was this very power of the London corporation to injure the actors that
caused the establishment of the first London theatre.
In the year 1572 the plague broke out in London; it killed many
thousands of people, and kept recurring at certain intervals during the
next twenty or thirty years, carrying horror and death with it. Under
these circumstances all dramatic performances were prohibited for a time
in London, a precaution which was reasonable enough, as the dense
crowding of people might have helped to spread the disease. But the
magistrate seems to have caught eagerly at this opportunity of
interfering.
In Harrison's _Description of England_ the event is reported as follows:
"Plaies are banished for a time out of London, lest the resort unto them
should ingender a plague, or rather disperse it, being already begonne.
Would to God these comon plaies were exiled for altogether as seminaries
of impiety, and their theatres pulled downe as no better than houses of
baudrie. It is an evident token of a wicked time when plaiers wexe so
rich that they can build suche houses. As moche I wish also to our comon
beare baitinges used on the Sabaothe daies."
We cannot help noticing the predilection of the Puritans for the coarse
bear-fights, which in their opinion were only displeasing to God when
performed on a Sabbath, whereas the playhouses at any time were no
better than the "ill-famed stews" in Southwark. It cannot be denied,
however, that under the prevailing circumstances it was quite right that
the playhouses should be temporarily forbidden.
But the sudden and unwarranted expulsion of all dramatic performances
from the precincts of London a few years later, 1575, cannot be
accounted for otherwise than by the increasing popularity which these
plays enjoyed among the non-Puritan public, and the envy with which the
clergy saw the people crowding much more to the places where actors
interpreted the rising poets than to those where the preachers
themselves enunciated their gloomy doctrine.
In the year 1574 the actor James Burbage, with four other actors, all
belonging to the retinue of the Earl of Leicester, had received
permission from the Queen to perform all kinds of plays anywhere in
England, "for the recreation of her beloved subjects as well as for her
own comfort and pleasure, if it should please her to see them."
Perhaps it was a counter-move on the part of the Puritan community when
the lord mayor and the corporation in the following year straightway
forbade all plays within the precincts of the town. If so, it proved a
failure. James Burbage resolutely hired a liberty outside the city, and
here, in 1576, on the premises of an ancient Roman Catholic priory, he
built the first English playhouse, which he named "The Theatre."
In the following year The Theatre gained an ally in "The Curtain," which
was built in the same neighborhood, both, of course, causing great
indignation among the Puritans. In 1577, the year after the first
playhouse had been erected, there appeared a furious pamphlet, by John
Northbrooke, against "dicing, dancing, plays and interludes as well as
other idle pastimes."
No doubt all possible means were taken to have plays forbidden and the
playhouses pulled down, but though the attack of the Black Army never
ceased for a moment, the Puritans did not succeed in getting the better
of the theatres till the year 1642, when they acquired political power
through the civil war; and, fortunately for the part of mankind which
appreciates art, this precious flower of culture, one of the richest and
most remarkable periods in the life of dramatic art, had developed into
full bloom before the outbreak of the war.
In a sermon of 1578 we read the following bitter and deep-drawn sigh by
the clergyman John Stockwood: "Wyll not a fylthye playe wyth the blast
of a trumpette sooner call thyther a thousande than an houres tolling of
a bell bring to the sermon a hundred?--nay, even heere in the Citie,
without it be at this place and some other certaine ordinarie audience,
where shall you finde a reasonable company?--whereas, if you resort to
the Theatre, The Curtayne, and other places of playes in the Citie, you
shall on the Lord's Day have these places, with many other that I cannot
reckon, so full as possible they can throng."
That the bold defiance with which James Burbage and the other actors met
the lord mayor and the corporation should prove so successful lay almost
in the nature of things. The prohibition of plays within the bounds of
the city of London did not mean that they were looked upon with
animosity by the people, but merely that a majority of the corporation
was unfriendly to them. It was soon shown that, though the wise city
fathers could easily forbid the actors to perform their plays in London,
they could not prevent the enthusiastic public from walking in crowds a
mile out of town in order to see such performances, especially as people
were quite accustomed to the journey. Burbage, who was a business-like
man, had chosen his ground quite close to the public places, where the
Londoners practised their open-air sports and amused themselves with
tennis and football, stone-throwing, cock fights, and archery.
Although Burbage called his new building "The Theatre," the title was
not intended to mean _the_ theatre _par excellence_, for the word
"theatre" was not then commonly used to denote a building in which
dramatic representations were performed. It is more probable that he
thought he had succeeded in choosing an elegant name with a certain
suggestion of the old classics, which was euphonious and not quite
common.
The usual name for a theatre was the playhouse, a house intended for all
kinds of games and sport, such as fencing, bear-fights, bull-fights,
jigs, morris-dances, and pantomimes, as well as for dramatic
performances.
It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the theatrical entertainments
of those times were something more or less literary; anyhow, something
quite apart from the dramatic performances of the present day. They were
meant to satisfy mixed desires in the nation; but, besides satisfying
its craving for beautiful, picturesque language, fine spectacles, and
merry jests, they also gratified its desire for the display of physical
strength, for shallow rhyming tricks and competitions, graceful
exercises of the body, indeed for all that might be included under the
notion of sport and give opportunity for betting.
Therefore, the plays, properly so called, alternated with fights between
animals, in which bears and bulls were baited by great blood-thirsty
bulldogs, or with fencing-matches fought by celebrated English and
foreign fencing-masters, with rope-dancing, acrobatic tricks, and
boxing. Even the serious performances ended with a more or less absurd
jig, in which the clown sang endless songs about the events of the day,
and danced interminable morris-dances.
Shakespeare and his contemporaries, whose works are now reckoned among
the first literature--so much so that they are scarcely read any
longer--at the time of which we are speaking were nothing but practical
playwrights, and Shakespeare was so far from dreaming that the time
would come when his plays would be counted among the most precious
treasures of posterity that, as we know, he did not even take the
trouble to have a printed edition of his works published.
The many fighting-scenes in the plays of the time, in Shakespeare's
among the rest, the wrestling-match in _As You Like It_, the duel
between Macduff and Macbeth, the fencing-scene between Hamlet and
Laertes, no doubt afforded opportunities for magnificent displays of
skill in the use of arms and in physical exercises, and we may be sure
that the spectators followed those scenes with an interest which was
perhaps more of a sporting than of a literary nature.
It was according to a well-calculated plan, therefore, that the elder
Burbage erected his playhouse north of the city, in Finsbury Fields,
where from ancient times the people had been accustomed to see and
practise military exercises and other sports, and where the soldiers
were still in the habit of practising archery and musketry.
And it was with equally sound calculation that he gave the theatre its
particular form, which remained essentially the same in all the
playhouses of the Shakespearean period.
Before the establishment of the permanent theatres there had long
existed amphitheatres for the performance of fights between animals, the
so-called "rings." These rings--the auditorium as well as the
arena--were open all round, and the seats, like those of the ancient
Greek theatre, were placed according to the natural formation of the
ground.
Burbage retained the circular amphitheatrical form; being a joiner as
well as an actor and manager, he was no doubt his own architect in his
new theatrical enterprise.
But instead of the roofless, open-air auditorium, he constructed a
covered circular wooden building with stories or galleries, which was
made so as to contain a number of boxes for the distinguished and
well-paying public, and which entirely enclosed the open, uncovered
arena, which, as it recalled the inn-yards, was called the "yard," or
afterward, perhaps on account of the high pitlike construction
surrounding it, the "pit," whence the poorest and humblest spectators
enjoyed the performances.
Finally, he built a covered "tire-house"--or "tiring-house," as it was
called in those times--for the actors, a place in which also all the
requisites and the so-called "properties" were kept. This tiring-house
stood within the circle, and its roof towered up above the auditorium.
From the tiring-house the stage--a simple wooden platform resting on
rams--was pushed forward, and it might be removed when the arena was to
be used for fights between animals, etc., instead of dramatic
performances.
By this reform of the building--a reform which became epoch-making to
the whole Shakespearean period--James Burbage obtained a threefold
advantage: more comfortable seats for the more distinguished portion of
the audience, where they were sheltered from wind and weather; the use
of the house both for plays and the baiting of animals; and the power to
oblige the public to pay their admission at certain doors of his
building, which spared him the unpleasant and unsafe collection of money
from spectators, who might not always be very willing to pay.
But this result was not obtained without considerable expense.
Though we are not so fortunate as to possess a drawing of the outside or
inside of The Theatre, about the shape of which, therefore, we must
partly draw our conclusions from analogy with other playhouses, we are
comparatively well informed as to its outward history till it was pulled
down, in 1598-1599.
Thus we know that the enterprise cost James Burbage six hundred
sixty-six pounds thirteen shillings fourpence, a considerable sum in
those days, which would be equal to about eightfold that amount in our
own time.
This money Burbage borrowed of his father-in-law, John Braynes, to whom
he had to pay high interest, and it represented only the cost of the
building itself, for he did not buy the ground on which it stood. This
ground belonged to one Giles Allen, and in the contract between him and
Burbage it was settled, among other points, that if, in the course of
the first ten years after the drawing up of the lease, Burbage spent a
sum of two hundred pounds or more on the building, he should have a
right to remove it after the expiration of the lease.
The lease was drawn up in the year 1576, for a period of twenty-one
years. In spite of many pecuniary difficulties, which the heavy rent and
high interest naturally entailed on Burbage--who for some time even
seems to have been obliged to mortgage his entire property--and
innumerable annoyances from the Puritans, Burbage succeeded in keeping
his theatre above water till the expiration of the lease and till his
own death, which occurred in 1597.
But before this date he had been negotiating with the proprietor, Giles
Allen, about a prolongation of the lease. Allen, who was evidently as
grasping as he was difficult to deal with, and who may not unjustly be
suspected of having been an instrument in the hands of the Puritan
authorities, had caused him a good deal of trouble in the course of
years. On seeing how people crowded to the theatre, he had tried, for
one thing, to press Burbage for a higher rent, and partly for religious,
partly for moral reasons, had threatened to forbid the running of a
playhouse on his property. The negotiations about the new lease had not
come to an end when the elder Burbage died, and left his two sons,
Cuthbert, who was a bookseller, and Richard, who was the leading actor
of his time, not only burdened with the playhouse, the long lease of
which had expired, but opposed by a proprietor with whom it was
impossible to come to terms, and by a magistrate who was more eager than
ever to deal a blow at the playhouses.
In the same year, when the two brothers took on The Theatre, the lord
mayor of London actually succeeded in inducing the privy council to
issue an order of suppression against it and other playhouses. The order
begins as follows: "Her Majestie being informed that there are verie
greate disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters
that are handled on the stages, and by resorte and confluence of bad
people, hathe given direction that not onlie no playes shall be used
within London or about the Citty, or in any public place, during this
tyme of sommer, but that all those playhouses that are erected and built
only for suche purposes shall be plucked downe, namelie The Curtayne and
The Theatre nere to Shorditch, or any other within that county."
It is not known whether the order was withdrawn or whether the disregard
of it was winked at--the court very likely was not particularly inclined
to see the sentence or condemnation carried out. At all events, neither
The Curtain nor The Theatre was pulled down at the time. But the order
shows how much power the Puritans possessed, and what difficulties the
brothers Burbage had to contend with.
They seem, however, to have inherited their father's resolute character.
Since it seemed quite impossible to come to terms with the grasping
proprietor, Allen, the brothers were sensible enough to avail themselves
of the clause in the now expired lease, which permitted them to pull
down and remove the buildings they had erected on the premises, in case
they had spent at least two hundred pounds on them during the first ten
years. This sum had been much exceeded at the time, and one day, to the
great consternation and anger of the astonished Giles Allen, they simply
removed The Theatre.
One of the paragraphs in the account of the subsequent lawsuit between
Allen and the Burbages gives a very vivid idea of this remarkable
removal. Allen accuses Cuthbert Burbage of "unlawfully combininge and
confederatinge himselfe with the sayd Richard Burbage, and one Peter
Streat, William Smyth and divers other persons, to the number of twelve,
to your subject unknowne, did aboute the eight and twentyth daye of
December in the one and fortyth yeere of your Highnes raygne (1598)
ryotouslye assemble themselves together, and then and there armed
themselves with dyvers and manye unlawfull and offensive weapons, as,
namelye, swordes, daggers, billes, axes, and such like, and so armed,
did then repayre unto the sayd Theatre, and then and there, armed as
aforesayd, in verye ryotous, outragious and forcyble manner, and
contrarye to the lawes of your highnes realme, attempted to pull down
the sayd Theatre, whereupon divers of your subjectes, servauntes, and
farmers, there goinge aboute in peaceable manner to procure them to
desist from that their unlawfull enterpryse, they the sayd ryotous
persons aforesayd notwithstanding procured then therein with greate
vyolence, not only then and there forcyblye and ryotouslye resisting
your subjectes, servauntes, and farmers, but also then and there
pulling, breaking, and throwing downe the sayd Theatre in verye
outragious, violent, and riotous sort, to the great disturbance and
terrefyeing not onlye of your subjectes sayd servauntes and farmers, but
of divers others of your Majesties loving subjectes there neere
inhabitinge; and having so done, did then alsoe in most forcible and
ryotous manner take and carrye away from thence all the wood and timber
thereof, unto the Bancksyde in the parishe of St. Marye Overyes, and
there erected a newe playehouse with the sayd timber and wood."
Such was the end of the first short-lived London playhouse. But the new
house, which was built out of its materials on the "Bankside," was the
celebrated "Globe," the name of which is inseparably connected with that
of Shakespeare.
As we said above, James Burbage, the creator of The Theatre, belonged to
the company which played under the patronage of Lord Leicester, and
therefore went under the name of "Lord Leicester's Servants" or "Men."
The four other actors, who in 1574 received a royal license to act from
Queen Elizabeth, were John Perkin, John Lanham, William Jonson, and
Robert Wilson.
While James Burbage was no doubt the leader of the company, Robert
Wilson is supposed to have been its chief actor, at all events of comic
parts, and he was the only one among the five who was also a dramatic
author. Under his name, but after his death, Cuthbert Burbage published,
in 1594, _The Prophecy of the Cobbler_; and among anonymous plays the
following are ascribed to him: _Fair Eve, The Miller's Daughter from
Manchester, The Three Ladies of London_, etc.
Most likely some of Wilson's plays were acted in The Theatre. With this
exception the internal history of this playhouse is rather obscure, and
very little is known of its _répertoire_. A few titles may be found in
contemporary literature, such as _The Blacksmith's Daughter_, mentioned
by the Puritan Gosson in his _School of Abuse_, as "containing the
treachery of Turks, the honorable bounty of a noble mind, the shining of
virtue in distress," _The Conspiracy of Catilina, Cæsar and Pompey_, and
_The Play about the Fabians_.
All these must have belonged to the earliest répertoire of The Theatre,
for Gosson's _School of Abuse_ appeared in 1579.
It is of more interest that Thomas Lodge mentions the original
pre-Shakespearean _Hamlet_ as having been acted in The Theatre. He
speaks of one who "looks as pale as the visard of the ghost which cries
so miserably at The Theatre, like an oister-wife, 'Hamlet revenge.'"
The same company, originally "Lord Leicester's Servants," continued to
act in The Theatre till it was pulled down. But the company several
times changed its patron and consequently its name. In 1588 Lord
Leicester died, and after his death Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange,
became the patron of the company; till 1592, therefore, the actors were
called "Lord Strange's Men." But in 1592 Lord Strange was created earl
of Derby; consequently the troupe became for two years "The Earl of
Derby's Men." In 1594 the Earl of Derby died, and Henry Carey, first
Lord Hunsdon and lord chamberlain, undertook to become patron of the
company, which, therefore, adopted the name of "The Lord Chamberlain's
Servants." The son of Lord Hunsdon, George Carey, second Lord Hunsdon,
after his father's death (in 1596) also inherited the patronage of the
actors, and for almost a year they had to content themselves with being
called "Lord Hunsdon's Men," until Lord Hunsdon became lord chamberlain,
like his father, and allowed the company to resume the title of "The
Lord Chamberlain's Servants," 1597. This name the actors retained until
the accession of King James, in 1603, after which they were promoted to
the title of "The King's Players"; this title put them in the first
rank, which, indeed, they had long held in reality, and which they kept
till the suppression of the playhouses in 1642.
It is no slight task for one who desires to study theatrical affairs in
the time of Shakespeare, to make himself acquainted with the varying
names of the companies of actors; but without such knowledge it would be
very difficult to pursue the thread of the history even of the leading
companies.
About the year 1590 our company received an addition in the person of a
young man, who was not only a skilled and useful actor, but who also
possessed the accomplishment of being able to adapt older plays to the
taste of the times, and even proved to have the gift of writing
tolerably good plays himself, though older and jealous colleagues might
hint at their not being altogether original. This young man, whose
capacities became of no slight use to the company and The Theatre, was
named William Shakespeare.
At this time the leading actors of The Theatre were the great tragedian
Richard Burbage, who was then quite a young man, Henry Condell, and John
Heminge, who continued to be the mainstays of the company. There was
also the clown, Augustine Phillips, an excellent comic actor of the old
school. These four became the most intimate friends of Shakespeare, and
to Condell and Heminge posterity owes special gratitude, since it was
they who, after the death of Shakespeare, undertook the publication of
the first printed collection of his plays.
It is impossible to decide definitely which of Shakespeare's plays
belonged to the repertoire of The Theatre. It is probable that his first
plays, _Love's Labor Lost, The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of
Verona_, and his first tragedy, _Romeo and Juliet_, saw the light on
this stage between 1589 and 1591. Afterward, between 1594 and 1597,
these were possibly increased by _A Midsummer Night's Dream, Richard the
Second, King John, The Merchant of Venice_, and _Henry IV_.
The repertoire of The Theatre also included the so-called "jigs," merry
after-plays, mostly consisting of songs and dances, with frequent
allusions to the events of the day, sneering at the Puritans, the
magistrates, and other enemies of the playhouses.
It has been briefly mentioned above that not long after the
establishment of The Theatre--at the latest in the following year--this
playhouse gained a companion in The Curtain, which thus became the
second of its kind in London.
The two playhouses were very close to each other, but for this very
reason it seems natural to suppose that they were rather meant to
support than to rival each other. They were like a kind of
double-barrelled gun directed against the corporation, and they seem,
indeed, to an equal extent, to have roused the anger of the Puritans,
for they are generally mentioned together in the Puritan pamphlets
directed against playhouses and all other wickedness.
However, the history of The Curtain is almost unknown to us. While we
know a good deal about the outward circumstances of The Theatre on
account of the constant troubles which the Burbage family had to endure
from the proprietor of the ground and the municipal authorities, and of
the subsequent lawsuit, the reports we find about The Curtain are
extremely meagre. We know neither when nor by whom it was built nor when
it was pulled down.
By a mistake which is natural enough, its name has been connected with
the front curtain of the stage. We shall see later that no such curtain
existed in the time of Shakespeare, and we do not know that the
background draperies of that period had the fixed name of "curtain."
Anyhow, the possibility of this derivation is absolutely excluded by the
fact that the spot on which the second London playhouse was built, for
some unknown reason, bore the name of "Curtayne Close." So the playhouse
was simply named after the spot on which it was built.