THE FORTUNE
The erection of the Globe on the Bankside within a few hundred yards
of the Rose was hardly gratifying to the Admiral's Men. Not only did
it put them in close competition with the excellent Burbage-Shakespeare
organization, but it caused their playhouse (now nearly a quarter of a
century old, and said to be in a state of "dangerous decay") to suffer
in comparison with the new and far handsomer Globe, "the glory of the
Bank." Accordingly, before the Globe had been in operation much more
than half a year, Henslowe and Alleyn decided to move to another
section of London, and to erect there a playhouse that should surpass
the Globe both in size and in magnificence. To the authorities,
however, they gave as reasons for abandoning the Rose, first, "the
dangerous decay" of the building, and secondly, "for that the same
standeth very noisome for resort of people in the winter time."
The new playhouse was undertaken by Henslowe and Alleyn jointly,
although the exact arrangement between them is not now clear. Alleyn
seems to have advanced the money and to have held the titles of
ownership; but on April 4, 1601, he leased to Henslowe a moiety (or
one-half interest) in the playhouse and other properties connected
with it for a period of twenty-four years at an annual rental of L8--a
sum far below the real value of the moiety.[431]
[Footnote 431: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 25; Wallace, _Three London
Theatres_, p. 53. Later, Alleyn rented to the actors the playhouse
alone for L200 per annum. In the document, Alleyn _v._ William
Henslowe, published by Mr. Wallace in _Three London Theatres_, p. 52,
it is revealed that this annual rental of L8 was canceled by Alleyn's
rental of a house from Henslowe on the Bankside; hence no actual
payments by Henslowe appear in the Henslowe-Alleyn papers.]
Whatever the details of the arrangement between the two partners, the
main outlines of their procedure are clear. On December 22, 1599,
Alleyn purchased for L240 a thirty-three-year lease[432] of a plot of
ground situated to the north of the city, in the Parish of St. Giles
without Cripplegate. This plot of ground, we are told, stood "very
tolerable, near unto the Fields, and so far distant and remote from
any person or place of account as that none can be annoyed
thereby";[433] and yet, as the Earl of Nottingham wrote, it was "very
convenient for the ease of people."[434]
[Footnote 432: Later, by a series of negotiations ending in 1610,
Alleyn secured the freehold of the property. The total cost to him was
L800. See Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, pp. 14, 17, 108.]
[Footnote 433: _Ibid._, p. 50.]
[Footnote 434: _Ibid._, p. 49; cf. p. 51.]
The property thus acquired lay between Golding Lane and Whitecross
Street, two parallel thoroughfares running north and south. There were
tenements on the edge of the property facing Whitecross Street,
tenements on the edge facing Golding Lane, and an open space between.
Alleyn and Henslowe planned to erect their new playhouse in this open
space "between Whitecross Street and Golding Lane," and to make "a way
leading to it" from Golding Lane. The ground set aside for the
playhouse is described as "containing in length from east to west one
hundred twenty and seven feet and a half, a little more or less, and
in breadth, from north to south, one hundred twenty and nine feet, a
little more or less."[435]
[Footnote 435: Collier, _The Alleyn Papers_, p. 98. For a slightly
different measurement of the plot see Collier, _Memoirs of Edward
Alleyn_, p. 167.]
The lease of this property having been consummated on December 22,
1599, on January 8, 1600, Henslowe and Alleyn signed a contract with
the carpenter, Peter Street (who had recently gained valuable
experience in building the Globe), to erect the new playhouse. The
contract called for the completion of the building by July 25, 1600,
provided, however, the workmen were "not by any authority restrained."
The latter clause may indicate that Peter Street anticipated
difficulties. If so, he was not mistaken, for when early in January
his workmen began to assemble material for the erection of the
building, the authorities, especially those of the Parish of St.
Giles, promptly interfered. Alleyn thereupon appealed to the patron of
the troupe, the Earl of Nottingham, the Lord Admiral. On January 12,
1600, Nottingham issued a warrant to the officers of the county "to
permit and suffer my said servant [Edward Alleyn] to proceed in the
effecting and furnishing of the said new house, without any your let
or molestation toward him or any of his workmen."[436] This warrant,
however, seems not to have prevented the authorities of St. Giles from
continuing their restraint. Alleyn was then forced to play his trump
card--through his great patron to secure from the Privy Council itself
a warrant for the construction of the building. First, however, by
offering "to give a very liberal portion of money weekly" towards the
relief of "the poor in the parish of St. Giles," he persuaded many of
the inhabitants to sign a document addressed to the Privy Council, in
which they not only gave their full consent to the erection of the
playhouse, but actually urged "that the same might proceed."[437] This
document he placed in the hands of Nottingham to use in influencing
the Council. The effort was successful. On April 8 the Council issued
a warrant "to the Justices of the Peace of the County of Middlesex,
especially of St. Giles without Cripplegate, and to all others whom it
shall concern," that they should permit Henslowe and Alleyn "to
proceed in the effecting and finishing of the same new house."[438]
[Footnote 436: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 49.]
[Footnote 437: _Ibid._, p. 50.]
[Footnote 438: _Ibid._, p. 51.]
[Illustration: THE SITE OF THE FORTUNE PLAYHOUSE
The site of the Fortune is marked by Playhouse Yard, connecting Golden
Lane and Whitecross Street. (From Ogilby and Morgan's _Map of London_,
1677.)]
This warrant, of course, put an end to all interference by local
authorities. But as the playhouse reared itself high above the walls
of the city to the north, the Puritans were aroused to action. They
made this the occasion for a most violent attack on actors and
theatres in general, and on the Fortune in particular. With this
attack the city authorities, for reasons of their own, heartily
sympathized, but they had no jurisdiction over the Parish of St.
Giles, or over the other localities in which playhouses were situated.
Since the Privy Council had specially authorized the erection of the
Fortune, the Lord Mayor shifted the attack to that body, and himself
dispatched an urgent request to the Lords for reformation. In response
to all this agitation the Lords of the Privy Council on June 22, 1600,
issued the following order:
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 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. Secondly, ... it is likewise ordered that the two
several companies of players assigned unto the two houses
allowed may play each of them in their several houses twice
a week and no oftener; and especially that they shall
refrain to play on the Sabbath day ... and that they shall
forbear altogether in the time of Lent.
The first part of this order, limiting the playhouses and companies to
two, was merely a repetition of the order of 1598.[439] It meant that
the Lords of the Privy Council formally licensed the Admiral's and the
Lord Chamberlain's Companies to play in London (of course the Lords
might, when they saw fit, license other companies for specific
periods). The second part of the order, limiting the number of
performances, was more serious, for no troupe could afford to act only
twice a week. The order if carried out would mean the ruin of the
Fortune and the Globe Companies. But it was not carried out. The
actors, as we learn from Henslowe's _Diary_, did not restrict
themselves to two plays a week. Why, then, did the Lords issue this
order, and why was it not put into effect? A study of the clever way
in which Alleyn, Nottingham, and the Privy Council overcame the
opposition of the puritanical officers of St. Giles who were
interfering with the erection of the Fortune will suggest the
explanation. The Lords were making a shrewd move to quiet the noisy
enemies of the drama. They did not intend that the Admiral's and the
Chamberlain's Men should be driven out of existence; they were merely
meeting fanaticism with craft.
[Footnote 439: See page 174.]
Alleyn and Henslowe must have understood this,--possibly they learned
it directly from their patron Nottingham,--for they proceeded with the
erection of their expensive building. The work, however, had been so
seriously delayed by the restraints of the local authorities that the
foundations were not completed until May 8.[440] On that day
carpenters were brought from Windsor, and set to the task of erecting
the frame. Since the materials had been accumulating on the site since
January 17, the work of erection must have proceeded rapidly. The
daily progress of this work is marked in Henslowe's _Diary_ by the
dinners of Henslowe with the contractor, Peter Street. On August 8,
these dinners ceased, so that on that date, or shortly after, we may
assume, the building proper was finished.[441]
[Footnote 440: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 10.]
[Footnote 441: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 158-59.]
For erecting the building Street received L440. But this did not
include the painting of the woodwork (which, if we may judge from De
Witt's description of the Swan, must have been costly), or the
equipment of the stage. We learn from Alleyn's memoranda that the
final cost of the playhouse was L520.[442] Hence, after Street's work
of erection was finished in August, the entire building had to be
painted, and the stage properly equipped with curtains, hangings,
machines, etc. This must have occupied at least two months. From
Henslowe's _Diary_ it appears that the playhouse was first used about
the end of November or the early part of December, 1600.[443]
[Footnote 442: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 108.]
[Footnote 443: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 124.]
The original contract of Henslowe and Alleyn with Peter Street for the
erection of the Fortune, preserved among the papers at Dulwich
College, supplies us with some very exact details of the size and
shape of the building. Although the document is long, and is couched
in the legal verbiage of the day, it will repay careful study. For the
convenience of the reader I quote below its main specifications:[444]
_Foundation._ A good, sure, and strong foundation, of piles,
brick, lime, and sand, both without and within, to be
wrought one foot of assize at the least above the ground.
_Frame._ The frame of the said house to be set square, and
to contain fourscore foot of lawful assize every way square
without, and fifty-five foot of like assize square every way
within.
_Materials._ And shall also make all the said frame in every
point for scantlings larger and bigger in assize than the
scantlings of the said new-erected house called the Globe.
_Exterior._ To be sufficiently enclosed without with lath,
lime, and hair.
_Stairs._ With such like stairs, conveyances, and divisions,
without and within, as are made and contrived in and to the
late erected playhouse ... called the Globe.... And the
staircases thereof to be sufficiently enclosed without with
lath, lime, and hair.
_Height of galleries._ And the said frame to contain three
stories in height; the first, or lower story to contain
twelve foot of lawful assize in height; the second story
eleven foot of lawful assize in height; and the third, or
upper story, to contain nine foot of lawful assize in
height.
_Breadth of galleries._ All which stories shall contain
twelve foot of lawful assize in breadth throughout. Besides
a jutty forward in either of the said two upper stories of
ten inches of lawful assize.
_Protection of lowest gallery._ The lower story of the said
frame withinside ... [to be] paled in below with good,
strong, and sufficient new oaken boards.... And the said
lower story to be also laid over and fenced with strong iron
pikes.
_Divisions of galleries._ With four convenient divisions for
gentlemen's rooms, and other sufficient and convenient
divisions for two-penny rooms.... And the gentlemen's rooms
and two-penny rooms to be ceiled with lath, lime, and hair.
_Seats._ With necessary seats to be placed and set, as well
in those rooms as throughout all the rest of the galleries.
_Stage._ With a stage and tiring-house to be made, erected,
and set up within the said frame; with a shadow or cover
over the said stage. Which stage shall be placed and set (as
also the staircases of the said frame) in such sort as is
prefigured in a plot thereof drawn. [The plot has been
lost.] And which stage shall contain in length forty and
three foot of lawful assize, and in breadth to extend to
the middle of the yard of the said house. The same stage to
be paled in below with good, strong, and sufficient new
oaken boards.... And the said stage to be in all other
proportions contrived and fashioned like unto the stage of
the said playhouse called the Globe.... And the said ...
stage ... to be covered with tile, and to have a sufficient
gutter of lead to carry and convey the water from the
covering of the said stage to fall backwards.
_Tiring-house._ With convenient windows and lights, glazed,
to the said tiring-house.
_Flooring._ And all the floors of the said galleries,
stories, and stage to be boarded with good and sufficient
new deal boards, of the whole thickness where need shall be.
_Columns._ All the principal and main posts of the said
frame and stage forward shall be square, and wrought
pilaster-wise, with carved proportions called satyrs to be
placed and set on the top of every of the said posts.
_Roof._ And the said frame, stage, and staircases to be
covered with tile.
_Miscellaneous._ To be in all other contrivations,
conveyances, fashions, thing and things, effected, finished,
and done, according to the manner and fashion of the said
house called the Globe.
[Footnote 444: For the full document see Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p.
4.]
It is rather unfortunate for us that the building was to be in so many
respects a copy of the Globe, for that deprives us of further detailed
specifications; and it is unfortunate, too, that the plan or drawing
showing the arrangement of the stage was not preserved with the rest
of the document. Yet we are able to derive much exact information
from the contract; and with this information, at least two modern
architects have made reconstructions of the building.[445]
[Footnote 445: See the Bibliography. A model of the Fortune by Mr.
W.H. Godfrey is preserved in the Dramatic Museum of Columbia
University in New York City, and a duplicate is in the Museum of
European Culture at the University of Illinois. For a description of
the model see the _Architect and Builders' Journal_ (London), August
16, 1911.]
No representation of the exterior of the Fortune has come down to us.
In the so-called Ryther _Map of London_, there is, to be sure, what
seems to be a crude representation of the playhouse (see page 278);
but if this is really intended for the Fortune, it does little more
than mark the location. Yet one can readily picture in his imagination
the playhouse--a plastered structure, eighty feet square and
approximately forty feet high,[446] with small windows marking the
galleries, a turret and flagpole surmounting the red-tiled roof, and
over the main entrance a sign representing Dame Fortune:
I'le rather stand here,
Like a statue in the fore-front of your house,
For ever, like the picture of Dame Fortune
Before the Fortune Playhouse.[447]
[Footnote 446: The three galleries (twelve, eleven, and nine feet,
respectively) were thirty-two feet in height; but to this must be
added the elevation of the first gallery above the yard, the space
occupied by the ceiling and flooring of the several galleries, and,
finally, the roof.]
[Footnote 447: Thomas Heywood, _The English Traveller_ (1633), ed.
Pearson, IV, 84. We do not know when the play was written, but the
reference is probably to the New Fortune, built in 1623. Heywood
generally uses "picture" in the sense of "statue."]
[Illustration: THE FORTUNE PLAYHOUSE (?)
The curious structure with the flag may be intended to mark the site
of the Fortune. (From the so-called Ryther _Map of London_, drawn
about 1630-40.)]
Nor is there any pictorial representation of the interior of the
playhouse. In the absence of such, I offer the reader a verbal picture
of the interior as seen from the stage during the performance of a
play. In Middleton and Dekker's _The Roaring Girl_, acted at the
Fortune, Sir Alexander shows to his friends his magnificent house.
Advancing to the middle of the stage, and pointing out over the
building, he asks them how they like it:
_Goshawk._ I like the prospect best.
_Laxton._ See how 't is furnished!
_Sir Davy._ A very fair sweet room.
_Sir Alex._ Sir Davy Dapper,
The furniture that doth adorn this room
Cost many a fair grey groat ere it came here;
But good things are most cheap when they're most dear.
Nay, when you look into my galleries,
How bravely they're trimm'd up, you all shall swear
You're highly pleas'd to see what's set down there:
Stories of men and women, mix'd together,
Fair ones with foul, like sunshine in wet weather;
Within one square a thousand heads are laid,
So close that all of heads the room seems made;
As many faces there, fill'd with blithe looks
Shew like the promising titles of new books
Writ merrily, the readers being their own eyes,
Which seem to move and to give plaudities;
And here and there, whilst with obsequious ears
Throng'd heaps do listen, a cut-purse thrusts and leers
With hawk's eyes for his prey; I need not shew him;
By a hanging, villainous look yourselves may know him,
The face is drawn so rarely: then, sir, below,
The very floor, as 't were, waves to and fro,
And, like a floating island, seems to move
Upon a sea bound in with shores above.
_All._ These sights are excellent![448]
[Footnote 448: _The Roaring Girl_, I, i. Pointed out by M.W. Sampson,
_Modern Language Notes_, June, 1915.]
A closer view of this audience--"men and women, mix'd together, fair
ones with foul"--is furnished by one of the letters of Orazio
Busino,[449] the chaplain of the Venetian Embassy, who visited the
Fortune playhouse shortly after his arrival in London in 1617:
The other day, therefore, they determined on taking me to
one of the many theatres where plays are performed, and we
saw a tragedy, which diverted me very little, especially as
I cannot understand a word of English, though some little
amusement may be derived from gazing at the very costly
dresses of the actors, and from the various interludes of
instrumental music and dancing and singing; but the best
treat was to see such a crowd of nobility so very well
arrayed that they looked like so many princes, listening as
silently and soberly as possible. These theatres are
frequented by a number of respectable and handsome ladies,
who come freely and seat themselves among the men without
the slightest hesitation. On the evening in question his
Excellency [the Venetian Ambassador] and the Secretary were
pleased to play me a trick by placing me amongst a bevy of
young women. Scarcely was I seated ere a very elegant dame,
but in a mask, came and placed herself beside me.... She
asked me for my address, both in French and English; and on
my turning a deaf ear, she determined to honour me by
showing me some fine diamonds on her fingers, repeatedly
taking off no fewer than three gloves, which were worn one
over the other.... This lady's bodice was of yellow satin
richly embroidered, her petticoat of gold tissue with
stripes, her robe of red velvet with a raised pile, lined
with yellow muslin, with broad stripes of pure gold. She
wore an apron of point lace of various patterns; her
head-tire was highly perfumed, and the collar of white satin
beneath the delicately-wrought ruff struck me as extremely
pretty.
[Footnote 449: "Diaries and Despatches of the Venetian Embassy at the
Court of King James I, in the Years 1617, 1618. Translated by Rawdon
Brown." (_The Quarterly Review_, CII, 416.) It is true that the notice
of this letter in _The Calendar of State Papers, Venetian_, XV, 67,
makes no mention of the Fortune; but the writer in _The Quarterly
Review_, who had before him the entire manuscript, states positively
that the Fortune was the playhouse visited. I have not been able to
examine the manuscript itself, which is preserved in Venice.]
That the players were prepared to entertain distinguished visitors
both during the performance and after is shown by a letter from John
Chamberlain, July 21, 1621, to Sir Dudley Carleton. "The Spanish
Ambassador," he writes, "is grown so affable and familiar, that on
Monday, with his whole train, he went to a common play at the Fortune
in Golding Lane; and the players (not to be overcome with courtesy)
made him a banquet, when the play was done, in the garden
adjoining."[450]
[Footnote 450: Nichols, _The Progresses of King James_, IV, 67.]
Upon its completion the new building was occupied by the Admiral's
Men, for whom it had been erected. This troupe of players, long famous
under the leadership of Edward Alleyn, was now one of the two
companies authorized by the Privy Council, and the chief rival of the
Chamberlain's Men at the Globe. Henslowe was managing their affairs,
and numerous poets were writing plays for them. They continued to act
at the Fortune under the name, "The Admiral's Men," until May 5, 1603,
when, as Henslowe put it, they "left off play now at the King's
coming."[451]
[Footnote 451: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 174.]
After a short interruption on account of the plague, during a part of
which time they traveled in the provinces, the Admiral's Men were
taken under the patronage of the youthful Henry, Prince of Wales, and
in the early spring of 1604 they resumed playing at the Fortune under
their new name, "The Prince's Servants."
[Illustration: EDWARD ALLEYN
(Reproduced by permission from a painting in the Dulwich Picture
Gallery; photograph by Emery Walker, Ltd.)]
For a time all went well. But from July, 1607, until December, 1609,
the plague was severe in London, and acting was seriously interrupted.
During this long period of hardship for the players, Henslowe and
Alleyn seem to have made an attempt to hold the troupe together by
admitting its chief members to a partnership in the building, just as
the Burbages had formerly admitted their chief players to a
partnership in the Globe. At this time there were in the troupe eight
sharers, or chief actors.[452] Henslowe and Alleyn, it seems, proposed
to allot to these eight actors one-fourth of the Fortune property. In
other words, according to this scheme, there were to be thirty-two
sharers in the new Fortune organization, Alleyn and Henslowe together
holding three-fourths of the stock, or twelve shares each, and the
eight actors together holding one-fourth of the stock, or one share
each. A document was actually drawn up by Henslowe and Alleyn, with
the name of the leader of the Fortune troupe, Thomas Downton,
inserted;[453] but since the document was not executed, the scheme,
it is to be presumed, was unsuccessful--at least, we hear nothing
further about it.[454]
[Footnote 452: See the Company's Patent of 1606, in The Malone
Society's _Collections_, I, 268.]
[Footnote 453: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 13.]
[Footnote 454: For an ordinance concerning "lewd jiggs" at the Fortune
in 1612, see _Middlesex County Records_, II, 83.]
On November 6, 1612, the death of the young Prince of Wales left the
company without a "service." On January 4, 1613, however, a new patent
was issued to the players, placing them under the protection of the
Palsgrave, or Elector Palatine, after which date they are known as
"The Palsgrave's Men."
On January 9, 1616, Henslowe, so long associated with the company and
the Fortune, died; and a year later his widow, Agnes, followed him. As
a result the entire Fortune property passed into the hands of Alleyn.
But Alleyn, apparently, did not care to be worried with the management
of the playhouse; so on October 31, 1618, he leased it to the
Palsgrave's Men for a period of thirty-one years, at an annual rental
of L200 and two rundlets of wine at Christmas.[455]
[Footnote 455: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 27; Young, _The History of
Dulwich College_, II, 260.]
On April 24, 1620, Alleyn executed a deed of grant of lands by which
he transferred the Fortune, along with various other properties, to
Dulwich College.[456] But he retained during his lifetime the whole of
the revenues therefrom, and he specifically reserved to himself the
right to grant leases for any length of years. The transference of
the title, therefore, in no way affected the playhouse, and Alleyn
continued to manage the property as he had been accustomed to do in
the past.
[Footnote 456: The deed is printed by Young, _op. cit._, I, 50. The
Fortune property, I believe, is still a part of the endowment of the
college.]
His services in this capacity were soon needed, for on December 9,
1621, the Fortune was burned to the ground. Alleyn records the event
in his _Diary_ thus: "_Memorandum._ This night at 12 of the clock the
Fortune was burnt." In a less laconic fashion John Chamberlain writes
to Sir Dudley Carleton: "On Sunday night here was a great fire at the
Fortune in Golding-Lane, the fairest playhouse in this town. It was
quite burnt down in two hours, and all their apparel and playbooks
lost, whereby those poor companions are quite undone."[457]
[Footnote 457: Birch, _The Court and Times of James the First_, II,
280. Howes, in his continuation of Stow's _Annals_ (1631), p. 1004,
attributes the fire to "negligence of a candle," but gives no
details.]
The "poor companions" thus referred to were, of course, the players,
who lost not only their stock of apparel, playbooks, and stage
furniture, but also their lease, which assured them of a home. Alleyn,
however, was quite able and ready to reconstruct the building for
them; and we find him on May 20, 1621, already organizing a syndicate
to finance "a new playhouse" which "there is intended to be erected
and set up." The stock of the new enterprise he divided into twelve
equal shares, which he disposed of, as the custom was, in the form of
whole and half shares, reserving for himself only one share.[458] The
plot of ground on which the old playhouse stood he leased to the
several sharers for a period of fifty-one years at an annual rental of
L10 13_s._ 10_d._ a share, with the express condition that the
building to be erected thereon should never be used for any purpose
other than the acting of stage-plays. The sharers then proceeded to
the task of constructing their playhouse. It was proposed to make the
new building larger[459] and handsomer than the old one, and to build
it of brick[460] with a tiled roof--possibly an attempt at fireproof
construction. It was decided, also, to abandon the square shape in
favor of the older and more logical circular shape. Wright, in his
_Historia Histrionica_, describes the New Fortune as "a large, round,
brick building,"[461] and Howes assures us that it was "farre fairer"
than the old playhouse.[462] We do not know how much the building
cost. At the outset each sharer was assessed L83 6_s._ 8_d._ towards
the cost of construction,[463] which would produce exactly L1000; but
the first assessment was not necessarily all that the sharers were
called upon to pay. For example, when the Globe was rebuilt each
sharer was at first assessed "L50 or L60," but before the building was
finished each had paid more than L100. So the Fortune may well have
cost more than the original estimate of L1000. In 1656 two expert
assessors appointed by the authorities of Dulwich College to examine
the playhouse declared that "the said building did in our opinions
cost building about two thousand pound."[464] This estimate is
probably not far wrong. The playhouse was completed in June or July of
1623, and was again occupied by the Palsgrave's Men.[465]
[Footnote 458: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, pp. 28-30; 112. The names of
the sharers are not inspiring: Thomas Sparks, merchant tailor; William
Gwalter, innholder; John Fisher, barber-surgeon; Thomas Wigpitt,
bricklayer; etc.]
[Footnote 459: Prynne, _Histriomastix_, Epistle Dedicatory.]
[Footnote 460: The writer of the manuscript notes in the Phillipps
copy of Stow's _Annals_ (see _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314),
who is not trustworthy, says that the Fortune was burned down in 1618,
and "built again with brick work on the outside," from which Mr.
Wallace assumed that he meant that the building was merely
brick-veneered. If the writer meant this he was in error. See the
report of the commission appointed by Dulwich College to examine the
building (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 95).]
[Footnote 461: Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 408.]
[Footnote 462: Stow, _Annals_, 1631.]
[Footnote 463: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 29. Half-shares were L41
13_s._ 4_d._, which Murray (_English Dramatic Companies_) confuses
with whole shares.]
[Footnote 464: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 95. This estimate was made
after the interior of the building had been "pulled down," and hence
refers merely to the cost of erection.]
[Footnote 465: For an account of "a dangerous and great riot committed
in Whitecross Street at the Fortune Playhouse" in May, 1626, see
Jeaffreson, _Middlesex County Records_, III, 161-63.]
On November 25, 1626, Edward Alleyn died, and the Fortune property
came into the full possession of Dulwich College. This, however, did
not in any way affect the syndicate of the Fortune housekeepers, who
held from Alleyn a lease of the property until 1672. According to the
terms of this lease each of the twelve sharers had to pay a yearly
rental of L10 13_s._ 10_d._; this rental now merely went to the
College instead of to Alleyn.
In 1631 the Palsgrave's Men seem to have fallen on hard times; at any
rate, they had to give up the Fortune, and the playhouse was taken
over, about December, by the King's Revels, who had been playing at
the small private playhouse of Salisbury Court.[466] The Palsgrave's
Men were reorganized, taken under the patronage of the infant Prince
Charles, and placed in the Salisbury Court Playhouse just vacated by
the King's Revels.
[Footnote 466: For details of this move see the chapter on the
Salisbury Court Playhouse.]
In 1635 there was a general shifting of houses on the part of the
London companies. The King's Revels left the Fortune and returned to
their old quarters at Salisbury Court; the Prince Charles's Men, who
had been at Salisbury Court, moved to the Red Bull; and the Red Bull
Company transferred itself to the Fortune.
The stay of the Red Bull Company at the Fortune was not happy. Towards
the end of 1635 the plague was seriously interfering with their
performance of plays;[467] and on May 10, 1636, the Privy Council
closed all theatres, and kept them closed, except for a few days,
until October 2, 1637.[468] This long inhibition not only impoverished
the actors and drove them into the country, but came near ruining the
lessees of the Fortune, who, having no revenue from the playhouse,
could not make their quarterly payments to the College. On September
4, 1637, the Court of Assistants at Dulwich noted that the lessees
were behind in their rent to the extent of L132 12_s._ 11_d._; "and,"
the court adds, "there will be a quarter's rent more at Michaelmas
next [i.e., in twenty-five days], which is doubted will be also
unpaid, amounting to L33 1_s._ 4_d._"[469] The excuse of the lessees
for their failure to pay was the "restraint from playing."[470]
[Footnote 467: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, I, 114.]
[Footnote 468: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 391, 392;
Malone, _Variorum_, III, 239.]
[Footnote 469: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, I, 114.]
[Footnote 470: The College appealed to the Lord Keeper, who on January
26 ordered the payment of the sum. But two years later, February,
1640, we find the College again petitioning the Lord Keeper to order
the lessees of the Fortune property to pay an arrearage of L104 14_s._
5_d._ See Collier, _The Alleyn Papers_, pp. 95-98.]
This "restraint" was removed on October 2, 1637, and the players
resumed their performances at the Fortune. But in the early summer of
1639 they fell victims to another bit of ill luck even more serious
than their long inhibition. In a letter of Edmond Rossingham, dated
May 8, 1639, we read: "Thursday last the players of the Fortune were
fined L1000 for setting up an altar, a bason, and two candlesticks,
and bowing down before it upon the stage; and although they allege it
was an old play revived, and an altar to the heathen gods, yet it was
apparent that this play was revived on purpose in contempt of the
ceremonies of the Church."[471]
[Footnote 471: Printed in _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic,
1639_, p. 140.]
During the Easter period, 1640, the players returned to their old
quarters at the Red Bull. After their unhappy experiences at the
Fortune they were apparently glad to occupy again their former home.
The event is celebrated in a Prologue entitled _Upon the Removing of
the Late Fortune Players to the Bull_, written by John Tatham, and
printed in _Fancies Theatre_ (1640):[472]
Here, gentlemen, our anchor's fixt; and we
Disdaining _Fortune's_ mutability,
Expect your kind acceptance.
[Footnote 472: The Prologue is printed in full by Malone, _Variorum_,
III, 79.]
The writer then hurls some uncomplimentary remarks at the Fortune,
observing complacently: "We have ne'er an actor here has mouth enough
to tear language by the ears." It is true that during these later
years the Fortune had fallen into ill repute with persons of good
taste. But so had the Red Bull, and the actors there had no right to
throw stones. Apparently the large numbers that could be accommodated
in the great public theatres, and the quality of the audience
attracted by the low price of admission, made noise and rant
inevitable.[473] As chief sinners in this respect the Fortune and the
Red Bull are usually mentioned together.
[Footnote 473: Not even the Globe was entirely free from this; see the
Prologue to _The Doubtful Heir_.]
Upon the departure of the Red Bull Company, the Prince Charles's Men
(originally the Admiral's, and later the Palsgrave's Men), who had
been occupying the Red Bull, came to the Fortune.[474] Thus after an
absence of nearly nine years, the old company (though sadly altered in
personnel), for which the Fortune had been built, returned to its home
to remain there until the end.
[Footnote 474: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 79.]
On September 2, 1642, the Long Parliament passed an ordinance
suppressing all stage-plays; but for a time the actors at the Fortune
seem to have continued their performances. In the fifth number of _The
Weekly Account_, September 27-October 4, 1643, we find among other
entries: "The players' misfortune at the Fortune in Golding Lane,
their players' clothes being seized upon in the time of a play by
authority from the Parliament."[475] This, doubtless, led to the
closing of the playhouse.
[Footnote 475: _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1643_, p.
564.]
After the Fortune was thus closed, the lessees were in a predicament.
By a specific clause in their lease they were prevented from using the
building for any purpose other than the acting of stage-plays, and now
Parliament by a specific ordinance had forbidden the acting of
stage-plays. Hence the lessees, some of whom were poor persons, being
unable to make any profit from the building, refused to pay any rent.
The College entered suit against them, and exhausted all legal means
to make them pay, but without success.[476]
[Footnote 476: For an interesting comment on the situation, especially
in the year 1649, see _Notes and Queries_ (series X), I, 85.]
When the ordinance prohibiting plays expired in January, 1648, the
actors promptly reopened the Fortune, and we learn from _The Kingdom's
Weekly Intelligencer_ that on January 27 no fewer than one hundred and
twenty coaches were crowded about the building. But on February 9
Parliament passed a new and even more stringent ordinance against
dramatic performances, placing penalties not only upon the players,
but also upon the spectators. This for ever put an end to acting at
the Fortune.
In 1649 the arrears of the lessees having reached the sum of L974
5_s._ 8_d._, the authorities of the College took formal possession of
the playhouse.
From certain manuscript notes[477] entered in the Phillipps copy of
Stow's _Annals_ (1631), we learn that "a company of soldiers, set on
by the sectaries of these sad times, on Saturday, the 24 day of March,
1649," sacked the Salisbury Court Playhouse, the Phoenix, and the
Fortune. The note states that the Fortune was "pulled down on the
inside by the soldiers"; that is, the stage and the seats were
dismantled[478] so as to render the building unusable for dramatic
purposes.
[Footnote 477: Printed in _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314.]
[Footnote 478: See _The Journals of the House of Commons_, July 26,
1648.]
In the following year, 1650, the inhabitants of the Parish of St.
Giles "represent that they are poor, and unable to build a place of
worship for themselves, but think it would be convenient if that large
building commonly known by the name of the Fortune Playhouse might be
allotted and set apart for that purpose." The request was not
granted.[479]
[Footnote 479: Warner, _Catalogue_, XXXI; Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_,
II, 65.]
By July, 1656, the condition of the old playhouse was such that the
Masters and Wardens of the College appointed two experts to view the
building and make recommendations. They reported "that by reason the
lead hath been taken from the said building, the tiling not secured,
and the foundation of the said playhouse not kept in good repair,
great part of the said playhouse is fallen to the ground, the timber
thereof much decayed and rotten, and the brick walls so rent and torn
that the whole structure is in no condition capable of repair, but in
great danger of falling, to the hazard of passengers' lives"; and they
add: "The charge for demolishing the same will be chargeable and
dangerous. Upon these considerations our opinion is that the said
materials may not be more worth than eighty pound."[480]
[Footnote 480: The entire report is printed in Greg, _Henslowe
Papers_, p. 95.]
The authorities of Dulwich took no action on this report. However, on
March 5, 1660, they ordered that the property be leased, making a
casual reference to the playhouse as "at present so ruinous that part
thereof is already fallen down, and the rest will suddenly follow."
Accordingly, they inserted in the _Mercurius Politicus_ of February
14-21, 1661, the following advertisement: "The Fortune Playhouse,
situate between Whitecross Street and Golding Lane, in the parish of
St. Giles, Cripplegate, with the ground thereto belonging, is to be
let to be built upon."[481]
[Footnote 481: Discovered by Stevens, and printed in Malone,
_Variorum_, III, 55, note 5. Mr. W.J. Lawrence, _Archiv fuer das
Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen_ (1914), p. 314, says
that the date of this advertisement is 1660. But the same
advertisement is reprinted by H.R. Plomer in _Notes and Queries_
(series X), VI, 107, from _The Kingdom's Intelligencer_ of March 18,
1661.]
No one seems to have cared to lease the property; so on March 16,
following, the materials of the building were sold to one William
Beaven for the sum of L75;[482] and in the records of the College,
March 4, 1662, we read that "the said playhouse ... is since totally
demolished."[483]
[Footnote 482: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, II, 265.]
[Footnote 483: Collier, _The Alleyn Papers_, p. 101. I am aware of the
fact that there are references to later incidents at the Fortune (for
example, the statement that it was visited by officers in November,
1682, in an attempt to suppress secret conventicles that had long been
held there), but in view of the unimpeachable documentary evidence
cited above (in 1662 the College authorities again refer to it as "the
late ruinous and now demolished Fortune playhouse"), we must regard
these later references either as inaccurate, or as referring to
another building later erected in the same neighborhood. The so-called
picture of the Fortune, printed in Wilkinson's _Londina Illustrata_,
and often reproduced by modern scholars, cannot possibly be that of
the playhouse erected by Alleyn. For an interesting surmise as to the
history of this later building see W.J. Lawrence, _Restoration Stage
Nurseries_, in _Archiv fuer das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und
Literaturen_ (1914), p. 301.]