CHAPTER III

THE THEATRES

Unfortunately for lovers of Shakespearean drama no vestige of any early Elizabethan theatre exists; in some instances even the very sites are forgotten; in others, the plots of ground on which each theatre stood are disputed. When the Shakespeare Reading Society placed a tablet on the site of the first Globe Theatre, the handsome bronze plaque was erected on the south side of Park Street, which has lately been proved to be a palpable error, the real site of this historic building being situated on the north side. The localities where stood the early English theatres have changed so out of all recognition during the last two centuries that only an antiquarian who has access to old deeds can with any degree of certainty fix the limits of old houses and public buildings. Nothing remains to-day but the bare names of the streets, indicating in a few cases the places of entertainment in Elizabethan times. During Shakespeare’s lifetime there existed in London eleven regular theatres, a brief account of each of these will be chronicled in the following pages:

THE THEATRE

The first public theatre in London was situated in the parish of Shoreditch and quite appropriately named “The Theatre.” When visiting to-day this depressing neighbourhood, similar districts being dotted over all the London area, an observer immediately concludes that the governing authorities of the London districts must be a most corrupt body; how else can one account for the state of the filthy slums and the appalling ignorance of the inhabitants? Which, after all, is not so surprising when only the gorgeous gin-palace is allowed to flourish. As for demolishing a slum alley, perish the thought! It would offend the aristocratic and titled owner, whose property must be protected at all costs. If I were on a Board Council, not only would I confiscate the property and quickly sweep it off the face of the earth, but would heavily fine and imprison the owners as being pests to society. Shoreditch, God help us! is an awful place. The thought that Shakespeare’s plays were first produced in this neighbourhood seems to cast a stigma on his name, and that the present state of affairs should exist after three hundred years of social progress! Something is rotten in the parish of Shoreditch. How could any modern institution or artistic building flourish in such a fetid and vicious locality, where the London County Council only permits the public-house to flaunt its vile face before the public gaze. A new terror is now added to the grand historic city of London and its outer boundaries by the glaring posters of the Cinema theatre depicting every sort of horrid crime so that a stranger must conclude that Englishmen are for the most part thieves and vicious characters, caring for little else but scenes of a most depraved nature.

Until quite recently the site of the theatre was identified with a plot of ground formerly occupied by Deane’s Mews, situated in the neighbourhood of the present King John’s Court. This site had never been questioned until the appearance of the London County Council pamphlet giving the details where the structure was erected. Halliwell-Phillipps first described the site as being on the Deane’s Mews property in his Illustrations to Shakespeare. The pamphlet mentioned above is the work of Mr. W. W. Braines, whose untiring efforts and keen critical research have succeeded in revealing the exact spot on which the first theatre was erected. For years past I had searched in vain for Deane’s Mews but without success; in fact, this place was becoming to be regarded as a myth, no one having heard of such a name. A friend of mine, Mr. Charles Edwards, a fellow member of the Stock Exchange, had presented me with a handsome folio volume, giving details of all improvements in the Metropolitan area within the last fifty years. This compilation has been enriched with a wealth of plans, exact measurements and the necessary explanatory notes reflecting the greatest credit on the accomplished editor, Mr. Percy Edwards, a brother of my friend. On referring to this book I found Deane’s Mews plainly marked, which stood about 200 ft. south of the true site. The Mews was swept away in the construction of Gt. Eastern St. in 1873-76, and its site is now covered by the latter thoroughfare.

On leaving the City at the junction between Wormwood Street and Camomile Street, where formerly stood the gate entrance to the City, called Bishopsgate, we will proceed down Bishopsgate towards Norton Folgate, thence passing into High Street, Shoreditch. From the High Street we soon reach New Inn Yard, turning up this lane, at a distance of 120 yards we arrive near the site of The Theatre, which was situated about fifty feet north of this street and within a few feet of the east side of the Curtain Road. In earlier times this district formed part of the celebrated Holywell Priory. A detailed account of this ancient abbey would be a welcome addition to the ecclesiastical and topographical history of London. I hope this little volume from which the above details are taken will be consulted by all Londoners, a perusal of which might instil into their minds a greater interest in the past history of their wonderful city. Actual experience teaches me that few people take any intelligent interest in the subject or any other which does not in some particular manner add to their commercial prosperity. Naturally, where so many neglect the pleasures of the mind, the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the people pass unnoticed, otherwise any person totally unacquainted with the history of the City of London would be looked upon as a common lout, fitting only to herd with the base-minded.

I know from actual experience that few people take any intelligent interest in this great and all-absorbing subject. I have, alas, met several so-called educated men and women who have freely acknowledged that they are quite indifferent concerning the history of the past, although no subject of any importance can be thoroughly discussed without allusion to previous events. This attitude almost of revulsion exhibited by so many people for past history must have some deeply based reason for its existence. Many would explain this contempt for the past by the greater attraction of the wonderful world of science and mechanical transport. In my opinion, the real cause of this feeling is that the greater part of the population set up their idols to the worship of sport, which the public schools and universities ever delight to honour, and which, in my mind, is a public scandal which should be inquired into, and the authorities that encourage such wild orgies, severely reprimanded. The fascinating study of literature and art fill no void in the daily routine of their lives, a state of affairs greatly to be regretted; the welfare of the future generation rests with the teachers of the elementary schools, who should endeavour to foster in the young a genuine love for literature and all the arts that tend in elevating the mind. My enquiry why so few take any interest in these refining studies is generally met with the foolish and ill-bred answer that no immediate benefit is derived from these studies, as if the delights of the mind can be gauged by material benefits.

One more parting shaft. A governing corporation that sanctioned the demolition of Crosby Hall ought themselves to be demolished, or at least hounded out of the City by the citizens that placed them in power.

Although this theatre was situated outside the City boundary, the distance from the Metropolis was so short that Londoners were able to reach their destination without undue discomfort and fatigue. Notwithstanding that The Theatre was surrounded by fields, this obstacle proved to be of a negligible quantity. The novelty of the building and the vigorous dramatic force of the plays appealed to a populace ever seeking for amusement, and made this playhouse a success from its inauguration until its final destruction nearly a quarter of a century later. Londoners of to-day would consider any place surrounded by fields a pretty fair distance from the Metropolis, but towards the end of the sixteenth century the country could be reached in about a quarter of an hour by sharp walking from any point in the City, which at that date constituted London proper. The reason that Burbage, the proprietor, sought a locality for his projected theatre outside the centre of the business life of the City was primarily on account of the intense puritanical hatred against all theatrical entertainments, the mark of the beast being shown by the Lord Mayor and Corporation, who threatened with ejectment all the players from the City. The crisis came in 1576, when an order was promulgated by which all places of amusement were to be closed. This order principally affected all inn-yards where plays were held, also bear and bull baiting establishments. Driven almost to desperation, the players resolved on quitting the City before the order was set in motion. James Burbage, one of the leading actors in the Earl of Leicester’s Company, was by trade a joiner, and quite appropriately the builder of the first organized theatre not only in England but in modern Europe. This momentous decision proved of untold benefit in the course of the development of the drama, besides protecting his company from molestation and persecution. This almost inspired act prepared the way for the mighty genius who holds the world in awe, who was thus able to profit by this vast improvement and decisive innovation in the dramatic world. By taking this bold step the object of the City Fathers was completely frustrated, and their deep-laid schemes, in which the poor player was to be totally annihilated, recoiled on their own heads. The new venture was an instant success, instilling into the drama fresh blood and a long lease of life, daily growing more popular and prosperous and drawing within the charmed circle every class of citizen, with the exception of the puritan brigade.

The site chosen by Burbage for his first theatre was within the precincts of the ancient Priory of Holywell, a celebrated landmark in early Tudor times. The Priory was an ancient foundation originally built in the second decade of the twelfth century. The ground on which it stood was bequeathed by a Canon of St. Paul’s to a religious body of women known as the Benedictine Nuns. The building remained in their possession until the total suppression of all monastic orders in this country by the Mandate of Henry the Eighth. The Dissolution began about the year 1538, but the total extinction of the Abbey, including the Chantries, Chapels, and Churches, was not finally accomplished until ten years later. The last notice of the Priory as a living centre can be traced to the year 1539, when Sybilla Newdigate, the prioress, delivered up her house to the King. The suppression of the Monasteries was one of those drastic acts by which means the King defied the spiritual and temporal power of Rome, and proclaimed to the English people that he alone was supreme head of the Church in England.

The origin of the name Holywell is traceable to a well which existed in the parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, early in the twelfth century. The exact site of this well is unknown, but somewhere in close proximity to the new theatre. One authority states explicitly that it is discoverable, but now concealed from view in the present Bateman’s Row. An interesting relic of the ancient Priory can still be seen in the shape of an old stone wall about 50 ft. long, in a timber yard in High Street, Shoreditch. I must candidly admit that I have not seen this relic, but its existence is vouched by excellent authority. Immediately succeeding the Dissolution, the Priory was demolished and let out on building leases to various tenants. Stow, the London historian, writes: “Thence up to the late dissolved Priory, called Holywell, a house of Nuns. The Priory was valued at the Suppression to having lands £293 by year and was surrendered in 1539. The Church thereof being pulled down, many houses have been builded for the lodging of noblemen, of strangers and of others.” When the old Abbey was portioned into estates, one important lot fell into the hands of Henry Webb, who eventually disposed of it to Christopher Bumsted, who disposed of the same property to Giles Allen, from whom James Burbage took over a lease in 1576. All the minute particulars respecting the site of The Theatre are mostly due to a protracted lawsuit between Giles and Burbage, the records of which have been fortunately preserved, and were made public by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. The lease granted by Giles to Burbage contained a curious clause to the effect that Burbage was willing to accept a lease for twenty-one years provided that, at the termination of that period, the said Burbage, having expended the sum of not less than two hundred pounds on the building in the course of ten years, should have the option of taking down and removing the same to any locality he might select. A further clause also provided for an extension of the lease after the expiration of 21 years. For the present we will pass over the first 21 years and come to the critical year in the affairs of this playhouse. When the first lease was on point of expiry, James Burbage commenced negotiations for an extension of time, but unfortunately, while these particulars were being discussed, the original lessee, James Burbage died. By his will the interest of his Shoreditch property devolved upon his two sons, Richard and Cuthbert, the former being the famous actor; of the latter little is known, he may have been an actor in his brother’s company. The two sons, in an interview with Allen, the owner of the property, now demanded afresh an extension of the lease, Allen would have acceded to their request provided they paid an additional ten pounds a year and further stipulated that after five years from the signing of the new lease they must be prepared to use the property for other purposes than theatrical entertainments.

The new lease was never signed; nevertheless, for a brief period the Burbages remained in possession. No one will deny but that the tenants had a very uncomfortable and insecure tenure of the premises. The lessees must have realized the perilous position of their tenancy, which was liable to foreclosure at any moment. Being faced with this predicament they hit upon a desperate remedy. As stated above, a clause was inserted in the original lease whereby they had the right in pulling down and removing the said building. No sooner had they resolved upon this expedient than the plan was quietly carried into effect, thereby causing the lawsuit with Giles Allen, and incidentally throwing light on the early annals of the theatre. The following paragraph is an extract from Allen’s Bill of Complaints against Cuthbert Burbage, who “unlawfully combining and confederating himself with the said Richard Burbage and one Peter Street, William Smith, and divers other persons to the number of twelve, to your subject unknown, did about the eighth and twentieth day of December, in the one and fortieth year of your Highness’ reign, and since then your Highness’ last and general pardon by the confederacy aforesaid notoriously assemble themselves with divers and many unlawful and offensive weapons as namely, swords, daggers, billes, axes, and such like, and so armed did then repair unto the said Theatre, and then and there armed as aforesaid in very riotous, outrageous and forcible manner, and contrary to the laws of your Highness’ realm, attempted to pull down the said Theatre whereupon divers of your subjects, servants and farmers, then going about in peaceable manner to procure them from that their unlawful enterprise, that the said riotous persons aforesaid, notwithstanding procured then thereon with great violence, not only then and there forcible and riotously resisting your subjects, servants and farmers, and also then and there pulling down, breaking and throwing down the said Theatre in very outrageous and violent and riotous sort to the great disturbance and terrifying, not only of your subjects, said servants and farmers, but of divers others of your Majesty’s loving subjects there near inhabiting and having so done did then also in most forcible and riotous manner take and carry away from thence all the wood and timber thereof unto the Bankside in the parish of St. Overyes and there erected a new playhouse with the said timber and wood!”

All the world knows that the said new playhouse was the famous Globe Theatre, the glory of the Bankside and the scene of Shakespeare’s everlasting creations. Stow, the historian of London, in the first edition of the Survey of the City of London, mentions The Theatre by name in the following paragraph: “The church thereof being pulled downe, many houses have been builded for the lodging of noblemen of strangers borne and other. And neare thereunto are builded two publique houses for the acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies and Histories for recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, the other the Theatre, both standing on the Southwest side towards the field.” The last few lines from “Whereof to field” were omitted in the second edition in 1603. The learned editor of the latest and best edition of this famous book, Charles Kingsford, M.A., by a slip of the pen, in a note to this passage, refers to the Curtain as having been demolished in 1600; of course, it should be the Theatre, and the date should be 1598. The field mentioned by Stow formed part of the well-known Finsbury Fields, the playground of Elizabethan Londoners; these fields abutted on Moorfields, which formed the boundary of North-East London. Many citizens took advantage of these open fields and used them as a short cut to the playhouse, generally going thither on horseback. This manner of approaching the playhouse may account for the tradition that Shakespeare on his first arrival in London held horses outside the building.

Sometime in 1576 the players were safely installed in the new building, notwithstanding the removal from the precincts of the City, persecution soon dogged their footsteps, inaugurated by a bitter attack from the puritan section of the community. The onslaught came from a clergyman in a book entitled _A Treatise against Dicing, Dancing and Interludes with other idle pastimes_, published in 1577. The author of this venomous tirade rebuking all kinds of amusement was John Northbroke, a preacher and procurator for the Bristol Clergy in the Synod of London. The tract is in the form of a dialogue between Youth and Age.

“Youth. Do you speak against these places also which are made up and builded for such plays and interludes as The Theatre and Curtain are and other such like places tendes.”

“Age. Yea, truly for I am persuaded that Satan hath not a more speedy way and fitter school to work and teach his desire to bring men and women into his snare than these places and plays and theatres are, and therefore necessary that these places and plays should be forbidden and dissolved and put down by authority.”

One of the earliest references to the recently built theatres was made by Thomas Wilcox, a notorious divine, on December 9th, 1576, whose life will be found in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. He referred to the Theatre and the Curtain as “those sumptuous theatre houses.”

The earliest references to The Theatre, by name, is mentioned in an order of the Privy Council, dated 1st August, 1577, “for the avoiding of the sickness likely to happen through the heat of the weather and assemblies of the people of London to plays,” measures should be taken that “such as are and do use to play without the Liberties of the City ... as the theater and such like, shall forbear any more to play until Mighelmas be past.”

After an interval of one year from the Rev. Northbroke’s outburst another preacher mounted the pulpit, delivering a vigorous sermon in denunciation of “The Theatre.” This divine was a schoolmaster named Stockton, headmaster of Tonbridge School, where he held indisputable sway, widely known as a severe disciplinarian, and a writer of many devotional works. The following is an extract from a sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross: “Have we not houses of purpose built with great charges for the maintenance of them, and that without the Liberties, as who shall say ‘There let them say what they will we will play.’ I know not how I might with the godly learned especially more discommend the gorgeous playing places erected in the fields than term it as they please to have it called a Theatre. Will not a filthy play with a blast of a trumpet sooner call thither a thousand than an hour’s tolling of the bell bring to a sermon a hundred? Nay, even here in the City, without it be at this place and some other ordinary audience where you shall find a rehearsal of company, whereas if you visit to the Theatre the Curtain and other places of players in the City you shall on the Lord’s Day have their places with many other that I cannot reckon so full as possible they can throng.”

In most ages, even the present one, the clergy have persistently set their faces against play acting without sufficiently analysing the reasons for their embittered attacks, therefore their testimony must be accepted as prejudiced partisans, which neither voice the view of the populace nor of the cultured classes. Contemporary records afford ample proof that the stage was frequented by all sorts and conditions of people, the rowdy section seeming to predominate, only the puritanical section, chiefly composed of the middle classes, kept aloof. The popularity of the drama, acclaimed by the upper classes, saved it from complete annihilation, otherwise the authorities would have banished every player beyond the City walls. The sole cause of hatred against the players can only be accounted for by the strong puritanical feeling existing in the breasts of the City Fathers, which expressed itself in denouncing with unseemly rage and bitterness any kind of entertainment in which the citizens evinced the slightest pleasure. Any pretext, however flimsy, was seized upon with avidity, thereby exhibiting their petty spite against the players. When the plague raged the theatres were closed. If any act of disturbance occurred the theatres were closed. On Saints’ days, Holydays and Festivals the theatres were closed. Orders were frequently issued permitting stage plays only on certain days in the week. Every device was instituted in their endeavour to persecute the poor player, but, in spite of all these tyrannical enactments, the drama continued to flourish exceedingly, attracting hundreds of people who found employment in connexion with the stage.

Another early reference to the Theatre is found in a volume of a contemporary author. John Florio, an Italian refugee, who instructed the English aristocracy in the niceties of the Italian language, in a book entitled _Dialogues and Proverbs First Frutes_, published in 1578, is the following passage: “We will go into the Fields. Let us go to the Theatre to see a comedie. What pastimes are they in England on holidays? Of all sortes of pastyme, as Comedies, Tragedies, leaping, dancing, playes of defence, Baiting of Beasts, etc.” The above paragraph is in the form of a dialogue. This reference is rarely met with, I believe Mrs. Carmichael Stopes was the first to point it out. “In the year 1580, Burbage was summoned before the Middlesex Court on a charge of bringing together unlawful assemblies of people to hear and see certain colloquies or interludes called plays, exercised by James Burbage and divers other persons unknown, at a certain place called The Theatre, in Halliwell, in the aforesaid county. By reason of which unlawful assembly of the people great affrays, assaults and tumults and quasi-insurrections and divers other misdeeds and enormities have been then and there done and perpetrated by very many ill-disposed persons to the great disturbance of the peace.” This statement is a gross exaggeration, but its very overstatement suffices in explaining the attitude the authorities assumed in the extreme measures adopted by them in suppressing play-acting. How unfair and unjust appear the means by which a body of English magistrates endeavoured to abolish theatrical institutions. No statement was too false, no lie uttered was deemed sinful; the airiest motive was seized upon with eagerness if by such means any discredit was cast upon the acting fraternity. For years they were harassed, tormented and bandied about from place to place, and this persecution lasted even whilst the greatest dramatic literature of all time was daily being represented before an ever increasing and admiring public.

For this drastic treatment we may seek some condonement and extenuating circumstances in the religious belief of the country, the people being chiefly guided by the clergy, who instilled in them the belief that all things connected with the stage were injurious and harmful to the community. Imbued with these ideas the clergy considered themselves justified by using every means in their power in overthrowing and abolishing the stage out of the kingdom. Many of these reverend fanatics were admitted on the Council of Administration, who continually persisted in their endeavours to oust the players, at any rate, out of the City; in furtherance of their plans they preached the sinfulness of the drama in order to drive away the people from the playhouses. Their pleadings were partially successful; by continual exhortations they succeeded in poisoning the minds of the middle classes, who accordingly absented themselves from all places of amusement. The chief patrons of the drama were drawn from the upper and lower classes much in the same way as the Turf to-day exercises on the same classes, the middle class in this instance displaying great good sense and morality by staying away from such an unhealthy and discreditable amusement.

Although the Corporation were powerful enough in forcing the players from places under their control, they were powerless in suppressing play-acting during the entire reigns of Elizabeth and James. The year 1584 was memorable on account of a disturbance which occurred outside the Theatre, thereby causing the assembly of a great crowd. Quickly seizing this event as an excuse, the authorities petitioned that this building and the Curtain should be pulled down. The Court considered the punishment too drastic; nevertheless, the Corporation persisted, eventually obtaining letters ordering the demolition of both theatres: “Upon Sunday my Lord sent 2 Aldermen to the Court for the suppressing and pulling down of the Theatre and Curtain for all the Lords agreed thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlain and Mr. Viech, but we obtained a letter to suppress them all. Upon the same night I sent for the Queen’s players and my Lord Arundel his players, and they all well nigh obeyed the Lords’ letters. The chiefest of her Highness’ players advised me to send for the owner of the Theatre, who was a stubborn fellow, and to bind him. I did so. He sent me word that he was my Lord Hunsdon’s man, and that he would not come to me, but he would in the morning ride to my Lord. Then I sent the under Sheriff for him, and he brought him to me, and at his coming he shouted me out very Justice, and in the end I showed him my Lord his master’s hand, and then he was more quiet, but to die for it he would not be bound. And then I, minding to send him to prison, he made suit that he might be bound to appear at the Oyer and determined the which is to-morrow, where he said he was sure the Court would not bind him, being a counselor’s man, and so I have granted his request, where he shall be sure to be bound or else is like to do worse.”

Again, for fear of riots, official notices were distributed that the Theatre be closed. “There shall be no plays at the Theatre or other usual place where the same are commonly used.” These orders were frequently circulated; whether they were put into execution is doubtful. Considering the restrictions that hemmed around the poor player, Shakespeare’s lament that through ill-fortune he became a player need cause no surprise, considering the persecution that was directed against the theatrical profession.

A passage in Dante’s “Inferno” might, with slight alterations, exactly fit the actions of our own civic authorities during the reign of Elizabeth. “As in the Venetian Arsenal, the pitch boils in the winter time wherewith to caulk their rotten ships. But, looking down into the chasm, I could see nothing except the bubbles that its boiling raised. And as I looked at it fixedly and wondered, my guide drew me back hastily, saying, ‘Look! look!’ And when I turned I saw behind us a black devil come running along the rocks. Oh, how wild his face, oh, how bitter his action, as he came with his wings wide, light upon his feet, on his shoulder he bore a sinner grasped by both haunches, and when he came to the bridge foot he cried down the pit: ‘Here’s an Alderman from the City of London; put him under that I may fetch more for the land is full of such.’”

Before the total destruction of The Theatre there is a reference to the “unfrequented Theatre” in Skialetheia, a series of satires entered in the Stationers’ Register on the 15th September, 1598.

The literature of the day barely mentions the name of The Theatre, yet this building had flourished for over a period of twenty years. Stow mentions the Theatre once, only to be withdrawn from his second edition, possibly the sour old Puritan, condemned in his heart all play acting, and fervently desired the expulsion of all actors, plays, and their authors from the domain of the City. The antiquary, Stow, may well represent a type of the better class citizen utterly unsympathetic with the new drama, and entirely adverse to all kinds of amusement. This prejudiced feeling may account for the complete silence in any of his works of theatrical life, which during his time was daily growing into importance and significance. We have explained the silence of the old topographer, but how can we interpret the passing over of this side of London life by all literary coteries. The Metropolis swarmed with writers of books and pamphlets dealing with contemporary events, most of the authors were connected with the theatrical world, yet you may search in vain thousands of books in the expectation of finding any critical or explanatory notices of the stage. The conspiracy of silence is so well maintained that we are left almost unacquainted with theatrical conditions which governed the Elizabethan stage, whilst of the Greek stage which flourished over two thousand years previously we have minute particulars in all its branches. Why such a great novelty, as an enclosed theatre should not have been freely discussed, written about, and above all, criticised, remains one of the mysteries of the age? Fortunately, a few foreigners from among the throng who visited these shores jotted down their experiences of London, including therein the amusements of the town, not forgetting to describe briefly a list of theatres.

No drawing, print, or any kind of illustration depicting the first theatre erected in London has been handed down to us. Under these circumstances conjectural reconstruction of its walls is quite permissible, although extreme caution is necessary when guided by imaginary probabilities. The information we possess regarding the later theatres may in some measure help us in forming a fairly accurate account of the early theatres. A period of over twenty years had elapsed between the building of The Theatre and that of the Fortune; concerning the latter, interesting details are forthcoming. Between these dates the type may have altered and improvements been introduced, which is only natural considering the long interval. We obtain our first glimpse of the early theatre buildings from quite a most unexpected quarter.

Samuel Kiechel, a foreigner, visited England in 1585. On his arrival in London he patronised several places of amusement, recording in his Diary the impressions and facts of his journey. The following extract is taken from his published journal; the notice about the stage only concerns us. “There are some peculiar houses in which are so constructed that they have about three galleries one above the other. It may indeed happen that the players take from £10 to £12 at a time, particularly if they act anything new, when people have to pay double. And that they perform nearly every day in the week, notwithstanding that plays are forbidden on Friday and Saturday; this prohibition is not observed.”

Contemporary literature informs us that the exterior of The Theatre was round, either hexagonal or octagonal, differing little from the illustrations as shown in maps of the period. Nash, in the _Unfortunate Traveller_, writes: “I saw a banquetting house belonging to a merchant that was the marvel of the world. It was built round, of green marble like a Theatre without.”

As will be seen above, only scraps of evidence are available in piecing together the reconstruction of The Theatre; as regards the interior absolutely nothing definitely is known beyond the important statement that three galleries surrounded the building. The first theatre was not solely devoted to dramatic entertainments, as records exist of fencing matches and other exhibitions of skill taking place there. Stow, the historian, notes that “activities were produced within its walls.” The word “activities” denotes tumbling, rope dancing, vaulting and other acrobatic feats. Halliwell-Phillipps publishes a letter dated July 1st, 1582, from the Earl of Warwick to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, requesting them to allow his servant, John David, to play at “The Bull” in Bishopsgate Street, or in some other convenient place. On the 23rd of the same month the Earl again wrote to the Lord Mayor complaining of the treatment and disgrace put upon his servant in not being allowed to play for prizes after the publication of his bills. The following day the Earl received a reply from the Lord Mayor saying he had not refused permission for his servant to play for prizes, but had granted him a licence, only restraining him from playing in an inn for fear of the infection, and had appointed him to play in an open space at the Leaden Hall. Not having availed himself of the permission for fourteen days, and the infection increasing, it became necessary to prohibit the assembly of the people to his play within the City, but permission had been granted him to perform in the open fields. “I have herein yet further done for your servant what I may, that is that if he may obtain lawfully to play at The Theatre or other open place out of the City, he hath and shall have my permission with his company, drums and show, to pass only through the City, being not upon the Sunday, which is as much as I may justify in this season, and for that cause I have with his own consent appointed him Monday next.”

Another reference occurs in the following year, in which the Lord Mayor writes to the Justice of the Peace, praying for the assistance of the Corporation in preventing a breach of the peace by refusing the people permission to congregate about “The Theatre.” Gosson, in both his prose works, _The School of Abuse_ and _Plays Confuted in two Actions_, mentions two plays usually produced at the Theatre, namely, “The Blacksmith’s Daughter” and “Cataline’s Conspiracy”; the former is mentioned in _Plays Confuted_ and the latter in _The School of Abuse_, 1579.

The most interesting notice in connexion with plays acted at The Theatre will be found in a paragraph from Thomas Lodge’s book entitled _Wit’s Miserie or the World’s Madness_, 1596, in which a reference is made to the old play of “Hamlet,” whose authorship is generally assigned to Thomas Kyd, the writer of the famous “Spanish Tragedy,” the most popular drama of the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare himself refers to this play more than once. Although the old “Hamlet” is lost there are excellent grounds for presuming that this play is the main source of Shakespeare’s supreme masterpiece of “Hamlet,” the greatest achievement in the dramatic literature of the world. The paragraph in reference to the Theatre reads as follows: “He looks as pale as the vizard of the ghost which cries so miserably at the Theatre like an oysterwife Hamlet revenge.” The Theatre is again referred to by Middleton in the Black Book, 1604: “He had a head of hair like one of the devils in Dr. Faustes when the old Theatre cracked and frightened the audience.”

A foreign prince visited these shores in 1596, and wrote a poem in commemoration of the event, dated the same year as his visit. He writes that London possesses four theatres, which are utilized not only for dramatic purposes but for baiting of bulls, besides cock fighting. Another early reference to The Theatre occurs in a rare pamphlet called “Tarlton’s Newes out of Purgatory,” published without date, but definitely known to be printed either in 1590 or earlier. The passage is as follows: “And forsooth upon Whitsun Monday last I would needs to the Theatre to a play when I came I found such a concourse of unrulye people that I thought it better solitary to walk in the fields. Feeding my humour with this fancy, I stept by Dame Anne of Cleares well where after I had rested awhile I fell asleep.” Nash, the dramatist, mentions Tarlton as playing at the Theatre in a pamphlet named “Pierce Penilesse,” 1592. Stow, in his survey of London, mentions this well; the origin of the name is founded on a sordid story of old London. A rich London widow, named Annis Cleare, who, matching herself with a riotous courtier in the time of Edward II, who vainly consumed all her wealth and leaving her in much poverty, there she drowned herself, being then but a shallow ditch or running water. Mr. Kingsford, in his learned edition of the Survey, notes “that this well was near Paul’s St., Finsbury, in the neighbourhood of which there still is a St. Agnes Terrace. The name of St. Agness Clare Fields continued till a hundred years ago.” I wandered all over this district in the hope of finding St. Agnes Terrace, but my search was fruitless. On my return I consulted the London County Council’s directory of the Streets of London, and after looking through that ponderous volume for over one hour, I found that the terrace was formerly a part of what is now Tabernacle Street, the old name being abolished in 1884.

During the early years of the theatres the stage was merely a platform, which could be easily removed when necessary; as before mentioned, the theatres were used for other than dramatic performances. The stage platform jutted out far into the yard, the technical name for the space allotted to the audience. The spectators who occupied this part of the building were called the groundlings. The yard surrounded the platform on three sides, the stage buildings occupying the fourth, the audience reaching up as far as the barrier, which divided the stage from the auditorium. The roof was open to the sky, the actors protecting themselves from the elements by erecting a kind of lean-to or pent-house, sloping down from the tiring house; this contrivance was technically called the “Heavens” or “shadow,” either thatched or tiled. At the rear of the stage was the tiring-house, sometimes used as an inner-stage, when not required by the actors, and was concealed by a curtain. Above the inner stage stood a balcony, flanked on both sides by rooms for noblemen or gentry. These special places were known as the Lords’ rooms. Over the second story rose a turret, from which commanding view a flag fluttered announcing the immediate performance of a play. Only two doors of entry were considered necessary, one in front of the house admitting the audience to the yard and galleries, and a second situated at the back of the building, used by the actors and better class of spectators who occupied the expensive seats. The reason for the limited number of doors can be explained by the terms of agreement between the lessee and the actors. Burbage did not lease his theatre to a company of actors, but shared the risk of the undertaking with them, receiving for his share the money taken for the galleries, the players dividing among themselves the rest of the proceeds. This arrangement, in course of time, was subject to alterations. The same system, with slight variations, was adopted in all theatres during the Shakespearean era.

The chief action of the play took place on the outer stage, no curtain of any description concealing this part of the stage either before or after or during the performance, the only curtain or tapestry in lieu of a curtain noticeable was that dividing the inner from the outer stage, and even beyond Shakespeare’s time this ever open stage existed. When the Theatre was first erected in 1576 there may have been no inner stage, and the entire change of properties may have been placed in sight of the audience. The Theatre was built entirely of wood, and only good fortune must have saved the building from being destroyed by fire. The Theatre, no doubt, stood in its own grounds, and this isolated position accounts for its withstanding the accidents which all wooden buildings are more or less subject. All performances in a public theatre were enacted during the day time, in the afternoon between the hours of two and five or three and six. The theatre, not being lighted, necessarily enforced the closing of the play before dusk. The acting of a play lasted between two to three hours; a Shakespearean drama would take nearer three than two hours to perform, sometimes even longer, even in those days the blue pencil was liberally used, many passages being cut, not on account of dramatic propriety but merely to shorten the performance. On entering an Elizabethan theatre the first object that met the eye of the spectator was a placard announcing the name of the play for the afternoon. Although theatre posters were put up in different parts of the City and on the theatre walls, informing the public of the date of a given play, unforeseen circumstances sometimes prevented the advertised play being performed. Unfortunately none of these bills has survived. How interesting would be the perusal of the play bill announcing the first performance of “Hamlet.” That these placards were affixed to posts is corroborated by the following anecdote related by Taylor, the water-poet, in one of his pamphlets. “A merchant was riding down Fleet Street at a great pace, when he was stopped by an actor, who questioned him as to the name of the play being acted. The merchant was indignant at being thus waylaid, and asked the man why he had stopped him; the answer he made was ‘I took you for the post you went so fast.’”

How a play was presented before a public audience when first produced at The Theatre cannot be satisfactorily solved, the subject dealing with all branches of theatrical customs, has never been thoroughly investigated, owing chiefly to want of the necessary literary materials; every writer on the subject may thus air his theories without much fear of contradiction, the critics themselves disagreeing how far scenic decorations had advanced during the Shakespearean era. Though the little we do know on this thorny subject would seem to militate against scenery of any description being employed, I have always held the opinion that the stage was not so bare of scenic effects as most historians of the early stage would have us believe. Stage properties of every size and description were extensively used by all companies of players of any importance. With respect to the stage, the general view maintained is that the outer stage or platform of The Theatre closely resembled the stage of a French theatre during the performance of a play of Molière’s; in that case the Elizabethan stage would be absolutely bare with the exception of a table and a couple of chairs. Experience convinces me that in the course of time this theory will be thoroughly revolutionized, and proof will be forthcoming that scenic effect with certain limitations, flourished during the Shakespearean age.

As previously stated, the title of the play was exhibited on the stage, printed or written in large text letters. Some writers affirm that the title was exposed in full view of the audience from the balcony of the stage. Exact confirmation on these minor details cannot be expected. When the play advertised on the posts differed from the one actually performed, the playgoer was entitled to have his money refunded provided he quitted the theatre.

Three blasts of a trumpet announced the beginning of a play, and a flag was displayed flying from the turret showing that a play was in progress. The spectators in the yard, being unprovided with seats, were left standing during the entire performance.

I remember years ago visiting a theatre in Vienna, where a musical comedy was acted, and where all the occupants of the _parterre_, or pit, viewed the play standing, as no seats of any kind were provided in this part of the theatre.

How a change of scene was notified, if indeed any change was made, nothing definitely is known. The most likely plan adopted lacking painted scenery, would be by what is technically known as locality boards, something resembling the device employed by the modern music hall artist engaged in character sketches. A board is placed in a prominent position of the stage in full view of the audience with the name of the character assumed by the performer, the board being changed on each separate occasion when a different character is assumed. Apply this method in the changing of the scene in an Elizabethan theatre and then you can better understand Shakespeare’s exhortation in his prologues of “Henry V” when he urges the audience that their imagination must fill up the void caused by want of necessary scenery. To our modern notions the number of scenes in a Shakespearean play is quite bewildering; the very number precludes the idea that the scene was changed at all. The question is such a difficult one, and of such an intricate and technical nature that further discussion at our present state of knowledge would only confuse the reader without providing him with a key for its solution.

The primitive device of locality boards was sarcastically alluded to by Sir Philip Sidney in his “Defence of Poesie”: “What childe is there that coming to a Play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters on an olde doore, doth believe that it is Thebes. You shall have Asia on the one side and Africa on the other and so many other under Kingdoms that the player when he cometh in must even begin with telling where he is or else the tale will not be conceived. Now ye shall have three ladies walk to gather flowers and then we must believe the stage to be a garden. By and by we have news of a shipwreck in the same place, and then we are to blame if we accept it not for a rock. Upon the back of that comes out a hideous monster with fire and smoke, and then the miserable beholders are bound to take it for a cave. While in the meantime two armies fly in represented with four swords and bucklers, and then what hard heart will not receive it for a pitched field.”

In reading the above paragraph the reader must bear in mind that this ironical criticism was penned many years before Shakespeare commenced his dramatic career. During the long interval several improvements may have taken place in stage effects, so that a Shakesperean play may have been produced under more promising conditions than Sidney’s statement would allow.

An interesting chapter could be written explaining the mode of payment existing at these times on entering an inn-yard or theatre when a play was in progress. On the erection of the public theatres our information, although scanty, becomes a trifle more definitive; unfortunately no light is thrown on the methods in vogue at the inn-yards, although we learn that payment was collected on entering a theatre. As we should naturally expect, the system is different in many respects from modern methods. From literary sources we gather that a man, or even a woman, was stationed at the entrance door of a theatre, in his hand he held a box into which everyone who entered dropped a penny; note well that the money was always deposited in the box and not handed over into the keeping of the boxholder, by which act we must regretfully conclude that Elizabethan doorkeepers were in no way more trusted than our ’bus and tram conductors of the present day, more’s the pity! This preliminary payment admitted the playgoer into the yard, where he could remain without further fee; if a more comfortable place was desired, the disbursement of an extra penny provided for him a seat or stool in the topmost gallery. At this stage we learn how the extra money was collected. At each separate entrance of the different parts of the house stood a doorkeeper, technically known as a “gatherer.” This system of payment was adopted on account of the lessee of the theatre sharing in the profits of the house instead of, as in modern times, leasing the building into the hands of a third party, only receiving the rent and taking no share in the proceeds of the house.

In a lawsuit respecting the different shares claimed by each shareholder, Cuthbert Burbage, the son of the original builder of The Theatre, states that his father, James Burbage, borrowed large sums of money at interest with which he built the first playhouse known as The Theatre. The players that lived in these times, 1576-1597, had only the profits arising from the doors, but now the players receive all the comings in at the doors to themselves. By the term “housekeepers” is meant the proprietors, those that are responsible for the rent and money laid out in connexion with the managing of a theatre.

The entrance fee for seats in the lowest tier of the gallery was sixpence, twelvepence was the charge for a seat in the Lords’ room; these boxes were partitioned off from the other seats in the lowermost gallery. Rooms and boxes were also provided on each side of the balcony, which formed part of the stage buildings; these seats were also expensive, but in later years they were abandoned on account of the poor view, and also for the evil repute into which they had fallen. These high-price seats equalled the price of a stall at our present West End theatres. Whether these charges ruled at all Elizabethan theatres during the last decade of the sixteenth century cannot be definitely affirmed, but considering the conservatism maintained in theatrical customs, for generations, no doubt, only slight changes were introduced. Whether seats were allowed on the stage of “The Theatre” is nowhere recorded; most probably this was a much later custom. Even at the Globe Theatre, built twenty years after the erection of the first theatre, a well known historian of the stage positively asserts that seats on the Globe stage for privileged spectators were practically unknown.

A list of plays acted at the Theatre would have been a valuable and interesting document, but unfortunately no such account exists, in place thereof we must be thankful for the known fragmentary records. Gosson, in his _School of Abuse_, 1579, mentions the Blacke Smith’s Daughter and Catalins Conspiracies “usually brought into the Theatre”; he likewise refers to “the history of Cæsar & Pompey and the Playe of the Fabic, at the Theatre.” The old “Hamlet” and Marlowe’s “Dr. Fauste” were also produced there.

The last order issued against The Theatre appeared in 1597 from the office of the Privy Council to certain of the Middlesex Justices to the effect that “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stage, and by resort and confluence of bad people, hath given direction that these playhouses that are erected and built only for such purposes, shall be plucked down, namely, The Curtain and The Theatre near to Shoreditch. They were accordingly commanded to send for the owners of the Curtain theatre or any other common playhouse and enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the stages, galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in, and to deface the same as they may not be employed again to such use.” This order was never enforced, but henceforth the Theatre as a playhouse was doomed, and after that year the actors quitted it for ever.

Many of the above details connected with the early theatres are derived from innumerable lawsuits caused by disputes among people engaged at the different theatres; these old cases have been unearthed and printed _in extenso_. Another source of information is obtained from the continual bickering, backbiting and petty annoyance emanating chiefly from the City authorities. These purse-proud, pompous and puritanical individuals endeavoured by any means and at all costs in suppressing theatres, players and playwrights with their followers. Through these jealousies, acrimonious actions, on both sides ensued, quite out of harmony with the innocent recreations of play-acting. Actions at law followed these unseemly outbursts, thanks to which we are indebted for many details concerning the early theatres. From the beginning of the history of the stage, the reader will observe that the players were always prohibited from erecting a theatre within the City boundaries. The favour of the Court saved the actors from being excluded altogether from the City; proof of this last statement will be found in the many instances of the actors setting up their stages in the yards of the City taverns and inns all through the reign of Elizabeth.

THE CURTAIN THEATRE

Within the same year of the building of the first playhouse in London, another appeared upon the scene. The plot of ground on which this second building stood was called the Curtene, and the theatre adopted this name, and not, as generally supposed, receiving its nomenclature from any theatrical accessory. Whether this establishment claimed rivalship with Burbage’s theatre, or was another speculative venture of this energetic and far-seeing man remains unknown, as few records exist in connexion with this second enterprise. Anyone in search of the actual site of the Curtain theatre must walk up Holywell Lane until the Curtain Road is reached, then turning on the left, proceed about one hundred paces along this road until we arrive at Hewitt Street, formerly known as Gloucester Street, and earlier still as Gloucester Row. In George II’s reign this alley bore the name of Curtain Court, and is thus named in Chassereau’s map of Shoreditch. On this very spot stood the Curtain theatre. Even so accurate a scholar as Professor Lawrence locates the theatre as being in Gloucester Street, whereas this street has for several years been known as Hewitt Street.

London topography is at times very misleading, and requires the proverbial patience of the time honoured prophet in unravelling many of its mysteries. Not a single inhabitant of Shoreditch could direct you to the site of the theatre and would stare in bewilderment if you enquired for Gloucester Street, even so slight an error can cause vexation and loss of time, which is my reason for pointing out this mistake. The form of the stage buildings, the auditorium, entrances and exits were in all probability similar in construction with that in vogue at the Theatre. No two theatres would exactly resemble one another in every petty detail, but how they differed we have no means of ascertaining, although this theatre was in existence for over three quarters of a century.

Amidst all the rubbish that was printed during this period, barely a reference is made concerning this place of amusement, which loomed so largely in the life of the citizens of London.

When the clergy denounced the playhouses, they invariably coupled the two theatres then in existence, The Theatre and The Curtain. In the memorials of the Council the two houses are likewise associated. An instance in which the Curtain alone is mentioned is of a most interesting nature. The production of “Romeo and Juliet” at the Curtain theatre brought forth the following verse, which appeared in John Marston’s book, entitled “_The Scourge of Villanie_”, 1598.

“Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? faith now I know I set thy lips abroach from whence doth flow Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo. Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio, Now I have him nere of ought did speak, But when of Plays or Players he did treat Hath made a common place book out of plays, And speaks in print at least what ere he says Is warranted by Curtaine plaudites. If ere you heard him courting Lesbia’s eyes Say, courteous Sir, speaks he not movingly From out some new pathetic Tragedy. He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts what not And all from out his huge long scraped stock of well-penned plays.”

A difficulty arises with the word “Curtain.” Does the word refer to the theatre of that name or is it a casual way of speaking of any theatre whereby attaching the modern theatrical meaning to the word? Expecting a solution ready at hand, I consulted Dr. Murray’s New English Dictionary, but in this case was grievously disappointed. The actual phrase “Curtain Plaudities” was quoted under the definition appertaining to Curtain or curtains without any reference being given to the Curtain Theatre, the quotation should have been omitted, rather than mislead the enquirer. Shakespearean students generally agree that the phrase refers to the theatre of that name, and there can be no question that this is the correct view, strongly supported by the fact that at so early a date the front stage curtain was entirely unknown. The transcriber of the manuscript from which the quarto edition of “Romeo and Juliet” was printed in 1599, inadvertently substitutes the name of Kemp, the actor, for the character he played, namely, Peter. This same Kemp was quite a noted personage in his day. In 1600 he published a book, _Kemp’s Nine Daies Wonder Performed in a Dance from London to Norwich_. Among other stories, he relates that once when staying at an inn at Burnwood two pickpockets claimed his acquaintance, “the officers bringing them to my inn. I justly denied their acquaintance, saving that I remembered one of them to be a noted cut purse, such a one as we tie to a post on our stage for all people to wonder at, when at a play they are taken pilfering.” In the Middlesex County Records there is a notice concerning the Recognizances for William Hawkins, he being charged with a purse taken at the Curtain.

One can scarcely credit the idea that these wonderful dramas of Shakespeare, so well constructed in the action of the plot, the delicacy and skill necessary in handling and writing the diverse stories of the play, the complex nature of the characters portrayed, the beauty of the rhythm of the verse, combined with the easy flow of dialogue, the possibility, I contend, is almost inconceivable that these plays were produced in the noisy and somewhat uncouth surroundings of an inn-yard. Every link in the chain of evidence only confirms my implicit belief that these masterpieces were first acted in an enclosed building, where the necessary quiet and seclusion could be obtained for the actors in worthily interpreting the mighty thoughts and inspired words of the almost divine author.

Although actual proof is wanting that Shakespeare’s company occupied continually the Theatre and the Curtain during the last decade of the sixteenth century, we may with certainty presume that these playhouses were the scene of Shakespeare’s first dramatic productions. The oft quoted suggestion that these plays first saw the light in an open air yard seems incredible, especially when a properly organized theatre was ready at hand, whose owner was father of the most prominent actor of the day, namely, Richard Burbage, a fellow actor of Shakespeare.

On several occasions the Curtain Theatre was threatened with total extinction. Fortunately the Bulls of excommunication never materialized, the building surviving all the attacks and thunderbolts which were hurled against her doors.

Immediately prior to the dismantling of the Theatre an order was signed by the Privy Council, and issued to the Justices of Middlesex, for the suppression of the theatres and all places of amusement in the following terms: “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stages and by resort and confluence of bad people, hath given direction that not only no play shall be used within London or about the City or in any public place during the time of summer, but also the playhouses that are erected and built only for such purpose shall be plucked down, namely, the Curtain and the Theatre near to Shoreditch, or any other within that county. These are, therefore, in Her Majesty’s name to charge and command you, that you take present order there be no more plays used in any public place within three miles of the City until Allhallows-tide next, and likewise that you do send for the owner of the Curtain Theatre and other common playhouses and enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the stages, galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in and so to deface the same as they may not be employed again to such use, which if they shall not speedily perform you shall advertize as that order may be taken to see the same done according to Her Majesty’s pleasure and commandment.”

The above order was issued in 1597, but was never executed. Three years later another attempt was made enforcing the closing of the Curtain, during the time that the Fortune Theatre was erected. Notwithstanding this order for utterly destroying the building, the good old theatre stood defiant, keeping the flag waving aloft in spite of all puritanical onslaughts for her downfall. The next year yet another mandate was issued ordering the abolition of the Curtain; afterwards no further commands threatening this theatre were circulated, the Curtain continuing its career until an Act of both Houses of Parliament finally closed the doors of all places of amusement.

A few years after the accession of King James, his consort, Anne of Denmark, extended her patronage unto a company of players who performed at the Curtain until 1609, when they acted at another theatre called the Red Bull. A most important point for consideration is whether, on transferring their allegiance to the new theatre, the Curtain was altogether abandoned.

This theatre is again noticed in Heath’s epigrams, 1610, where the Globe, Fortune and Curtain are mentioned as the three leading playhouses. A later notice occurs in the year 1613 in Wither’s _Abuses Stript and Whipt_.

“Base fellows whom mere time Hath made sufficient to bring forth a rhyme, A Curtain Jig, a libel a ballad.”

For many years the Curtain was let out on hire, but was chiefly occupied by dramatic companies. A play called “Hector” was acted at the Curtain by some young men of the City; the author of the play was Wentworth Smith, whose initials are identical with William Shakespeare. This same Wentworth Smith may be the author of several plays signed with the initials W. S. which appear on the title pages of many quarto editions of old plays. Although these plays are sometimes associated with our poet, there is absolutely no evidence in claiming them as his.

Another notice appears in _Vox Graculi, or the Jackdaw’s Prognostication for 1623_: “About this time new plays will be in more request than old, and if company come current to the Bull and Curtain there will be more money gathered in one afternoon than will be given to Kingsland Spittal in a whole month.” The last recorded notice yet discovered is dated 1627. Possibly the Curtain remained open until the order of Parliament suppressed the theatres in 1642, or when a more stringent act, compelled by force, the closing altogether. Whether the Curtain obeyed the first order in 1642, or waited until the forcible ejectment in 1647, is uncertain. Professor Lawrence states that the Curtain was pulled down in 1630, but no proof of this statement is forthcoming.

NEWINGTON BUTTS

In all books, both old and new, concerning theatrical matters in Elizabethan times, mention is made of a theatre existing in Newington Butts. This district was situated near St. George’s Fields in Southwark. Antiquaries, with imagination all compact, mark the ground where now stands Spurgeon’s Tabernacle as the site of the old theatre. Unfortunately, there is a lack of documentary evidence of any description definitely stating the existence of a regular built theatre in this locality. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence proving that play acting constituted one of the chief amusements of this neighbourhood.

Although not actually possessing any positive evidence of a theatre existing in this neighbourhood, we must accept as a certainty that either an inn-yard, town hall, or public theatre stood in this vicinity, otherwise there is no accounting for a passage in Henslowe’s Diary in which is recorded the event of the Lord Chamberlain’s men and the Lord Admiral’s men acting at Newington.

“In the name of God Amen Beginning at Newington My Lord Admiral’s men and my Lord Chamberlain’s men as followeth.” After this entry the Diary contains a list of plays acted by these companies from June 3rd until June 13th, 1594, then a line is drawn across the page, doubtlessly signifying that the engagement terminated. The next entry, dated June 15th, 1594, continues indefinitely until 1597. From June, 15th, 1594, all notices refer to plays acted at the Rose Theatre. Most writers credit all the performances to the Newington Butts Theatre, a palpable error, arising from insufficient study of the details connected with this period.

The list of plays acted by the two companies is as follows:

The 3rd of June, 1594, Ry. at Hester and Askeweros (Hester and Assuerus). „ 4th „ “The Jewe of Malta.” „ 5th „ “Andronicous.” „ 6th „ “Cutlacke.” „ 8th „ “Bellendon.” „ 9th „ “Hamlet.” „ 10th „ “Heaster” (Hester and Assuerus). „ 11th „ “The tamyinge of A Shrowe.” „ 12th „ “Andronicous.” „ 13th „ “The Jewe” (“The Jew of Malta”).

Out of these ten performances, six may with certainty be placed, on the credit side of the Lord Chamberlain’s men, the remaining four on those of the Admiral’s. The “Hamlet” was, of course, the old play attributed by all students to Thomas Kyd, the same play on which some years later Shakespeare founded his own “Hamlet.” “The Taming of a Shrew” is likewise an old play, upon which Shakespeare founded his “Taming of the Shrew”; the author of the old play is not known. Shakespeare changed the names of the principal parts, with the exception of Kate or Katherine, developed the characters by adding greater depth of feeling and making them living personalities instead of types of characters as in the earlier play. He likewise contrived that the different plots were more skilfully interwoven, and in every way improved upon the old play. “Andronicus” may be the play attributed to Shakespeare by the editors of the _First Folio_, or perhaps this drama was an earlier play of Marlowe’s or one of his disciples. Although this “Andronicus” finds a place in the _First Folio_, most critics agree that Shakespeare was not the author. At the most, he may have revised a few scenes and added touches here and there, but in no other way is he responsible for this revolting and barbarous play, doubtless written by some popular dramatist to please the ears and eyes of the groundlings, who simply revelled in these horrors, without ever being satiated, the appetite growing by what it fed on.

Even in our own day the disgusting and revolting posters exhibited in all our streets entice coppers from the populace; this demand for sensational and bloodthirsty scenes unites the Elizabethan age in matters of beastliness with these that prevail at the present day. In spite of three hundred years’ progress and free education and all the aids to refinement that lie at the door of all Londoners, the mass of the people clearly demonstrate by the class of their amusement how little they have materially benefited by their education, constantly demanding the villainous dreadfulness of low class entertainments instead of encouraging the refined pleasures of a Shakesperean performance.

Even the better educated classes cannot rise much above the red-nosed comedian or the cracked-voiced variety artist or to visit nightly some filthy so-called musical comedy or revue at a West End theatre, with courtesans posing as actresses, and low music-hall performers, introducing before a fashionable audience all sorts of vulgarisms and indecent jokes and styling themselves heaven-born actors and actresses, thus further insulting a noble profession.

Of “Hester and Assuerus” nothing is known beyond the name of the play. A foreign version with the same title is extant, perhaps copied or adapted from Henslowe’s play. Those four plays in 1594 belonged to the repertory of Lord Strange’s company; a few years previously they had been in the possession of another company, from whom they were purchased by Lord Strange’s men. The three remaining plays were the property of the Admiral’s men, namely Marlowe’s celebrated drama of the “Jew of Malta,” acted scores of times to an ever-admiring audience. The play called “Bellendon” has been identified with a play entered in the _Stationers’ Register_ as “The True Tragedy and History of King Rufus the First, with the Life and Death of Belyn Dun, the first thief that ever was hanged in England.” The play is not extant.

“Cutlack” is also a lost play, probably alluded to in Guilpen’s “Skialetheia,” a series of epigrams and satires published in 1598:

“Clodius methinks looks passing big of late, With Dunstons browes and Allens Cutlacks gate.”

The Diary alluded to so frequently is the famous theatrical account book kept by Philip Henslowe, whose stepdaughter married Edward Alleyn, the greatest actor of his day. On his retirement from the stage he purchased the Manor of Dulwich for £10,000. Henslowe’s connexion with the theatrical world lasted over a quarter of a century; how he drifted into the world of the theatre is a puzzle not easily solved, he being by trade a dyer; possibly his son-in-law may have persuaded him in investing money in theatrical ventures; at all events he controlled several places of amusement, and was on friendly terms with most of the playwrights and actors of his day. When he opened the Rose Theatre he entered in his Diary day by day a list of plays that were produced there. On the first production of a new play at his theatre he wrote the letters “n e” before the title; these may signify “new enterlude” or simply a contraction of the word “new.” Whenever the letters are found, they always indicate that the play was a new one, or an old play fresh-adapted for the requirements of up-to-date audiences. Many other matters were jotted down in this Diary, especially the sums of money lent to needy authors, or money advanced for new plays and other services, likewise money expended on his theatres and bear-baiting house, and a few entries of a private nature. This manuscript volume is chiefly helpful in deciding the date and authorship of several plays.

For benefits received we are apt to regard Philip Henslowe in a more favourable light than the illiterate, greedy and grasping theatre manager and pawnbroking usurer really deserves. Without exception this volume ranks as the most precious record of theatrical history for the Elizabethan period. Everyone interested in the subject must feel deeply grateful to Mr. W. W. Greg, who by his immense learning and untiring industry, has given to students an edition of the Diary beyond all praise. The original manuscript of this volume forms one of the treasures of Dulwich College, and reposes in the library of this excellent institution.

An important reference respecting the Newington Butts Theatre is contained in the following document issued by the Privy Council, circa 1592, granting the Rose Theatre company permission to open their doors, and further stating: “That not long since, upon some consideration, their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoined them to play three days a week at Newington Butts, but they understand that the tedium of the way thither and for the fact that for a long time past no plays have been performed there on weekdays, makes the use of that house inconvenient, and also that the restraint is a cause of injury to a number of poor watermen, they therefore order that the Justices shall permit Lord Strange’s men or any other company to perform at the ‘Rose’ as usual.”

The next reference is of a more substantial character, as denoting the existence of some kind of playhouse, in all probability a regular theatre. Howe, in his continuation of _Stow’s Annals_, 1631, gives a list of the early theatres in London, adding besides one in former times at Newington Butts. In spite of this authentic statement, the Newington Butts Theatre has been declared a myth, and, until further evidence is forthcoming, is likely in thus remaining so. That a place of entertainment for the acting of plays existed in this neighbourhood has been proved beyond doubt.

Considering the number of years plays were acted here, how shall we account for the lack of notices respecting the building in which the plays were acted? Nothing more tantalizing can be recalled in the whole history of the early drama.

When, in the year the Lord Admiral’s men and the Lord Derby’s men played at Newington Butts, both companies had already enjoyed many years of prosperity, and therefore quite unlikely they would give ten consecutive performances at an inn-yard or on a stage erected in an open place. Henslowe, in his Diary, simply remarks: “Beginning at Newington my Lord Chamberlain’s men and my Lord Admiral’s men.” Even this entry does not assist us in determining the nature of the place where the plays were represented. It is to be regretted that Mr. Greg has not elucidated this puzzle for us, no one else but himself is capable of untying this knotty question.

Elizabethans themselves rarely allude to any of their theatres or places where plays were acted, the Newington Butts locality seemingly not deserving a passing notice.

THE ROSE THEATRE

The first authentic account of a theatre erected on the south side of the Thames is that of the Rose, in Southwark. In Norden’s map of London, dated 1593, there stands a round building marked “The Playhouse,” situated south-east of the Bear House, also depicted on the map. As the Rose was the only playhouse existing in the neighbourhood at this date, the logical inference is quite fair that the theatre is no other than the Rose. Even now there is still a Rose Alley in the district, which perpetuates the name of the old theatre.

Philip Henslowe, the famous owner of the Diary, was the proprietor and sole manager. Until the appearance of an article in _The Times_ on April 30th, 1914, by Dr. Wallace, the first opening of the Rose was placed in 1592. Professor Wallace states that this theatre was built in 1587, and was mentioned for the first time in the “Sewer Records” in April, 1588, as then new.

Before the article was written, several writers had questioned the late date, but for lack of sufficient evidence the year 1592 was given in all text books as the correct date. This is a most important discovery, giving the citizens of London at this early date a third, or even a fourth, theatre, whereby the leading metropolitan companies could represent their plays at a properly constructed and organized theatre. Henslowe’s first notice of a public performance at the Rose is as follows:

“In the name of God, Amen, 1591, beginning the 19th of February, my Lord Strange’s men as followeth 1591.” Although in the above paragraph the actual name of the theatre is not mentioned, there can be no question that the Rose is intended. An undated warrant from the Privy Council states “that upon some considerations their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside.” Notwithstanding that the warrant is undated, several reasons indicate that the order was issued at the same time that Lord Strange’s men were playing at the Rose. The document describes the actors as servants of Lord Strange; now in 1593 Lord Strange became the Earl of Derby, the events narrated in the document referred to the previous year 1592. Henslowe’s 1591 is either a clerical error or a confusion between the regnal year and the legal one, which commenced on the 25th of March.

Another important entry is as follows: “A note of such carges as I have laid owt abowte my playe house in the year of our Lord, 1592, as ffoloweth.” Had Mr. Philip Henslowe lived in these days he would have stood a fair chance of being elected President of the “Nu Speling Sosieti”; a more illiterate and uneducated being would be difficult in discovering, and this ignorance is found in conjunction with a man who was on intimate terms of friendship with the foremost authors of his day. His Diary is a mass of absurdities in the way of spelling, particularly on the employment of capital letters, but his greatest achievement is reached in recording the different titles of the plays acted under his management:

“the gresyan comodey. The Grecian comedy. Seser and Pompe. Cæsar and Pompey. the frenshe docter. The French Doctor. doctor fostes.” Doctor Faust.

and many other items equally ludicrous and illiterate.

In congratulating Mr. Greg on the wonderful manner in which he has grappled with this extraordinary document, one must sympathize with him in the arduous labour thereby entailed. The ingenious editor admits once being baffled; in this instance the difficulty was solved by another acute mind the late Mr. Fleay. The word which defied decipherment was “an Isapryse,” which Mr. Fleay identified as “nisi prius,” the correct solution.

The Rose Theatre, like the playhouses in Shoreditch, was erected outside the jurisdiction of the City of London. The site was not within the Gildable Manor, being situated within the Liberty of the Clink, becoming thereby amenable to the Justices of the Peace for Surrey. The Clink was the name of the noted prison in Southwark; the name is derived from the word “clink,” to fasten securely.

An estate called “The Little Rose” is first heard of in 1552, passing into the hands of Henslowe in 1558. In January, 1587, a deed of partnership was drawn up between Henslowe and a grocer named Cholmley. This deed states that a playhouse is to be erected at Henslowe’s cost, with the assistance of John Griggs, a carpenter, Cholmley paying £8 16s. in quarterly instalments, sharing in return half the receipts. Nothing further was known of this projected theatre before 1592 until Professor Wallace, in 1914, discovered a document among the “Sewer Records,” in which the theatre is named the Rose in 1588. From the year 1592 until 1603 theatrical performances were given at the Rose. Acting was not continuous, the theatre being closed for many months, chiefly owing to the plague. The Diary contains the following entries:

From February 19th, 1592, until June 22nd, 1592. From December 29th, 1592, until Feb. 1st, 1593. From December 27th, 1593, until April 8th, 1594. From June 3rd, 1594, until Mar. 14th, 1595. From Easter Monday, 1595, until June 26th, 1595. From August 25th, 1595, until Feb. 27th, 1596. From April 12th, 1596, until July 18th, 1596. From Oct. 27th, 1596, until Nov. 15th, 1596. From Nov. 25th, 1596, until Feb. 12th, 1597. From May 3rd, 1597, until July 28th, 1597. From Oct. 11th, 1597, until Oct. 31st, 1597. From Nov. 26th, 1597, until the end of December.

“A just account of all such money as I have received of my Lord Admiral’s and my Lord Pembroke’s men as followeth, beginning the 21st of October, 1597.” The account commences on the aforesaid date and finishes on the 4th of March, 1598, twenty performances in all. There appeared the next entry as shown in the Diary:

“Here I Begigne to Receve the wholle gallereys from this daye beinge the 29th of July, 1598.” This contract lasted until the 19th of October, 1599, altogether forty-four performances. The titles of the plays are omitted; the entry is simply:

By the 29th of July, 1598--xll xiiijs.

The next entry in the Diary in connexion with the Rose Theatre occurs on the 6th of October, 1599: “Heere I begine to Receve the gallereys again.” Representations were given from the 6th of October, 1599, until the 13th of July, 1600. After this entry the Diary only records the performances given at his newly-erected theatre, the Fortune in Golden Lane. The 13th of July, 1600, contains the last notice of the Rose until the year 1603, when the servants of the Lord Worcester occupied the theatre for a brief period. When the Worcester men left some time during 1603, nothing further is heard of this theatre until 1620, when prizefighters occupied the arena; also fencing matches were held. Rendle, in his account of the Bankside Theatres, notes that the Rose was burnt down, and he quotes a couplet as evidence of his statement:

“In the last great fire The Rose did expire.”

Rendle adds: “When that was, I am not clear.” He gives no reference for the quotation.

Other investigators seem quite ignorant of this catastrophe. Professor Lawrence simply states that the Rose is last heard of in 1622, quite ignoring the fire couplet.

Two years before Henslowe’s lease expired, hints were casually intimated that in future the rent would be considerably increased. This drastic course roused the old manager’s anger up to boiling pitch, and he vowed he would sooner pull down the Rose in the same manner as the Burbages had acted some years earlier in connexion with the theatre. Anyhow, the Rose was not demolished, the terms upon which the interested parties agreed remain unknown. Alleyn, the former actor and Lord of the Manor of Dulwich, was still paying tithe on the estate as late as the year 1622.

THE SWAN THEATRE

The second theatre erected on the Bankside was named the Swan, situated at the extreme western end, in the Manor of Paris Garden, represented to-day by the Blackfriars Road. The proprietor and builder was a well-known London citizen, named Francis Langley, holding an office under the Corporation, as one of the searchers of cloth, an appointment much coveted by well-to-do men.

When first the plans were laid out for building a theatre on the Paris Garden Estate, the puritan section of the Corporation rose up in arms, vehemently protesting against the scheme being carried out. In their eager desire in preventing such desecration, they appealed to the Lord Treasurer, praying that a warrant might at once be issued, forbidding the building from being completed. These proceedings took place in 1594.

The exact date of the opening is very uncertain and somewhat conflicting. First, we have the opposition against the building in 1594; secondly, the evidence of the Dutchman De Witte, who visited and described the Swan Theatre. De Witte’s biographer positively asserts that he only visited these shores once, that visit taking place in the year 1596. According to the evidence, we should expect the erection of the theatre between these dates, namely, 1594-6. Curiously enough, a third witness is introduced in the records of the minutes of St. Saviour’s Vestry stating that Mr. Langley’s new buildings shall be viewed, and that he and others shall be moved for money for the poor in regard to the playhouse and the tithes; this order is dated 1598.

How can we best reconcile these three different dates? The mention of Langley’s new buildings in 1598 somewhat weakens the statement that De Witte visited the theatre in 1596, and yet the fact cannot well be ignored. Until new documentary evidence is forthcoming the wisest course consists in simply declaring an open verdict.

Quite apart from the interest attached to any place of amusement in Elizabeth’s reign, the Swan Theatre has become famous, through a startling and sensational discovery, in the form of an authentic drawing depicting the interior of this building. The actual discovery of this important and interesting drawing was made by Dr. Thiele, librarian of the University of Utrecht, who found the drawing in a manuscript volume belonging to the University Library. This interior view is certainly the most interesting document in existence in connexion with the early history of the theatre. By a special act of courtesy on the part of the librarian, this precious manuscript containing the drawing was conveyed to this country and exhibited in the British Museum. A photograph of the drawing will be found as frontispiece to this volume. The text accompanying the drawing is as follows, omitting all extraneous matter:

(Fol. 131 verso).

Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis De Witt.

Amphiteatra Londinij sunt iv visendae pulcritudinis quae a diversis intersigniis diuersa nomina fortiuntur: in iis varia quotidie scaena populo exhibetur. Horum duo excellentiora vltra Tamisim ad meridiam sita sunt a suspensis signis ROSA et Cygnus nominata: Alia duo extra vrbem ad septentrionem sunt, via qua itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgat nuncupatam. Est etiam (Fol. 132 recto) quintum sed dispari et structura, bestiarum concertationi destinatum, in quo multi vrsi, Tauri, et stupendae magnitudinis canes, discretis caueis & septis aluntur, qui (drawing occupies rest of page) (the words from quintum to qui being written underneath) ad pugnam adseruantur, iucundissimum hominibus spectaculum praebentes. Theatrorum autem omnium prestantissimum est et amplissimum id cuius intersignium est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn), quippe quod tres mille homines in sedilibus admittat, constructum ex coaceruato lapide pyrrtide (quorum ingens in Britannia copia est), ligneis suffultum columnis quae ob illitum marmoreum colorem, nasutissimos quoque fallere possent. Cuius quidem formam quod Romani operis vmbram videatur exprimere supra adpinxi.

The above extract is taken verbatim from the manuscript book belonging to Arend van Buchell, the friend and biographer of De Witte.

(_Translation_).

There are in London four theatres of noteworthy beauty which bear diverse names according to their diverse signs. In them a different action is daily presented to the people. The first two of these are situated to the southward beyond the Thames and named from the signs they display, The Rose and The Swan. Two others are outside the City towards the north, and are approached (per Episcopalim postern, in the vernacular, Bisopgate)--Bishopsgate. There is also a fifth of dissimilar structure devoted to beast baiting, wherein many bears, bulls and dogs of stupendous size are kept in separate dens and cages, which being pitted against each other, afford men a delightful spectacle. Of all the theatres, however, the largest and most distinguished is that whereof the sign is a swan, commonly called the Swan Theatre, since it contains three thousand persons and is built of a concrete of flint stone, which greatly abound in Britain, and supported by wooden columns painted in such excellent imitation of marble that it might deceive even the most cunning. Since its form seems to approach that of a Roman structure I have depicted it above.

Naturally such an important document was submitted to various severe tests regarding its authenticity, and on examination was satisfactorily proved to be quite genuine. The next question requiring an answer was not so easily settled. How came this drawing made by De Witte inserted in a manuscript copy of a volume belonging to his friend, Van Buchell. It cannot be the original drawing sketched by De Witte on the spot, as the paper on which the sketch is made is identical with the paper forming the leaves of the manuscript. The only conclusion possible is that Van Buchell copied the drawing and the letters sent or lent to him by his friend into his own commonplace book. Whether the drawing was faithfully copied cannot be definitely answered, as De Witte’s original is lost.

There is no reason in believing that Van Buchell deviated from the copy sent him. The description given by De Witte to his friend may have been orally delivered and Van Buchell may have made the sketch from memory according to the details narrated by De Witte. The biographer of Van Buchell states that he never visited England. De Witte’s biographer writes that he only visited this country in 1596, but this statement cannot be implicitly relied upon.

Arend van Buchell was a lawyer practising in Utrecht; his hobby was collecting pictures and prints; he was intimate with Cornelis Boissers, an engraver, and several painters and collectors of his day.

By referring to the text, the reader will notice that De Witte estimated the seating and standing capacity of the Swan roughly about three thousand. Of course this number is the result of guesswork, but surely the number is nearer the mark than three hundred, the estimate of a well-known writer and critic, who arrived at this conclusion by inferring that three thousand was a mistake for three hundred.

On turning to the frontispiece of this volume, the reader will observe that the arena contains three galleries: these galleries ran right round the theatre, each one containing three or four rows. By carefully examining the drawing, fourteen divisions can be counted in the top-most gallery. Between each division, seats, or standing room for three people, can be quite distinctly made out. Therefore the third part of the gallery shown in the sketch would hold forty-two persons in one row, the entire row encircling the theatre on three of its sides would contain one hundred and twenty-six people; multiply this number by eleven, the number of rows (four in the first and second tiers and three in the top one) we get a total of 1,386. Add to this another 700 standing in the yard, we get a grand total of 2,086, which in all probability was about the full capacity of the house.

Another point which is hotly debated is whether De Witte is correct in stating that the exterior of the theatre was built of stone. In Hentzner’s description of the London theatres in 1598 he positively asserts that they all were built of wood; naturally this counter assertion raises the question regarding the value to be placed on De Witte’s observations in general.

He could hardly mistake wood for stone, pointing out himself the difficulty in discerning wooden columns from marble ones. A possible solution might be that the Swan Theatre was not built when Hentzner described the theatres of London; they are not mentioned by name, which adds additional force to my theory.

On a close inspection of the drawing all the characteristics of an Elizabethan theatre are at once apparent. The first important feature is the division of the auditorium into three distinct tiers, one above the other, which the careful reader will remember seemed such a novelty to Samuel Kiechel, the foreigner, who visited London in 1585. At that date the Swan was not in existence, but the construction of an Elizabethan theatre only varied in small details during the length of her reign. On looking at the stage, one is not impressed with its elaborate or elegant appearance, a more primitive kind of structure is scarcely conceivable. There is no sign of a curtain either at the back or front. The turned columns support what is technically known as the “Heavens,” a kind of roof protecting the actors from the elements, and also serving as a sounding board. Mr. Ordish, in his fascinating and highly interesting study of the early London theatres, in describing this sketch, strangely observes that the “heavens” over the stage are not shown; this statement must surely be a clerical error, as they are quite clearly marked in the drawing.

The two doors served as exits and entrances, leading to and from the dressing room, inscribed in the sketch as “mimorum aedes.” The balcony was divided into boxes for playgoers who were willing to pay a higher price for their seats. When occasion required, part of the balcony was occupied by the musicians, and frequently by the actors themselves, especially in those scenes in which they appeared from above, as in the play of “Romeo and Juliet,” or when soldiers appear before the walls of a city.

From a spectator’s point of view, this part of the auditorium does not appear the most advantageous, as only the backs of the actors could be seen. Notwithstanding the bad position, these expensive seats were always in demand, some motive must have kept up the price of these boxes; the only one I can suggest is that they offered a degree of privacy to the occupants; furthermore, they had an entrance from the back of the stage, thus enabling the avoidance of the crowd by the seat-holders.

Over the balcony was a kind of hutch, where most likely the stage properties were stored. From an opening in this structure an attendant is seen sounding a trumpet, an intimation that the play is about to commence, although in this instance the warning is given while the play is in progress. The significance of this small detail is rather important, allowing us in presuming that De Witte drew the sketch after he had left the theatre, and therefore from memory, which in many small matters may have played him false.

The play which is being performed has all the appearance of a scene from Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” in which Olivia, Maria and Malvolio, with his staff of office, appear. Shakespeare’s play was composed a few years later, but a play with similar incidents may have been acted at this date.

An earlier play on the same subject that Shakespeare treated in “Twelfth Night” is generally supposed to have been presented on the stage. The roof of the hutch is surmounted by a flag, waving over the building, bearing for its sign a swan. With the exception of the stage, which was a movable one, the other parts of the stage buildings were permanent structures. The different sections of the house inscribed in the sketch are as follows: Over the topmost gallery is a sloping roof, which ran right round the theatre, inscribed on the right hand side facing the spectators with the word “tectum,” the Latin for roof. This part of the theatre was either tiled or thatched throughout. In one division of the lowermost gallery, in which were situated the best seats, a space therein, so described with the word “orchestra.” Professor Lawrence has written a very ingenious and learned dissertation on the meaning of this word, in which he proves conclusively that the place so marked was set apart for private boxes, called in the theatrical parlance of the day “The gentlemen’s rooms.”

The word orchestra, in this sense, has no connexion with the modern meaning of the word, or the ancient Greek definition, signifying a place reserved for dancing, also where the chorus accompanying a Greek play sang. The true meaning in the Shakesperean period denoted that part of the auditorium set aside for noblemen or those willing to pay a high price for their seats.

Cotgrave, in his English and French dictionary, published in 1611, defines _orchestre_ as “the senators or noblemens’ places in a theatre, between the stage and the common seats.” The knowledge of this important fact in reconstructing intelligibly this part of an old theatre is a debt we owe to the ingenuity and learning of Professor Lawrence.

The word “sedilia” refers to the seats in the galleries, which proves that seating accommodation was provided in this part of the house, a fact which had been doubted for many years past.

The porticus was a colonnade or corridor running round the gallery furnished with columns supporting the galleries, and may have afforded standing room for spectators.

“Ingressus” refers to the steps leading to the galleries, being placed on both sides of the house. Other steps not shown in the sketch led to the second and third galleries. At this point were stationed the “gatherers,” who received the extra payment for entrance to these seats.

The structure behind the stage, inscribed “mimorum aedes,” is the tiring room for the actors making their exits and their entrances through the two doors placed one on each side. The word “proscænium” is the Latin word for stage, derived from the Greek word Skene, a booth or tent, in which the leader of the chorus in the early days of the Greek drama erected his dressing room. The same word scene, in our own days, bears many theatrical meanings almost identical with the word employed twenty-five hundred years ago, thus contradicting the belief of most people that we owe everything to the genius of the present generation.

The arena was the yard, in which stood the pit and gallery _habitués_ of our day, the charge for this privilege being one penny.

I hope the reader will constantly refer to the drawing whilst reading this description, as it will materially help him in fully understanding the interior of an Elizabethan playhouse.

The Hope Theatre was modelled on the Swan. I here append the contract for the first-named theatre:

“The contractor, Katherens, is to take down the existing structure, and to build in its place another game house or plaie house fit for players to play in and for the game of bears and bulls. There is to be provided a tyre house and a frame to be carried or taken away and to stand upon tressels, sufficient to bear such a stage. It is agreed to build the same of such large compass, form, wideness and height as the playhouse called the Swan in the liberty of Paris Garden. And the said playhouse or game place to be made in all things and in such form and fashion as the said playhouse called the Swan, the scantling of the timbers, tiles and foundations as is aforesaid without fraud or covin.” The last word means conspiracy or collusion.

The separate items are:

1. Two staircases without and adjoining the playhouse of such largeness and height as the said playhouse called the Swan.

These stairs are not shown in the sketch; perhaps they were placed outside the building. It would be interesting to know the exact position.

2. “Heavens” over the stage to be borne and carried away without any posts or supporters to be fixed or set about the stage. Gutters of lead needful for carriage of water that shall fall about the same.

The “Heavens” in the Hope contract is different somewhat from the Swan, as the sketch plainly shows the columns supporting the “Heavens.”

3. Two boxes in the lowermost storey, fit and decent for gentlemen to sit in, and shall make the partition between the rooms as they are at the said playhouse called the Swan.

The boxes are marked “Orchestra” in the sketch.

4. Turned columns upon and over the stage.

5. Principals and forefront of the playhouse to be of oak; no fir to be used in the lowermost or under stones, except the upright posts or the back part of the said stones, all binding joists to be of oak.

6. To new tyle with English tyles all the upper roof of the said playhouse.

7. Also a louvre or storey over the said playhouse as it now is.

Several of the above particulars confirm the exactness of the drawing. It must not be forgotten that between the building of the Swan and that of the Hope nearly twenty years had intervened; in that time many improvements had taken place, but the essentials remain the same.

The Swan Theatre has little interest for students, the entertainments being chiefly devoted to bear-baiting, and other sports of a less exciting nature.

Francis Meres, the author of _Palladis Tamia_, published in 1598, refers to the Swan in the following passage: “As Antipater Sidonius was famous for extemporal verse in Greek.... And so is now our wittie Wilson, who, for learning and extemporal witte in this facultie, is without compare or compeere, as to his great and eternall commendations he manifested in his chalenge at the Swanne on the Banke-side.” A very interesting account of Shakespeare occurs in the same book: “As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honeytongued Shakespeare, witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred sonnets among his private friends, etc.”

A few more references to the Swan are still extant. A certain Peter Bromville appeared at this theatre in 1600, performing acts of activity, he having exhibited the same before the Queen. Acts of activity correspond to those acrobatic feats often seen at our present day music halls.

Another extract is from Dekker’s play “Satiromastic,” 1602. Tucca: “Thou hast been at Paris Garden, hast not?” Horace: “Yes, Captain, I have played Zulziman there.” I have searched in vain to find the name of the play in which the part of Zulziman occurs. Ben Jonson acted the part of Zulziman.

The Swan was often alluded to as Paris Garden. Middleton’s play of “A Chaste Maid in Cheapside” was performed there. Another notice relates how a knight, witnessing the last new play at the Swan, lost his purse containing seven angels. An angel was a gold coin, valued at ten shillings. A man named Turner was thrust through the eye and killed here whilst contesting there for a prize.

During the last years of the Swan, only fencing matches and gladiatorial exhibitions were given. The last notice of this theatre appeared in a pamphlet entitled “Holland’s Leaguer,” by N. Goodman, published in 1632: “Three famous amphitheatres can be seen from the turret, one the continent of the world (_i.e._, the Globe), to which, half the year, a world of beauties and brave spirits resort. A building of excellent hope for players, wild beasts and gladiators and another, that the lady of the Leaguer in fortress could almost shake hands with, now fallen to decay and like a dying swan, hangs her head and sings her own dirge.” A dying swan evidently refers to this playhouse. It was a popular belief that a swan fluted a wild carol in her death.

Mr. Ordish attributes this pamphlet to Shakerley Marmion, who wrote a play called “Holland’s Leaguer.” Mr. Ordish has by a clerical error mixed the babies up.

Before taking leave of the fortunes of the Swan Theatre I wish to relate an interesting event which took place there in the year 1602, which incidently throws considerable light on how Elizabethan managers advertised their special shows on important occasions. The circumstances are described in a letter from John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton in 1602.

“And now we are in mirth I must not forget to tell you of a cosening prank of one Venner, of Lincoln’s Inn, that gave out bills of a famous play on Saturday, was sevennight on the Bankside, to be acted only by certain gentlemen and gentlewomen of account. The price at coming was two shillings or eighteenpence at least, and when he had gotten most part of the money into his hands he would have shewed them a fair pair of heels, but he was not so nimble to get upon horseback, but that he was fain to forsake that course and betake himself to the water, where he was pursued and taken and brought before the Lord Chief Justice, who would make nothing of it but a jest and a merriment and bound him over on five pounds to appear at the sessions. In the meantime the common people, when they saw themselves deluded, revenged themselves upon the hangings, curtains, chairs, stone walls, and whatsoever came in their way, very outrageously and made great spoil, there was great store of good company and many noblemen.”

This event is referred to by Ben Jonson in his “Masque of Angurs, 1622.” Three of these gentlemen should have acted in that famous matter of “England’s Joy,” in 1603, but the date should be 1602. In a poetical effusion by Taylor, the Water Poet, he relates how one Fenner often confused with the real writer of “England’s Joy,” Venner, advertised himself as the author of this piece. This Fenner was the rival of Taylor as an extempore rhymester, and being challenged and the bills set up advertising the literary duel, Taylor prepared himself for the meeting. On the day appointed Fenner failed to come to the scratch, thereby causing Taylor to be branded as an impostor, which drew from him the following lines, published in his “A Cast over Water,” 1615:

“My defence against thy offence.”

“Thou bragst what fame thou gottst upon the stage, Indeed, thou set’st the people in a rage In playing ‘England’s Joy’ that every man Did judge it worse than that done at the Swan. To all your cost he will his wits employ To play the second part of ‘England’s Joy,’ And poor old Venner that plain-dealing man, Who acted ‘England’s Joy’ first at the Swan, Paid eight crowns for the writing of these things, Besides the covers and the silken strings.”

The original play-bill announcing this performance has the following title: ...

“The plot of the play called ‘England’s Joy,’ To be played at the Swan this 6 of March, 1602.”

This document being of such extreme interest, a photograph will be found on the opposite page. One can see by the smallness of the print that it was not intended for a poster, but to be distributed either amongst the assembled audience or delivered at the houses of the gentry or handed to passers-by in the street. The original of this broad sheet is preserved in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries. By the courtesy of the Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries I was accorded the privilege of inspecting this most interesting document, and further, allowed the favour of having the original photographed especially for this book. Although, as stated above, the print is too small for a poster, yet it is quite legible, almost the size of the type of this page.

FIRST, there is induct by shew and in Action; the ciuill warres of England from _Edward_ the third, to the end of Queene _Maries_ raigne, with the ouerthrow of Vsurpation.

2 Secondly then the entrance of Englands Ioy by the Coronation of our Soueraigne Lady _Elizabeth_, her Throne attended with peace, Plenty, and ciuill Pollicy: A sacred Prelate standing at her right hand, betokening the Serenity of the Gospell: At her left hand Iustice: And at her feete Warre, with a Scarlet Roabe of peace vpon his Armour: A wreath of Bayes about his temples, and a braunch of Palme in his hand.

3 Thirdly is dragd in three Furies, presenting Dissention, Famine, and Bloudshed, which are throwne downe into hell.

4 Fourthly is exprest vnder the person of a Tyrant, the enuy of _Spayne_, who to shew his cruelty causeth his Souldiers dragge in a beautifull Lady, whome they mangle and wound, tearing her garments and Iewels from off her: And so leaue her bloody, with her hayre about her shoulders, lying vpon the ground. To her come certaine Gentlemen, who seeing her pitious dispoylment, turne to the Throne of England, from whence one descendeth, taketh vp the Lady, wipeth her eyes, bindeth vp her woundes, giueth her treasure, and bringeth forth a band of Souldiers, who attend her forth: This Lady presenteth _Belgia_.

5 Fiftly, the Tyrant more enraged, taketh counsell, sends forth letters, priuie Spies, and secret vnderminers, taking their othes, and giuing them bagges of treasure. These signifie _Lopus_, and certaine Iesuites, who afterward, when the Tyrant lookes for an answere from them, are shewed to him in a glasse with halters about their neckes, which makes him mad with fury.

6 Sixtly, the Tyrant seeing all secret meanes to fayle him, intendeth open violence and inuasion by the hand of Warre, whereupon is set forth the battle at Sea in 88, with Englands victory.

7 Seuenthly, hee complotteth with the Irish rebelles, wherein is layd open the base ingratitude of _Tyrone_, the landing there of _Don John de Aguila_, and their dissipation by the wisdome and valour of the Lord _Mountioy_.

8 Eightly, a great triumph is made with fighting of twelue Gentlemen at Barriers, and sundrie rewards sent from the Throne of England, to all sortes of well deseruers.

9 Lastly, the Nine Worthyes, with seuerall Coronets, present themselues before the Throne, which are put backe by certaine in the habite of Angels, who set vpon the Ladies head, which represents her Maiestie, an Emperiall Crowne, garnished with the _Sunne_, _Moone_ and _Starres_; And so with Musicke both with voyce and Instruments shee is taken vp into Heauen, when presently appeares, a Throne of blessed Soules, and beneath vnder the Stage set forth with strange fireworkes, diuers blacke and damned Soules, wonderfully discribed in their seuerall torments.

The plot of England’s Joy, specially photographed for this book, from the original, with kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries.]

In the fifth paragraph of this most interesting programme of “England’s Joy” appears the name of Lopus, or more correctly Lopez. This name opens up a wide field of controversy, for the bearer was a Jew, and English historians aver that since the expulsion of that race in 1290, no Jew set foot on English soil until the time of Cromwell, over 350 years later than the first and only exodus. There can be no doubt that a certain number of Jews visited these shores, and a few settled here and made it their permanent home. This Lopez was a celebrated Jewish physician, and was honoured by being elected house surgeon to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital; afterwards he became physician to Queen Elizabeth. After many years’ residence in this country he was arrested on suspicion of being implicated In a plot to poison the Queen; he was duly tried, convicted and sentenced to be hanged, which sentence a few months later was carried out at Tyburn. According to Camden, the learned antiquarian, Lopez’s last words on the scaffold were that he loved the Queen as much as he did Jesus Christ, which naturally leads one to the assumption that he must have been a converted Jew and have forsaken the faith of his fathers, or else Camden may have invented this dying confession in order to show that some Jews believed in the Christian religion.

When the Swan Theatre was sold it realized the sum of £1,873. A view of the exterior of the theatre is depicted in Visscher’s Map of London, 1616. The old theatre is marked on the Map of the Manor, dated 1627.

This sketch of the interior of the Swan Theatre, dated circa 1596, important as it is, must not be taken too literally; many discrepancies can be detected when compared with our knowledge of the contemporary stage. Especially noticeable is the bareness of the stage, and lack of all signs of any suggestion of a curtain, which, judging by directions in old plays, was a most important feature. Also be it remembered that the Swan playhouse was not typically a playgoers’ theatre, being devoted chiefly to feats of activity and other pastimes.

THE GLOBE THEATRE

The last theatre built on the Bankside was the most famous of all, namely, the Globe. On the stage of this theatre the greatest of the Shakesperean plays were first acted; here Shakespeare followed the actor’s calling, covering a period of ten years.

The site of such a famous spot might well kindle the imagination of every Englishman who takes a pride in the welfare of his country. Instead of which, what do we find? Truthfully speaking, not one Englishman in a thousand could indicate in what part of the Metropolis the Globe Theatre stood, and many could be found totally ignorant of the existence in early days of that theatre. Strange to relate, the fascinating study of old London does not appeal to modern Englishmen.

What would be the opinion of the greatest creator of the grandest literature the world has known if he could behold the vast majority of present day citizens, the labouring class of Britons, being sweated half-naked in factories for the benefit of a body of shareholders who look upon them as fuel for their machines? Such is England of to-day! and those men who accept such conditions deserve nothing but contempt. The better class idolize sport, cultivating physical strength at the expense of the mind; all the brains this sporting class possess seem hidden in their hands or feet; naturally brought up under these conditions they despise the beauties of the mind, and become slaves of their sensuous feelings, which would even make a Chinaman look down upon them with contempt. The only way to eradicate these vicious symptoms is by teaching the younger generation that money-making is not the fountain of happiness, and that hours of freedom are necessary for the enjoyment of life and the worship of both toil and wealth are fit only to be followed by despised nations.

If these rules are dutifully followed, Englishmen would be themselves again, and not a crowd of unworthy people whose only topic of conversation consists of sport, money, and amusement.

Judging from the dastardly act of razing Crosby Hall to the ground, little care they for the beautiful and sacred memorials of the past, otherwise such acts of vandalism would scarcely be permitted. Our City Authorities, filled with wine, beer, and turtle soup, allow these Philistines for the greed of gold to desecrate and demolish every ancient building, and are equally blamable in permitting these scandals of impiety to be carried out by the demons of improvement.

Some disgusting brewery, or evil-smelling warehouse or factory, are the buildings generally erected on these famous sites. No doubt the idiot guardians of the City regard these unsightly buildings as vast improvements.

Such being the spirit of the times, there is little reason for wonder that not even the sites of many ancient important places of interest can be accurately delineated. Unfortunately this indictment applies in some measure when we search for the site of the Globe Theatre. The original plot of ground occupied by the theatre can only be conjecturally restored, and then the deepest research and careful reading of old documents must be diligently studied, besides which the poring over old maps is most essential for the true discovery of the exact sites.

An extremely illuminating article on the site of the first Globe Theatre was contributed to the transactions of the London and Middlesex Archæological Society in 1912 by Mr. George Hubbard, Vice-President of the Royal Institute of British Architects. This pamphlet was first read at the Bishopsgate Institute in February of the same year. This learned dissertation was the result of a vehement discussion following the fixing of a bronze tablet on the outside wall of Messrs. Barclay and Perkins’ Brewery, situated on the south of Park Street, formerly Maid Lane. The dispute arises over which side of the road the original Globe Theatre occupied, either on the north or the south side of Maid Lane, the modern Park Street. After a careful perusal of Mr. Hubbard’s article, every sensible reader will strongly endorse the author’s views and give his vote without demur for the north side.

Mr. William Martin, in a little special pleading, maintains in a most able and interesting paper which appeared in the _Surrey Archæological Collections_, vol. xxiii, that the site must be sought on the south side, without, in my judgment, convincing anyone. Before Mr. Hubbard entered the field of controversy, Mr. Martin’s article had already been published.

When the Burbages dismantled their playhouse in Shoreditch, they removed the materials of the building, which chiefly consisted of wood, over the water, and there on the Bankside erected a new theatre. _The Times_ printed four articles from the pen of Mr. Wallace, Professor of English Literature in an American university, on matters of great interest in connexion with the Globe Theatre. The document in question relates of a family dispute, which was eventually brought into Court. During the Shakesperean era, and later, the Law Courts were appealed to for the settlement of disputes of the flimsiest character, demonstrating the litigious nature of the citizens in Elizabeth’s reign. To these quarrels and the survival of legal documents are due the knowledge which we now possess of early theatrical history. The plaintiff in this case was Thomasina Osteler, the widow of a well-known actor and sharer in the Globe and Blackfriars playhouses, the defendant being the John Hemmings, ever remembered as one of the joint editors of the _First Folio of Shakespeare’s Works_.

The defendant was the father of the plaintiff, Thomasina, who claimed certain shares in the Globe Theatre. Her attorney, in maintaining her claim, cited certain leases from legal documents, and, fortunately for us, he drew up a plan of the ground occupied by the Globe Theatre. The following account, stripped of all legal verbiage, reads as follows; “All that parcel of land enclosed and made into four separate garden plots, late in the tenure of and occupation of Thomas Burt and Istrand Morris, dyers, and of Latantius Roper, salter, citizen of London, containing in length from east to west 200 feet of assize lying and adjoining upon a way or lane then on one side, and abutting on a piece of land called “The Park,” upon the north, and upon a garden in the occupation of one John Cornish towards the west, and on another garden plot in the occupation of one John Knowles towards the east, with all the houses, buildings, etc. And also that parcel of land just recently enclosed and made into three several garden plots, whereof two of the same were in the occupation of one John Roberts, carpenter, and another in the occupation of Thomas Ditcher, citizen and merchant tailor, of London, containing in length from east to west 156 feet of assize, lying and adjoining upon a garden plot in the occupation of William Sellers towards the east, and upon another garden plot in the occupation of John Burgram, saddler, towards the west, and upon a lane there called Maiden Lane, towards the south, with all the houses, buildings, etc. Upon which same premises or upon some part thereof existed a certain playhouse fit for the showing or acting of comedies and tragedies.”

This account was diametrically at variance with the accepted conclusions respecting the site of the theatre, which all previous writers had placed due south of Maid Lane. The newly-discovered document mentions the north side of the theatre as being bounded by the Park and the south side by Maid Lane. The stumbling block in the new theory was the placing of the theatre north of the lane bounded by the Park; the only Park known was Winchester Park, consisting of about sixty acres, which lay south of Maid Lane. For the solution of this difficult problem we must thank Mr. Hubbard, who has pointed out that the northern boundary named “The Park” had no connexion with the well-known Winchester Park, but refers to a strip of land called “The Park” abutting on the shore of the Bankside. Professor Wallace notes that: “What the Park was is not certain, possibly an inn or a little garden, for this district boasted several such little plots variously named. In any case, this so-called ‘Park’ was in no way connected with the great Winchester Park.”

Further proof is shown in an entry in one of the token books, which is preserved at Southwark Cathedral, dated 1598, in which occurs the following memorandum: “From the Park.” The collector of the rents for Nicholas Brend, the owner of the property on which the playhouse stood, makes several similar entries in the “Token Books,” all dealing with property in the neighbourhood.

In another of these Sacrament Token Books is a further entry: “Globe Alleye Brend Rents, 1612.” “Globe Alleye Brende’s Rents nowe Bodley’s” is an entry for the year 1613.

Mr. Hubbard thus comments on these entries: “The name Globe Alley is first inscribed in a marginal note under the heading of Brand’s Rents, on page 61 of the Token Book for the Clerk Liberty for the year 1619. This alley was not apparently known as Globe Alley until that year.” This statement is not quite accurate, as Globe Alley is already recorded in the year 1612. This alley lay north of Maid Lane, easily identified in the old maps of London; although unnamed, the outline of this thoroughfare is clearly discernible in the map of Ralph Aggas, and also in that of Braun and Hogenberg, engraved by Hofnagel. Both these views were issued in 1572, from their similarity, one engraver must have copied the other. In Norden’s Map of London, published in 1593, this way or lane can be distinctly traced. In Rocque’s Map, dated 1745, a Globe Alley is marked on a London map for the first time. This alley is there shown on the south side of Maid Lane, this insertion causing all the trouble and confusion. The writers of the annals of the early London theatres blindly concluding that this alley marked the entrance to the old Globe Theatre; it does nothing of the kind. What most likely occurred is that when the second Globe Theatre was demolished the original Globe Alley of the Token Books was also destroyed. In later years a new Alley of the same name appears, perhaps in commemoration of the Globe Theatre, whose exact site was quite forgotten.

Mr. Martin adopts the fanciful view that the draftsman had before him a rough sketch, in which the top edge of the plan lay towards the south and Maid Lane towards the north, thus agreeing with Mr. Martin’s own conclusions.

The exact spot where the Globe stood should be sought for between Red Lion Wharf and Southwark Wharf, both wharves being marked in the Ordnance Survey. The early Globe Alley will be found facing Clink Street, on a plot of ground now called Ironworks Yard, situated on Bankside, which in former times led to the famous Globe Theatre.

The maps of Aggas and Hofnagel depict two amphitheatres, one marked “The Bolle bayting” and the other further east, “The Bear bayting.” On turning to Norden’s map we find that the “Bear bayting” has vanished and the old “Bolle bayting” sport is now marked the Beare house. Now let us cast a glance at Visscher’s beautiful engraved view of London, 1616; there we notice in the foreground two distinct amphitheatres, the one towards the west marked the Bear Garden, the other The Globe. From the position of these two structures, no one, after carefully reading the above details, can mistake the position of the Globe which stands in Visscher’s view on the site of the original Bear House, so named in the old maps, the site corresponding with the vacant space in Norden’s map, and now definitely named the Globe.

The importance of locating the exact site of the most celebrated theatre in the world has led me into a somewhat lengthy discussion on the subject. There now remains for the Shakespeare Reading Society the duty of removing their handsome plaque to the opposite side of the road without further delay.

The Globe theatre was opened in the spring of 1599 with a probable production of “Henry V.” “Within this wooden O” is mentioned in the prologue. The Globe was round in form, and built chiefly of wood. Another reference in the same play clearly proves that “Henry V” was acted sometime in the year 1599.

“But now behold In the quick forge and working house of thought How London doth pour forth her citizens! The Mayor and all his brethren in best sort Like the senators of the antique Rome. With the plebians swarming at their heels, Go forth and fetch their conquering Caesar in, As by a lower, but by loving likelihood, Were now the general of our gracious empress, As in good time he may from Ireland come, Bringing rebellion broached on his sword, How many would the peaceful city quit To welcome him!”

This passage commemorates a very exciting contemporary event. The Earl of Essex, the Queen’s favourite, was despatched to Ireland, in command of a large force with the object of subduing the rebel Earl of Tyrone. Essex set out in March, 1599, not returning until September of the same year. When these lines were written, Essex was the idol of the people. The Irish expeditionary force under his command was a complete failure, and the Earl suffered greatly in reputation, and in no sense returned as a conquering hero.

Professor Lawrence affirms that there does not exist any authentic view of either the exterior or the interior of the first Globe Theatre. Professor Baker, of Harvard University, maintains that the circular building in the foreground of Hondius’s map of London, dated 1610, is intended for the Globe. Halliwell-Phillipps, a great authority on all Shakesperean matters, identifies this theatre with the first Globe. Fleay, on the contrary, argues that the Rose is the theatre depicted. Professor Lawrence further states that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of old maps. They were based for the most part on surveys made many years previously, and published in later years without careful alterations in details, and in them the Bankside theatres are seldom correctly located. This building must either indicate the Rose or the Globe; nothing is known after 1606 of the Rose, which may have fallen into desuetude whereas the Globe was at the zenith of its reputation.

Critically examined, the evidence favours the Globe, and in my opinion may fairly be declared as the theatre indicated. The structure marked the Globe, in Visscher’s view, is the second Globe Theatre, built after the disastrous fire of 1613, the new theatre being erected on the site of the old one.

This view so well known by frequent reproductions, is by most people regarded as the original theatre. In a map, dated 1657, a copy of the original being in my possession, four theatres are shown--namely, The Swan, The Hope, The Rose, and The Globe. The Hope and Globe occupy the spaces formerly marked in Aggas and Hofnagel maps as “The Bolle Bayting and The Bear Bayting.” The Rose is misplaced in the 1657 map, being too far north of the Hope and the Globe, the proper position should be marked south-east of the Hope and south-west of the Globe. Considering the historical importance of the Globe Theatre, how much cause for regret exists that such scanty records remain of this time-honoured building.

In spite of these limitations, diligent research by patient and skilful scholars have greatly increased the knowledge necessary for a complete understanding of this theatre.

The building was circular or octagonal in shape, and was open to the sky. The roof running round the topmost gallery was thatched; a large aperture in this part of the building admitted the light. The drawing of the interior of the Swan, a most important Elizabethan document, gives a fairly representative view of an early Shakesperean theatre, and it is more than likely that the interior of the Globe presented a like appearance. An extra volume would be required in formulating the conditions under which a Shakesperean play was produced, and then three-fourths of the treatise would be mere conjecture.

We know for certain that the management was under a company of actors, who occupied the theatre during the whole period until destroyed by fire; this company was known under different names at various periods, but chiefly as The Lord Chamberlain’s Servants. Contemporary documents prove that Shakespeare was a member of this company, besides being an important shareholder. How he disposed of his investments is nowhere mentioned: they may have been sold on retiring from the stage in 1609; his will is silent respecting these shares, a sure sign that he had already parted with them.

For a period of fourteen years thousands of Londoners, drawn from all classes of society, enjoyed the dramatic production offered by the company playing at the Globe on the Bankside, yet we search in vain for any detailed notice of even one performance. What must we think of the critics and scribblers who had a giant in their midst and knew him not; long notices of bull and bear fights abound, but the first performance of “Hamlet” found no chronicler; perhaps on that day a big fight in the bear pit was advertised, which was considered a greater attraction. Even in our days a sensational and exciting performance would rather engage the attention of the critics of the daily papers than, in their eyes, the lesser attraction of a Shakesperean performance even if acted by celebrated players.

For instance, Miss Lily Elsie, in a new musical comedy of the vulgarest type, would appear of greater importance from a press point of view than Forbes Robertson in the character of Hamlet.

The only evidence we obtain of plays being acted at this theatre is from entries made in the books of the Stationers’ Register: “A book called the _Revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke_, as it was lately acted by the Lord Chamberlain’s servants.” The name of the Lord Chamberlain indicating where the play was produced. Similar evidence is likewise derived from the title pages of the early quartos issued during the lifetime of the poet. In the whole range of Elizabethan literature not a single page can be discovered criticising those wonderful scenes enacted almost daily before their eyes at the Globe or in previous years at other theatres, before that building was erected, although a vast amount of printed matter, more than the present generation can conceive, was constantly being issued from the press.

London alone possessed nearly a thousand publishers, booksellers and printers, and the number of books on all subjects was enormous. The great part of this large output has been thoroughly ransacked with the object of discovering Shakesperean references, unfortunately with rather meagre results. The general public of the day reads nothing of this mass of literature, with the exception of Shakespeare’s works, although many of the books are really worth perusal. Even _Plutarch’s Lives_, the most popular book of the last three centuries, is entirely neglected.

The lengthy description which is given in relating the history of the Swan Theatre applies in a more or less degree to all the other Shakesperean theatres, and now the mournful duty remains of chronicling the total destruction of the first Globe Theatre by fire.

This great catastrophe befell it on St. Peter’s Day, June 29th, 1613. Oh, what a conflagration! In the space of two hours the building was a heap of smouldering ruins, no doubt containing many of the previous manuscripts of Shakespeare’s plays; this statement is quite gratuitous. Shakespeare may have preserved his original MSS. at Stratford, or they may have been destroyed, after the prompter’s copy had been transcribed from the original, as being of no further use. We know the Bodleian Library parted with their First Folio when the third appeared, as being in the eyes of the then librarian of no account when a later edition appeared.

When the fire broke out a performance was taking place of a play called “Henry VIII, or All is True.” Whether this was Shakespeare’s play of “Henry VIII” is a debatable point. The secondary title, “All is True,” is never associated with Shakespeare’s “Henry VIII.” The higher criticism rejects this play of “Henry VIII” as not forming part of the Shakesperean canon, although included in the First Folio. Wolsey’s farewell speech is such a favourite of mine that I am willing in ascribing the whole play as Shakespeare’s.

This theatre possessed only two doors, one in front being the entrance door and the other situated at the rear of the building. This back entrance was used by the actors, and also for those provided with seats in the balcony, or were accommodated with seats in the Lords’ rooms. The reason for so few entrances can be explained by the peculiar manner in which payment was made by the gatherers of the theatre. A most interesting reference to the Globe will be found in the journal of _Prince Lewis of Wirtemberg_, representative of the United Foreign Princes to France and England in 1610, written by his secretary, Wurmsser. The original MS. is in the British Museum (_Lundi 30. S. Eminence alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire ou l’on joue les comedies_) in a manuscript volume, written by Dr. Forman a few months before his death in 1611, and now preserved among the Ashmolean MSS. in the Bodleian Library. This interesting manuscript was exhibited in the Bodleian Library at an exhibition of rare Shakesperean books in connexion with the tercentenary of the poet’s death. I purposely visited Oxford with the object of examining this wonderful collection. Dr. Madun, the learned librarian, expressly pointed out to me this interesting volume.

“In ‘Richard II’ at the glob 1611 the 30th of April. In the Winterstale at the glob 1611 the 15th of Maye. Of Cimbal in ‘King of England.’ In ‘Macbeth’ at the Glob 1610 the 20 of April.”

Appended are notes about the different plays. By comparing the notes of “Richard II” the play cannot be one Shakespeare wrote.

Extracts concerning the burning of the Globe Theatre:

“London, this last day of June, 1613. No longer since than yesterday while Burbage his companie were acting at the Globe the play of Hen 8. And there shooting of certayne chambers in way of triumph, the fire catch’d, and fastened upon the thatch of the house and there burned so furiously as it consumed the whole house and all in less than two hours, the people having enough to save themselves.”

Letter from Thomas Lakins to Sir Thos. Pickering.

“Now to let matters of state sleep, I will entertain you at the present with what hath happened this week at the Bankside. The King’s players had a new play called ‘All is True,’ representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the 8th which was set forth with many extraordinary circumstances of Pomp and Majesty, even to the matting of the stage, the Knights of the Order, with their George 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. Now King Henry, making a masque at the Cardinall’s Wolsey’s house, and certain canons being shot off at his entry, some of the Paper or other stuff wherewith some of them were stopped, did light on the Thatch, where being thought at first but an idle smoak, and their eyes more attentive to the show, it kindled inwardly and ran round like a train, consuming within less than an hour the whole House to the very ground. This was the Fatal period of that virtuous Fabrique, where yet nothing did perish but Wood and straw and a few forsaken cloakes. Only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would perhaps have broyled him if he had not by the benefit of provident witt put it out with bottle ale.”

Letter from Sir Henry Wotten to his nephew, Sir Edward Bain, reprinted in _Relique Wottonae_, 1635.

“All you that please to understand Come, listen to my story, To see Death with his rakering brand, Mongst such an auditorye, Regarding neither Cardinal’s might, Nor yet the rugged face of Henry the eighth.”

A sonnet upon the pitiful Burning of the Globe playhouse in London. Anonymous about 1613.

“If I should have set down the several terms and damages done this year by fire, in the very many and sundry places of this Kingdom, it would contain many a sheet of paper, as is evident by the incessante collections throughout the Churches of this realm for such as have been spoyled by fire. Also upon S. Peter’s day last, the playhouse or Theatre called the Globe, upon the Bankside neare London, by negligent discharging of a peal of ordinance close to the south side, the Thatch thereof took fire and the wind sudainly disperst the Flame round about and in a very short space the whole building was quite consumed and no man hurt, the house being filled with people to behold the play, viz., of Henry the 8. And the next spring it was new builded in a far finer manner than before.”

_The Annals or General Chronicle of England_, begun first by Master John Stow and afterwards continued and augmented with matters foreign and domestique, ancient and modern, unto the end of the present year, 1614, by Edmund Howe, Gentleman, London.

Howe evidently made a slip when he wrote ‘upon S. Peter’s Day last,’ that date would refer to the year 1614. Howe admits that he continued the chronicle up to the end of that year, 1614. The fire took place in 1613.

“But the burning of the Globe or Playhouse on the Bankside on S. Peter’s Day cannot escape you which fell out by a peal of chambers that I know not upon what occasion, were to be used in the play, the tampin or stopple of one of them lighting in the thatch that covered the house, burned it to the ground in less than two hours with a dwelling house adjoining, and it was a great marvel and fair grace of God that the people had little harm having but two narrow doors to get out at.”

John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Ralph Winwood on July 8th, 1613.

Sir Henry Wotten’s letter, previously quoted supplies us with the use of the chambers which so puzzled John Chamberlain. This letter acquaints us with the important fact that only two narrow doors admitted the spectators at the theatre.

“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.

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.

My case is alter’d, I must worke for my liuing.

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. ]

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.”

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.

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. 1620. ]

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.

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 5⅚ 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.

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 HOPE THEATRE

The last theatre set up on the Bankside, and also the last public theatre opened during Shakespeare’s lifetime, was the Hope, built in the year 1614, two years before his death. This reconstructed building had originally served as an amphi-theatre for bull baiting, being marked on the maps of both Aggas and Hofnagel in 1572, also in Norden’s map of 1593.

Twenty years after Aggas’ map appeared, the bull-baiting house had been converted into a bear-baiting establishment; the old bear-baiting house seen in these maps was, in 1599, occupied by the famous Globe Theatre. The playhouse marked in Norden’s map is the Rose, then the sole theatre on the Bankside.

The cause of the Bear-house being turned into a theatre was due to the Globe Theatre being burnt to the ground in the previous year 1613. Cunning old Henslowe, seizing an opportunity of taking advantage of this catastrophe, converted his rival’s misfortune to his own profit. The contract for demolishing the old Bear Garden is still in existence, setting forth that an arena for the exhibition of bear-baiting, likewise a stage suitable for play acting, was to be erected. Under these conditions the stage was a movable one, thereby permitting the performance of either entertainments.

The contract states that it was to be built like the Swan, a theatre erected nearly twenty years previously, a proof that few alterations or improvements were made in theatrical structures during this long period.

Most people interested in theatrical matters are aware that customs appertaining to the theatre are handed down from generation to generation, and innovations in stage tradition are seldom, if ever, introduced, even in such an improving age as our own.

This theatre is without any Shakesperean association, and the only stage play, so far as is known, publicly acted there is Ben Jonson’s “Bartholomew Fair,” in 1614. This play contains several theatrical allusions, one of which is defining the spectators of the pit as “the understanding gentlemen of the ground.” Shakespeare names the same audience as the “groundlings” in Hamlet’s speech to the players. For several days in the week the Hope was given over to bear-baiting and other sports. There is an account of one Fenner, who challenged Taylor, the Water Poet, to a combat of wits. On the day appointed, Fenner failed to put in an appearance, thereby causing the great enmity of Taylor, who wrote some rather poignant and sarcastic verses in memory of the event. Fenner replied by a mock epitaph:

“O! ’twas that foolish scurvie play At Hope that took his sense away.”

Taylor replied:

“Thou writest a hotch potch of some forty lines About my play at Hope and my designs.”

On the rebuilding of the Globe, the Hope stood little chance against such a powerful rival; in fact, this building was never seriously regarded as a theatre. When the new Globe was entirely rebuilt the Hope gradually resumed its former occupation as a bear-baiting house, which in reality had never been discarded.

As a bear-baiting garden, a reference is found in Swetnam’s _Arraignment of Women_, 1617: “If you mean to see the bear-baiting of women then trudge to this bear garden apace, and get in betimes and view every room where thou may best sit for thy pleasure.”

The further history of the Hope after 1616 is quite unconnected with the drama. It flourished for many years. After Shakespeare’s death, Cunningham, in his _Handbook of London_, says that the best account of its last days is narrated in Howe’s MS., a continuation of Stow’s Survey; this must be by some other hand than Howe’s, as he died in 1631. “The Hope, on the bankside in Southwark, commonly called the Beare Garden, a playhouse for stage players on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, and for the baiting of the Beares on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the stage being made to take up and down when they please.”

It was built in the year 1610, and was pulled down to make tenements, by Thomas Walker, petticoat maker, in Cannon Street, on Tuesday, the 25th of March, 1656.

Seven of Mr. Godfrie’s Bears, by command of Thomas Pride, then High Sheriff of Surrey, were then shot to death on Saturday, the 9th of February, 1655, by a company of soldiers. A few years later, after the Restoration, the Bear Garden, was renamed, and continued giving exhibitions until 1691. In an advertisement, dated 1682, the Hope is still styled by its old name. This paragraph, which appeared in the _Loyal Protestant_, must refer to some new building, or perhaps the old name was still in use.

Printed at _London_ by _Tho. Coses_, for _Iohn Waterson_: and are to be sold at the signe of the _Crowne_ in _Pauls_ Church-yard. 1634. ]

The last we hear of this new Hope is in 1691, when an advertisement states there is now made at the Bear Garden glass house, on the Bankside, crown window glass, and may be had of all glaziers in London. Howe is in error in stating that the Hope was built in 1610; this theatre was built soon after the Globe fire in 1614. In Visscher’s map of London, 1616, is an excellent view of this theatre, named the Bear Garden. Another view is seen in Hollar’s view of London, the last differs slightly from Visscher’s in shape. During an interval of thirty-three years a few alterations may have been introduced.

An interesting souvenir of the bear-baiting house is preserved amongst the Dulwich papers. This relic takes the form of a modern playbill, with the exception that the text is written instead of printed. The advertisement is written in a large round hand, and may have been the original placard placed in front of the building: “To-morrow being Thursdaie, shall be seen at the Bear garden on Bankside a great mach plaid by the gamsters of Essex, who hath chalenged all comers whatsoever to play V dogges at the single beare for V pounds, and also to wearie a bull dead at the stake; and for your better content shall have pleasant sport with the horse and ape and whiping of the blind beare. Vivat Rex.”

THE BLACKFRIARS THEATRE

The first Blackfriars theatre was opened in 1577, occupying the second floor of a mansion belonging to Sir William More, serving, in former times, as a dining hall, in the old monastic Priory of Blackfriars. This part of the building, after its devolution, was converted into separate rooms, and occupied by Sir John Cheek in 1540. A few years later these rooms were tenanted by the Revels Office, under the Mastership of Sir Thomas Cawarden, continuing in use until 1560, when the offices were removed to St. John’s, Jerusalem. Eventually this property came into the possession of Sir William More, who leased the premises to Richard Farrant, Master of the Children of Windsor. The site of these buildings will be found in the present Apothecaries’ Hall, in Water Lane, Blackfriars.

LONDON

Printed by E. A. for William Blackwal, and are to be sold at his shop ouer against Guild-hall gate. _1594._ ]

Richard Farrant, on taking possession, turned the rooms into a theatre for the convenience of the boys in rehearsing their plays before performing before the Queen. The owner of the property was much displeased at Farrant’s procedure, vigorously complaining that the tenant had damaged the property by converting the rooms into a theatre.

No views or records of the interior of this theatre exist, therefore, in reconstructing the stage, or auditorium, from imagination, conjecture must take the place of facts. Whether galleries surrounded the stage, as we find in the public theatres, or whether the spectators were seated on a level in front of the stage, is a matter of dispute. Another point of controversy is whether the stage protruded into the auditorium or continued from east to west in a straight line, as seen in a modern stage. These questions at present cannot be determined with certainty. Until Professor Wallace discovered the documents relating to the Blackfriars property nothing was known about this early theatre. The Children of the Chapel Royal and the Children of Windsor regularly acted here, and for a few years were exceedingly successful, owing to their being under the immediate patronage of the Queen. Farrant, their Master, wrote plays for them, but none have survived. At Farrant’s death, in 1580, the theatre was managed by his widow, but she was unable for long to carry out the terms of the lease, and, after endless litigation, extending over four years, the theatre again came into the possession of the original owner, Sir William More.

During the four years of quarrelling and bickering, the widow Farrant sold the lease to Hunnis, a celebrated Master of the Children of the Chapel, who continued training the children and producing plays. The other company, the Children of Windsor, ceased playing there two years before the death of Farrant. Hunnis, after two years’ ownership, was so much harassed by the proprietor, that he, in his turn, leased the theatre to Henry Evans, who took over the management. This new arrangement lasted but for a brief period, for in the same year Evans disposed of the lease to the Earl of Oxford, who placed here his company of boy actors. But eventually the Earl made a present of the lease to Lyly, the poet and dramatist, who managed the theatre until 1584, when an order of the Court awarded the premises to Sir William More. This ends the history of the first Blackfriars Theatre.

The second Blackfriars Theatre dates from the year 1596. James Burbage, the father of Richard Burbage, purchased from Sir William More, for £600, the buildings that lay between the office on the north and Lord Hunsdon’s mansion on the south. After the purchase of the property he immediately remodelled these rooms, making them suitable for a theatre.

James Burbage died in 1597, and his sons leased the second Blackfriars Theatre to Henry Evans, in conjunction with Nathaniel Gyles, who succeeded Hunnis as Master in 1597. The Children of the Chapel occupied the stage, acting plays written by all the celebrated dramatists of the period, with the exception of Shakespeare, whose plays are not mentioned as acted by the Children. Most critics, including Professor Wallace himself, contend that Shakespeare acted in this theatre. There does not exist an item of evidence in support of this theory, beyond a statement made by Burbage’s sons many years after Shakespeare’s death, that Richard Burbage installed Shakespeare at this theatre, but in what capacity is nowhere mentioned; and I doubt very much if Shakespeare ever set foot upon the stage, in spite of the above statement. No authentic views of this theatre are known; Professor Baker gives an illustration of the exterior of this theatre, but its authenticity is not beyond doubt. The second Blackfriars Theatre was situated in a different part of the building from the first. When Burbage purchased the property, several rooms on the south side were converted into one large hall, measuring 66 by 46 feet. The room on the north side was formerly the home of the boy actors, under Farrant. The Blackfriars was a private playhouse, the word “private” denoting that the theatre was roofed and performances were given at night time, or on account of the theatre being within the liberties of the City, the proprietor safeguarded himself by this designation in order to comply with the Act of Common Council; one clause of which exempted from penalties any private dwelling house exhibiting Enterludes, Comedies and Tragedies. The charges were somewhat higher than those in force at the public theatres. At this theatre, stools were allowed upon the stage, Although called a private theatre, anyone by paying the higher price was allowed admittance.

WHITEFRIARS THEATRE

There is some slight evidence that a stage for acting existed in the vicinity of Whitefriars as early as 1574. Richard Rawlidge, in his tract already referred to, enumerates, among other playhouses in the year 1576, “one in Whitefriars.” Fleay mentions that this is the only reference to the old Whitefriars playhouse until 1610. Professor Lawrence is again at variance with the usual authorities: he would assign the opening of the new Whitefriars, circa 1608. According to a burial register of St. Dunstan’s Parish, Whitefriars, in September 29th, 1607, which records the following interment: “Gerry out of the playhouse in the Friars buried.” Another entry is: “We present one playhouse in the same precinct, not fitting these to be now tolerable.”

_LONDON_:

Printed by _T. S._ for _Thomas Archer_, and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head-Pallace, neere the _Royall-Exchange_. 1613. ]

By the date 1607 both our professors have misdated the opening of the theatre. Another valid proof of how greatly we are in need of a veritable authentic history of the early theatres.

The place in which the stage was first set up stood in the Refectory of the demolished Monastery of the Carmelites, situated between the modern Bouverie and Whitefriars Streets, in Fleet Street. The early history of this theatre is a total blank, both as regards the stage and the company of actors, who gave performances there.

If conjecture is permissible, probably strolling players were allowed the use of the stage, or more likely a regular company for want of a better place, acted here. The performers were safe from molestation, on account of the ground being ecclesiastical property, therefore not being subject to the jurisdiction of the City Authorities.

In 1607, or earlier, this old hall was probably converted into a regular theatre, and from that date continued as such until 1616, when for an indefinite period the place was abandoned. On being re-opened, acting took place as usual, subsequently being finally abolished in 1621.

The Children of the Queen’s Revels made their home here. Many of the ablest dramatists wrote plays for them. Ben Jonson’s “Epicene” was one of the first plays they produced. A list of actors’ names is prefixed to the printed edition of 1612. The celebrated actor, Richard Field, is the first actor named.

THE SALISBURY COURT THEATRE

After the abolition of the Whitefriars Playhouse, another arose in the same district, and was called the Salisbury Court Theatre. The site is now occupied by the Salisbury Hotel, in Salisbury Square, Fleet Street. Edward Sackville, fourth earl of Dorset, leased a piece of land to Richard Gunnel and William Bargrave for forty-one and a half years, at a rental of £100 per annum.

The company of the King’s Revels were the first who occupied the house. A few years later we find the Prince’s men acting there. Among other plays produced by them was Marmion’s “Holland’s Leaguer,” lately and often acted by Prince Charles’ men at the Salisbury Court Theatre. A list of actors is prefixed to the first edition of this play, printed in 1632. In 1635, the Revel’s company again were in possession of this theatre, and produced a play called “The Spargus Garden.” The theatre continued in existence for many years, and was not abandoned until the fatal year 1649, when all theatres, without exception, were finally closed. At the Restoration this theatre was still in existence, but in a very dilapidated state. After being made habitable, play-acting was again resumed. Pepys records a visit to this theatre in his Diary. The fire of London counted this building among its victims. No views of any description are known.

THE COCKPIT

_LONDON_:

Printed by _I. B._ for _Nicholas Vavasour_, and are to be sold at his Shop in the Inner-Temple, neere the Church. 1633. ]

This small, roofed private theatre was first opened in 1615, and was partially demolished by a band of wild apprentices. The cause of their action is not known. Speedily being rebuilt, it continued under the name of the Phœnix as a playhouse, until 1649, when the building was dismantled.

_LONDON_,

Printed by _I. N._ for _Hugh Perry_, and are to bee sold at his shop, at the signe of the _Harrow_ in _Brittaines-burse_. 1631. ]

The company of the Lady Elizabeth, daughter of James I, acted at this house. A list of actors’ names is recorded in the Herbert MSS. After the Restoration the theatre was once more used for play-acting, the last recorded performance taking place in 1664. Cockpit Court, Drury Lane, marked in Strype’s map of London, 1720, stood on the site of the old theatre. In later years the Court was known as Pit Court, but now this place has entirely vanished. Formerly a cockpit existed in this neighbourhood, from which the theatre was named. Like so many other theatres of this period, no authentic views are known.

Imprinted at London by G. ELD.

1607. ]

ST. PAUL’S SINGING SCHOOL

Many printed plays have inscribed on their title pages: “As played by the Children of Powles.” Very little is known of their place of acting. The exact site on which that part of the Cathedral was allotted to these boy actors still remains a point of discussion. Many authorities assert that the music room of the choir in St. Gregory’s Church, in a corner of St. Paul’s, was the place assigned to them; others consider the yard adjoining Convocation House, a more convenient spot, and thoroughly suitable for a dramatic performance. Professor Lawrence is in favour of the singing school, near the Convocation House. Until further evidence is forthcoming the question cannot be finally determined. St. Paul’s singing school was built in the year 1581, and remained in use until 1596, when it was suppressed. A few years later this room may have been occupied by the Children of St. Paul’s, and many a famous play of that period was probably acted there. All the great dramatists, with the exception of Shakespeare, wrote for the Boy Actors. The place served as a training ground for young actors, who afterwards joined the professional men’s companies. Shakespeare bitterly satirized these juveniles in “Hamlet.”

LONDON

Printed for _William Iones_, dwelling at Holborne conduit, at the signe of the Gunne.

1598. ]