THE PHOENIX, OR COCKPIT IN DRURY LANE
The private playhouse opened in Drury Lane[577] in 1617 seems to have
been officially named "The Phoenix"; but to the players and the
public alike it was more commonly known as "The Cockpit." This implies
some earlier connection of the site or of the building with
cock-fighting, from time out of mind a favorite sport in England.
Stowe writes in his _Survey_: "Cocks of the game are yet cherished by
diverse men for their pleasures, much money being laid on their heads,
when they fight in pits, whereof some be costly made for that
purpose." These pits, it seems, were circular in shape, and if large
enough might well be used for dramatic purposes. Shakespeare, in
_Henry V_ (1599), likens his playhouse to a cockpit:
Can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
[Footnote 577: Its exact position in Drury Lane is indicated by an
order of the Privy Council, June 8, 1623, concerning the paving of a
street at the rear of the theatre: "Whereas the highway leading along
the backside of the Cockpit Playhouse near Lincolns Inn Fields, and
the street called Queens Street adjoining to the same, are become very
foul," etc. (See The Malone Society _Collections_, I, 383. Queens
Street may be readily found in Faithorne's _Map of London_.) Malone
(_Variorum_, III, 53) states that "it was situated opposite the Castle
Tavern." The site is said to be marked by Pit Court.]
It is possible, then, that the building was an old cockpit made into a
playhouse. Howes,[578] in enumerating the London theatres, says: "Five
inns or common hostelries turned into playhouses, one cockpit, St.
Paul's singing-school," etc. And Thomas Randolph, in verses prefixed
to James Shirley's _Grateful Servant_ (printed in 1630 as it was acted
"in the private house in Drury Lane"), suggests the same
metamorphosis:
When thy intelligence on the Cockpit stage
Gives it a soul from her immortal rage,
I hear the Muse's birds with full delight
Sing where the birds of Mars were wont to fight.
[Footnote 578: Stow's _Annals_ (1631), p. 1004.]
But in this fantastic conceit Randolph may have been thinking simply
of the name of the theatre; possibly he knew nothing of its early
history. On the whole it seems more likely that the playhouse was
newly erected in 1617 upon the site of an old cockpit. The name
"Phoenix" suggests that possibly the old cockpit had been destroyed
by fire, and that from its ashes had arisen a new building.[579]
Howes describes the Phoenix as being in 1617 "a new playhouse,"[580]
and Camden, who is usually accurate in such matters, refers to it in
the same year as "nuper erectum."[581]
[Footnote 579: Some scholars have supposed that the playhouse, when
attacked by the apprentices in 1617, was burned, and that the name
"Phoenix" was given to the building after its reconstruction. But
the building was not burned; it was merely wrecked on the inside by
apprentices.]
[Footnote 580: Continuation of Stow's _Annals_ (1631), p. 1026.]
[Footnote 581: William Camden, _Annals_, under the date of March 4,
1617. Yet Sir Sidney Lee (_A Life of William Shakespeare_, p. 60)
says, "built about 1610."]
Of its size and shape all our information comes from James Wright, who
in his _Historia Histrionica_[582] tells us that the Cockpit differed
in no essential feature from Blackfriars and Salisbury Court, "for
they were all three built almost exactly alike for form and bigness."
Since we know that Blackfriars and Salisbury Court were small
rectangular theatres, the former constructed in a hall forty-six feet
broad and sixty-six feet long, the latter erected on a plot of ground
forty-two feet broad and one hundred and forty feet long, we are not
left entirely ignorant of the shape and the approximate size of the
Cockpit.[583] And from Middleton's _Inner Temple Masque_ (1618) we
learn that it was constructed of brick. Its sign, presumably, was that
of a phoenix rising out of flames.
[Footnote 582: Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 408.]
[Footnote 583: Fleay and Lawrence are wrong in supposing that the
Cockpit was circular.]
[Illustration: THE SITE OF THE COCKPIT IN DRURY LANE
The site is marked by Cockpit Court. (From Rocque's _Map of London_,
1746.)]
The playhouse was erected and managed by Christopher Beeston,[584] one
of the most important actors and theatrical managers of the
Elizabethan period. We first hear of him as a member of Shakespeare's
troupe. In 1602 he joined Worcester's Company. In 1612 he became the
manager of Queen Anne's Company at the Red Bull. He is described at
that time as "a thriving man, and one that was of ability and
means."[585] He continued as manager of the Queen Anne's Men at the
Red Bull until 1617, when he transferred them to his new playhouse in
Drury Lane.
[Footnote 584: _Alias_ Christopher Hutchinson. Several actors of the
day employed _aliases_: Nicholas Wilkinson, _alias_ Tooley; Theophilus
Bourne, _alias_ Bird; James Dunstan, _alias_ Tunstall, etc. Whether
Beeston admitted other persons to a share in the building I cannot
learn. In a passage quoted by Malone (_Variorum_, III, 121) from the
Herbert Manuscript, dated February 20, 1635, there is a reference to
"housekeepers," indicating that Beeston had then admitted "sharers" in
the proprietorship of the building. And in an order of the Privy
Council, May 12, 1637 (The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 392), we
read: "Command the keepers of the playhouse called the Cockpit in
Drury Lane, who either live in it or have relation to it, not to
permit plays to be acted there till further order."]
[Footnote 585: Wallace, _Three London Theatres_, p. 35.]
The playhouse seems to have been ready to receive the players about
the end of February, 1617. We know that they were still performing at
the Red Bull as late as February 23;[586] but by March 4 they had
certainly moved to the Cockpit.
[Footnote 586: Wallace, _ibid._, pp. 32, 46. John Smith was delivering
silk and other clothes to the Queen Anne's Men at the Red Bull from
1612 until February 23, 1617.]
On the latter date, during the performance of a play, the Cockpit was
entered by a mob of disorderly persons, who proceeded to demolish the
interior. The occasion for the wrecking of the new playhouse was the
Shrove Tuesday saturnalia of the London apprentices, who from time
immemorial had employed this holiday to pull down houses of ill-fame
in the suburbs. That the Cockpit was situated in the neighborhood of
such houses cannot be doubted. We may suppose that the mob, fresh from
sacking buildings, had crowded into the playhouse in the afternoon,
and before the play was over had wrecked that building too.
The event created a great stir at the time. William Camden, in his
_Annals_, wrote under the date of March 4, 1617:
Theatrum ludiorum, nuper erectum in Drury Lane, a furente
multitudine diruitur, et apparatus dilaceratur.
Howes, in his continuation of Stow's _Annals_, writes:
Shrove-Tuesday, the fourth of March, many disordered persons
of sundry kinds, amongst whom were very many young boys and
lads, that assembled themselves in Lincolnes Inn Field,
Finsbury Field, in Ratcliffe, and Stepney Field, where in
riotous manner they did beat down the walls and windows of
many victualing houses and of all other houses which they
suspected to be bawdy houses. And that afternoon they
spoiled a new playhouse, and did likewise more hurt in
diverse other places.[587]
[Footnote 587: _Annals_ (1631), p. 1026.]
That several persons were killed, and many injured, is disclosed by a
letter from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor, dated March 5, 1617:
It is not unknown unto you what tumultuous outrages were
yesterday committed near unto the city of London in diverse
places by a rowt of lewd and loose persons, apprentices and
others, especially in Lincolns Inn Fields and Drury Lane,
where in attempting to pull down a playhouse belonging to
the Queen's Majesty's Servants, there were diverse persons
slain, and others hurt and wounded, the multitude there
assembled being to the number of many thousands, as we are
credibly informed.[588]
[Footnote 588: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 374. Collier, in
_The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), I, 386, prints a long
ballad on the event; but he does not give its source, and its
genuineness has been questioned. The following year threats to pull
down the Fortune, the Red Bull, and the Cockpit led to the setting of
special watches. See The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 377.]
The Queen's Men returned to the Red Bull and acted there until their
ruined playhouse could be repaired. Three months later, on June 3,
they again occupied the Cockpit,[589] and continued there until the
death of Queen Anne on March 2, 1619.[590]
[Footnote 589: Greenstreet, Documents, _The New Shakspere Society's
Transactions_ (1880-86), p. 504.]
[Footnote 590: Mr. Wallace (_Three London Theatres_, p. 29) says that
the documents he prints make it "as certain as circumstances
unsupported by contemporary declaration can make it, that Queen Anne's
company occupied the Red Bull continuously from the time of its
erection ... till their dissolution, 1619." His documents make it
certain only that Queen Anne's Men occupied the Red Bull until
February 23, 1617. Other documents prove that they occupied the
Cockpit from 1617 until 1619. (Note the letter of the Privy Council
quoted above.) The documents printed by Greenstreet show that Queen
Anne's Men moved to the Cockpit on June 3, 1617, and continued there.]
This event led to the dissolution of the company. For a year or more
its members had been "falling at variance and strife amongst
themselves," and when the death of the Queen deprived them of a
"service," they "separated and divided themselves into other
companies."[591] As a result of the quarrels certain members of the
company made charges against their former manager, Beeston: "The said
Beeston having from the beginning a greater care for his own private
gain, and not respecting the good of these defendants and the rest of
his fellows and companions, hath in the place and trust aforesaid much
enriched himself, and hath of late given over his coat and
condition,[592] and separated and divided himself from these
defendants, carrying away not only all the furniture and apparel,"
etc.[593] The charges against Beeston's honesty may be dismissed; but
it seems clear that he had withdrawn from his former companions, and
was preparing to entertain a new troupe of actors at his playhouse.
And Beeston himself tells us, on November 23, 1619, that "after Her
Majesty's decease, he entered into the service of the most noble
Prince Charles."[594] Thus Prince Charles's Men, after their
unfortunate experiences at the Hope and at Rosseter's Blackfriars,
came to Beeston's playhouse, where they remained until 1622. In the
spring of that year, however, they moved to the Curtain, and the
Princess Elizabeth's Men occupied the Cockpit.[595] Under their
tenancy, the playhouse seems to have attained an enviable reputation.
Heminges and Condell, in the epistle to the readers, prefixed to the
Folio of Shakespeare (1623), bear testimony to this in the following
terms: "And though you be a Magistrate of Wit, and sit on the stage at
Blackfriars, or the Cockpit, to arraign plays daily." A further
indication of their prosperity is to be found in the records of St.
Giles's Church; for when in 1623 the parish undertook the erection of
a new church building, "the players of the Cockpit," we are informed,
contributed the large sum of L20, and the proprietors, represented by
Christopher Beeston, gave L19 1_s._ 5_d._[596]
[Footnote 591: Wallace, _Three London Theatres_, p. 33.]
[Footnote 592: He had joined Prince Charles's Men.]
[Footnote 593: Wallace, _Three London Theatres_, p. 38.]
[Footnote 594: _Ibid._, p. 40. Fleay, Murray, and others have
contended that the Princess Elizabeth's Men came to the Cockpit in
1619, and have denied the accuracy of the title-page of _The Witch of
Edmonton_ (1658), which declares that play to have been "acted by the
Prince's Servants at the Cockpit often." (See Fleay, _A Chronicle
History of the London Stage_, p. 299.)]
[Footnote 595: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 59.]
[Footnote 596: John Parton, _Some Account of the Hospital and Parish
of St. Giles in the Fields_, p. 235. From a parish entry in 1660 we
learn that the players had to contribute 2_d._ to the parish poor for
each day that there was acting at the Cockpit. (See _ibid._, p. 236.)]
The Princess Elizabeth's Men continued to act at the Cockpit until
May, 1625, when all theatres were closed on account of the plague.
Beeston made this the occasion to organize a new company called "Queen
Henrietta's Men"; and when the theatres were allowed to reopen, about
December, 1625,[597] this new company was in possession of the
Cockpit. But the reputation of the playhouse seems not to have been
enhanced by the performances of this troupe. In 1629, Lenton, in _The
Young Gallant's Whirligig_, writes sneeringly:
The Cockpit heretofore would serve his wit,
But now upon the Friars' Stage he'll sit.
[Footnote 597: In the _Middlesex County Records_, III, 6, we find that
on December 6, 1625, because "the drawing of people together to places
was a great means of spreading and continuing the infection ... this
Court doth prohibit the players of the house at the Cockpit, being
next to His Majesty's Court at Whitehall, commanding them to surcease
all such their proceedings until His Majesty's pleasure be further
signified." Apparently the playhouses in general had been allowed to
resume performances; and since by December 24 there had been no deaths
from the plague for a week, the special inhibition of the Cockpit
Playhouse was soon lifted.]
And in the following year, 1630, Thomas Carew in verses prefixed to
Davenport's _Just Italian_, attacks the Red Bull and the Cockpit as
"adulterate" stages where "noise prevails," and "not a tongue of th'
untun'd kennel can a line repeat of serious sense." Queen Henrietta's
Men probably continued to occupy the building until May 12, 1636, when
the theatres were again closed on account of a serious outbreak of the
plague. The plague continued for nearly a year and a half, and during
this time the company was dissolved.[598]
[Footnote 598: "When Her Majesty's Servants were at the Cockpit, being
all at liberty, they dispersed themselves to several companies."
(Heton's Patent, 1639, _The Shakespeare Society Papers_, IV, 96.)]
Before the plague had ceased, early in 1637, "Mr. Beeston was
commanded to make a company of boys."[599] In the Office-Book of the
Lord Chamberlain we find, under the date of February 21, 1637:
"Warrant to swear Mr. Christopher Beeston His Majesty's Servant in the
place of Governor of the new company of The King's and Queen's
Boys."[600] The first recorded performance by this new company was at
Court on February 7, 1637.[601] On February 23, the number of deaths
from the plague having diminished, acting was again permitted; but at
the expiration of one week, on March 2, the number of deaths having
increased, all playhouses were again closed. During this single week
the King's and Queen's Boys, we may suppose, acted at the
Cockpit.[602]
[Footnote 599: Herbert Manuscript, Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]
[Footnote 600: Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers,"
Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_, XLVI, 99. In 1639 Heton applied for a patent
as "Governor" of the company at Salisbury Court.]
[Footnote 601: On May 10 Beeston was paid for "two plays acted by the
New Company." See Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," in
the Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_, XLVI, 99.]
[Footnote 602: Herbert Manuscript, Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]
On May 12, Beeston was arrested and brought before the Privy Council
for having allowed his Boys to act a play at the Cockpit during the
inhibition.[603] In his apology he explains this as follows:
"Petitioner being commanded to erect and prepare a company of young
actors for Their Majesties's service, and being desirous to know how
they profited by his instructions, invited some noblemen and
gentlemen to see them act at his house, the Cockpit. For which, since
he perceives it is imputed as a fault, he is very sorry, and craves
pardon."[604]
[Footnote 603: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 392.]
[Footnote 604: _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1636-1637_, p.
254.]
On September 17, 1637, "Christopher Beeston, His Majesty's servant, by
petition to the Board, showed that he hath many young actors lying
unpractised by reason of the restraint occasioned by infection of the
plague, whereby they are much disabled to perform their service, and
besought that they might have leave to practise. It was ordered that
Beeston should be at liberty to practise his actors at Michaelmas next
[September 29], if there be no considerable increase of the sickness,
nor that there die more than died last week."[605]
[Footnote 605: _Ibid._, _1637_, p. 420.]
On October 2, 1637, the plague having abated, all playhouses were
opened, and the King's and Queen's Boys, Herbert tells us, began to
play at the Cockpit "the same day."[606] Here, under the popular name
of "Beeston's Boys," they enjoyed a long and successful career, which
ended only with the prohibition of acting in 1642.
[Footnote 606: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]
In 1639 Christopher Beeston died, and the position of Governor of the
Boys was conferred upon his son, William Beeston, who had long been
associated in the management of the company,[607] and who, if we may
believe Francis Kirkman, was admirably qualified for the position. In
dedicating to him _The Loves and Adventures of Clerico and Lozia_,
Kirkman says:
Divers times in my hearing, to the admiration of the whole
company, you have most judiciously discoursed of Poesie:
which is the cause I presume to choose you for my patron and
protector, who are the happiest interpreter and judge of our
English stage-plays this nation ever produced; which the
poets and actors of these times cannot (without ingratitude)
deny; for I have heard the chief and most ingenious
acknowledge their fames and profits essentially sprung from
your instruction, judgment, and fancy.
[Footnote 607: He is referred to as their Governor on August 10, 1639;
see Malone, _Variorum_, III, 159.]
But in spite of all this, William Beeston's career as Governor was of
short duration. About the first of May, 1640, he allowed the Boys to
act without license a play that gave great offense to the King.
Herbert, the Master of the Revels, writes of this play that it "had
relation to the passages of the King's journey into the north, and was
complained of by His Majesty to me, with command to punish the
offenders."[608] In the Office-Book of the Lord Chamberlain, under the
date of May 3, 1640, we read:
Whereas William Beeston and the company of the players of
the Cockpit, in Drury Lane, have lately acted a new play
without any license from the Master of His Majesty's Revels,
and being commanded to forbear playing or acting of the same
play by the said Master of the Revels, and commanded
likewise to forbear all manner of playing, have
notwithstanding, in contempt of the authority of the said
Master of the Revels, and the power granted unto him under
the Great Seal of England, acted the said play, and others,
to the prejudice of His Majesty's service, and in contempt
of the Office of the Revels, [whereby] he and they and all
other companies ever have been and ought to be governed and
regulated: These are therefore in His Majesty's name, and
signification of his royal pleasure, to command the said
William Beeston and the rest of that company of the Cockpit
players from henceforth and upon sight hereof, to forbear to
act any plays whatsoever until they shall be restored by the
said Master of the Revels unto their former liberty. Whereof
all parties concernable are to take notice, and conform
accordingly, as they and every one of them will answer it at
their peril.[609]
[Footnote 608: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241.]
[Footnote 609: Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_
(1879), II, 32; Stopes, _op. cit._, p. 102.]
Herbert records in his Office-Book:
On Monday the 4 May, 1640, William Beeston was taken by a
messenger and committed to the Marshalsea by my Lord
Chamberlain's warrant, for playing a play without license.
The same day the company at the Cockpit was commanded by my
Lord Chamberlain's warrant to forbear playing, for playing
when they were forbidden by me, and for other disobedience,
and lay still Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday,
at my Lord Chamberlain's entreaty, I gave them their
liberty, and upon their petition of submission subscribed by
the players, I restored them to their liberty on
Thursday.[610]
[Footnote 610: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241. Herbert did not forget
Beeston's insubordination, and in 1660, in issuing to Beeston a
license to use the Salisbury Court Playhouse, he inserted clauses to
prevent further difficulty of this kind (see _Variorum_, III, 243).]
To this period of Beeston's imprisonment I should refer the puzzling
Epilogue of Brome's _The Court Beggar_:
There's wit in that now. But this small Poet vents none but
his own, and his by whose care and directions this Stage is
govern'd, who has for many years, both in his father's days,
and since, directed Poets to write and Players to speak,
till he trained up these youths here to what they are now.
Aye, some of 'em from before they were able to say a grace
of two lines long to have more parts in their pates than
would fill so many Dry-vats. And to be serious with you, if
after all this, by the venomous practice of some, who study
nothing more than his destruction, he should fail us, both
Poets and Players would be at loss in reputation.
His "destruction" was wrought, nevertheless, for as a result of his
indiscretion he was deposed from his position as Governor of the
King's and Queen's Company, and William Davenant was appointed in his
place. In the Office-Book of the Lord Chamberlain under the date of
June 27, 1640,[611] appears the following entry with the heading, "Mr.
Davenant Governor of the Cockpit Players":
Whereas in the playhouse or theatre commonly called the
Cockpit, in Drury Lane, there are a company of players
authorized by me (as Lord Chamberlain to His Majesty) to
play or act under the title of The King's and Queen's
Servants, and that by reason of some disorders lately
amongst them committed they are disabled in their service
and quality: These are therefore to signify that by the same
authority I do authorize and appoint William Davenant,
Gent., one of Her Majesty's servants, for me and in my name
to take into his government and care the said company of
players, to govern, order, and dispose of them for action
and presentments, and all their affairs in the said house,
as in his discretion shall seem best to conduce to His
Majesty's service in that quality. And I do hereby enjoin
and command them, all and every of them, that are so
authorized to play in the said house under the privilege of
His or Her Majesty's Servants, and every one belonging as
prentices or servants to those actors to play under the same
privilege, that they obey the said Mr. Davenant and follow
his orders and directions, as they will answer the contrary;
which power and privilege he is to continue and enjoy during
that lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, _alias_ Hucheson,
hath or doth hold in the said playhouse, provided he be
still accountable to me for his care and well ordering the
said company.[612]
[Footnote 611: Stopes (_op. cit._) dates this June 5, but Collier,
Malone, and Chalmers all give June 27, and Mrs. Stopes is not always
quite accurate in such matters.]
[Footnote 612: Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_
(1879), II, 32, note 1.]
Under the direction of Davenant the company acted at the Cockpit until
the closing of the theatres two years later.
The history of the playhouse during the troubled years that followed
is varied. In the churchwarden's account of St. Giles's Parish is
found the entry: "1646. Paid and given to the teacher at the Cockpit
of the children, 6_d._"[613] Apparently the old playhouse was then
being temporarily used as a school.
[Footnote 613: John Parton, _Some Account of the Hospital and Parish
of St. Giles in the Fields_, p. 235.]
Wright, in his _Historia Histrionica_, tells us that at the outbreak
of the civil war most of the actors had joined the royal army and
served His Majesty, "though in a different, yet more honorable
capacity." Some were killed, many won distinction; and "when the wars
were over, and the royalists totally subdued, most of 'em who were
left alive gathered to London, and for a subsistence endeavored to
revive their old trade privately. They made up one company out of all
the scattered members of several, and in the winter before the King's
murder, 1648, they ventured to act some plays, with as much caution
and privacy as could be, at the Cockpit." John Evelyn records in his
_Diary_, under the date of February 5, 1648: "Saw a tragicomedy acted
in the Cockpit after there had been none of these diversions for many
years during the war." Trouble, however, was brewing for these daring
actors. As Wright records: "They continued undisturbed for three or
four days, but at last, as they were presenting the tragedy of _The
Bloody Brother_ (in which Lowin acted Aubery; Taylor, Rollo; Pollard,
the Cook; Burt, Latorch; and, I think, Hart, Otto), a party of
foot-soldiers beset the house, surprised 'em about the middle of the
play, and carried 'em away in their habits, not admitting them to
shift, to Hatton House, then a prison, where, having detained them
some time, they plundered them of their clothes, and let 'em loose
again."[614]
[Footnote 614: Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 409.]
In 1649 the interior of the building was sacked, if we may trust the
manuscript note entered in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_
(1631): "The playhouse in Salisbury Court, in Fleet Street, was pulled
down by a company of soldiers set on by the sectaries of these sad
times, on Saturday the 24 day of March, 1649. The Phoenix, in Drury
Lane, was pulled down also this day, being Saturday the 24 day of
March, 1649, by the same soldiers."[615] In the passage quoted,
"pulled-down" merely means that the stage and its equipment, and
possibly a part of the galleries and the seats, were wrecked, not that
the walls of the building itself were thrown down.
[Footnote 615: See _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314. The
soldiers here mentioned also "pulled down on the inside" the Fortune
playhouse.]
In 1656 Sir William Davenant undertook to create a form of dramatic
entertainment which would be tolerated by the authorities. The Lord
Protector was known to be a lover of music. Sir William, therefore,
applied for permission to give operatic entertainments, "after the
manner of the antients," the "story sung in recitative music," and the
representation made "by the art of perspective in scenes." To such
entertainments, he thought, no one could object. He was wise enough to
give his first performances at Rutland House; but in 1658 he moved to
the Cockpit, where, says Aubrey, "were acted very well, _stylo
recitativo_, _Sir Francis Drake_ and _The Siege of Rhodes_ (1st and 2d
parts). It did affect the eye and ear extremely. This first brought
scenes in fashion in England; before at plays was only a hanging."
Thus the Cockpit had the distinction of being the first English
playhouse in which scenery was employed, and, one should add, the
first English home of the opera.[616]
[Footnote 616: For a discussion of Davenant's attempts to introduce
the opera into England, see W.J. Lawrence, _The Elizabethan Playhouse_
(Second Series), pp. 129 ff.]
Later in the same year, 1658, Davenant exhibited at the Cockpit _The
Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru_; but this performance excited the
suspicion of the authorities, who on December 23 sent for "the poet
and the actors" to explain "by what authority the same is exposed to
public view."[617]
[Footnote 617: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 93; Collier, _The History of
English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), II, 48.]
"In the year 1659," writes John Downes in his _Roscius Anglicanus_,
"General Monk marching then his army out of Scotland to London, Mr.
Rhodes, a bookseller, being wardrobe-keeper formerly (as I am
informed) to King Charles the First's company of commedians in
Blackfriars, getting a license from the then governing state,[618]
fitted up a house then for acting, called the _Cockpit_, in Drury
Lane, and in a short time completed his company." If this statement is
correct, the time must have been early in the year 1659-60, and the
company must have attempted at first to play without a proper license.
From the _Middlesex County Records_ (III, 282), we learn that one of
their important actors, Thomas Lilleston, was held under bond for
having performed "a public stage-play this present 4th of February
[1659-60] in the Cockpit in Drury Lane in the parish of St.
Giles-in-the-Fields, contrary to the law in that case made"; and in
the Parish Book[619] of St. Giles we find the entry: "1659. Received
of Isack Smith, which he received at the Cockpit playhouse of several
offenders, by order of the justices, L3 8_s._ 6_d._" Shortly after
this, it is to be presumed, the company under Rhodes's management
secured the "license of the then governing state" mentioned by Downes,
and continued thereafter without interruption. The star of this
company was Betterton, whose splendid acting at once captivated
London. Pepys went often to the theatre, and has left us some
interesting notes of his experiences there. On August 18, 1660, he
writes:
Captain Ferrers, my Lord's Cornet, comes to us, who after
dinner took me and Creed to the Cockpit play, the first that
I have had time to see since my coming from sea, _The Loyall
Subject_, where one Kinaston, a boy, acted the Duke's
sister, but made the loveliest lady that ever I saw in my
life, only her voice not very good.
[Footnote 618: For his troubles with the Master of the Revels see
Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Documents_, p. 26.]
[Footnote 619: Parton, _op. cit._, p. 236.]
Again on October 11, 1660, he writes:
Here in the Park we met with Mr. Salisbury, who took Mr.
Creed and me to the Cockpit to see _The Moor of Venice_,
which was well done. Burt acted the Moor, by the same token
a very pretty lady that sat by me called out to see
Desdemona smothered.
The subsequent history of the Cockpit falls outside the scope of the
present treatise. The reader who desires to trace the part the
building played in the Restoration would do well to consult the
numerous documents printed by Malone from the Herbert Manuscript.[620]
[Footnote 620: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 244 ff.]