THE ROSE
Doubtless one reason for the obscure role which the theatre at
Newington played in the history of the drama was "the tediousness of
the way" thither. The Rose, the second theatre to make its appearance
in Surrey, was much more conveniently situated with respect to the
city, for it was erected in the Liberty of the Clink and very near the
river's edge. As a result, it quickly attained popularity with London
playgoers, and before the end of the century had caused the centre of
dramatic activity to be shifted from Finsbury Field to the Bank.
The builder of the Rose was one Philip Henslowe, then, so far as our
evidence goes, unknown to the dramatic world, but destined soon to
become the greatest theatrical proprietor and manager of the
Tudor-Stuart age. We find him living on the Bankside and in the
Liberty of the Clink at least as early as 1577. At first, so we are
told, he was "but a poor man," described as "servant ... unto one Mr.
Woodward." Upon the death of his employer, Woodward, he married the
widow, Agnes Woodward, and thus came into the possession of
considerable property. "All his wealth came by her," swore the
charwoman Joan Horton. This, however, simply means that Henslowe
obtained his original capital by his marriage; for, although very
illiterate, he was shrewd in handling money, and he quickly amassed
"his wealth" through innumerable business ventures.
As one of these ventures, no doubt, he leased from the Parish of St.
Mildred, on March 24, 1585, a small piece of property on the Bankside
known as "The Little Rose." "Among the early surveys, 1 Edward VI,"
says Rendle, "we see that this was not merely a name--the place was a
veritable Rose Garden."[210] At the time of the lease the property is
described as consisting of a dwelling-house called "The Rose," "two
gardens adjoining the same" consisting of "void ground," and at least
one other small building. The dwelling-house Henslowe probably leased
as a brothel--for this was the district of the stews; and the small
building mentioned above, situated at the south end of one of the
gardens, he let to a London grocer named John Cholmley, who used it
"to keep victualing in."[211]
[Footnote 210: W. Rendle, in _The Antiquarian Magazine and
Bibliographer_, VIII, 60.]
[Footnote 211: For the earlier history of the Rose estate see Rendle,
_The Bankside_, p. xv, and Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 43. "The plan
of the Rose estate in the vestry of St. Mildred's Church in London
marks the estate exactly, but not the precise site of the Rose
Playhouse. The estate consisted of three rods, and was east of Rose
Alley." (Rendle, _The Bankside_, p. xxx.)]
Not satisfied, however, with the income from these two buildings,
Henslowe a year and a half later was planning to utilize a part of the
"void ground" for the erection of a theatre. What interested him in
the drama we do not know, but we may suppose that the same reason
which led Burbage, Brayne, Lanman, and others to build playhouses
influenced him, namely, the prospect of "great gains to ensue
therefrom."[212]
[Footnote 212: Possibly the fact that Burbage had just secured control
of the Curtain, and hence had a monopoly of playhouses, was one of the
reasons for a new playhouse.]
For the site of his proposed playhouse he allotted a small parcel of
ground ninety-four feet square and lying in the corner formed by Rose
Alley and Maiden Lane (see page 245). Then he interested in the
enterprise his tenant Cholmley, for, it seems, he did not wish to
undertake so expensive and precarious a venture without sharing the
risk with another. On January 10, 1587, he and Cholmley signed a
formal deed of partnership, according to which the playhouse was to be
erected at once and at the sole cost of Henslowe; Cholmley, however,
was to have from the beginning a half-interest in the building, paying
for his share by installments of L25 10_s._ a quarter for a period of
eight years and three months.[213] The total sum to be paid by
Cholmley, L816, possibly represents the estimated cost of the
building and its full equipment, plus rental on the land.
[Footnote 213: The deed of partnership is preserved among the Henslowe
papers at Dulwich College. For an abstract of the deed see Greg,
_Henslowe Papers_, p. 2. Henslowe seems to have driven a good bargain
with Cholmley.]
The building is referred to in the deed of January 10 as "a playhouse
now in framing and shortly to be erected and set up." Doubtless it was
ready for occupancy early in the summer. That performances were given
there before the close of the year is at least indicated by an order
of the Privy Council dated October 29, 1587:
A letter to the Justices of Surrey, that whereas the
inhabitants of Southwark had complained unto their Lordships
declaring that the order by their Lordships set down for the
restraining of plays and interludes within that county on
the Sabbath Days is not observed, and especially within the
Liberty of the Clink, and in the Parish of St.
Saviours....[214]
[Footnote 214: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, XV, 271.]
The Rose was in "the Liberty of the Clink and in the Parish of St.
Saviours," and so far as we have any evidence it was the only place
there devoted to plays. Moreover, a distinct reference to it by name
appears in the Sewer Records in April, 1588, at which date the
building is described as "new."[215]
[Footnote 215: Discovered by Mr. Wallace and printed in the London
_Times_, April 30, 1914.]
In Norden's _Map of London_ (1593), the Rose and the adjacent Bear
Garden are correctly placed with respect to each other, but are
crudely drawn (see page 147). The representation of both as
circular--the Bear Garden, we know, was polygonal--was due merely to
this crudeness; yet the Rose seems to have been indeed circular in
shape, "the Bankside's round-house" referred to in _Tom Tell Troth's
Message_. The building is so pictured in the Hondius map of 1610 (see
page 149), and in the inset maps on the title-pages of Holland's
_Her[Greek: o]ologia_, 1620, and Baker's _Chronicle_, 1643 (see page
147), all three of which apparently go back to an early map of London
now lost. The building is again pictured as circular, with the Bear
Garden at the left and the Globe at the right, in the Delaram portrait
of King James (opposite page 246).[216]
[Footnote 216: The circular building pictured in these maps has been
widely heralded as the First Globe, but without reason; all the
evidence shows that it was the Rose. For further discussion see the
chapters dealing with the Bear Garden, the Globe, and the Hope. In the
Merian _View_, issued in Frankfort in 1638, the Bear Garden and the
Globe, each named, are shown conspicuously in the foreground; in the
background is vaguely represented an unnamed playhouse polygonal in
shape. This could not possibly be the Rose. Merian's _View_ was a
compilation from Visscher's _View_ of 1616 and some other view of
London not yet identified; it has no independent authority, and no
value whatever so far as the Rose is concerned.]
From Henslowe's _Diary_ we learn that the playhouse was of timber, the
exterior of lath and plaster, the roof of thatch; and that it had a
yard, galleries, a stage, a tiring-house, heavens, and a flagpole.
Thus it differed in no essential way from the playhouses already
erected in Shoreditch or subsequently erected on the Bank.[217]
[Footnote 217: If we may believe Johannes de Witt, the Rose was "more
magnificent" than the theatres in Shoreditch. See page 167.]
[Illustration: THE BEAR GARDEN AND THE ROSE
The upper view, from Norden's _Map of London_, 1593, shows the
relative position of the Bear Garden and Rose. The lower view, an
inset from the title-page of Baker's _Chronicle_, 1643, also shows the
relative position, and gives a more detailed picture of the two
structures. The Bear Garden is represented as polygonal, the Rose as
circular.]
What troupes of actors used the Rose during the first five years of
its existence we do not know; indeed, until 1592 we hear nothing
further of the playhouse. As a result, some scholars have wrongly
inferred that the building was not erected until the spring of
1592.[218] It seems likely, as Mr. Greg suggests, that Henslowe and
Cholmley let the house to some company of players at a stipulated
annual rent, and so had nothing to do with the management of its
finances. This would explain the complete absence of references to the
playhouse in Henslowe's accounts.
[Footnote 218: Ordish, _Early London Theatres_, p. 155; Mantzius, _A
History of Theatrical Art_, p. 58. Mr. Wallace's discovery of a
reference to the Rose in the Sewer Records for April, 1588, quite
overthrows this hypothesis.]
During this obscure period of five years Cholmley disappears from the
history of the Rose. It may be that he withdrew from the undertaking
at the outset;[219] it may be that he failed to meet his payments, and
so forfeited his moiety; or it may be that, becoming dissatisfied with
his bargain, he sold out to Henslowe. Whatever the cause, his interest
in the playhouse passed over to Henslowe, who appears henceforth as
the sole proprietor.
[Footnote 219: This seems unlikely. At the beginning of Henslowe's
_Diary_ we find the scrawl "Chomley when" (Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_ I,
217); this was written not earlier than 1592, and it shows that
Cholmley was at that time in Henslowe's mind.]
[Illustration: THE BEAR GARDEN AND THE ROSE
A small inset view of London, from the map entitled "The Kingdome of
Great Britaine and Ireland," printed in Speed's _Atlas_ (1611). The
map is dated 1610, but the inset view of London was copied, like the
inset views to Baker's _Chronicle_ (1643) and to Holland's _Her[Greek:
o]ologia_ (1620), from a lost map of London drawn about 1589-1599.]
In the spring of 1592 the building was in need of repairs, and
Henslowe spent a large sum of money in thoroughly overhauling it.[220]
The lathing and plastering of the exterior were done over, the roof
was re-thatched, new rafters were put in, and much heavy timber was
used, indicating important structural alterations. In addition, the
stage was painted, the lord's room and the tiring-house were provided
with ceilings, a new flagpole was erected, and other improvements were
introduced. Clearly an attempt was made to render the building not
only stronger, but also more attractive in appearance and more modern
in equipment.
[Footnote 220: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 7.]
The immediate occasion for these extensive alterations and repairs was
the engagement of Lord Strange's Men to occupy the playhouse under
Henslowe's management. This excellent troupe, with Edward Alleyn at
its head, was perhaps the best company of actors then in London. It
later became the Lord Chamberlain's Company, with which Shakespeare
was identified; even at this early date, although documentary proof is
lacking, he may have been numbered among its obscure members. The
troupe opened the Rose on February 19, 1592, with a performance of
Robert Greene's _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, and followed this with
many famous plays, such as _The Spanish Tragedy_, _The Jew of Malta_,
_Orlando Furioso_, and _Henry VI_.[221]
[Footnote 221: For a list of their plays see Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_,
I, 13 ff.]
The coming of Lord Strange's Men to the Rose led to a close friendship
between Henslowe and Edward Alleyn, then twenty-six years of age, and
at the height of his fame as an actor, a friendship which was cemented
in the autumn by Alleyn's marriage to Henslowe's stepdaughter (and
only child) Joan Woodward. The two men, it seems, were thoroughly
congenial, and their common interests led to the formation of a
business partnership which soon became the most important single force
in the theatrical life of the time.
Lord Strange's Men continued to act at the Rose from February 19 until
June 23, 1592, when the Privy Council, because of a serious riot in
Southwark, ordered the closing of all playhouses in and about London
until Michaelmas following. Strange's Men very soon petitioned the
Council to be allowed to reopen their playhouse; the Council, in
reply, compromised by granting them permission to act three days a
week at Newington Butts. This, however, did not please the actors, and
they started on a tour of the provinces. In a short time, discovering
that they could not pay their expenses on the road, they again
petitioned for permission to open the Rose, complaining that "our
company is great, and thereby our charge intolerable in traveling the
country," and calling attention to the fact that "the use of our
playhouse on the Bankside, by reason of the passage to and from the
same by water, is a great relief to the poor watermen there."[222] The
petition was accompanied by a supporting petition from the watermen
asking the Council "for God's sake and in the way of charity to
respect us your poor watermen." As a result of these petitions the
Council gave permission, probably late in August, 1592, for the
reopening of the playhouse.[223] But before Strange's Men could take
advantage of this permission, a severe outbreak of the plague caused a
general inhibition of acting, and not until December 29, 1592, were
they able to resume their performances at the Rose. A month later the
plague broke out again with unusual severity, and on February 1, 1593,
playing was again inhibited. The year rapidly developed into one of
the worst plague-years in the history of the city; between ten and
fifteen thousand persons died of the epidemic, and most of the London
companies, including Strange's Men, went on an extended tour of the
country.
[Footnote 222: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 42.]
[Footnote 223: See Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 43. For a general
discussion of various problems involved, see Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_,
II, 51-2.]
Near the close of the year, and while Strange's Men were still
traveling, the plague temporarily subsided, and Sussex's Men, who were
then in London, secured the use of the Rose. They began to act there
on December 27, 1593; but on February 6, 1594, the plague having again
become threatening, acting was once more inhibited. This brief
occupation of the Rose by Sussex's Men was notable only for the first
performance of _Titus Andronicus_.[224]
[Footnote 224: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 16.]
[Illustration: JOAN WOODWARD ALLEYN
The stepdaughter and only child of Philip Henslowe, whose marriage to
the great actor Edward Alleyn led to the Henslowe-Alleyn theatrical
enterprises. The portrait is here reproduced for the first time. (From
the Dulwich Picture Gallery, by permission.)]
At Easter, April 1, Strange's Men being still absent, Henslowe allowed
the Rose to be used for eight days by "the Queen's Men and my Lord of
Sussex's together." This second brief chapter in the long and varied
history of the playhouse is interesting only for two performances of
the old _King Leir_.[225]
[Footnote 225: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 17.]
As a result of the severe plague and the long continued inhibition of
acting, there was a general confusion and subsequent reorganization of
the various London troupes. The Admiral's Men, who had been dispersed
in 1591, some joining Strange's Men, some going to travel in Germany,
were brought together again; and Edward Alleyn, who had formerly been
their leader, and who even after he became one of Strange's Men
continued to describe himself as "servant to the right honorable the
Lord Admiral,"[226] was induced to rejoin them. Alleyn thereupon
brought them to the Rose, where they began to perform on May 14, 1594.
After three days, however, they ceased, probably to allow Henslowe to
make repairs or improvements on the building.
[Footnote 226: He is so described, for example, in the warrant issued
by the Privy Council on May 6, 1593, to Strange's Men.]
Strange's Men also had undergone reorganization. On April 16, 1594,
they lost by death their patron, the Earl of Derby. Shortly afterwards
they secured the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain, and before June
3, 1594, they had arrived in London and reported to their former
manager, Henslowe.
At this time, apparently, the Rose was still undergoing repairs; so
Henslowe sent both the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's Men to act at
Newington Butts, where they remained from June 3 to June 13, 1594. On
June 15 the Admiral's Men moved back to the Rose, which henceforth
they occupied alone; and the Chamberlain's Men, thus robbed of their
playhouse, went to the Theatre in Shoreditch.
During the period of Lent, 1595, Henslowe took occasion to make
further repairs on his playhouse, putting in new pales, patching the
exterior with new lath and plaster, repainting the woodwork, and
otherwise furbishing up the building. The total cost of this work was
L108 10_s._ And shortly after, as a part of these improvements, no
doubt, he paid L7 2_s._ for "making the throne in the heavens."[227]
[Footnote 227: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 4.]
Near the close of July, 1597, Pembroke's Men at the Swan acted Nashe's
satirical play, _The Isle of Dogs_, containing, it seems, a burlesque
on certain persons high in authority. As a result the Privy Council on
July 28 ordered all acting in and about London to cease until November
1, and all public playhouses to be plucked down and ruined.[228]
[Footnote 228: For the details of this episode see the chapter on the
Swan.]
The latter part of the order, happily, was not put into effect, and on
October 11 the Rose was allowed to open again. The Privy Council,
however, punished the Swan and Pembroke's Company by ordering that
only the Admiral's Men at the Rose and the Chamberlain's Men at the
Curtain should henceforth be "allowed." As a consequence of this
trouble with the authorities the best actors of Pembroke's Company
joined the Admiral's Men under Henslowe. This explains the entry in
the _Diary_: "In the name of God, amen. The xi of October began my
Lord Admiral's and my Lord Pembroke's Men to play at my house,
1597."[229] The two companies were very soon amalgamated, and the
strong troupe thus formed continued to act at the Rose under the name
of the Admiral's Men.
[Footnote 229: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 54.]
The Chamberlain's Men, who in 1594 had been forced to surrender the
Rose to the Admiral's Men and move to the Theatre, and who in 1597 had
been driven from the Theatre to the Curtain, at last, in 1599, built
for themselves a permanent home, the Globe, situated on the Bankside
and close to the Rose. Henslowe's ancient structure[230] was eclipsed
by this new and handsome building, "the glory of the Bank"; and the
Admiral's Men, no doubt, felt themselves placed at a serious
disadvantage. As a result, in the spring of 1600, Henslowe and Alleyn
began the erection of a splendid new playhouse, the Fortune, designed
to surpass the Globe in magnificence, and to furnish a suitable and
permanent home for the Admiral's Men. The building was situated in the
suburb to the north of the city, far away from the Bankside and the
Globe.
[Footnote 230: In January, 1600, the Earl of Nottingham refers to "the
dangerous decay" of the Rose. See Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 45; cf.
p. 52.]
The erection of this handsome new playhouse led to violent outbursts
from the Puritans, and vigorous protests from the city fathers.
Accordingly the Privy Council on June 22, 1600, issued the following
order:[231]
Whereas divers complaints have heretofore been made unto the
Lords and other of Her Majesty's Privy Council of the
manifold abuses and disorders that have grown and do
continue by occasion of many houses erected and employed in
and about London for common stage-plays; and now very lately
by reason of some complaint exhibited by sundry persons
against the building of the like house [the Fortune] in or
near Golding Lane ... the Lords and the rest of Her
Majesty's Privy Council with one and full consent have
ordered in manner and form as follows. First, that there
shall be about the city two houses, and no more, allowed to
serve for the use of the common stage-plays; of the which
houses, one [the Globe] shall be in Surrey, in that place
which is commonly called the Bankside, or thereabouts; and
the other [the Fortune], in Middlesex.
[Footnote 231: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, XXX, 395.]
This sealed the fate of the Rose.
In July the Admiral's Men had a reckoning with Henslowe, and prepared
to abandon the Bankside. After they had gone, but before they had
opened the Fortune, Henslowe, on October 28, 1600, let the Rose to
Pembroke's Men for two days.[232] Possibly the troupe had secured
special permission to use the playhouse for this limited time;
possibly Henslowe thought that since the Fortune was not yet open to
the public, no objection would be made. Of course, after the Admiral's
Men opened the Fortune--in November or early in December, 1600--the
Rose, according to the order of the Privy Council just quoted, had to
stand empty.
[Footnote 232: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 131.]
Its career, however, was not absolutely run. In the spring of 1602
Worcester's Men and Oxford's Men were "joined by agreement together in
one company," and the Queen, "at the suit of the Earl of Oxford,"
ordered that this company be "allowed." Accordingly the Privy Council
wrote to the Lord Mayor on March 31, 1602, informing him of the fact,
and adding: "And as the other companies that are allowed, namely of me
the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain, be appointed their certain
houses, and one and no more to each company, so we do straightly
require that this company be likewise [appointed] to one place. And
because we are informed the house called the Boar's Head is the place
they have especially used and do best like of, we do pray and require
you that that said house, namely the Boar's Head, may be assigned unto
them."[233] But the Lord Mayor seems to have opposed the use of the
Boar's Head, and the upshot was that the Council gave permission for
this "third company" to open the Rose. In Henslowe's _Diary_, we read:
"Lent unto my Lord of Worcester's Players as followeth, beginning the
17 day of August, 1602."
[Footnote 233: _The Remembrancia_, II, 189; The Malone Society's
_Collections_, I, 85.]
This excellent company, destined to become the Queen's Company after
the accession of King James, included such important actors as William
Kempe, John Lowin, Christopher Beeston, John Duke, Robert Pallant, and
Richard Perkins; and it employed such well-known playwrights as Thomas
Heywood (the "prose Shakespeare," who was also one of the troupe),
Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, John Day, Wentworth Smith, Richard
Hathway, and John Webster. The company continued to act at the Rose
until March 16, 1603, when it had a reckoning with Henslowe and left
the playhouse.[234] In May, however, after the coming of King James,
it returned to the Rose, and we find Henslowe opening a new account:
"In the name of God, amen. Beginning to play again by the King's
license, and laid out since for my Lord of Worcester's Men, as
followeth, 1603, 9 of May."[235] Since only one entry follows, it is
probable that the company did not remain long at the Rose. No doubt,
the outbreak of the plague quickly drove them into the country; and on
their return to London in the spring of 1604 they occupied the Boar's
Head and the Curtain.
[Footnote 234: On March 19 the Privy Council formally ordered the
suppression of all plays. This was five days before the death of Queen
Elizabeth.]
[Footnote 235: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 190.]
After this there is no evidence to connect the playhouse with dramatic
performances.
Henslowe's lease of the Little Rose property, on which his playhouse
stood, expired in 1605, and the Parish of St. Mildred's demanded an
increase in rental. The following note in the _Diary_ refers to a
renewal of the lease:
_Memorandum_, that the 25 of June, 1603, I talked with Mr.
Pope at the scrivener's shop where he lies,[236] concerning
the taking of the lease anew of the little Rose, and he
shewed me a writing betwixt the parish and himself which
was to pay twenty pound a year rent,[237] and to bestow a
hundred marks upon building, which I said I would rather
pull down the playhouse than I would do so, and he bad me
do, and said he gave me leave, and would bear me out, for it
was in him to do it.[238]
[Footnote 236: Some scholars have supposed that this was Morgan Pope,
a part owner of the Bear Garden; but he is last heard of in 1585, and
by 1605 was probably dead. Mr. Greg is of the opinion that Thomas
Pope, the well-known member of the King's Men at the Globe, is
referred to. From this has been developed the theory that Pope, acting
for the Globe players, had rented the Rose and closed it in order to
prevent competition with the Globe on the Bankside. I believe,
however, that the "Mr. Pope" here referred to was neither of these
men, but merely the agent of the Parish of St. Mildred. It is said
that he lived at a scrivener's shop. This could not apply to the actor
Thomas Pope, for we learn from his will, made less than a month later,
that he lived in a house of his own, furnished with plate and
household goods, and cared for by a housekeeper; and with him lived
Susan Gasquine, whom he had "brought up ever since she was born."]
[Footnote 237: The old rental was L7 a year.]
[Footnote 238: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 178.]
Henslowe did not renew his lease of the property. On October 4, 1605,
the Commissioners of the Sewers amerced him for the Rose, but return
was made that it was then "out of his hands."[239] From a later entry
in the Sewer Records, February 14, 1606, we learn that the new owner
of the Rose was one Edward Box, of Bread Street, London. Box, it
seems, either tore down the building, or converted it into tenements.
The last reference to it in the Sewer Records is on April 25, 1606,
when it is referred to as "the late playhouse."[240]
[Footnote 239: Wallace in the London _Times_, April 30, 1914, p. 10.
In view of these records it seems unnecessary to refute those persons
who assert that the Rose was standing so late as 1622. I may add,
however, that before Mr. Wallace published the Sewer Records I had
successfully disposed of all the evidence which has been collected to
show the existence of the Rose after 1605. The chief source of this
error is a footnote by Malone in _Variorum_, III, 56; the source of
Malone's error is probably to be seen in his footnote, _ibid._, p.
66.]
[Footnote 240: For the tourist the memory of the old playhouse to-day
lingers about Rose Alley on the Bank.]