SHAKESPEARE, THE BURBAGES, AND EDWARD ALLEYN
As we have well-attested evidence that Shakespeare was connected with
the interests of James Burbage and his sons from 1594 until the end of
his London career, it is usually, and reasonably, assumed that his early
years in London were also spent with the Burbages; but as nothing is
definitely known regarding Burbage's company affiliations between 1575,
when we have record that he was still manager of Leicester's company,
and 1594, when the Lord Chamberlain's company left Henslowe and Alleyn
and returned to Burbage and the Theatre, knowledge of Shakespeare's
company affiliations during these years is equally nebulous. Only by
throwing light upon Burbage's activities during these years can we hope
for light upon Shakespeare during the same period. Much of the ambiguity
regarding Burbage's affairs during these years arises from the fact that
critics persist in regarding him as an actor and an active member of a
regular theatrical company after 1576, instead of recognising the
palpable fact that he was now also a theatrical manager with a large
amount of borrowed money invested in a theatre upon which it would take
all of his energies to pay interest and make a profit. After 1576
Burbage's relations with companies of actors were necessarily much the
same as those of Henslowe's with the companies that acted at his
theatres, though it is probable that Burbage acted at times for a few
years after this date. He was now growing old, and his business
responsibility increasing, it is unlikely that he continued to act long
after 1584, when his son Richard entered upon his histrionic career.[10]
When Shakespeare came to London in 1586-87, there were only two regular
theatres,--the Theatre and the Curtain,--though there were usually
several companies playing also at innyards within and about the City.
The Theatre at Shoreditch, owned by James Burbage, was built by him in
1576, and was the first building designed in modern England specially
for theatrical purposes. Though he had many troubles in later years with
his brother-in-law and partner, John Brayne, and with his grasping
landlord, Giles Allen, he retained his ownership of the Theatre until
his death in 1597, and he, or his sons, maintained its management until
the expiration of their lease in the same year.
In 1571 an Act of Parliament was passed making it necessary for a
company of players who wished to exercise their profession without
unnecessary interference from petty officials and municipal authorities,
to secure a licence as the players, or servants, of a nobleman; lacking
such licences members of their calling were classed before the law, and
liable to be treated, as "vagabonds and sturdy beggars." Such a licence
once issued to a company was regarded as a valuable corporate asset by
its sharers. At times a company possessing a licence would diminish by
attrition until the ownership of the licence became vested in the hands
of a few of the original sharers, who, lacking either the means or
ability to continue to maintain themselves as an effective independent
organisation, would form a connection with a similarly depleted company
and perform as one company, each of them preserving their licensed
identity. In travelling in the provinces such a dual company would at
times be recorded under one title, and again under the other, in the
accounts of the Wardens, Chamberlains, and Mayors of the towns they
visited. Occasionally, however, the names of both companies would be
recorded under one payment, and when their functions differed, they seem
at times to have secured separate payments though evidently working
together--one company supplying the musicians and the other the actors.
If we find for a number of years in the provincial and Court records the
names of two companies recorded separately, who from time to time act
together as one company, and that these companies act together as one
company at the same London theatre, we may infer that the dual company
may be represented also at times where only the name of one of them is
given in provincial or Court records. It is likely that the full numbers
of such a dual company would not make prolonged provincial tours except
under stress of circumstances, such as the enforced closing of the
theatres in London on account of the plague; and that while the entire
combination might perform at Coventry and other points within a short
distance of London, they would probably divide their forces and act as
separate companies upon the occasions of their regular provincial
travels.
Such a combination as this between two companies in some instances
lasted for years. The provincial, and even the Court records, will make
mention of one company, and at times of the other, in instances where
two companies had merged their activities while preserving their
respective titles.[11] A lack of knowledge of this fact is responsible
for most of the misapprehension that exists at present regarding
Shakespeare's early theatrical affiliations.
Under whatever varying licences and titles the organisation of players
to which Shakespeare attached himself upon his arrival in London may
have performed in later years, all tradition, inference, and evidence
point to a connection from the beginning with the interests of James
Burbage and his sons.
Though other companies played at intervals at Burbage's Theatre at, and
shortly following, 1586-87, the period usually accepted as marking the
beginning of Shakespeare's connection with theatrical affairs, it shall
be made evident that the Lord Chamberlain's--recently Lord
Hunsdon's--company, of which James Burbage was at that date undoubtedly
the manager, made their centre at his house when performing in London.
That this was a London company with an established theatrical home in
the most important theatre in London, between the years 1582 and 1589,
is established by the facts that James Burbage was its manager, and the
infrequency of mention of it in the provincial records. It is probable
that at this early period it was not a full company of actors, but that
Lord Hunsdon's licence covered Burbage and his theatrical employees and
musicians.
Numerous and continuous records of provincial visits for a company infer
that it would be better known as a provincial than as a London company,
while the total lack of any record of Court performances, taken in
conjunction with a large number of records of provincial performances,
would imply that such a company had no permanent London abiding-place,
such as Lord Hunsdon's company undoubtedly had in Burbage's Theatre.
The fact that James Burbage, the leader of Leicester's company in its
palmy days--1574 to 1582--was, between 1582 and 1589, the leader of Lord
Hunsdon's company, when coupled with the fact that they appeared before
the Court during this interval, gives added evidence that it was a
recognised London company at this period.
Much ambiguity regarding James Burbage's theatrical affiliations in the
years between 1583 and 1594 has been engendered by the utterly
gratuitous assumption that he joined the Queen's players upon the
organisation of that company by Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels,
in 1583, leaving the Earl of Leicester's players along with Robert
Wilson, John Laneham, and Richard Tarleton at that time. We have
conclusive evidence, however, against this assumption. James Burbage
worked under the patronage of Lord Hunsdon and was undoubtedly the owner
of the Theatre in 1584, although Halliwell-Phillipps, and others who
have followed him in his error have assumed, on account of his having
mortgaged the lease of the Theatre in the year 1579 to one John Hyde, a
grocer of London, that the actual occupancy and use of the Theatre had
also then been transferred. There is nothing unusual or mysterious in
the fact that Burbage mortgaged the Theatre to Hyde. In the time of
Elizabeth, leases of business property were bought, sold, and
hypothecated for loans and regarded as investment securities. Burbage at
this time was in need of money. His brother-in-law, John Brayne, who had
engaged with him to advance half of the necessary expenses for the
building and conduct of the Theatre, defaulted in 1578 in his payments.
It is evident that Burbage borrowed the money he needed from Hyde,
mortgaging the lease as security, probably agreeing to repay the loan
with interest in instalments. It is not unlikely that it was Giles
Allen's knowledge of this transaction that excited his cupidity and led
him to demand £24 instead of £14 a year when Burbage sought an agreed
upon extension of the lease in 1585. As Hyde transferred the lease to
Cuthbert Burbage in 1589, it appears that he held a ten years' mortgage,
which was a common term in such transactions. In 1584 Burbage was
clearly still manager of the Theatre, and in the eyes of the companies
playing there from time to time, who were not likely to be cognizant of
his private business transactions, such as borrowing of money upon a
mortgage, was also still _the owner of the Theatre_.
In one of the witty Recorder Fleetwood's reports to Lord Burghley, dated
18th June 1584,[12] we have the following matter referring to the
Theatre and the Curtain: "Upon Sondaie, my Lord sent two aldermen to the
court, for the suppressing and pulling downe of the theatre and curten,
for all the Lords agreed thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlayn and Mr.
Vice-Chamberlayn; but we obtayned a letter to suppresse them all. Upon
the same night I sent for the Queen's players, and my Lord of Arundell
his players, for they all well nighe obeyed the Lords letters. The
chiefest of her Highnes' players advised me to send for the owner of the
theatre, who was a stubborne fellow, and to bynd him. I dyd so. He sent
me word that he was my Lord of 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 hym, and he brought him to me, and at his coming he
showted me out very justice. And in the end, I showed hym my Lord his
master's hand, and then he was more quiet. But to die for it he wold not
be bound. And then I mynding to send hym to prison, he made sute that he
might be bounde to appeare at the oier and determiner, the which is
to-morrowe, where he said that he was sure the court wold not bynd hym,
being a counsellor's man. And so I have graunted his request, where he
is sure to be bounde, or else is lyke to do worse." The "stubborne
fellow" was, without doubt, none other than the high-spirited and
pugnacious James Burbage, who fought for twenty-one years over leases
with his avaricious landlord, Giles Allen, and of whom Allen's lawyer
writes in a Star Chamber document in 1601: "Burbage tendered a new lease
which he, the said Allen, refused to sign because it was different from
the first and also because Burbage had assigned the Theatre to John Hyde
and has also been a very bad and troublesome tenant to your orator."
This document also makes mention of the fact as one of the reasons for
Allen refusing to sign the new lease that "Hyde conveyed the lease to
Cuthbert, son of James." The conveyance here mentioned was made in 1589.
It is plain that Allen's lawyer implies that the mortgaging of the
Theatre to Hyde and its later conveyance to Cuthbert Burbage were made,
not alone for value received, but also for the protection of James
Burbage against legal proceedings. Here, then, we have good evidence
that James Burbage, who, in the year 1575, had been the manager, and
undoubtedly a large owner, of the Earl of Leicester's company,--at that
time the most important company of players in England,--was in 1584 a
member of Lord Hunsdon's company, and if a member--in view of his past
and present prominence in theatrical affairs--also, evidently, its
manager and owner. As no logical reasons are given by Halliwell-Phillipps,
or by the compilers who base their biographies upon his _Outlines of the
Life of Shakespeare_, for declining to accept the reference in Fleetwood's
letter to the "owner of the Theatre" as an allusion to Burbage, whom they
admit to have been, and who undoubtedly was, the owner of the Theatre from
1576 until he transferred his property to his sons, Cuthbert and Richard,
shortly before he died in 1597,[13] their refusal to see the light must
arise from their obsession that Burbage at this time was a member of
either Leicester's or the Queen's company, and as to which one they do
not seem to have a very clear impression. Shakespearean biography may be
searched in vain for any other recorded facts concerning Burbage's company
affiliations between 1575 and 1594. In view of this general lack of
knowledge of Burbage in these years the critical neglect of such a
definite allusion as Recorder Fleetwood makes to the "owner of the
Theatre" as a servant of Lord Hunsdon is difficult to understand.
The alleged reason for the proposed suppression of the Theatre and the
Curtain at this, and at other times, was that they had become public
nuisances by attracting large crowds of the most unruly elements of the
populace, which led to disturbances of the peace.
In this same report of Fleetwood's to Burghley, he informs him that on
the previous Monday, upon his return to London from Kingston, he "found
all the wardes full of watches. The cause thereof was for that neare the
theatre or curten, at the time of the plays, there laye a prentice
sleeping upon the grasse; and one Challes alias Grostock did turne upon
the toe upon the belly of the prentice; whereupon this apprentice start
up, and afterwards they fell to playne blowes. The companie increased of
both sides to the number of 500 at the least. This Challes exclaimed and
said, that he was a gentleman, and that the apprentice was but a rascal
and some there were littel better than roogs, that took upon them the
name of gentleman, and said the prentices were but the skume of the
worlde. Upon these troubles, the prentices began the next daye, being
Tuesdaye, to make mutinies, and assemblies, and conspyre to have broken
the prisones, and to have taken forth the prentices that were
imprisoned. But my Lord and I having intelligence thereof, apprehended
four or fyve of the chief conspirators, who are in Newgate, and stand
indicted of their lewd demeanours.
"Upon Weddensdaye, one Browne a serving man in a blew coate, a shifting
fellowe, having a perilous wit of his owne, intending a spoil if he
could have brought it to passe, did at the theatre-doore quarrell with
certayn poore boyes, handicraft prentices, and strooke some of them; and
lastlie, he, with his sword, wounded and maymed one of the boyes upon
the left hand. Whereupon there assembled near a thousand people. This
Browne did very cunningly conveye himself away, but by chance he was
taken after and brought to Mr. Humprey Smithe, and because no man was
able to charge him, he dismyssed him."[14]
Though the Council ordered the suppression of both the Theatre and the
Curtain at this time, Fleetwood's report of the disturbances seems to
place the blame largely upon the Theatre. If the Queen's players were
then performing at the Theatre, under the management of Burbage, it is
most unlikely that the "chiefest of her Highnes' players"--who informed
Fleetwood that the owner of the Theatre was a "stubborne fellow," and
advised that he be sent for and "bounde"--would have given advice and
information so unfriendly to their own manager, and there cannot be the
slightest doubt that Burbage was "the owner" of the Theatre from 1576 to
1596. It is apparent that the leader of the Queen's company was willing
that the onus of the disturbances should be placed upon the Theatre
rather than upon the Curtain, where the Queen's players were evidently
performing at this time--Lord Arundel's company temporarily occupying
the Theatre, Lord Hunsdon's company being at that time upon a provincial
tour. They are recorded as performing in Bath in June 1584.[15]
A consideration of the records of Lord Hunsdon's company, and of
previous companies that performed under this name, gives fair evidence
that James Burbage established this company in 1582, at or before which
date he severed his active connection as a player with the Earl of
Leicester's players, though still continuing his own theatrical
organisation at the Theatre under the patronage of Leicester, as the
Earl of Leicester's musicians, and maintaining relations with
Leicester's players as a theatre owner.
Burbage's reason in 1582 for transferring from the patronage of
Leicester for his theatrical employees to that of Lord Hunsdon was, no
doubt, _the fact of Leicester's departure for the Continent in this
year_. The constant attacks being made by the puritanical authorities
upon the London theatrical interests made it expedient for him to have
the protection of a nobleman whose aid could be quickly invoked in case
of trouble. As I will show later that Burbage was regarded with
disfavour by Burghley in 1589, it is likely that the opposition he met
with from the local authorities in these earlier years was instigated by
Burghley's agents and gossips. Recorder Fleetwood, chief amongst these,
reports Burbage's alleged transgressions with such evident unction it is
apparent that he knew his message would have a sympathetic reception.
It shall be shown that in later years the Burbage theatrical
organisation was anti-Cecil and pro-Essex in its tacit political
representations; it is not unlikely that it was recognised as anti-Cecil
and pro-Leicester in these early years, and that in this manner it
incurred Burghley's ill-will.
Previous to the year 1567 there existed a company under the patronage of
Lord Hunsdon; between that date and 1582 there is no record of any
company acting under this nobleman's licence. In July 1582 there is
record that Lord Hunsdon's company acted at Ludlow, and upon 27th
December 1582 we have record that Lord Hunsdon's players acted before
the Court, presenting _A Comedy of Beauty and Housewifery_. The
provincial records show a few performances by this company in the
provinces in every year, except one, between 1582 and 1589; while 1587
shows no provincial performance, a payment of five shillings is recorded
in Coventry "to the Lord Chamberlain's Musicians that came with the
Judge at the assizes"; these were, no doubt, a portion of Burbage's
company, Lord Hunsdon then being Lord Chamberlain. This entry, however,
is immediately preceded by the entry of a payment of twenty shillings to
the Lord Admiral's players. It shall be shown that the Admiral's company
was affiliated with Burbage at this time.
The Lord Hunsdon who patronised this company from the time of its
inception, in 1582, until we hear no more about it in 1589, was the same
Henry Carey, Baron Hunsdon, who, in 1594, still holding the office of
Lord Chamberlain, again took Burbage and his theatrical associates under
his protection.
In imagining James Burbage as a member of the Queen's company of players
for several years following 1583, and ending in about 1591, it has been
customary also to assume that the Queen's company played regularly, when
in London, at Burbage's Theatre during these years; and that the Lord
Admiral's company, between 1585 and 1591, played principally at the
Curtain. There is very slight foundation for the former, and not the
slightest for the latter, assumption, both of which were first mooted by
Halliwell-Phillipps, and in which he has since been followed blindly by
the compilers. The supposition that the Queen's company made their
London centre at the Theatre from 1583 onwards, is based upon the
disproved assumption that Burbage was the manager of this company. This
supposition has been supported by the argument that Tarleton, who was a
member of the Queen's company after 1583, is mentioned in 1592, in
Nashe's _Pierce Penniless_, as having "made jests" "at the Theatre,"
and again in Harrington's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ in 1596, as follows:
"Which word was after admitted into the Theatre by the mouth of Mayster
Tarleton, the excellent comedian." As Tarleton died in 1588 these
references cannot apply to the "Theatre" later than this date, and if
they apply at all to Burbage's Theatre and the term is not used
generically, they apply to it in the years preceding 1583, when Tarleton
played at the Theatre as a member of Lord Leicester's company. The
author of _Martin's Month's Mind_, in 1587, refers to "twittle twattle
that I learned in ale-houses and at the Theatre of Lanam and his
fellowes." This also probably refers to the period preceding 1583, when
Laneham was a member and evidently the leader of Leicester's company and
after Burbage had retired from its leadership. In _News out of
Purgatory_, published in 1587, in which the ghost of Tarleton appears,
"the Curtaine of his Countenance" is mentioned, which apparently alludes
to his recent connection with that house.[16] While it is possible,
however, that the Queen's company may have performed occasionally at the
Theatre after their formation in 1582-83 and before the Rose was built
in 1587, all evidence and logical assumption regarding the regular
playing-places of the Queen's and the Admiral's companies when in
London, between 1586 and 1589, infer that the Queen's company played at
the Curtain, and after 1587, at the Rose, and the Lord Admiral's
company, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain's, at the Theatre in
summer and the Crosskeys in winter.
Towards the end of this period a rivalry existed between the Queen's
company and the combined companies playing under Burbage at the Theatre,
which ended in 1591 in the supersession for Court performances of the
Queen's company by Lord Strange's players--a new company of which
Richard Burbage was a member, which had been organised out of the best
actors from the defunct companies of the Lord Chamberlain and Lord
Leicester, and with accretions from the Lord Admiral's company and Lord
Strange's company of boy acrobats; which latter had for about a year
past been affiliated in some manner with the Lord Admiral's company,
which, in turn, had worked in conjunction with Burbage's players (the
Lord Chamberlain's company) since 1585-86.
For this connection between the Lord Admiral's company and the company
of Lord Hunsdon, who was now Lord Chamberlain, we have record of a Court
performance on 6th January 1586, which was paid for on 31st January:
"The Lord Admiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's players were paid for a
play before the Queen on Twelfth Day."
While two companies of players, meeting accidentally in the provinces,
might at times have combined their forces in an entertainment, we may
assume that in such cases each would give a short interlude from their
own stock of plays, and not that they joined action in the same play. A
performance before the Court, however, was no haphazard thing, but
something that had been carefully rehearsed; hence, when we find--as in
the case of the Lord Admiral's players and the Lord Chamberlain's
players, mentioned above--members of two companies uniting in a play
before the Court and receiving one payment for it, it is apparent that
they must have acted in the same play, and also that such a play had
been previously rehearsed. Burbage's Theatre being the theatrical home
of his company, known, until 1585, as Lord Hunsdon's company, and after
that date, when Lord Hunsdon became Lord Chamberlain, as the Lord
Chamberlain's players, it becomes evident that the rehearsal of plays
for the Court would take place at the Theatre in the summer or the inn
used by Burbage and his company in the winter-time, and that the members
of the Lord Admiral's company, who had acted with him in the Court
performance mentioned, would rehearse at the same places. As we find
Lord Strange's company preparing to act in the winter-time of 1589 at
the Crosskeys, when they were refused permission to do so by the Lord
Mayor, and as we know also that--as the Lord Chamberlain's men--in 1594,
after their separation from Henslowe, they again sought leave to act
there in the winter season, we may infer that Burbage's men used this
same inn for winter performances previous to 1589. Lord Hunsdon's letter
to the Lord Mayor in December 1594, referring to the Crosskeys, reads:
"Where my _now_ company of players have byn accustomed ... to play this
winter time within the City."
While both the Lord Admiral's and Lord Hunsdon's players performed
occasionally in the provinces previous to 1591, the limited number of
their provincial appearances, taken in conjunction with the fact that
they were of sufficient importance to play at intervals before the
Court, during the years that the Queen's company--which had been
specially formed for that purpose--held sway, implies that they were
players of recognised importance.
While it is apparent that Burbage ceased to be an active member of
Leicester's players at or soon after the time he undertook the
responsibilities of the management of the Theatre, he evidently
continued to work under the protection of the Earl of Leicester, as the
owner of the Theatre and of the organisation known as Leicester's
musicians, as late as 1582, when he secured the protection of Lord
Hunsdon, and in transferring took with him his theatrical musicians, who
now became Lord Hunsdon's and, later, the Lord Chamberlain's musicians.
The first and last mention of Lord Leicester's musicians as distinct
from the players in any of the records is in 1582, when they are
mentioned in the Coventry records as accompanying Lord Leicester's
players. These were evidently Burbage's theatrical musicians who
accompanied Leicester's men to Coventry, as we find them accompanying
the Admiral's men to the same place a few years later under the title of
the "Lord Chamberlain's Musicians."
It is evident that Leicester's company continued to be Burbage's most
permanent customer in the use of the Theatre as late as 1585, and that
they acted there until that date in conjunction with Lord Hunsdon's men,
who were Burbage's theatrical employees, and mostly musicians. Some time
in, or before, June 1585, seven of the more important actors of
Leicester's company sailed for the Continent, where they remained till
July 1587. In June 1585 the remnant of Leicester's company joined forces
with the new Admiral's company. They are recorded as acting together at
Dover in this month. It is apparent that Leicester's men had come to
this port to see their fellows off for the Continent, and that they were
joined there by the Admiral's men by pre-arrangement. This performance
of the Admiral's men, in conjunction with the remnant of Leicester's men
at Dover, is the first record we possess for many years of any company
under this title. The next record is a performance before the Court in
the following Christmas season, when we find them acting conjointly
with the Lord Chamberlain's men, _i.e._ Burbage's men, recently Lord
Hunsdon's. It is evident that they had now taken the place of
Leicester's men as Burbage's permanent company at the Theatre, holding
much the same relations to him as Lord Strange's men held to Henslowe at
the Rose between 1592 and 1594.
Both Leicester's and Lord Hunsdon's companies disappear from the records
at the same date (1588-89), and Lord Strange's players appear for the
first time as a regular London company of players, performing in the
City of London and at the Crosskeys in the same year. Three years later,
when we are enabled, for the first time, to learn anything of the
personnel of this company, we find among its members Thomas Pope, George
Bryan, and, later on, William Kempe, all of them members of Leicester's
company before 1589. We also find in Lord Strange's company, in 1592,
Richard Burbage, who, without doubt, between 1584--in which year he
first began as a player--and 1589, was a member of his father's
company,--Lord Hunsdon's,--known as the Lord Chamberlain's company after
1585. It becomes apparent, then, that early in the year 1589 a junction
of forces took place between the leading actors of the companies
previously known as Lord Strange's tumblers, Lord Hunsdon's, or, as it
was then known, the Lord Chamberlain's company, and the Earl of
Leicester's players--the new organisation becoming known as Lord
Strange's players. This company continued under the patronage of Lord
Strange, under his successive titles of Lord Strange and the Earl of
Derby, until his death in April 1594; they then, for a short period,
passed under the patronage of his widow, the Countess of Derby, when
they again secured the patronage of Lord Hunsdon--who was still Lord
Chamberlain.
Before the combination between these companies took place in December
1588, or January 1589, it is evident that an alliance of some kind was
formed between the leading men of Lord Strange's tumblers and the Lord
Admiral's company.[17] For several years, between about 1580 and 1587,
Lord Strange's company was merely a company of acrobats, or tumblers,
composed of boys and youths. In the provincial records they are
mentioned at times as "Lord Strange's tumblers," "Symons and his
fellowes," and as "John Symonds and Mr. Standleyes Boyes" (Lord
Strange's name being Fernando Stanley). The Lord Admiral's players, on
the other hand, were clearly a regular company of players who presented
plays, yet we find them paid for Court performances in 1588 and 1589,
and also "For showing other feats of activitye and tumblinge." In the
following year they are again paid for a Court performance where "feates
of activitye" are also mentioned. The last performances of this nature
given by the Lord Admiral's players were on 27th December 1590 and 16th
February 1591. The record of payment for these performances makes
mention of "other feates of activitye then also done by them." Upon the
5th of March 1591 the payment for these performances is recorded in the
Acts of the Privy Council to the Lord Admiral's company, while--as Mr.
E.K. Chambers has pointed out--in the Pipe Rolls (542 fol. 156) these
same performances are assigned to Strange's men. It is evident, then,
that late in 1588 (the first performance of this nature being recorded
on the 27th of December) a junction took place between certain members
of Lord Strange's tumblers and the Lord Admiral's men, who had been
connected since 1585 with the Lord Chamberlain's men, and that, at the
same time, the leading members of Lord Leicester's company became
affiliated with them.
In the following Christmas season, 1591-92, Lord Strange's players--now
thoroughly organised into a regular company of players--gave six
performances before the Court, supplanting the formerly powerful and
popular Queen's company, which gave only one performance in that season,
and never afterwards appeared before the Court. There is no further
record of a Court performance by the Lord Admiral's company until the
Christmas season of 1594-95, by which time they had parted from the Lord
Chamberlain's men and reorganised by absorbing members from other
companies--such as the Earl of Sussex and Earl of Pembroke's companies,
which at this time disappear from the records.
Here, then, we find, between the Christmas season of 1588-89 and
1591-92, an amalgamation into one company of a portion of the membership
of four different companies, all of which had, immediately before, been
associated in some measure with the theatrical interests of the
Burbages.
While a chance record remains which reveals official action in the
formation of the Queen's company of players in 1583, and no actual
record of official action has yet been found to account for the sudden
Court favour accorded the new and powerful Lord Strange's company in
1591, _it is very apparent that an equally authoritative purpose existed
in the latter case_.
Between the years 1574 and 1583 the Earl of Leicester's company, under
the auspices of James Burbage, held the position of the leading company
of players in London. During the Christmas and New Year festivities in
every year but one in this decade, Leicester's company played before the
Court, being supplanted by the newly formed Queen's company in 1583-84.
Howes states in his _Additions to Stowe's Chronicles_ that "in 1583
twelve of the best players were chosen out of several great Lords'
companies and sworn the Queen's servants, being allowed wages and
liveries as Grooms of the Chamber," and among these, two players, Thomas
(Robert) Wilson and Richard Tarleton, were chosen. As these players and
John Laneham were taken from Lord Leicester's company it has been
incorrectly inferred that James Burbage--who is known to have been the
leader of the company as late as 1575--went with them to the Queen's
company at this time.
It is apparent that changes so important in the several companies
affected by the disruption of their memberships could not be made in a
very short time, and that test performances and negotiations of some
duration preceded the actual amalgamation of the new company. Burbage's
reason for securing Lord Hunsdon's patronage in 1582 was, no doubt,
because of Leicester's departure for the Continent in this year and the
disorganisation of Leicester's company, caused by the formation of the
new Queen's company at the same period.
Between 1583 and 1590, while other companies performed occasionally at
the Court, the Queen's company performed during the Christmas
festivities every season--and usually upon several occasions--in each
year. In the Christmas season of 1591-92, however, they performed only
once, _and then for the last time on record_, while Lord Strange's
company appeared in this season upon six occasions. This company, under
its various later titles, retained the position it had now attained--of
the leading Court company--for the next forty years. It is evident,
then, that the amalgamation of the leading members of Lord Strange's
acrobats, the Lord Chamberlain's, the Earl of Leicester's, and the Lord
Admiral's players, which I have shown began in tentative Court
performances in the Christmas season of 1588-89, and which culminated in
the success of the thoroughly organised company in the season of
1591-92, was--at least in its later stage--fostered by similar official
sanction and encouragement to that which brought about the formation of
the Queen's company in 1582-83. Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels,
who chose the players for the Queen's company in 1583, held the same
position in 1591, and evidently exercised a similar function in
forwarding the promotion of Lord Strange's company, and the discarding
of the Queen's company for Court purposes in the latter year. It is
significant that Henslowe, the owner of the Rose Theatre, where Lord
Strange's players commenced to perform on 19th February 1592, was made a
Groom of the Privy Chamber in that year, and that the weekly payments of
his fees to Tilney, in connection with his new venture, begin at that
time. Henslowe became the financial backer of this company in 1591, at
which time, it shall be shown, later on, that James Burbage's fortunes
were at a low ebb, and that he also was in disfavour with the
authorities. Henslowe evidently was brought into the affair by Tilney's
influence, the office of Groom of the Privy Chamber being a reward for
his compliance. It shall be indicated that Tilney and Henslowe had
probably held similar relations in connection with the Queen's company,
which evidently performed at the Rose under Henslowe between 1587 and
1591.
I have shown a connection between Burbage's company, _i.e._ the Lord
Chamberlain's, and the Lord Admiral's company between 1585 and 1589, and
will now inquire into the previous identity of the latter company.
A company performing under the licence of Lord Charles Howard of
Effingham appears in the Court records between 1574 and 1577. Between
1581 and June 1585 there are no provincial records of any company
performing under this nobleman's licence, and, until 6th January 1586,
no Court records. On this latter date a company licensed by this
nobleman, who was now Lord Admiral, appeared at Court working in
conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain's company. The last provincial
visit of Lord Howard's old company is at Ipswich in 1581. The first
provincial record of his new company--the Lord Admiral's--is at Dover in
June 1585, when the entry reads: "Paid unto my Lord Admiralles and my
Lord Lycestors players 20 shillings." This seems to show that the new
Admiral's company had joined forces with the remnant of Lord Leicester's
players, the depletion of which company at this time was occasioned by
the departure of seven of their members, including Kempe, Pope, and
Bryan, for Denmark.
Their next recorded provincial visit is to Ipswich under date of 20th
February 1586, when they are mentioned as the Lord Admiral's players. In
this same year they appear at Cambridge, also as the Lord Admiral's
players. On 15th November 1586 they are recorded at Coventry as having
been paid twenty shillings, and immediately following, under the same
date of entry, the Lord Chamberlain's men are recorded as being paid
three shillings and fourpence, and on 15th November 1587 they are again
recorded at Coventry as receiving twenty shillings; and again, under the
same date, is an entry recording the payment of five shillings "to the
Lord Chamberlain's Musicians that came with the Judge at the assizes."
The juxtaposition of the entries on these records of the names of these
two companies in 1586 and 1587, and their union in a performance before
the Court in January 1586, shows that a combination of some sort between
them was formed in 1585. _Who, then, were the men that composed the Lord
Admiral's company from 1585 to 1589?_
In 1592, when Lord Strange's players left Burbage to perform under
Henslowe at the Rose, we are assured that Edward Alleyn was the manager
of the company, and, though the manager of Lord Strange's company, that
he still styled himself a Lord Admiral's man. When, then, did Edward
Alleyn, who is mentioned in the Leicester records in 1584 as a member of
the Earl of Worcester's company, become a Lord Admiral's man and cease
to perform under the licence of the Earl of Worcester? Is it not
palpable that the change took place in 1585, when all records of
Worcester's company cease for several years and a new Lord Admiral's
company begins? The last record of a provincial performance for
Worcester's company is at Barnstaple in 1585. The Court and provincial
records of 1586 show that within about eight months of its inception the
Lord Admiral's company worked in conjunction with Burbage's players--the
Lord Chamberlain's men. That this connection continued in the case of
Edward Alleyn and a few others of the Admiral's men, who were old
Worcester men, and that they preserved their licensed identity through
the several changes in the title of the company, until they finally
separated early in 1594, shall be made apparent in this history.
It is evident that Edward Alleyn's brother, John Alleyn, joined the
Admiral's men at about the time of its inception, when his old company,
Lord Sheffield's players, suddenly disappear from the records. Their
last recorded provincial performance is in Coventry, under date of 15th
November 1585, _the Lord Admiral's men and the Lord Chamberlain's men
being recorded there under the same date of entry_. John Alleyn
continued his connection with the Lord Admiral's men at least as late as
July 1589, when he is mentioned as "servant to me the Lord Admiral" in a
letter from the Privy Council to certain aldermen. After this he is not
heard of again either in connection with Lord Strange's or the Admiral's
men. He was evidently one of the discarded actors in the reorganisations
of 1589-91.
Past critics, ignoring the fact that there are no records of either
Court, London, or provincial performances for Worcester's company
between 1585 and 1589-90, have assumed that this company was in
existence during these years, and that it was disrupted and reorganised
in 1589, Edward Alleyn leaving it and joining the Lord Admiral's men at
that period. This inference is drawn erroneously from the following
facts: first, that Richard Jones, who is recorded in 1584, in the
Leicester records, as a member of Lord Worcester's company, in January
1589, sold to Edward Alleyn his share in theatrical properties,
consisting of playing apparel, playbooks, instruments, etc., owned by
him conjointly with Robert Brown, Edward Alleyn, and his brother, John
Alleyn, all of whom are supposed to have been members of Worcester's
company at that time, as Brown and Edward Alleyn are also recorded in
1584 as members of that company; secondly, that John Alleyn is
mentioned as a servant to the Lord Admiral later on in this year; and
thirdly, that Edward Alleyn, when managing Lord Strange's company in
1593, is also mentioned as a Lord Admiral's man.
In the light of the foregoing facts and deductions it is evident that
the Earl of Worcester's company, or at least a large portion of it,
_became the Lord Admiral's company in 1585_, and that, at about the same
time, they became affiliated with Burbage and the Lord Chamberlain's
company. It is probable, however, that in making this change they
discarded some of their old members and took on others, John Alleyn
evidently joining them from Sheffield's company at that time.
The new licence they sought and secured in 1585 was evidently made
necessary by the disfavour and ill repute which the ill-regulated
behaviour of some of their members--whom they now discarded--had gained
for them. In June 1583 the Earl of Worcester's company was refused
permission to perform in Ipswich, the excuse being given that they had
passed through places infected by the plague. They were, however, given
a reward on their promise to leave the city, but instead of doing so
they proceeded to their inn and played there. The Mayor and Court
ordered that the Earl of Worcester should be notified, that this company
should never again receive a reward from the city, and that they leave
at once on pain of imprisonment. Though the Mayor and Court, at the
entreaty of the company, agreed not to inform the Earl of their
misconduct, it is not unlikely that this and similar happenings came to
his knowledge, as they seem to have had little respect for municipal
authorities. They were again in trouble in March 1584, when they
quarrelled with the Leicester authorities. Finding at their inn at
Leicester the commission of the Master of the Revels' company, which in
leaving Leicester three days before this company had inadvertently left
behind, they appropriated it and presented it to the Leicester
authorities as their own, stating that the previous company had stolen
it from them. Not being believed, they were forced to produce their own
licence, when they were refused permission to play, but given an angel
to pay for their dinner. Later in the day, meeting the Mayor on the
street, they again asked leave to play, and, being refused, abused the
Mayor with "evyll and contemptuous words, and said they would play
whether he wold or not," and went "in contempt of the Mayor with drum
and trumpet through the town." On apologising later to the Mayor and
begging him not to inform the Earl of Worcester, they secured leave to
play on condition that they prefaced their performance with an apology
for their misconduct and a statement that they were permitted to play
only by the Mayor's goodwill.[18]
If their past reputation had been good in Leicester there seems to be no
reason why they should have wished to perform under another company's
licence. We may infer that these were not isolated instances of their
misbehaviour, and that their change of title in 1585 was made necessary
by reports of their misconduct coming to the notice of the old Earl of
Worcester. No company of players is known to have acted under this
nobleman's licence after 1585.
In 1589, when the process of amalgamation between the Lord Admiral's,
the Lord Chamberlain's, and Lord Leicester's companies, and Lord
Strange's acrobats, which resulted in the formation of Lord Strange's
company, was under way, discarded members of their companies, including,
no doubt, some of the players of the old Worcester company, secured a
licence from the new Earl of Worcester and continued to perform--though
mostly as a provincial company--until 1603. Other old members, including
Robert Brown--the leader of the former Worcester company--and Richard
Jones, formed a new company for continental performances. Brown and
others continued to make continental trips for years afterwards, while
Richard Jones rejoined the Lord Admiral's men in 1594, after they and
the Lord Chamberlain's men had separated.
It was plainly, then, Richard Jones' share in the stage properties of
the Lord Admiral's company that Edward Alleyn bought in 1589. It is
apparent that he also bought out his brother's and Robert Brown's
shares, as neither of them afterwards appeared as Strange's or Admiral's
men. _This would give Edward Alleyn entire ownership of the properties
of the Admiral's company_, and, consequently, an important share in the
new amalgamation.
It was on Burbage's stage, then, that this great actor between 1585 and
1589--after having spent several years touring the provinces--entered
upon and established his metropolitan reputation, attaining in the
latter year, at the age of twenty-three, a large, if not the largest,
share in the properties and holdings, and also the management of the
strongest company of players in England, as well as the reputation of
being the greatest actor of the time.
It somewhat enlarges our old conception of the beginnings of
Shakespeare's theatrical experiences and dramatic inspiration to know,
that when he entered into relations with James Burbage, in 1586-87, and
for from four to six years afterwards, he had as intimate associates
both Edward Alleyn and Richard Burbage; two young men of about his own
age, who were already winning a good share of the notice and
appreciation that later established them as the leading actors of the
age. Which of them was the greater was one of the moot questions of the
day eight to ten years later, when they had become the star actors of
rival companies, and those the foremost two in London.
It is now pertinent to inquire as to which of these companies, if to
any, Shakespeare was connected previous to the amalgamation, and also,
whether or not he became a member of Lord Strange's company, along with
Richard Burbage, and acted under, or wrote for, Alleyn and Henslowe
between 1591 and 1594.
The suggestion which was first made by Mr. Fleay--in which he has since
been followed by encyclopædists and compilers--that Shakespeare joined
Lord Leicester's company upon one of its visits to Stratford-upon-Avon
in 1586 or 1587, is plainly without foundation in the light of the
foregoing facts, as is also his assumption that Lord Strange's company
was merely a continuation of Lord Leicester's company under new
patronage.
Lord Leicester's company spent the greater part of the years between
1585-86 and 1589 performing in the provinces. The records of its
provincial visits outnumber all of those recorded for the other three
companies concerned in the reorganisation of 1589. If Shakespeare acted
at all in these early years he must have done so merely incidentally.
When we bear in mind the volume and quality of his literary productions,
between 1591 and 1594, it becomes evident that his novitiate in dramatic
affairs in the dark years, between 1585-86 and 1592, was of a literary
rather than of an histrionic character, though he also acted in those
years. He would have found little time for dramatic composition or study
during these years had he accompanied Lord Leicester's company in their
provincial peregrinations. Bearing in mind his later habit of revising
earlier work it is not unlikely that some of his dramatic work, which
from internal and external evidence we now date between 1591 and 1594,
is rewritten or revised work originally produced before 1591.
It is palpable that Shakespeare had not been previously affiliated with
Lord Strange's acrobats, nor a member of the Lord Admiral's company, and
evident, in view of the above facts and deductions, as well as of his
future close and continuous connection with James Burbage, that his
inceptive years in London were spent in his service, working in various
capacities in his business and dramatic interests. It is apparent that
between 1586-87 and 1588-89 Shakespeare worked for James Burbage as a
bonded and hired servant. In Henslowe's _Diary_ there are several
instances of such bonds with hired servants, and covenant servants,
covering terms of years--usually from two to three--between Henslowe and
men connected with the Lord Admiral's company. It shall be shown later
that Nashe in his preface to Greene's _Menaphon_ alludes to Shakespeare
in this capacity.
The title of _Johannes factotum_, which Greene, in 1592, bestowed upon
Shakespeare, as well as the term "rude groome," which he inferentially
applies to him, when coupled with the tradition collected by Nicholas
Rowe, his earliest biographer, who writes: "He was received into the
company then in being, at first, in a very mean rank, but his admirable
wit, and the natural turn of it to the stage, soon distinguished him,
if not as an extraordinary actor, yet as an excellent writer," all point
to a business rather than to an exclusively histrionic connection with
the Burbages in his earlier London years. These evidences are confirmed
by the gossip of William Castle, who was parish clerk of Stratford for
many years, and who was born two years before Shakespeare died, and,
consequently, must have known and talked with many people who had known
Shakespeare. He frequently told visitors that Shakespeare was first
received in the playhouse as "a servitor." When the legal usage and
business customs of that period, as exhibited in legal records and in
Henslowe's _Diary_, are considered it becomes apparent that a youth of
from twenty-one to twenty-three years of age, newly come to London, with
no previous training in any particular capacity, with a bankrupt father
and without means of his own, could not very well associate himself with
a business concern in any other capacity than that of an indentured
apprentice or bonded and hired servant. Without such a legally ratified
connection with some employer, a youth of Shakespeare's poverty and
social degree, and a stranger in London, would be classed before the law
as a masterless man and a vagrant. The term "servitor" then does not
refer to his theatrical capacity--as stated by Halliwell-Phillipps--but
to his legal relations with James Burbage, his employer. Only sharers in
a company were classed as "servants" to the nobleman under whose
patronage they worked; the hired men were servants to the sharers, or to
the theatrical owner for whom they worked.
Being connected with the Burbages between 1586-87 to 1588-89, whatever
theatrical training Shakespeare may have received came undoubtedly from
his association with the Lord Admiral's and Lord Hunsdon's companies,
which performed at the Theatre in Shoreditch as one company during
these years, combining in the same manner as Strange's company and the
Lord Admiral's company did, under Henslowe and Alleyn at the Rose,
between 1592-94. Though in later life he was reputed to be a fair actor,
he never achieved great reputation in this capacity; it was plainly not
to acting that he devoted himself most seriously during these early
years. Working in the capacity of handy-man or, as Greene calls him,
_Johannes factotum_, for the Burbages, besides, possibly, taking general
charge of their stabling arrangements,--as tradition asserts,--he also,
no doubt, took care of the theatrical properties, which included the
MSS. and players' copies of the plays owned by the company. Though
Shakespeare's grammar school days ended in Stratford he took his
collegiate course in Burbage's Theatre. During the leisure hours of the
years of his servitorship he studied the arts as he found them in MS.
plays. _I shall show, later, that Robert Greene, through the pen of his
coadjutor, Thomas Nashe, in an earlier attack than that of 1592, refers
to Shakespeare's servitorship and to the acquisitions of knowledge he
made during his idle hours._ That he made good use of his time and his
materials, however, is demonstrated by the fact that in the four years
intervening between the end of 1590 and the end of 1594, he composed, at
least, seven original plays, two long poems, and over sixty sonnets;
much of this work being since and still regarded--three hundred years
after its production--as a portion of the world's greatest literature.
While it is apparent, even to those critics and biographers who admit
the likelihood that Shakespeare's earliest connection with theatrical
affairs was with the Burbage interests, that Lord Strange's company--of
which they, erroneously, suppose that he still continued to be a
member--ceased to perform under James Burbage in, or before, February
1592, when they began to play under Alleyn and Henslowe's management at
the Rose Theatre, no previous attempt has been made to explain the
reasons for Lord Strange's company's connection with Henslowe, or to
account for the fact that no plays written by Shakespeare were presented
by this company while they performed at the Rose Theatre, though it is
very evident, and admitted by all critics, that he composed several
original plays during this interval.
As it is probable that James Burbage, through his son Richard, retained
some interest in Lord Strange's company during the period that it acted
under Henslowe's and Alleyn's management, the question naturally arises,
Why should Lord Strange's company, which was composed largely of members
of Leicester's and Hunsdon's company, both of which, affiliated with the
Admiral's men, had been previously associated with the Burbage
interests--why should this company, having Richard Burbage in its
membership, enter into business relations with Henslowe and perform for
two years at the Rose Theatre instead of playing under James Burbage at
the Theatre in Shoreditch in summer, and at the Crosskeys in winter,
where they formerly played?
A consideration of the business affairs of James Burbage will show that
the temporary severance of his business relations with Strange's men was
due to legal and financial difficulties in which he became involved at
this time, when strong financial backing became necessary to establish
and maintain this new company, which, I have indicated, had been formed
specially for Court performances. It also appears evident that he again
incurred the disfavour of Lord Burghley and the authorities at this
time.
In the following chapter I analyse the reasons for the separation of
Strange's company from Burbage at this time and give inceptive evidence
that Shakespeare did not accompany Strange's men to Henslowe and the
Rose, but that he remained with Burbage as the manager and principal
writer for the Earl of Pembroke's company--a fact regarding his history
which has not hitherto been suspected.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 10: This interesting fact, hitherto unknown, has recently been
pointed out by Mrs. C.C. Stopes, _Burbage and Shakespeare's Stage_,
London, 1913.]
[Footnote 11: A critical examination of the records of the _English
Dramatic Companies_, 1558-1642, collected by Mr. John Tucker Murray,
convinces me that such affiliations as those mentioned above existed
between Lord Hunsdon's company and the Earl of Leicester's company from
1582-83 until 1585, and between the remnant of Leicester's
company,--which remained in England when their fellows went to the
Continent in 1585,--the Lord Admiral's company, and the Lord
Chamberlain's company from 1585 until 1589, and following a
reorganisation in that year--when the Lord Chamberlain's and Leicester's
companies merged with Lord Strange's company--between this new Lord
Strange's company and the Lord Admiral's company until 1591, when a
further reorganisation took place, the majority of Strange's and the
Admiral's men going to Henslowe and the Rose, and a portion, including
Shakespeare, remaining with Burbage and reorganising in this year with
accretions from the now disrupting Queen's company, including Gabriel
Spencer and Humphrey Jeffes, as the Earl of Pembroke's company; John
Sinkler, and possibly others from the Queen's company, evidently joined
the Strange-Admiral's men at the same time. The mention of the names of
these three men--two of them Pembroke's men and one a Strange's man
after 1592--in the stage directions of _The True Tragedy of the Duke of
York_, can be accounted for only by the probable fact that all three
were members of the company that originally owned the play, and that
this was the Queen's company is generally conceded by critics.
In order to restore their own acting strength the depleted Queen's
company appears now to have formed similar affiliations with the Earl of
Sussex's company, continuing the connection until 1594. In this year
Strange's men (now the Lord Chamberlain's men) returned to Burbage while
the Admiral's portion of the combination stayed with Henslowe as the
Lord Admiral's company. These two companies now restored their full
numbers by taking on men from the Earl of Pembroke's and the Earl of
Sussex's companies; both of which now cease to work as independent
companies, though the portion of Pembroke's men that returned to
Henslowe, including Spencer and Jeffes, appear to have retained their
own licensed identity until 1597, when several of them definitely joined
Henslowe as Admiral men. Some Pembroke's and Sussex's men, not taken by
Burbage or Henslowe in 1594, evidently joined the Queen's company at
that time. Henslowe financed his brother Francis Henslowe in the
purchase of a share in the Queen's company at about this time.]
[Footnote 12: _Queen Elizabeth and Her Times_, by Thomas Wright, 1838.]
[Footnote 13: Sir Sidney Lee, who as a rule follows Halliwell-Phillipps
implicitly, in _A Life of William Shakespeare_, p. 59, writes: "James
Burbage, in spite of pecuniary embarrassments, remained manager and
owner of the Theatre for twenty-one years"; but in a footnote on p. 52,
writes: "During 1584 an unnamed person, vaguely described as 'the owner
of the Theatre,' claimed that he was under Lord Hunsdon's protection;
the reference is probably to one John Hyde, to whom the Theatre was
mortgaged." There is surely nothing vague in the expression "owner of
the Theatre," especially when we remember that it was used by an
important legal functionary in one of his weekly reports to Lord
Treasurer Burghley. Recorder Fleetwood was a very exact and legal-minded
official, and in using the term "the owner" he undoubtedly meant the
owner and, it may be implied from the context, also the manager. Burbage
was clearly manager and owner of the Theatre at this period.]
[Footnote 14: This Browne was in all probability the notorious Ned
Browne of whom Robert Greene wrote in 1592, _The Blacke Bookes
Messenger_, "Laying open the life and death of Ned Browne one of the
worst cutpurses, crosbiters, and conycatchers that ever lived in
England. Herein he tells verie pleasantly in his owne person such
strange pranks and monstrous villanies by him and his consorts performed
as the like was yet never heard of in any of the former bookes of
conycatching, etc. By R.G. Printed at London by John Danter for Thomas
Nelson, dwelling in Silver Street, neere to the sign of the Red Crosse,
1592, Quarto." Fleetwood writes later of Browne: "This Browne is a
common cousener, a thief and a horse stealer and colloureth all his
doings here about this town with a sute that he hath in the lawe against
a brother of his in Staffordshire. He resteth now in Newgate."]
[Footnote 15: _English Dramatic Companies_, by John Tucker Murray, vol.
i. p. 201.]
[Footnote 16: That Tarleton was a member of the Queen's company in 1588
is shown by a reference in his will, which is dated in this year, to "my
fellow, William Johnson."]
[Footnote 17: Previous to the affiliations between Strange's tumblers
and the Lord Admiral's company they seem to have maintained intermittent
relations with the Queen's company, and are sometimes mentioned as the
Queen's tumblers.]
[Footnote 18: _English Dramatic Companies_, 1558-1642, p. 43, by John
Tucker Murray.]