to suggest to them that very possibly Shakespeare himself may have preceded them in the performance of their somewhat inglorious duties?