THE COCKPIT-IN-COURT, OR THEATRE ROYAL AT WHITEHALL
On birthdays, holidays, and festive occasions in general the
sovereigns of England and the members of the royal family were wont to
summon the professional actors to present plays at Court. For the
accommodation of the players and of the audience, the larger halls at
Hampton, Windsor, Greenwich, St. James, Whitehall, or wherever the
sovereign happened to be at the time, were specially fitted up, often
at great expense. At one end of the hall was erected a temporary stage
equipped with a "music-room," "players' houses of canvas," painted
properties, and such other things as were necessary to the actors. In
the centre of the hall, on an elevated dais, were provided seats for
the royal family, and around and behind the dais, stools for the more
distinguished guests; a large part of the audience was allowed to
stand on platforms raised in tiers at the rear of the room. Since the
plays were almost invariably given at night, the stage was illuminated
by special "branches" hung on wires overhead, and carrying many
lights. In the accounts of the Office of the Revels one may find
interesting records of plays presented in this manner, with the
miscellaneous items of expense for making the halls ready.
Usually the Court performances, like the masques, were important,
almost official occasions, and many guests, including the members of
the diplomatic corps, were invited. To provide accommodation for so
numerous an audience, a large room was needed. Hampton Court possessed
a splendid room for the purpose in the Great Banqueting Hall, one
hundred and six feet in length and forty feet in breadth. But the
palace at Whitehall for many years had no room of a similar character.
For the performance of a masque there in 1559 the Queen erected a
temporary "Banqueting House." Again, in 1572, to entertain the Duke of
Montmorency, Ambassador from France, she had a large "Banketting House
made at Whitehall," covered with canvas and decorated with ivy and
flowers gathered fresh from the fields. An account of the structure
may be found in the records of the Office of the Revels. Perhaps,
however, the most elaborate and substantial of these "banqueting
houses" was that erected in 1581, to entertain the ambassadors from
France who came to treat of a marriage between Elizabeth and the Duc
d'Anjou. The structure is thus described by Holinshed in his
_Chronicle_:[656]
This year (against the coming of certain commissioners out
of France into England), by Her Majesty's appointment, on
the sixth and twentieth day of March, in the morning (being
Easter Day), a Banqueting House was begun at Westminster, on
the south-west side of Her Majesty's palace of Whitehall,
made in manner and form of a long square, three hundred
thirty and two foot in measure about; thirty principals made
of great masts, being forty foot in length apiece, standing
upright; between every one of these masts ten foot asunder
and more. The walls of this house were closed with canvas,
and painted all the outsides of the same most artificially,
with a work called rustic, much like stone. This house had
two hundred ninety and two lights of glass. The sides within
the same house was made with ten heights of degrees for
people to stand upon; and in the top of this house was
wrought most cunningly upon canvas works of ivy and holly,
with pendants made of wicker rods, garnished with bay, rue,
and all manner of strange flowers garnished with spangles of
gold; as also beautified with hanging toseans made of holly
and ivy, with all manner of strange fruits, as pomegranates,
oranges, pompions, cucumbers, grapes, carrots, with such
other like, spangled with gold, and most richly hanged.
Betwixt these works of bays and ivy were great spaces of
canvas, which was most cunningly painted, the clouds with
stars, the sun and sun-beams, with diverse other coats of
sundry sorts belonging to the Queen's Majesty, most richly
garnished with gold. There were of all manner of persons
working on this house to the number of three hundred seventy
and five: two men had mischances, the one broke his leg, and
so did the other. This house was made in three weeks and
three days, and was ended the eighteenth day of April, and
cost one thousand seven hundred forty and four pounds,
nineteen shillings, and od mony, as I was credibly informed
by the worshipful master Thomas Grave, surveyor unto Her
Majesty's works, who served and gave order for the same.
[Footnote 656: Edition of 1808, IV, 434. See also Stow's _Chronicle_,
under the year 1581.]
Although built in such a short time, and of such flimsy material, this
expensive Banqueting House seems to have been allowed to stand, and to
have been used thereafter for masques and plays. Thus, when King James
came to the throne, he ordered plays to be given there in November,
1604. We find the following entry in the Treasurer's accounts:
For making ready the Banqueting House at Whitehall for the
King's Majesty against the plays, by the space of four days
... 78_s._ 7_d._
And the accounts of the Revels' Office inform us:
Hallomas Day, being the first of November, a play in the
Banqueting House at Whitehall, called _The Moor of Venice_.
Apparently, however, the King was not pleased with the Banqueting
House as a place for dramatic performances, for he promptly ordered
the Great Hall of the palace--a room approximately ninety feet in
length and forty feet in breadth[657]--to be made ready for the next
play:
For making ready the Great Chamber at Whitehall for the
King's Majesty to see the play, by the space of two days ...
39_s._ 4_d._
[Footnote 657: This had once already, on Shrove Tuesday, 1604, been
used for a play. The situation and ground-plan of the "Great Hall" are
clearly shown in Fisher's _Survey_ of the palace, made about 1670, and
engraved by Vertue, 1747.]
The work was completed with dispatch, for on the Sunday following the
performance of _Othello_ in the Banqueting House, _The Merry Wives of
Windsor_ was acted in the Great Hall. The next play to be given at
Court was also presented in the same room:
On St. Stephen's Night, in the Hall, a play called _Measure
for Measure_.
And from this time on the Great Hall was the usual place for Court
performances. The abandonment of the Banqueting House was probably due
to the facts that the Hall was smaller in size, could be more easily
heated in the winter, and was in general better adapted to dramatic
performances. Possibly the change was due also to the decayed
condition of the old structure and to preparations for its removal.
Stow, in his _Annals_ under the date of 1607, writes:
The last year the King pulled down the old, rotten,
slight-builded Banqueting House at Whitehall, and
new-builded the same this year very strong and stately,
being every way larger than the first.[658]
[Footnote 658: Stow's _Annals_, continued by Edmund Howes (1631), p.
891.]
This new Banqueting House was completed in the early part of 1608.
John Chamberlain writes to Sir Dudley Carleton on January 5, 1608:
"The masque goes forward at Court for Twelfth Day, tho' I doubt the
New Room will be scant ready."[659] Thereafter the Banqueting House,
"every way larger than the first," was regularly used for the
presentation of masques. But it was rarely if ever used for plays.
Throughout the reign of James, the ordinary place for dramatic
performances, as has been observed, was the Great Hall.
[Footnote 659: John Nichols, _The Progresses of James_, II, 162.]
On January 12, 1619, as a result of negligence during the preparations
for a masque, the Banqueting House caught fire and was burned to the
ground. The Reverend Thomas Lorkin writes to Sir Thomas Puckering on
January 19, 1619:
The unhappy accident that chanced at Whitehall last week by
fire you cannot but have heard of; but haply not the manner
how, which was this. A joiner was appointed to mend some
things that were out of order in the device of the masque,
which the King meant to have repeated at Shrovetide, who,
having kindled a fire upon a false hearth to heat his
glue-pot, the force thereof pierced soon, it seems, the
single brick, and in a short time that he absented himself
upon some occasion, fastened upon the basis, which was of
dry deal board, underneath; which suddenly conceiving flame,
gave fire to the device of the masque, all of oiled paper,
and dry fir, etc. And so, in a moment, disposed itself among
the rest of that combustible matter that it was past any
man's approach before it was almost discovered. Two hours
begun and ended that woful sight.
[Illustration: THE COCKPIT
Probably as built by Henry VIII. (From Faithorne's _Map of London_,
1658. The Whitehall district is represented as it was many years
earlier, compare Agas's _Map_, 1560).]
Inigo Jones, who had dreamed of a magnificent palace at Whitehall, and
who had drawn elaborate plans for a royal residence which should
surpass anything in Europe, now took charge of building a new
Banqueting House as a first step in the realization of his scheme.
The noble structure which he erected is to-day one of his chief
monuments, and the sole relic of the once famous royal palace. It was
completed in the spring of 1622; but, as in the case of its
predecessor, it was not commonly used for dramatic entertainments.
Though masques might be given there, the regular place for plays
continued to be the Great Hall.
In the meanwhile, however, there had been developed at Court the
custom of having small private performances in the Cockpit, in
addition to the more elaborate performances in the Great Hall. Since
this ultimately led to the establishment of a theatre royal, known as
"The Cockpit-in-Court," it will be necessary to trace in some detail
the history of that structure.
The palace of Whitehall, anciently called York House, and the home of
thirty successive Archbishops of York, was seized by King Henry VIII
at the fall of Wolsey and converted into a royal residence.[660] The
new proprietor at once made improvements after his own taste, among
which were tennis-courts, bowling-alleys, and an amphitheatre for the
"royal sport" of cock-fighting. In Stow's description of the palace we
read:
On the right hand be diverse fair tennis courts, bowling
alleys, and a Cockpit, all built by King Henry the Eight.
[Footnote 660: Shakespeare writes (_Henry VIII_, IV, i, 94-97):
Sir you
Must no more call it York-place, that is past;
For since the Cardinal fell, that title's lost:
'Tis now the King's, and called Whitehall.]
Strype, in his edition of Stow's _Survey_ (1720), adds the information
that the Cockpit was made "out of certain old tenements."[661] It is
pictured in Agas's _Map of London_ (1570), and more clearly in
Faithorne's _Map_ (see page 390), printed in 1658, but apparently
representing the city at an earlier date.
[Footnote 661: Book VI, page 6.]
During the reign of Elizabeth the Cockpit, so far as I can ascertain,
was never used for plays. In the voluminous documents relating to the
Office of the Revels there is only one reference to the building: in
1572 flowers were temporarily stored there that were to be used for
decking the "Banketting House."
It was during the reign of King James that the Cockpit began to be
used for dramatic representations. John Chamberlain writes from London
to Sir Ralph Winwood, December 18, 1604: "Here is great provision for
Cockpit to entertain him [the King] at home, and of masques and revels
against the marriage of Sir Herbert and Lady Susan Vere."[662] Since,
however, King James was very fond of cock-fighting, it may be that
Chamberlain was referring to that royal entertainment rather than to
plays. The small Cockpit was certainly a very unusual place for the
formal presentation of plays before His Majesty and the Court.
[Footnote 662: _Winwood State Papers_ (1725), II, 41.]
But the young Prince Henry, whose official residence was in St.
James's Palace, often had private or semi-private performances of
plays in the Cockpit. In the rolls of the expenses of the Prince we
find the following records:[663]
For making ready the Cockpit four several times for plays,
by the space of four days, in the month of December, 1610,
L2 10_s._ 8_d._
For making ready the Cockpit for plays two several times, by
the space of four days, in the months of January and
February, 1611, 70_s._ 8_d._
For making ready the Cockpit for a play, by the space of two
days, in the month of December, 1611, 30_s._ 4_d._
[Footnote 663: See Cunningham, _Extracts from the Accounts of the
Revels_, pp. xiii-xiv.]
The building obviously, was devoted for the most part to other
purposes, and had to be "made ready" for plays at a considerable
expense. Nor was the Prince the only one who took advantage of its
small amphitheatre. John Chamberlain, in a letter to Sir Dudley
Carleton on September 22, 1612, describing the reception accorded to
the Count Palatine by the Lady Elizabeth, writes: "On Tuesday she sent
to invite him as he sat at supper to a play of her own servants in the
Cockpit."[664]
[Footnote 664: John Nichols, _The Progresses of James_, II, 466.]
It is clear, then, that at times throughout the reign of James
dramatic performances were given in the Cockpit; but the auditorium
was small, and the performances must have been of a semi-private
nature. The important Court performances, to which many guests were
invited, were held in the Great Hall.
In the reign of the next sovereign, however, a change came about. In
the year 1632 or 1633, as well as I am able to judge with the evidence
at command, King Charles reconstructed the old Cockpit into a "new
theatre at Whitehall," which from henceforth was almost exclusively
used for Court performances. The opening of this "new theatre royal"
is celebrated by a _Speech_ from the pen of Thomas Heywood:
_A Speech Spoken to Their Two Excellent Majesties at the
First Play Play'd by the Queen's Servants in the New Theatre
at Whitehall._
When Greece, the chief priority might claim
For arts and arms, and held the eminent name
Of Monarchy, they erected divers places,
Some to the Muses, others to the Graces,
Where actors strove, and poets did devise,
With tongue and pen to please the ears and eyes
Of Princely auditors. The time was, when
To hear the rapture of one poet's pen
A Theatre hath been built.
By the Fates' doom,
When th' Empire was removed from thence to Rome,
The Potent Caesars had their _circi_, and
Large amphitheatres, in which might stand
And sit full fourscore thousand, all in view
And touch of voice. This great Augustus knew,
Nay Rome its wealth and potency enjoyed,
Till by the barbarous Goths these were destroy'd.
But may this structure last, and you be seen
Here a spectator, with your princely Queen,
In your old age, as in your flourishing prime,
To outstrip Augustus both in fame and time.
The exact date of this _Speech_ is not given, but it was printed[665]
in 1637 along with "The Prologue to the Famous Tragedy of _The Rich
Jew of Malta_, as it Was Played Before the King and Queen in His
Majesty's Theatre at Whitehall"; and this Prologue Heywood had already
published with the play itself in 1633. He dedicated the play to Mr.
Thomas Hammon, saying, "I had no better a New-Year's gift to present
you with." Apparently, then, the play had been acted at Court shortly
before New Year's, 1633; and this sets a forward date to Heywood's
_Speech_. Other evidence combines with this to show that "His
Majesty's Theatre at Whitehall" was "new" at the Christmas season of
1632-33.
[Footnote 665: See _The Dramatic Works of Thomas Heywood_ (1874), VI,
339.]
In erecting this, the first "theatre royal," King Charles would
naturally call for the aid of the great Court architect Inigo
Jones,[666] and by good luck we have preserved for us Jones's original
sketches for the little playhouse (see page 396). These were
discovered a few years ago by Mr. Hamilton Bell in the Library of
Worcester College (where many valuable relics of the great architect
are stored), and printed in _The Architectural Record_ of New York,
March, 1913. Mr. Bell accompanied the plans with a valuable
discussion, but he was unable to discover their purpose. He writes:
We have still no clue as to what purpose this curiously
anomalous and most interesting structure was to
serve--whether the plan was ever carried out, or whether it
remained part of a lordly pleasure-house which its prolific
designer planned for the delectation of his own soul.
[Footnote 666: Whether he merely made over the old Cockpit which Henry
VIII had constructed "out of certain old tenements," or erected an
entirely new building, I have not been able to ascertain. Heywood's
_Speech_ indicates a "new" and "lasting" structure.]
That the plan actually was carried out, at least in part, is shown by
a sketch of the Whitehall buildings made by John Fisher at some date
before 1670, and engraved by Vertue in 1747, (see page 398).[667]
Here, in the northeast corner of the palace, we find a little theatre,
labeled "The Cockpit." Its identity with the building sketched by
Inigo Jones is obvious at a glance; even the exterior measurements,
which are ascertainable from the scales of feet given on the two
plans, are the same.
[Footnote 667: Vertue conservatively dates the survey "about 1680";
but the names of the occupants of the various parts of the palace show
that it was drawn before 1670, and nearer 1660 than 1680.]
[Illustration: INIGO JONES'S PLANS FOR THE COCKPIT-IN-COURT
Now preserved in the Worcester College Library at Oxford; discovered
by Mr. Hamilton Bell, and reproduced in _The Architectural Record_, of
New York, 1913.]
[Illustration: FISHER'S SURVEY OF WHITEHALL SHOWING THE
COCKPIT-IN-COURT
A section from Vertue's engraving, 1747, of a survey of Whitehall made
by John Fisher, 1660-1670. Compare "The Cockpit" with Inigo Jones's
plans.]
[Illustration: THE THEATRO OLYMPICO AT VICENZA
Which probably inspired Inigo Jones's plans for the Cockpit-in-Court.]
Mr. Bell describes the plan he discovered as follows:[668]
It represents within a square building, windowed on three
sides and on one seemingly attached to another building, an
auditorium occupying five sides of an octagon, on the floor
of which are shown the benches of a pit, or the steps, five
in number, on which they could be set. These are curiously
arranged at an angle of forty-five degrees on either side of
a central aisle, so that the spectators occupying them
could never have directly faced the stage. Surrounding this
pit on five sides is a balcony ten feet deep, with, it would
seem, two rows of benches on four of its sides; the fifth
side in the centre, directly opposite the stage, being
partitioned off into a room or box, in the middle of which
is indicated a platform about five feet by seven, presumably
for the Royal State. Three steps descend from this box to
the centre aisle of the pit. To the left of and behind this
royal box appears another enclosure or box, partitioned off
from the rest of the balcony.
The staircases of access to this auditorium are clearly
indicated; one small door at the rear of the _salle_ with
its own private stairway, communicating with the adjoining
building, opens directly into the royal box; as in the Royal
Opera House in Berlin to-day.
There is another door, with a triangular lobby, into the
rear of the left-hand balcony. Two windows are shown on each
side of the house, opening directly into the theatre from
the outer air.
The stage runs clear across the width of the pit, about
thirty-five feet, projecting in an "apron" or _avant scene_
five feet beyond the proscenium wall, and is surrounded on
the three outward sides by a low railing of classic design
about eighteen inches in height, just as in many Elizabethan
playhouses.
If one may trust an elevation of the stage, drawn on the
same sheet to twice the scale of the general plan, the stage
was four feet six inches above the floor of the pit. This
elevation exhibits the surprising feature of a classic
facade, Palladian in treatment, on the stage of what so far
we have regarded as a late modification of a playhouse of
Shakespeare's day. Evidently Inigo Jones contemplated the
erection of a permanent architectural _proscenium_, as the
ancients called it, of the type, though far more modest,
both in scale and ornamentation, of Palladio's Theatro
Olimpico at Vicenza, which we know he visited in about 1600,
some twenty years after its erection. This _proscenium_,
given in plan and elevation, shows a semi-circular structure
with a radius of fifteen feet, two stories in height, of the
Corinthian or Composite order. In the lower story are five
doorways, the centre of which is a large archway flanked by
pedestals, on which are inscribed in Greek characters,
Melpomene--Thalia; over these and over the smaller doors are
tablets.
The second story contains between its lighter engaged
columns, over the four side doors, niches with corbels
below, destined to carry statues as their inscribed bases
indicate. So far as these inscriptions are legible,--the
clearest reading "phocles," probably Sophocles,--these were
to represent Greek dramatists, most likely AEschylus,
Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes.
The curved pediment of the central archway runs up into this
story and is broken in the middle by a tablet bearing the
inscription "Prodesse et Delectare," which is flanked by two
reclining genii holding garlands.
Above these are two busts on brackets, Thespis and Epicurus,
or possibly Epicharmus. The space directly above this
pediment is occupied by a window-like opening five by four
feet, the traditional Elizabethan music-room, in all
probability, which, Mr. W.J. Lawrence has shown us, occupied
this position both in Shakespeare's day and for some time
after the Restoration; an arrangement which was revived by
Mr. Steele Mackaye in the Madison Square Theatre, and
originally in the first little Lyceum, New York, both now
pulled down. The pyramidal pediment above this opening
projects above the upper cornice into a coved ceiling, which
would appear from the rendering of the drawing to form an
apse above the semi-circular stage. Behind the _proscenium_
is a large space with staircases of approach, two windows at
the rear, and apparently a fireplace for the comfort of the
waiting players. Communication with the front of the house
is provided by a door in the proscenium wall opening into
the stage door lobby, whence the outside of the building may
be reached.
There is no indication of galleries, unless some marks on
the angles of the front wall of the balcony may be
interpreted without too much license into the footings of
piers or posts to carry one; the total interior height shown
in the elevation from what I have assumed to be the floor of
the pit to the ceiling being only twenty-eight feet, there
would hardly have been room for more than one. The only
staircases which could have served it are at the rear of the
building in the corners behind the stage wall....
The general dimensions would appear to be:
Total width of the auditorium 58 ft.
Total width of the pit 36 ft.
Total width of the front stage or "apron" 35 ft.
Total depth of the stage from the railing to
the centre of the _proscenium_ 16 ft.
The entire building is 58 feet square inside, cut to
an octagon of 28 feet each side.
Height from floor to ceiling 28 ft.
Height from stage to ceiling about 23 ft. 6 in.
The lower order of the _proscenium_ 10 ft. 6 in.
The upper order of the _proscenium_ 9 ft. 6 in.
The scale on the drawing may not be absolutely correct, as
measured by it the side doors of the _proscenium_ are only
five feet high and two feet nine inches wide: this, however,
may be an error in the drawing, since we have it on very
good authority that Inigo Jones designed without the use of
a scale, proportioning his various members by his
exquisitely critical eye alone, subsequently adding the
dimensions in writing.
[Footnote 668: Reprinted here by the kind permission of Mr. Bell and
the editors of _The Architectural Record_.]
I record below some of the references to the Cockpit which I have
gathered from the Herbert Manuscript and the Office-Books of the Lord
Chamberlain. The earliest payment for plays there, it will be
observed, is dated March 16, 1633. Abundant evidence shows that the
actors gave their performance in the Cockpit at night without
interfering with their regular afternoon performance at their
playhouses, and for their pains received the sum of L10. If, however,
for any reason they "lost their day" at their house they were paid
L20.
1633. March 16. Warrant to pay L270 to John Lowen, Joseph
Taylor, and Eilliard Swanston, His Majesty's Comedians, for
plays by them acted before His Majesty, viz.--L20 for the
rehearsal of one at the Cockpit, by which means they lost
their afternoon at their house....[669]
1634. _Bussy d'Amboise_ was played by the King's Players on
Easter-Monday night, at the Cockpit-in-Court.[670]
1634. The _Pastorall_ was played by the King's Players on
Easter-Tuesday night, at the Cockpit-in-Court.[671]
1635. 10 May. A warrant for L30 unto Mons. Josias Floridor,
for himself and the rest of the French players for three
plays acted by them at the Cockpit.[672]
1635. 10 Decemr.--A warrant for L100 to the Prince's
Comedians,--viz. L60 for three plays acted at Hampton Court,
at L20 for each play, in September and October, 1634. And
L40 for four plays at Whitehall and [_query_ "at"] the
Cockpit in January, February, and May following, at L10 for
each play.[673]
1636. The first and second part of _Arviragus and Philicia_
were acted at the Cockpit before the King and Queen, the
Prince, and Prince Elector, the 18 and 19 April, 1636, being
Monday and Tuesday in Easter week.[674]
[Footnote 669: Lord Chamberlain's Office-Book, C.C. Stopes,
"Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_, XLVI,
96.]
[Footnote 670: Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 237.]
[Footnote 671: Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 237.]
[Footnote 672: Lord Chamberlain's Office-Book, Chalmers's _Apology_,
p. 508.]
[Footnote 673: _Ibid._, p. 509.]
[Footnote 674: The Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 238.]
Other similar allusions to performance in the Cockpit might be cited
from the Court records. One more will suffice--the most interesting of
all, since it shows how frequently the little theatre was employed for
the entertainment of the royal family. It is a bill presented by the
Blackfriars Company, the King's Men, for Court performances during the
year 1637. This bill was discovered and reproduced in facsimile by
George R. Wright, F.S.A., in _The Journal of the British
Archaeological Association_ for 1860; but it was wholly misunderstood
by its discoverer, who regarded it as drawn up by the company of
players that "performed at the Cockpit in Drury Lane." He was indeed
somewhat puzzled by the reference to the Blackfriars Playhouse, but
met the difficulty by saying: "There can be little doubt that the
last-named theatre was lent for the occasion to the Cockpit Company,"
although he suggests no reason for this strange borrowing of a theatre
by a troupe that possessed a house of its own, and much nearer the
Court, too. It did not even occur to him, it seems, to inquire how the
Cockpit Company secured the plays which we know belonged to
Shakespeare's old company. Because of these obvious difficulties
scholars have looked upon the document with suspicion, and apparently
have treated it as a forgery.[675] But that it is genuine is indicated
by the history of "The Cockpit-in-Court" as sketched above, and is
proved beyond any question by the fact that the Office-Book of the
Lord Chamberlain shows that the bill was paid:
12th March 1638 {9}.--Forasmuch as His Majesty's Servants,
the company at the Blackfriars, have by special command, at
divers times within the space of this present year 1638,
acted 24 plays before His Majesty, six whereof have been
performed at Hampton-court and Richmond, by means whereof
they were not only at the loss of their day at home, but at
extraordinary charges by traveling and carriage of their
goods, in consideration whereof they are to have L20 apiece
for those plays, and L10 apiece for the other 18 acted at
Whitehall, which in the whole amounted to the sum of
L300.--These are therefore to pray and require you out of
His Majesty's treasure in your charge to pay....[676]
[Footnote 675: Fleay in his elaborate studies of performances at Court
ignores it entirely, as do subsequent scholars.]
[Footnote 676: Chalmers, _Apology_, p. 510.]
A photographic facsimile of this interesting document may be seen in
_The Journal of the British Archaeological Association_, already
referred to; but for the convenience of those who do not read
Elizabethan script with ease, I have reproduced it in type facsimile
on page 404.
[Illustration: [Transcriber's Note: The dashes below represent
handwritten check-marks in the facsimile.]
before the king & queene this
yeare of our lord 1638
At the Cocpit the 26th of march The lost ladie
At the Cocpit the 27th of march Damboyes
At the Cocpit the 3d of Aprill Aglaura
At the blackfryers the 23 of Aprill
for the queene the vnfortunate lou[ers]
At the Cocpit the 29th of may
the princes berthnight ould Castel
At the Cocpit the last of may agayne the vnfortunate louers
At Sumerset-house the 10th of July & our day
-- lost at our house mr Carlels play the first part of the pasionate louers
-- At Hamton Court the 30th of September The vnfortunate louer[s]
-- At Richmount the 6th of november for the ladie } The mery divell
maries berthnight & the day lost at our house } of Edmonto[n]
At the Cocpit the 8th of november The fox
At the Cocpit the 13th of november Ceaser
At the Cocpit the 15th of november The mery wifes of winser
At the Cocpit the 20th of november The fayre favorett
At the Cocpit the 22th of november Chances
At the Cocpit the 27th of november The Costome of the C[ountry]
At the Cocpit the 29th of november The northen las
At the Cocpit the 6th of desember The spanish Curatt
At the Cocpit the 11th of desember agayne The fayre favorett
At the Cocpit the 18th of desember m Carlels
play agayne the first part of The pasionate louers
At the Cocpit the 20th of desember
the 2d part of The pasionate louers
At the Cocpit the 27 of desember the 2d part agayne of the pasionate louers
-- At Richmount the 28 of desember the ladie }
Elsabeths berthnight & our day lost at our house } The northen las
-- At Richmount on newyeares day }
and our day lost at our house } beggers bush
-- At Richmount the 7th of Janeuarye }
and our day lost at our house } The spanish Cura[tt]]
The check-marks at the left were probably made by the clerk in the
Chamberlain's office to ascertain how many times the players "lost
their day" at their house, and hence were entitled to L20 in payment.
For the play given "at the blackfriars the 23 of Aprill for the
queene" (presumably the general public was excluded) only the usual
L10 was allowed.
With the approach of the civil war, the Cockpit, like the public
theatres, suffered an eclipse. Sir Henry Herbert writes: "On Twelfth
Night, 1642, the Prince had a play called _The Scornful Lady_ at the
Cockpit; but the King and Queen were not there, and it was the only
play acted at court in the whole Christmas."[677] During the dark days
that followed we hear nothing of plays in the Cockpit. Later
Cromwell himself occupied this section of the palace, and naturally
saw to it that no dramatic exhibitions were held there. But at the
Restoration "the Prince," now become the King, could have his plays
again; and he did not wait long. On November 20, 1660, Edward Gower
wrote to Sir Richard Leveson: "Yesternight the King, Queen, Princess,
etc., supped at the Duke d'Albemarle's, where they had _The Silent
Woman_ acted in the Cockpit."[678] From this time on the theatre royal
was in constant use for the entertainment of the Court.
[Footnote 677: Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241.]
[Footnote 678: Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fifth Report, p.
200. Pepys, under the date November 20, 1660, gives an anecdote about
the King's behavior on this occasion.]
Samuel Pepys, as he rose in the world, became a frequent visitor
there.[679] In the absence of other descriptions of the building, I
subjoin a few of the entries from his _Diary_. Under the date of
October 2, 1662, he writes:
At night by coach towards Whitehall, took up Mr. Moore and
set him at my Lord's, and myself, hearing that there was a
play at the Cockpit (and my Lord Sandwich, who came to town
last night, at it), I do go thither, and by very great
fortune did follow four or five gentlemen who were carried
to a little private door in a wall, and so crept through a
narrow place and come into one of the boxes next the King's,
but so as I could not see the King or Queen, but many of the
fine ladies, who yet are really not so handsome generally
as I used to take them to be, but that they are finely
dressed. Here we saw _The Cardinal_,[680] a tragedy I had
never seen before, nor is there any great matter in it. The
company that came in with me into the box were all Frenchmen
that could speak no English, but Lord! what sport they made
to ask a pretty lady that they got among them that
understood both French and English to make her tell them
what the actors said.
[Footnote 679: He first "got in" on April 20, 1661, "by the favour of
one Mr. Bowman." John Evelyn also visited the Cockpit; see his
_Diary_, January 16 and February 11, 1662.]
[Footnote 680: By James Shirley, licensed 1641.]
The next time he went to the Cockpit, on November 17, 1662, he did not
have to creep in by stealth. He writes:
At Whitehall by appointment, Mr. Crew carried my wife and I
to the Cockpit, and we had excellent places, and saw the
King, Queen, Duke of Monmouth, his son, and my Lady
Castlemaine, and all the fine ladies; and _The Scornful
Lady_, well performed. They had done by eleven o'clock.
The fine ladies, as usual, made a deep impression on him, as did the
"greatness and gallantry" of the audience. On December 1, 1662, he
writes:
This done we broke up, and I to the Cockpit, with much
crowding and waiting, where I saw _The Valiant Cid_[681]
acted, a play I have read with great delight, but is a most
dull thing acted, which I never understood before, there
being no pleasure in it, though done by Betterton and by
Ianthe,[682] and another fine wench that is come in the room
of Roxalana; nor did the King or Queen once smile all the
whole play, nor any of the company seem to take any pleasure
but what was in the greatness and gallantry of the company.
Thence ... home, and got thither by 12 o'clock, knocked up
my boy, and put myself to bed.
[Footnote 681: By Corneille.]
[Footnote 682: Mrs. Betterton.]
[Illustration: THE COCKPIT-IN-COURT
From an engraving by Mazell in Pennant's _London_. Mr. W.L. Spiers,
who reproduces this engraving in the _London Topographical Record_
(1903), says that it is "undated, but probably copied from a
contemporary drawing of the seventeenth century."]
Two entries, from an entirely different source, must suffice for this
history of the Cockpit. In the Paper-Office Chalmers discovered a
record of the following payments, made in 1667:
To the Keeper of the theatre at Whitehall, L30. To the same
for Keeping clean that place, _p. ann._ L6.[683]
[Footnote 683: Chalmers, _Apology_, p. 530. Cunningham says, in his
_Handbook of London_: "I find in the records of the Audit Office a
payment of L30 per annum 'to the Keeper of our Playhouse called the
Cockpit in St. James Park'"; but he does not state the year in which
the payment was made.]
And in the Lord Chamberlain's Accounts is preserved the following
warrant:
1674, March 27. Warrant to deliver to Monsieur Grabu, or to
such as he shall appoint, such of the scenes remaining in
the theatre at Whitehall as shall be useful for the French
Opera at the theatre in Bridges Street, and the said
Monsieur to return them again safely after 14 days' time to
the theatre at Whitehall.[684]
[Footnote 684: I quote from W.J. Lawrence, _The Elizabethan Playhouse_
(First Series), p. 144.]
What became of the theatre at Whitehall I have not been able to
ascertain.[685] Presumably, after the fire of January, 1698, which
destroyed the greater part of the palace and drove the royal family to
seek quarters elsewhere, the building along with the rest of the
Cockpit section was made over into the Privy Council offices.
[Footnote 685: The reasons why the Cockpit at Whitehall has remained
so long in obscurity (its history is here attempted for the first
time) are obvious. Some scholars have confused it with the public
playhouse of the same name, a confusion which persons in the days of
Charles avoided by invariably saying "The Cockpit in Drury Lane."
Other scholars have confused it with the residential section of
Whitehall which bore the same name. During the reign of James several
large buildings which had been erected either on the site of the old
cockpit of Henry VIII, or around it, were converted into lodgings for
members of the royal family or favorites of the King, and were
commonly referred to as "the Cockpit." Other scholars have assumed
that all plays during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles were
given either in the Banqueting House or in the Great Hall. Finally,
still other scholars (e.g., Sir Sidney Lee, in _Shakespeare's
England_, 1916) have confused the Cockpit at Whitehall with the Royal
Cockpit in St. James's Park. Exactly when the latter was built I have
not been able to discover, but it was probably erected near the close
of the seventeenth century. It stood at the end of Dartmouth Street,
adjacent to Birdcage Walk, but not in the Park itself. John Strype, in
his edition of Stow's _Survey_ (1720), bk. VI, p. 64, says of
Dartmouth Street: "And here is a very fine Cockpit, called the King's
Cockpit, well resorted unto." A picture of the building is given by
Strype on page 62, and a still better picture may be found in J.T.
Smith's _The Antiquities of Westminster_. The Royal Cockpit in
Dartmouth Street survived until 1816, when it was torn down. Hogarth,
in his famous representation of a cock-fight, shows its interior as
circular, and as embellished with the royal coat of arms. Another
interesting picture of the interior will be found in Ackermann's _The
Microcosm of London_ (1808). It is needless to add that this building
had nothing whatever to do with the theatre royal of the days of King
Charles.]