THE THEATRE
The hostility of the city to the drama was unquestionably the main
cause of the erection of the first playhouse; yet combined with this
were two other important causes, usually overlooked. The first was the
need of a building specially designed to meet the requirements of the
players and of the public, a need yearly growing more urgent as plays
became more complex, acting developed into a finer art, and audiences
increased in dignity as well as in size. The second and the more
immediate cause was the appearance of a man with business insight
enough to see that such a building would pay. The first playhouse, we
should remember, was not erected by a troupe of actors, but by a
money-seeking individual.[30] Although he was himself an actor, and
the manager of a troupe, he did not, it seems, take the troupe into
his confidence. In complete independence of any theatrical
organization he proceeded with the erection of his building as a
private speculation; and, we are told, he dreamed of the "continual
great profit and commodity through plays that should be used there
every week."
[Footnote 30: I emphasize this point because the opposite is the
accepted opinion. We find it expressed in _The Cambridge History of
English Literature_, VI, 431, as follows: "Certain players, finding
the city obdurate, and unwilling to submit to its severe regulations,
began to look about them for some means of carrying on their business
out of reach of the mayor's authority," etc.]
This man, "the first builder of playhouses,"--and, it might have been
added, the pioneer in a new field of business,--was James Burbage,
originally, as we are told by one who knew him well, "by occupation a
joiner; and reaping but a small living by the same, gave it over and
became a common player in plays."[31] As an actor he was more
successful, for as early as 1572 we find him at the head of
Leicester's excellent troupe.
[Footnote 31: Deposition by Robert Myles, 1592, printed in Wallace's
_The First London Theatre_, p. 141.]
Having in 1575 conceived the notion of erecting a building specially
designed for dramatic entertainments, he was at once confronted with
the problem of a suitable location. Two conditions narrowed his
choice: first, the site had to be outside the jurisdiction of the
Common Council; secondly, it had to be as near as possible to the
city.
No doubt he at once thought of the two suburbs that were specially
devoted to recreation, the Bankside to the south, and Finsbury Field
to the north of the city. The Bankside had for many years been
associated in the minds of Londoners with "sports and pastimes."
Thither the citizens were accustomed to go to witness bear-baiting
and bull-baiting, to practice archery, and to engage in various
athletic sports. Thither, too, for many years the actors had gone to
present their plays. In 1545 King Henry VIII had issued a proclamation
against vagabonds, ruffians, idle persons, and common players,[32] in
which he referred to their "fashions commonly used at the Bank." The
Bankside, however, was associated with the lowest and most vicious
pleasures of London, for here were situated the stews, bordering the
river's edge. Since the players were at this time subject to the
bitterest attacks from the London preachers, Burbage wisely decided
not to erect the first permanent home of the drama in a locality
already a common target for puritan invective.
[Footnote 32: See page 134.]
The second locality, Finsbury Field, had nearly all the advantages,
and none of the disadvantages, of the Bankside. Since 1315 the Field
had been in the possession of the city,[33] and had been used as a
public playground, where families could hold picnics, falconers could
fly their hawks, archers could exercise their sport, and the militia
on holidays could drill with all "the pomp and circumstance of
glorious war." In short, the Field was eminently respectable, was
accessible to the city, and was definitely associated with the idea of
entertainment. The locality, therefore, was almost ideal for the
purpose Burbage had in mind.[34]
[Footnote 33: See _The Remembrancia_, p. 274; Stow, _Survey_. The
Corporation of London held the manor on lease from St. Paul's
Cathedral until 1867.]
[Footnote 34: Doubtless, too, Burbage was influenced in his choice by
the fact that he had already made his home in the Liberty of
Shoreditch, near Finsbury Field.]
The new playhouse, of course, could not be erected in the Field
itself, which was under the control of the city; but just to the east
of the Field certain vacant land, part of the dissolved Priory of
Holywell, offered a site in every way suitable to the purpose. The
Holywell property, at the dissolution of the Priory, had passed under
the jurisdiction of the Crown, and hence the Lord Mayor and the
Aldermen could not enforce municipal ordinances there. Moreover, it
was distant from the city wall not much more than half a mile. The old
conventual church had been demolished, the Priory buildings had been
converted into residences, and the land near the Shoreditch highway
had been built up with numerous houses. The land next to the Field,
however, was for the most part undeveloped. It contained some
dilapidated tenements, a few old barns formerly belonging to the
Priory, and small garden plots, conspicuous objects in the early maps.
[Illustration: THE SITE OF THE FIRST PLAYHOUSES
Finsbury Field lies to the north (beyond Moor Field, the small
rectangular space next to the city wall), and the Holywell Property
lies to the right of Finsbury Field, between the Field and the
highway. Holywell Lane divides the garden plots; the Theatre was
erected just to the north, and the Curtain just to the south of this
lane, facing the Field. (From the _Map of London_ by Braun and
Hogenbergius representing the city as it was in 1554-1558.)]
Burbage learned that a large portion of this land lying next to the
Field was in the possession of a well-to-do gentleman named Gyles
Alleyn,[35] and that Alleyn was willing to lease a part of his
holding on the conditions of development customary in this section of
London. These conditions are clearly revealed in a chancery suit of
1591:
The ground there was for the most part converted first into
garden plots, and then leasing the same to diverse tenants
caused them to covenant or promise to build upon the same,
by occasion whereof the buildings which are there were for
the most part erected and the rents increased.[36]
[Footnote 35: For a detailed history of the property from the year
1128, and for the changes in the ownership of Alleyn's portion after
the dissolution, see Braines, _Holywell Priory_.]
[Footnote 36: Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 365. The suit
concerns the Curtain property, somewhat south of the Alleyn property,
but a part of the Priory.]
The part of Alleyn's property on which Burbage had his eye was in sore
need of improvement. It consisted of five "paltry tenements,"
described as "old, decayed, and ruinated for want of reparation, and
the best of them was but of two stories high," and a long barn "very
ruinous and decayed and ready to have fallen down," one half of which
was used as a storage-room, the other half as a slaughter-house. Three
of the tenements had small gardens extending back to the Field, and
just north of the barn was a bit of "void ground," also adjoining the
Field. It was this bit of "void ground" that Burbage had selected as a
suitable location for his proposed playhouse. The accompanying map of
the property[37] will make clear the position of this "void ground"
and of the barns and tenements about it. Moreover, it will serve to
indicate the exact site of the Theatre. If one will bear in mind the
fact that in the London of to-day Curtain Road marks the eastern
boundary of Finsbury Field, and New Inn Yard cuts off the lower half
of the Great Barn, he will be able to place Burbage's structure within
a few yards.[38]
[Footnote 37: I have based this map in large measure on the documents
presented by Braines in his excellent pamphlet, _Holywell Priory_.]
[Footnote 38: For proof see Braines, _op. cit._]
[Illustration: A PLAN OF BURBAGE'S HOLYWELL PROPERTY
Based on the lease, and on the miscellaneous documents printed by
Halliwell-Phillipps and by Braines. The "common sewer" is now marked
by Curtain Road, and the "ditch from the horse-pond" by New Inn Yard.]
The property is carefully described in the lease--quoted below--which
Burbage secured from Alleyn, but the reader will need to refer to the
map in order to follow with ease the several paragraphs of
description:[39]
All those two houses or tenements, with appurtenances, which
at the time of the said former demise made were in the
several tenures or occupations of Joan Harrison, widow, and
John Dragon.
And also all that house or tenement with the appurtenances,
together with the garden ground lying behind part of the
same, being then likewise in the occupation of William
Gardiner; which said garden plot doth extend in breadth from
a great stone wall there which doth enclose part of the
garden then or lately being in the occupation of the said
Gyles, unto the garden there then in the occupation of Edwin
Colefox, weaver, and in length from the same house or
tenement unto a brick wall there next unto the fields
commonly called Finsbury Fields.
And also all that house or tenement, with the appurtenances,
at the time of the said former demise made called or known
by the name of the Mill-house; together with the garden
ground lying behind part of the same, also at the time of
the said former demise made being in the tenure or
occupation of the aforesaid Edwin Colefox, or of his
assigns; which said garden ground doth extend in length from
the same house or tenement unto the aforesaid brick wall
next unto the aforesaid Fields.
And also all those three upper rooms, with the
appurtenances, next adjoining to the aforesaid Mill-house,
also being at the time of the said former demise made in the
occupation of Thomas Dancaster, shoemaker, or of his
assigns; and also all the nether rooms, with the
appurtenances, lying under the same three upper rooms, and
next adjoining also to the aforesaid house or tenement
called the Mill-house, then also being in the several
tenures or occupations of Alice Dotridge, widow, and Richard
Brockenbury, or of their assigns; together with the garden
ground lying behind the same, extending in length from the
same nether rooms down unto the aforesaid brick wall next
unto the aforesaid Fields, and then or late being also in
the tenure or occupation of the aforesaid Alice Dotridge.
And also so much of the ground and soil lying and being
afore all the tenements or houses before granted, as
extendeth in length from the outward part of the aforesaid
tenements being at the time of the making of the said former
demise in the occupation of the aforesaid Joan Harrison and
John Dragon, unto a pond there being next unto the barn or
stable then in the occupation of the right honorable the
Earl of Rutland or of his assigns, and in breadth from the
aforesaid tenement or Mill-house to the midst of the well
being afore the same tenements.
And also all that Great Barn, with the appurtenances, at the
time of the making of the said former demise made being in
the several occupations of Hugh Richards, innholder, and
Robert Stoughton, butcher; and also a little piece of ground
then inclosed with a pale and next adjoining to the
aforesaid barn, and then or late before that in the
occupation of the said Robert Stoughton; together also with
all the ground and soil lying and being between the said
nether rooms last before expressed, and the aforesaid Great
Barn, and the aforesaid pond; that is to say, extending in
length from the aforesaid pond unto a ditch beyond the brick
wall next the aforesaid Fields.
And also the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife do by these
presents demise, grant, and to farm lett unto the said James
Burbage all the right, title, and interest which the said
Gyles and Sara have or ought to have in or to all the
grounds and soil lying between the aforesaid Great Barn and
the barn being at the time of the said former demise in the
occupation of the Earl of Rutland or of his assigns,
extending in length from the aforesaid pond and from the
aforesaid stable or barn then in the occupation of the
aforesaid Earl of Rutland or of his assigns, down to the
aforesaid brick wall next the aforesaid Fields.[40]
And also the said Gyles and Sara do by these presents
demise, grant, and to farm lett to the said James all the
said void ground lying and being betwixt the aforesaid ditch
and the aforesaid brick wall, extending in length from the
aforesaid [great stone] wall[41] which encloseth part of the
aforesaid garden being at the time of the making of the said
former demise or late before that in the occupation of the
said Gyles Allen, unto the aforesaid barn then in the
occupation of the aforesaid Earl or of his assigns.
[Footnote 39: The original lease may be found incorporated in Alleyn
_v._ Street, Coram Rege, 1599-1600, printed in full by Wallace, _The
First London Theatre_, pp. 163-80, and again in Alleyn _v._ Burbage,
Queen's Bench, 1602, Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 267-75. The lease, I
think, was in English not Latin, and hence is more correctly given in
the first document; in the second document the scrivener has
translated it into Latin. The lease is also given in part on page
187.]
[Footnote 40: This part of the property was claimed by the Earl of
Rutland, and was being used by him. For a long time it was the subject
of dispute. Ultimately, it seems, the Earl secured the title, as he
had always had the use of the property. This probably explains why
Burbage did not attempt to erect his playhouse there.]
[Footnote 41: The document by error reads "brick wall" but the mistake
is obvious, and the second version of the lease does not repeat the
error. This clause merely means that the ditch, not the brick wall,
constituted the western boundary of the property.]
The lease was formally signed on April 13, 1576, and Burbage entered
into the possession of his property. Since the terms of the lease are
important for an understanding of the subsequent history of the
playhouse, I shall set these forth briefly:
First, the lease was to run for twenty-one years from April 13, 1576,
at an annual rental of L14.
Secondly, Burbage was to spend before the expiration of ten years the
sum of L200 in rebuilding and improving the decayed tenements.
Thirdly, in view of this expenditure of L200, Burbage was to have at
the end of the ten years the right to renew the lease at the same
rental of L14 a year for twenty-one years, thus making the lease good
in all for thirty-one years:
And the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife did thereby
covenant with the said James Burbage that they should and
would at any time within the ten years next ensuing at or
upon the lawful request or demand of the said James Burbage
make or cause to be made to the said James Burbage a new
lease or grant like to the same presents for the term of one
and twenty years more, to begin from the date of making the
same lease, yielding therefor the rent reserved in the
former indenture.[42]
[Footnote 42: Quoted from Burbage _v._ Alleyn, Court of Requests,
1600, Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 182. I have stripped the passage of some
of its legal verbiage.]
Fourthly, it was agreed that at any time before the expiration of the
lease, Burbage might take down and carry away to his own use any
building that in the mean time he might have erected on the vacant
ground for the purpose of a playhouse:
And farther, the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife did
covenant and grant to the said James Burbage that it should
and might be lawful to the said James Burbage (in
consideration of the imploying and bestowing the foresaid
two hundred pounds in forme aforesaid) at any time or times
before the end of the said term of one and twenty years, to
have, take down, and carry away to his own proper use for
ever all such buildings and other things as should be
builded, erected, or set up in or upon the gardens and void
grounds by the said James, either for a theatre or playing
place, or for any other lawful use, without any stop, claim,
let, trouble, or interruption of the said Gyles Alleyn and
Sara his wife.[43]
[Footnote 43: Quoted from Burbage _v._ Alleyn, Court of Requests,
1600, Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 182.]
Protected by these specific terms, Burbage proceeded to the erection
of his playhouse. He must have had faith and abundant courage, for he
was a poor man, quite unequal to the large expenditures called for by
his plans. A person who had known him for many years, deposed in 1592
that "James Burbage was not at the time of the first beginning of the
building of the premises worth above one hundred marks[44] in all his
substance, for he and this deponent were familiarly acquainted long
before that time and ever since."[45] We are not surprised to learn,
therefore, that he was "constrained to borrow diverse sums of money,"
and that he actually pawned the lease itself to a money-lender.[46]
Even so, without assistance, we are told, he "should never be able to
build it, for it would cost five times as much as he was worth."
[Footnote 44: That is, about L80.]
[Footnote 45: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 134; cf. p. 153.]
[Footnote 46: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 151. Cuthbert Burbage declared
in 1635: "The Theatre he built with many hundred pounds taken up at
interest." (Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 317.)]
Fortunately he had a wealthy brother-in-law, John Brayne,[47] a London
grocer, described as "worth five hundred pounds at the least, and by
common fame worth a thousand marks."[48] In some way Brayne became
interested in the new venture. Like Burbage, he believed that large
profits would flow from such a novel undertaking; and as a result he
readily agreed to share the expense of erecting and maintaining the
building. Years later members of the Brayne faction asserted that
James Burbage "induced" his brother-in-law to venture upon the
enterprise by unfairly representing the great profits to ensue;[49]
but the evidence, I think, shows that Brayne eagerly sought the
partnership. Burbage himself asserted in 1588 that Brayne "practiced
to obtain some interest therein," and presumed "that he might easily
compass the same by reason that he was natural brother"; and that he
voluntarily offered to "bear and pay half the charges of the said
building then bestowed and thereafter to be bestowed" in order "that
he might have the moiety[50] of the above named Theatre."[51] As a
further inducement, so the Burbages asserted, he promised that "for
that he had no children," the moiety at his death should go to the
children of James Burbage, "whose advancement he then seemed greatly
to tender."
[Footnote 47: The name is often spelled "Braynes."]
[Footnote 48: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 109.]
[Footnote 49: See Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 139 _seq._]
[Footnote 50: That is, half-interest.]
[Footnote 51: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 40.]
Whatever caused Brayne to interest himself in the venture, he quickly
became fired with such hopes of great gain that he not only spent upon
the building all the money he could gather or borrow, but sold his
stock of groceries for L146, disposed of his house for L100, even
pawned his clothes, and put his all into the new structure. The spirit
in which he worked to make the venture a success, and the personal
sacrifices that he and his wife made, fully deserve the quotation
here of two legal depositions bearing on the subject:
This deponent, being servant, in Bucklersbury, aforesaid, to
one Robert Kenningham, grocer, in which street the said John
Brayne dwelled also, and of the same trade, he, the said
Brayne, at the time he joined with the said James Burbage in
the aforesaid lease, was reputed among his neighbors to be
worth one thousand pounds at the least, and that after he
had joined with the said Burbage in the matter of the
building of the said Theatre, he began to slack his own
trade, and gave himself to the building thereof, and the
chief care thereof he took upon him, and hired workmen of
all sorts for that purpose, bought timber and all other
things belonging thereunto, and paid all. So as, in this
deponent's conscience, he bestowed thereupon for his owne
part the sum of one thousand marks at the least, in so much
as his affection was given so greatly to the finishing
thereof, in hope of great wealth and profit during their
lease, that at the last he was driven to sell to this
deponent's father his lease of the house wherein he dwelled
for L100, and to this deponent all such wares as he had left
and all that belonged thereunto remaining in the same, for
the sum of L146 and odd money, whereof this deponent did pay
for him to one Kymbre, an ironmonger in London, for iron
work which the said Brayne bestowed upon the said Theatre,
the sum of L40. And afterwards the said Brayne took the
matter of the said building so upon him as he was driven to
borrow money to supply the same, saying to this deponent
that his brother Burbage was not able to help the same, and
that he found not towards it above the value of fifty
pounds, some part in mony and the rest in stuff.[52]
[Footnote 52: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 136.]
In reading the next deposition, one should bear in mind the fact that
the deponent, Robert Myles, was closely identified with the Brayne
faction, and was, therefore, a bitter enemy to the Burbages. Yet his
testimony, though prejudiced, gives us a vivid picture of Brayne's
activity in the building of the Theatre:
So the said John Brayne made a great sum of money of purpose
and intent to go to the building of the said playhouse, and
thereupon did provide timber and other stuff needful for the
building thereof, and hired carpenters and plasterers for
the same purpose, and paid the workmen continually. So as he
for his part laid out of his own purse and what upon credit
about the same to the sum of L600 or L700 at the least. And
in the same time, seeing the said James Burbage nothing able
either of himself or by his credit to contribute any like
sum towards the building thereof, being then to be finished
or else to be lost that had been bestowed upon it already,
the said Brayne was driven to sell his house he dwelled in
in Bucklersbury, and all his stock that was left, and give
up his trade, yea in the end to pawn and sell both his own
garments and his wife's, and to run in debt to many for
money, to finish the said playhouse, and so to employ
himself only upon that matter, and all whatsoever he could
make, to his utter undoing, for he saieth that in the latter
end of the finishing thereof, the said Brayne and his wife,
the now complainants, were driven to labor in the said work
for saving of some of the charge in place of two laborers,
whereas the said James Burbage went about his own business,
and at sometimes when he did take upon him to do some thing
in the said work, he would be and was allowed a workman's
hire as other the workman there had.[53]
[Footnote 53: Brayne _v._ Burbage, 1592. Printed in full by Wallace,
_op cit._ p. 141.]
The last fling at Burbage is quite gratuitous; yet it is probably true
that the main costs of erecting the playhouse fell upon the shoulders
of Brayne. The evidence is contradictory; some persons assert that
Burbage paid half the cost of the building,[54] others that Brayne
paid nearly all,[55] and still others content themselves with saying
that Brayne paid considerably more than half. The last statement may
be accepted as true. The assertion of Gyles Alleyn in 1601, that the
Theatre was "erected at the costs and charges of one Brayne and not of
the said James Burbage, to the value of one thousand marks,"[56] is
doubtless incorrect; more correct is the assertion of Robert Myles,
executor of the Widow Brayne's will, in 1597: "The said John Brayne
did join with the said James [Burbage] in the building aforesaid, and
did expend thereupon greater sums than the said James, that is to say,
at least five or six hundred pounds."[57] Since there is evidence
that the playhouse ultimately cost about L700,[58] we might hazard the
guess that of this sum Brayne furnished about L500,[59] and Burbage
about L200. To equalize the expenditure it was later agreed that "the
said Brayne should take and receive all the rents and profits of the
said Theatre to his own use until he should be answered such sums of
money which he had laid out for and upon the same Theatre more than
the said Burbage had done."[60]
[Footnote 54: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 213, 217, 263, 265, _et al._]
[Footnote 55: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 137, 141, 142, 148, 153.]
[Footnote 56: Alleyn _v._ Burbage, Star Chamber Proceedings, 1601-02;
printed by Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 277.]
[Footnote 57: Myles _v._ Burbage and Alleyn, 1597; printed by Wallace,
_op. cit._, p. 159; cf. pp. 263, 106, 152.]
[Footnote 58: See Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 277.]
[Footnote 59: This agrees with the claim of Brayne's widow.]
[Footnote 60: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 120.]
But if Burbage at the outset was "nothing able to contribute any"
great sum of ready money towards the building of the first playhouse,
he did contribute other things equally if not more important. In the
first place, he conceived the idea, and he carried it as far towards
realization as his means allowed. In the second place, he planned the
building--its stage as well as its auditorium--to meet the special
demands of the actors and the comfort of the audience. This called for
bold originality and for ingenuity of a high order, for, it must be
remembered, he had no model to study--he was designing the first
structure of its kind in England.[61] For this task he was well
prepared. In the first place, he was an actor of experience; in the
second place, he was the manager of one of the most important troupes
in England; and, in the third place, he was by training and early
practice a carpenter and builder. In other words, he had exact
knowledge of what was needed, and the practical skill to meet those
needs.
[Footnote 61: Mr. E.K. Chambers (_The Mediaeval Stage_, I, 383, note 2;
II, 190, note 4) calls attention to a "theatre" belonging to the city
of Essex as early as 1548. Possibly the Latin document he cites
referred to an amphitheatre of some sort near the city which was used
for dramatic performances; at any rate "in theatro" does not
necessarily imply the existence of a playhouse (cf., for example, _op.
cit._, I, 81-82). There is also a reference (quoted by Chambers, _op.
cit._, II, 191, note 1, from _Norfolk Archaeology_, XI, 336) to a
"game-house" built by the corporation of Yarmouth in 1538 for dramatic
performances. What kind of house this was we do not know, but the
corporation leased it for other purposes, with the proviso that it
should be available "at all such times as any interludes or plays
should be ministered or played." Howes, in his continuation of Stow's
_Annals_ (1631), p. 1004, declares that before Burbage's time he
"neither knew, heard, nor read of any such theatres, set stages, or
playhouses as have been purposely built, within man's memory"; and
Cuthbert Burbage confidently asserted that his father "was the first
builder of playhouses"--an assertion which, I think, cannot well be
denied.]
The building that he designed and erected he named--as by virtue of
priority he had a right to do--"The Theatre."
Of the Theatre, unfortunately, we have no pictorial representation,
and no formal description, so that our knowledge of its size, shape,
and general arrangement must be derived from scattered and
miscellaneous sources. That the building was large we may feel sure;
the cost of its erection indicates as much. The Fortune, one of the
largest and handsomest of the later playhouses, cost only L520, and
the Hope, also very large, cost L360. The Theatre, therefore, built at
a cost of L700, could not have been small. It is commonly referred to,
even so late as 1601, as "the great house called the Theatre," and the
author of _Skialetheia_ (1598) applied to it the significant adjective
"vast." Burbage, no doubt, had learned from his experience as manager
of a troupe the pecuniary advantage of having an auditorium large
enough to receive all who might come. Exactly how many people his
building could accommodate we cannot say. The Reverend John Stockwood,
in 1578, exclaims bitterly: "Will not a filthy play, with the blast of
a trumpet, sooner call thither a thousand than an hour's tolling of
the bell bring to the sermon a hundred?"[62] And Fleetwood, the City
Recorder, in describing a quarrel which took place in 1584 "at Theatre
door," states that "near a thousand people" quickly assembled when the
quarrel began.
[Footnote 62: The rest of his speech indicates that he had the Theatre
in mind. The passage, of course, is rhetorical.]
In shape the building was probably polygonal, or circular. I see no
good reason for supposing that it was square; Johannes de Witt
referred to it as an "amphitheatre," and the Curtain, erected the
following year in imitation, was probably polygonal.[63] It was built
of timber, and its exterior, no doubt, was--as in the case of
subsequent playhouses--of lime and plaster. The interior consisted of
three galleries surrounding an open space called the "yard." The
German traveler, Samuel Kiechel, who visited London in the autumn of
1585, described the playhouses--i.e., the Theatre and the Curtain--as
"singular [_sonderbare_] houses, which are so constructed that they
have about three galleries, one above the other."[64] And Stephen
Gosson, in _Plays Confuted_ (_c._ 1581) writes: "In the playhouses at
London, it is the fashion for youths to go first into the yard, and to
carry their eye through every gallery; then, like unto ravens, where
they spy the carrion, thither they fly, and press as near to the
fairest as they can." The "yard" was unroofed, and all persons there
had to stand during the entire performance. The galleries, however,
were protected by a roof, were divided into "rooms," and were provided
for the most part with seats. Gyles Alleyn inserted in the lease he
granted to Burbage the following condition:
And further, that it shall or may [be] lawful for the said
Gyles and for his wife and family, upon lawful request
therefor made to the said James Burbage, his executors or
assigns, to enter or come into the premises, and there in
some one of the upper rooms to have such convenient place to
sit or stand to see such plays as shall be there played,
freely without anything therefor paying.[65]
[Footnote 63: One cannot be absolutely sure, yet the whole history of
early playhouses indicates that the Theatre was polygonal (or
circular) in shape. The only reason for suspecting that it might have
been square, doubtfully presented by T.S. Graves in "The Shape of the
First London Theatre" (_The South Atlantic Quarterly_, July, 1914),
seems to me to deserve no serious consideration.]
[Footnote 64: Quoted by W.B. Rye, _England as Seen by Foreigners_, p.
88.]
[Footnote 65: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 177.]
The stage was a platform, projecting into the yard, with a
tiring-house at the rear, and a balcony overhead. The details of the
stage, no doubt, were subject to alteration as experience suggested,
for its materials were of wood, and histrionic and dramatic art were
both undergoing rapid development.[66] The furnishings and
decorations, as in the case of modern playhouses, seem to have been
ornate. Thus T[homas] W[hite], in _A Sermon Preached at Pawles Crosse,
on Sunday the Thirde of November, 1577_, exclaims: "Behold the
sumptuous Theatre houses, a continual monument of London's
prodigality"; John Stockwood, in _A Sermon Preached at Paules Cross,
1578_, refers to it as "the gorgeous playing place erected in the
Fields"; and Gabriel Harvey could think of no more appropriate epithet
for it than "painted"--"painted theatres," "painted stage."
[Footnote 66: There is no reason whatever to suppose, with Ordish,
Mantzius, Lawrence, and others, that the stage of the Theatre was
removable; for although the building was frequently used by fencers,
tumblers, etc., it was never, so far as I can discover, used for
animal-baiting.]
The building was doubtless used for dramatic performances in the
autumn of 1576, although it was not completed until later; John
Grigges, one of the carpenters, deposed that Burbage and Brayne
"finished the same with the help of the profits that grew by plays
used there before it was fully finished."[67] Access to the playhouse
was had chiefly by way of Finsbury Field and a passage made by Burbage
through the brick wall mentioned in the lease.[68]
[Footnote 67: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 135.]
[Footnote 68: For depositions to this effect see Halliwell-Phillipps,
_Outlines_, I, 350 ff.]
The terms under which the owners let it to the actors were simple: the
actors retained as their share the pennies paid at the outer doors for
general admission, and the proprietors received as their share the
money paid for seats or standings in the galleries.[69] Cuthbert
Burbage states in 1635: "The players that lived in those first times
had only the profits arising from the doors, but now the players
receive all the comings in at the doors to themselves, and half the
galleries."[70]
[Footnote 69: I suspect that the same terms were made with the actors
by the proprietors of the inn-playhouses.]
[Footnote 70: Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 317.]
Before the expiration of two years, or in the early summer of 1578,
Burbage and Brayne began to quarrel about the division of the money
which fell to their share. Brayne apparently thought that he should at
once be indemnified for all the money he had expended on the playhouse
in excess of Burbage; and he accused Burbage of "indirect
dealing"--there were even whispers of "a secret key" to the "common
box" in which the money was kept.[71] Finally they agreed to "submit
themselves to the order and arbitrament of certain persons for the
pacification thereof," and together they went to the shop of a notary
public to sign a bond agreeing to abide by the decision of the
arbitrators. There they "fell a reasoning together," in the course of
which Brayne asserted that he had disbursed in the Theatre "three
times at the least as much more as the sum then disbursed by the said
James Burbage." In the end Brayne unwisely hinted at "ill dealing" on
the part of Burbage, whereupon "Burbage did there strike him with his
fist, and so they went together by the ears, in so much," says the
notary, "that this deponent could hardly part them." After they were
parted, they signed a bond of L200 to abide by the decision of the
arbitrators. The arbitrators, John Hill and Richard Turnor, "men of
great honesty and credit," held their sessions "in the Temple church,"
whither they summoned witnesses. Finally, on July 12, 1578, after
"having thoroughly heard" both sides, they awarded that the profits
from the Theatre should be used first to pay the debts upon the
building, then to pay Brayne the money he had expended in excess of
Burbage, and thereafter to be shared "in divident equally between
them."[72] These conditions, however, were not observed, and the
failure to observe them led to much subsequent discord.
[Footnote 71: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 142, 148.]
[Footnote 72: For the history of this quarrel, and for other details
of the award see Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 102, 119, 138, 142, 143,
148, 152.]
The arbitrators also decided that "if occasion should move them
[Burbage and Brayne] to borrow any sum of money for the payment of
their debts owing for any necessary use and thing concerning the said
Theatre, that then the said James Burbage and the said John Brayne
should _join_ in pawning or mortgageing of their estate and interest
of and in the same."[73] An occasion for borrowing money soon arose.
So on September 26, 1579, the two partners mortgaged the Theatre to
John Hide for the sum of L125 8_s._ 11_d._ At the end of a year, by
non-payment, they forfeited the mortgage, and the legal title to the
property passed to Hide. It seems, however, that because of some
special clause in the mortgage Hide was unable to expel Burbage and
Brayne, or to dispose of the property to others. Hence he took no
steps to seize the Theatre; but he constantly annoyed the occupants by
arrest and otherwise. This unfortunate transference of the title to
Hide was the cause of serious quarreling between the Burbages and the
Braynes, and finally led to much litigation.
[Footnote 73: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 103.]
In 1582 a more immediate disaster threatened the owners of the
Theatre. One Edmund Peckham laid claim to the land on which the
playhouse had been built, and brought suit against Alleyn for
recovery. More than that, Peckham tried to take actual possession of
the playhouse, so that Burbage "was fain to find men at his own charge
to keep the possession thereof from the said Peckham and his
servants," and was even "once in danger of his own life by keeping
possession thereof." As a result of this state of affairs, Burbage
"was much disturbed and troubled in his possession of the Theatre, and
could not quietly and peaceably enjoy the same. And therefore the
players forsook the said Theatre, to his great loss."[74] In order to
reimburse himself in some measure for this loss Burbage retained L30
of the rental due to Alleyn. The act led to a bitter quarrel with
Alleyn, and figured conspicuously in the subsequent litigation that
came near overwhelming the Theatre.
[Footnote 74: See Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 201, 239, 240, 242.]
In 1585 Burbage, having spent the stipulated L200 in repairing and
rebuilding the tenements on the premises, sought to renew the lease,
according to the original agreement, for the extended period of
twenty-one years. On November 20, 1585, he engaged three skilled
workmen to view the buildings and estimate the sum he had disbursed in
improvements. They signed a formal statement to the effect that in
their opinion at least L220 had been thus expended on the premises.
Burbage then "tendered unto the said Alleyn a new lease devised by his
counsel, ready written and engrossed, with labels and wax thereunto
affixed, agreeable to the covenant." But Alleyn refused to sign the
document. He maintained that the new lease was not a verbatim copy of
the old lease, that L200 had not been expended on the buildings, and
that Burbage was a bad tenant and owed him rent. In reality, Alleyn
wanted to extort a larger rental than L14 for the property, which had
greatly increased in value.
On July 18, 1586, Burbage engaged six men, all expert laborers, to
view the buildings again and estimate the cost of the improvements.
They expressed the opinion in writing that Burbage had expended at
least L240 in developing the property.[75] Still Alleyn refused to
sign an extension of the lease. His conduct must have been very
exasperating to the owner of the Theatre. Cuthbert Burbage tells us
that his father "did often in gentle manner solicit and require the
said Gyles Alleyn for making a new lease of the said premises
according to the purporte and effect of the said covenant." But
invariably Alleyn found some excuse for delay.
[Footnote 75: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 229, 234, 228, 233.]
The death of Brayne, in August, 1586, led John Hide, who by reason of
the defaulted mortgage was legally the owner of the Theatre, to
redouble his efforts to collect his debt. He "gave it out in speech
that he had set over and assigned the said lease and bonds to one
George Clough, his ... father-in-law (but in truth he did not so),"
and "the said Clough, his father-in-law, did go about to put the said
defendant [Burbage] out of the Theatre, or at least did threaten to
put him out." As we have seen, there was a clause in the mortgage
which prevented Hide from ejecting Burbage;[76] yet Clough was able to
make so much trouble, "divers and sundry times" visiting the Theatre,
that at last Burbage undertook to settle the debt out of the profits
of the playhouse. As Robert Myles deposed in 1592, Burbage allowed the
widow of Brayne for "a certain time to take and receive the one-half
of the profits of the galleries of the said Theatre ... then on a
sudden he would not suffer her to receive any more of the profits
there, saying that he must take and receive all till he had paid the
debts. And then she was constrained, as his servant, to gather the
money and to deliver it unto him."[77]
[Footnote 76: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 55.]
[Footnote 77: _Ibid._, p. 105.]
For some reason, however, the debt was not settled, and Hide continued
his futile demands. Several times Burbage offered to pay the sum in
full if the title of the Theatre were made over to his son Cuthbert
Burbage; and Brayne's widow made similar offers in an endeavor to gain
the entire property for herself. But Hide, who seems to have been an
honest man, always declared that since Burbage and Brayne "did jointly
mortgage it unto him" he was honor-bound to assign the property back
to Burbage and the widow of Brayne jointly. So matters stood for a
while.
At last, however, in 1589, Hide declared that "since he had forborne
his money so long, he could do it no more, so as they that came first
should have it of him." Thereupon Cuthbert Burbage came bringing not
only the money in hand, but also a letter from his master and patron,
Walter Cape, gentleman usher to the Lord High Treasurer, requesting
Hide to make over the Theatre to Cuthbert, and promising in return to
assist Hide with the Lord Treasurer when occasion arose. Under this
pressure, Hide accepted full payment of his mortgage, and made over
the title of the property to Cuthbert Burbage. Thus Brayne's widow was
legally excluded from any share in the ownership of the Theatre. Myles
deposed, in 1592, that henceforth Burbage "would not suffer her to
meddle in the premises, but thrust her out of all."
This led at once to a suit, in which Robert Myles acted for the widow.
He received an order from the Court of Chancery in her favor, and
armed with this, and accompanied by two other persons, he came on
November 16, 1590, to Burbage's "dwelling house near the Theatre,"
called to the door Cuthbert Burbage, and in "rude and exclamable sort"
demanded "the moiety of the said Theatre." James Burbage "being within
the house, hearing a noise at the door, went to the door, and there
found his son, the said Cuthbert, and the said Myles speaking loud
together." Words were bandied, until finally Burbage, "dared by the
same Myles with great threats and words that he would do this and
could do that," lost his temper, and threatened to beat Myles off the
ground.[78]
[Footnote 78: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 57, 60, 62.]
Next the widow, attended by Robert Myles and others, visited the home
of the Burbages "to require them to perform the said award" of the
court. They were met by James Burbage's wife, who "charged them to go
out of her grounds, or else she would make her son break their knaves'
heads." Aroused by this noise, "James Burbage, her husband, looking
out a window upon them, called the complainant [Widow Brayne]
murdering whore, and ... the others villaines, rascals, and knaves."
And when Mistress Brayne spoke of the order of the court, "he cryed
unto her, 'Go, go. A cart, a cart for you! I will obey no such order,
nor I care not for any such orders, and therefore it were best for you
and your companions to be packing betimes, for if my son [Cuthbert]
come he will thump you hence!'" Just then Cuthbert did "come home, and
in very hot sort bid them get thence, or else he would set them
forwards, saying 'I care for no such order. The Chancery shall not
give away what I have paid for.'" And so, after "great and horrible
oathes" by James Burbage and his son, the widow and her attendants
"went their ways."[79]
[Footnote 79: _Ibid._, p. 121.]
Receiving thus no satisfaction from these visits to the home of James
Burbage, the widow and Robert Myles came several times to the Theatre,
bearing the order of the court in their hands; but each time they were
railed upon and driven out. Finally, the widow, with her ever-faithful
adjutant Robert Myles, his son Ralph, and his business partner,
Nicholas Bishop, went "to the Theatre upon a play-day to stand at the
door that goeth up to the galleries of the said Theatre to take and
receive for the use of the said Margaret half of the money that should
be given to come up into the said gallery." In the Theatre they were
met by Richard Burbage, then about nineteen years old, and his mother,
who "fell upon the said Robert Myles and beat him with a broom staff,
calling him murdering knave." When Myles's partner, Bishop, ventured
to protest at this contemptuous treatment of the order of the court,
"the said Richard Burbage," so Bishop deposed, "scornfully and
disdainfully playing with this deponent's nose, said that if he dealt
in the matter, he would beat him also, and did challenge the field of
him at that time." One of the actors then coming in, John
Alleyn--brother of the immortal Edward Alleyn--"found the foresaid
Richard Burbage, the youngest son of the said James Burbage, there
with a broom staff in his hand; of whom when this deponent Alleyn
asked what stir was there, he answered in laughing phrase how they
came for a moiety, 'But,' quod he (holding up the said broom staff)
'I have, I think, delivered him a moiety with this, and sent them
packing.'" Alleyn thereupon warned the Burbages that Myles could bring
an action of assault and battery against them. "'Tush,' quod the
father, 'no, I warrant you; but where my son hath now beat him hence,
my sons, if they will be ruled by me, shall at their next coming
provide charged pistols, with powder and hempseed, to shoot them in
the legs.'"[80]
[Footnote 80: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 63, 97, 100, 101, 114.]
But if the Burbages could laugh at the efforts of Myles and the widow
to secure a moiety of the Theatre from Cuthbert, they were seriously
troubled by the continued refusal of Gyles Alleyn to renew the lease.
James Burbage many times urged his landlord to fulfill the original
agreement, but in vain. At last, Alleyn, "according to his own will
and discretion, did cause a draft of a lease to be drawn, wherein were
inserted many unreasonable covenants." The new conditions imposed by
Alleyn were: (1) that Burbage should pay a rental of L24 instead of
L14 a year; (2) that he should use the Theatre as a place for acting
for only five years after the expiration of the original
twenty-one-year lease, and should then convert the building to other
uses; (3) that he should ultimately leave the building in the
possession of Alleyn.[81] The first and third conditions, though
unjust, Burbage was willing to accept, but the second condition--that
he should cease to use the Theatre for plays--he "utterly refused" to
consider.
[Footnote 81: See Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 195, 212, 216, 250, 258,
_et al._]
Finally, perceiving that it was useless to deal further with Alleyn,
he made plans to secure a new playhouse in the district of
Blackfriars, a district which, although within the city walls, was not
under the jurisdiction of the city authorities. He purchased there the
old Blackfriars refectory for L600, and then at great expense made the
refectory into a playhouse. But certain influential noblemen and
others living near by protested against this, and the Privy Council
ordered that the building should not be used as a public playhouse.
All this belongs mainly to the history of the Second Blackfriars
Playhouse, and for further details the reader is referred to the
chapter dealing with that theatre.
Shortly after the order of the Privy Council cited above, Burbage
died, just two months before the expiration of his lease from Alleyn;
and the Theatre with all its troubles passed to his son Cuthbert. By
every means in his power Cuthbert sought to induce Alleyn to renew the
lease: "Your said subject was thereof possessed, and being so
possessed, your said servant did often require the said Alleyn and
Sara his wife to make unto him the said new lease of the premises,
according to the agreement of the said indenture." Cuthbert's
importunity in the matter is clearly set forth in a deposition by
Henry Johnson, one of Alleyn's tenants. It was Alleyn's custom to come
to London at each of the four pay terms of the year, and stop at the
George Inn in Shoreditch to receive his rents; and on such occasions
Johnson often observed Cuthbert's entreaties with Alleyn. In his
deposition he says that he "knoweth that the said complainant
[Cuthbert Burbage] hath many times labored and entreated the defendant
[Gyles Alleyn] to make him a new lease of the premises in question,
for this deponent sayeth that many times when the defendant hath come
up to London to receive his rents, he, this deponent, hath been with
him paying him certain rent; and then he hath seen the plaintiff with
his landlord, paying his rent likewise; and then, finding opportunity,
the plaintiff would be intreating the defendant to make him a new
lease of the premises in question; and sayeth that it is at least
three years since [i.e., in 1597] he, this deponent, first heard the
plaintiff labor and entreat the defendant for a new lease."[82]
Cuthbert tells us that Alleyn did not positively refuse to renew the
lease, "but for some causes, which he feigned, did defer the same from
time to time, but yet gave hope to your subject, and affirmed that he
would make him such a lease."[83]
[Footnote 82: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 246.]
[Footnote 83: _Ibid._, p. 184.]
Cuthbert's anxiety in this matter is explained by the fact that the
old lease gave him the right to tear down the Theatre and carry away
the timber and other materials to his own use, provided he did so
before the expiration of the twenty-one years. Yet, relying on
Alleyn's promises to renew the lease, he "did forbear to pull downe
and carry away the timber and stuff employed for the said Theatre and
playing-house at the end of the said first term of one and twenty
years." A failure to renew the lease would mean, of course, the loss
of the building.
Alleyn, though deferring to sign a new lease, allowed Burbage to
continue in possession of the property at "the old rent of L14." Yet
the Theatre seems not to have been used for plays after the original
lease expired.[84] The Lord Chamberlain's Company, which had been
occupying the Theatre, and of which Richard Burbage was the chief
actor, had moved to the Curtain; and the author of _Skialetheia_,
printed in 1598, refers to the old playhouse as empty: "But see,
yonder, one, like the unfrequented Theatre, walks in dark silence and
vast solitude."[85]
[Footnote 84: The lease expired on April 13, 1597; on July 28 the
Privy Council closed all playhouses until November. The references to
the Theatre in _The Remembrancia_ (see The Malone Society's
_Collections_, I, 78) do not necessarily imply that the building was
then actually used by the players.]
[Footnote 85: The same fact is revealed in the author's remark, "If my
dispose persuade me to a play, I'le to the Rose or Curtain," for at
this time only the Chamberlain's Men and the Admiral's Men were
allowed to play.]
To Cuthbert Burbage such a state of affairs was intolerable, and on
September 29, 1598, he made a new appeal to Alleyn. Alleyn proffered a
lease already drawn up, but Cuthbert would not "accept thereof"
because of the "very unreasonable covenants therein contained."[86]
[Footnote 86: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 216, 249.]
Shortly after this fruitless interview, or late in 1598, Gyles Alleyn
resolved to take advantage of the fact that Cuthbert Burbage had not
removed the Theatre before the expiration of the first twenty-one
years. He contended that since Cuthbert had "suffered the same there
to continue till the expiration of the said term ... the right and
interest of the said Theatre was both in law and conscience absolutely
vested" now in himself; accordingly he planned "to pull down the same,
and to convert the wood and timber thereof to some better use for the
benefit" of himself.[87]
[Footnote 87: _Ibid._, pp. 277, 288.]
But, unfortunately for Alleyn, Cuthbert Burbage "got intelligence" of
this purpose, and at once set himself to the task of saving his
property. He and his brother Richard, the great actor, took into their
confidence the chief members of the Lord Chamberlain's Company, then
performing at the Curtain Playhouse, namely William Shakespeare, John
Heminges, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, and William Kempe. These
men agreed to form with the Burbages a syndicate to finance the
erection of a new playhouse. The two Burbages agreed to bear one-half
the expense, including the timber and other materials of the old
Theatre, and the five actors promised to supply the other half.
Together they leased a suitable plot of land on the Bankside near
Henslowe's Rose, the lease dating from December 25, 1598. These
details having been arranged, it remained only for the Burbages to
save their building from the covetousness of Alleyn.
On the night of December 28, 1598,[88] Alleyn being absent in the
country, Cuthbert Burbage, his brother Richard, his friend William
Smith, "of Waltham Cross, in the County of Hartford, gentleman," Peter
Street, "cheefe carpenter," and twelve others described as "laborers
such as wrought for wages," gathered at the Theatre and began to tear
down the building. We learn that the widow of James Burbage "was
there, and did see the doing thereof, and liked well of it";[89] and
we may suspect that at some time during the day Shakespeare and the
other actors were present as interested spectators.
[Footnote 88: The date, January 20, 1599, seems to be an error.]
[Footnote 89: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 238.]
The episode is thus vividly described by the indignant Gyles Allen:
The said Cuthbert Burbage, having intelligence of your
subject's purpose herein, and unlawfully combining and
confederating himself with the said Richard Burbage and one
Peter Street, William Smith, and diverse other persons to
the number of twelve, to your subject unknown, did about
the eight and twentieth day of December, in the one and
fortieth year of your highness reign, and sithence your
highness last and general pardon, by the confederacy
aforesaid, riotously assembled themselves together, and then
and there armed themselves with diverse and many unlawful
and offensive weapons, as namely swords, daggers, bills,
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 forceable manner, and contrary to
the laws of your highness realm, attempted to pull down the
said Theatre. Whereupon, diverse of your subjects, servants
and farmers, then going about in peaceable manner to procure
them to desist from that unlawful enterprise, they, the said
riotous persons aforesaid, notwithstanding procured then
therein with great violence, not only then and there
forcibly and riotously resisting your subjects, servants,
and farmers, but also then and there pulling, breaking, and
throwing down the said Theatre in very outrageous, violent,
and riotous sort.[90]
[Footnote 90: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 278-79. This document was
discovered by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, who printed extracts in his
_Outlines_. See also Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, pp. 75-76.]
The workmen, under the expert direction of Peter Street, carried the
timber and other materials of the old Theatre to the tract of land on
the Bankside recently leased by the new syndicate--as Gyles Alleyn
puts it, "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. Mary Overies, and there erected a new
playhouse with the said timber and wood."
The playhouse thus erected was, of course, an entirely new structure.
Nearly a quarter of a century had elapsed since James Burbage designed
the old Theatre, during which time a great development had taken place
both in histrionic art and in play writing; and, no doubt, many
improvements were possible in the stage and in the auditorium to
provide better facilities for the actors and greater comfort for the
spectators. In designing such improvements the architect had the
advice and help of the actors, including Shakespeare; and he succeeded
in producing a playhouse that was a model of excellence. The name
selected by the syndicate for their new building was "The Globe." For
further details as to its construction, and for its subsequent
history, the reader is referred to the chapter dealing with that
building.
When Gyles Alleyn learned that the Burbages had demolished the Theatre
and removed the timber to the Bankside, he was deeply incensed, not
only at the loss of the building, but also, no doubt, at being
completely outwitted. At once he instituted suit against Cuthbert
Burbage; but he was so intemperate in his language and so reckless in
his charges that he weakened his case. The suit dragged for a few
years, was in part referred to Francis Bacon, and finally in the
summer of 1601 was dismissed. Thus the history of the first London
playhouse, which is chiefly the history of quarrels and litigation,
came to a close.
It is not possible now to indicate exactly the stay of the different
troupes at the Theatre; the evidence is scattered and incomplete, and
the inferences to be drawn are often uncertain.
When the building was opened in 1576, it was, no doubt, occupied by
the Earl of Leicester's troupe, of which Burbage was the manager, and
for which, presumably, the structure had been designed. Yet other
troupes of players may also have been allowed to use the
building--when Leicester's Men were touring the provinces, or,
possibly, on days when Leicester's Men did not act. This arrangement
lasted about six years.
In 1582 the use of the Theatre was interrupted by the interference of
Peckham. For a long time the actors "could not enjoy the premises,"
and Burbage was forced to keep Peckham's servants out of the building
with an armed guard night and day. As a result of this state of
affairs, Leicester's troupe was dissolved; "many of the players," we
are told, were driven away, and the rest "forsook the said Theatre."
The last notice of these famous players is a record of their
performance at Court on February 10, 1583.
Shortly after this, in March, 1583, Tilney, the Master of the Revels,
organized under royal patronage a new company called the Queen's Men.
For this purpose he selected twelve of the best actors of the realm,
including some of the members of Leicester's company.[91] The two
best-known actors in the new organization were the Queen's favorite
comedian, Richard Tarleton, the immortal "Lord of Mirth," and John
Lanham, the leader and apparently the manager of the troupe. James
Burbage, who may by this time, if not before, have retired from
acting, was not included.
[Footnote 91: For a list of the Queen's Men see Wallace, _op. cit._,
p. 11.]
The newly organized Queen's Men in all probability occupied the
Theatre which had been left vacant by the dissolution of Leicester's
company. Mr. Wallace denies this, mainly on the evidence of a permit
issued by the Lord Mayor, November 28, 1583, granting the Queen's Men
the privilege of acting "at the sign of the Bull [Inn] in Bishopgate
Street, and the sign of the Bell [Inn] in Gracious Street, and nowhere
else within this city." But this permit, I think, lends scant support
to Mr. Wallace's contention. The Lord Mayor had no authority to issue
a license for the Queen's Men to play at the Theatre, for that
structure was outside the jurisdiction of the city. The Privy Council
itself, no doubt, had issued such a general license when the company
was organized under royal patronage.[92] And now, ten months later,
on November 26, 1583, the Council sends to the Lord Mayor a request
"that Her Majesty's players may be suffered to play ... within the
city and liberties _between this and shrovetide next_"[93]--in other
words, during the winter season when access to the Theatre was
difficult. It was customary for troupes to seek permission to act
within the city during the winter months.[94] Thus the Queen's Men, in
a petition written probably in the autumn of the following year, 1584,
requested the Privy Council to dispatch "favorable letters unto the
Lord Mayor of London to permit us to exercise within the city," and
the Lord Mayor refused, with the significant remark that "if in winter
... the foulness of season do hinder the passage into the fields to
play, the remedy is ill conceived to bring them into London."[95]
Obviously the Queen's Men were seeking permission to play in the city
only during the cold winter months; during the balmy spring, summer,
and autumn months--for actors the best season of the year--they
occupied their commodious playhouse in "the fields."
[Footnote 92: Such a license would include also permission to act in
the provinces. This latter was soon needed, for shortly after their
organization the Queen's Men were driven by the plague to tour the
provinces. They were in Cambridge on July 9, and probably returned to
London shortly after. See Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_, I, 8.]
[Footnote 93: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 66.]
[Footnote 94: Lord Hunsdon, on October 8, 1594, requested the Lord
Mayor to permit the Chamberlain's Men "to play this winter time within
the city at the Cross Keys in Gracious Street." See The Malone
Society's _Collections_, I, 67.]
[Footnote 95: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 170, 172.]
That this playhouse for a time, at least, was the Theatre is indicated
by several bits of evidence. Thus the author of _Martin's Month's
Mind_ (1589) speaks of "twittle-twattles that I had learned in
ale-houses and at the Theatre of Lanham and his fellows." Again, Nash,
in _Pierce Penniless_ (1592), writes: "Tarleton at the Theatre made
jests of him"; Harrington, in _The Metamorphosis of Ajax_ (1596):
"Which word was after admitted into the Theatre with great applause,
by the mouth of Master Tarleton"; and the author of _Tarlton's Newes
out of Purgatory_ (_c._ 1589) represents Tarleton as connected with
the Theatre. Now, unless Lanham, Tarleton, and their "fellows" usually
or sometimes acted at the Theatre, it is hard to understand these and
other similar passages.
The following episode tends to prove the same thing. On June 18, 1584,
William Fleetwood, Recorder, wrote to Lord Burghley:[96]
Right honorable and my very good lord. Upon Whitsunday there
was a very good sermon preached at the new churchyard near
Bethelem, whereat my Lord Mayor was with his brethren; and
by reason no plays were the same day, all the city was
quiet. Upon Monday I was at the Court.... That night I
returned to London and found all the wards full of watchers;
the cause thereof was for that very near the Theatre or
Curtain, at the time of the plays, there lay a prentice
sleeping upon the grass; and one Challes, at Grostock, did
turn upon the toe upon the belly of the same prentice.
Whereupon the apprentice start up.
[Footnote 96: The letter is printed in full in The Malone Society's
_Collections_, I, 164.]
In the altercation that followed, Challes remarked that "prentices
were but the scum of the world." This led to a general rising of
apprentices, and much disorder throughout the city. Fleetwood records
the upshot thus:
Upon Sunday my Lord [Mayor] sent two aldermen to the court
for the suppressing and pulling down of the Theatre and
Curtain. All the Lords [of the Privy Council] agreed
thereunto saving my Lord Chamberlain and Mr.
Vice-Chamberlain. But we obtained a letter to suppress them
all. Upon the same night I sent for the Queen's Players [at
the Theatre?] and my Lord Arundel's Players [at the
Curtain?] and they all willingly obeyed the Lords's letters.
The chiefest of Her Highness's Players advised me to send
for the owner of the Theatre [James Burbage[97]], who was a
stubborn fellow, and to bind him. I did so. He sent me word
he was my Lord of Hundson's man, and that he would not come
at me; but he would in the morning ride to my lord.
[Footnote 97: This could not have been Hide, as usually stated. Hide
had nothing to do with the management of the Theatre, and was not "my
Lord of Hunsdon's man." Hide's connection with the Theatre as sketched
in this chapter shows the absurdity of such an interpretation of the
document.]
The natural inference from all this is that the Queen's Men and Lord
Arundel's Men were then playing _outside the city_ where they could be
controlled only by "the Lords's Letters"; that the Queen's Men were
occupying the Theatre, and that James Burbage was (as we know) not a
member of that company, but merely stood to them in the relation of
"owner of the Theatre."
What Burbage meant by calling himself "my Lord of Hunsdon's man" is
not clear. Mr. Wallace contends that when Leicester's Men were
dissolved, Burbage organized "around the remnants of Leicester's
Company" a troupe under the patronage of Lord Hunsdon, and that this
troupe, and not the Queen's Men, occupied the Theatre thereafter.[98]
But we hear of Hunsdon's Men at Ludlow in July, 1582; and we find them
presenting a play at Court on December 27, 1582. Since Leicester's
troupe is recorded as acting at Court as late as February 10, 1583, it
seems unlikely that Mr. Wallace's theory as to the origin of Hunsdon's
Men is true. It may be, however, that after the dissolution of
Leicester's Men, Burbage associated himself with Hunsdon's Men, and it
may be that he allowed that relatively unimportant company to occupy
the Theatre for a short time. Hunsdon's Men seem to have been mainly a
traveling troupe; Mr. Murray states that notices of them "occur
frequently in the provinces," but we hear almost nothing of them in
London. Indeed, at the time of the trouble described by Fleetwood,
Hunsdon's Men were in Bath.[99] If Burbage was a member of the troupe,
he certainly did not accompany them on their extended tours; and when
they played in London, if they used the Theatre, they must have used
it jointly with the Queen's Men.
[Footnote 98: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 11.]
[Footnote 99: Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_, I, 321.]
Late in 1585 the Theatre was affiliated with the adjacent Curtain.
Burbage and Brayne made an agreement with the proprietor of that
playhouse whereby the Curtain might be used "as an easore" [easer?] to
the Theatre, and "the profits of the said two playhouses might for
seven years space be in divident between them." This agreement, we
know, was carried out, but whether it led to an exchange of companies,
or what effect it had upon the players, we cannot say. Possibly to
this period of joint management may be assigned the witticism of Dick
Tarleton recorded as having been uttered "at the Curtain" where the
Queen's Men were then playing.[100] It may even be that as one result
of the affiliation of the two houses the Queen's Men were transferred
to the Curtain.
[Footnote 100: _Tarlton's Jests_, ed. by J.O. Halliwell, p. 16.
Tarleton died in 1588.]
In 1590, as we learn from the deposition of John Alleyn, the Theatre
was being used by the Admiral's Men.[101] This excellent company had
been formed early in 1589 by the separation of certain leading players
from Worcester's Men, and it had probably occupied the Theatre since
its organization. Its star actor, Edward Alleyn, was then at the
height of his powers, and was producing with great success Marlowe's
splendid plays. We may suppose that the following passage refers to
the performance of the Admiral's Men at the Theatre:
He had a head of hair like one of my devils in _Dr.
Faustus_, when the old Theatre crackt and frightened the
audience.[102]
[Footnote 101: Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 101, 126.]
[Footnote 102: _The Black Booke_, 1604.]
Late in 1590 the Admiral's Men seem to have been on bad terms with
Burbage,[103] and when John Alleyn made his deposition, February 6,
1592, they had certainly left the Theatre. Mr. Greg, from entirely
different evidence, has concluded that they were dispersed in
1591,[104] and this conclusion is borne out by the legal document
cited above.
[Footnote 103: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 101.]
[Footnote 104: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 83. The Admiral's Men
were reorganized in 1594, and occupied the Rose under Henslowe's
management.]
The next company that we can definitely associate with the Theatre was
the famous Lord Chamberlain's Men. On April 16, 1594, Lord Strange,
the Earl of Derby, died, and the chief members of his troupe--William
Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, John Heminges, William Kempe, Thomas
Pope, George Bryan, and Augustine Phillips--organized a new company
under the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain. For ten days, in June,
1594, they acted at Newington Butts under the management of Philip
Henslowe, then went, probably at once, to the Theatre, which they made
their home until the Burbage lease of the property expired in the
spring of 1597. Here, among other famous plays, they produced the
original _Hamlet_, thus referred to by Lodge in _Wit's Miserie_, 1596:
He looks as pale as the visard of the ghost which cries so
miserably at the Theatre, like an oyster-wife, "Hamlet,
revenge!"
And here, too, they presented all of Shakespeare's early masterpieces.
Their connection with the building ceased in 1597 at the expiration of
the Burbage lease; but their association with the proprietors of the
Theatre was permanent. Their subsequent history, as also the history
of the Burbage brothers, will be found in the chapters dealing with
the Globe and the Second Blackfriars.[105]
[Footnote 105: For other but unimportant references to the Theatre see
The Malone Society's _Collections_, vol. I: disorder at, October,
1577, p. 153; disorder at, on Sunday, April, 1580, p. 46; fencing
allowed at, July, 1582, p. 57; fencing forbidden at, May, 1583, p. 62;
to be closed during infection, May, 1583, p. 63; complaint against, by
the Lord Mayor, September, 1594, p. 76. And see Halliwell-Phillipps,
_Outlines_, I, 363, for a special performance there by a "virgin,"
February 22, 1582.]