CHAPTER III

THE THEATRES

Unfortunately for lovers of Shakespearean drama no vestige of any early

Elizabethan theatre exists; in some instances even the very sites are

forgotten; in others, the plots of ground on which each theatre stood

are disputed. When the Shakespeare Reading Society placed a tablet

on the site of the first Globe Theatre, the handsome bronze plaque

was erected on the south side of Park Street, which has lately been

proved to be a palpable error, the real site of this historic building

being situated on the north side. The localities where stood the early

English theatres have changed so out of all recognition during the last

two centuries that only an antiquarian who has access to old deeds can

with any degree of certainty fix the limits of old houses and public

buildings. Nothing remains to-day but the bare names of the streets,

indicating in a few cases the places of entertainment in Elizabethan

times. During Shakespeare’s lifetime there existed in London eleven

regular theatres, a brief account of each of these will be chronicled

in the following pages:

THE THEATRE

The first public theatre in London was situated in the parish of

Shoreditch and quite appropriately named “The Theatre.” When visiting

to-day this depressing neighbourhood, similar districts being dotted

over all the London area, an observer immediately concludes that the

governing authorities of the London districts must be a most corrupt

body; how else can one account for the state of the filthy slums and

the appalling ignorance of the inhabitants? Which, after all, is

not so surprising when only the gorgeous gin-palace is allowed to

flourish. As for demolishing a slum alley, perish the thought! It

would offend the aristocratic and titled owner, whose property must be

protected at all costs. If I were on a Board Council, not only would

I confiscate the property and quickly sweep it off the face of the

earth, but would heavily fine and imprison the owners as being pests to

society. Shoreditch, God help us! is an awful place. The thought that

Shakespeare’s plays were first produced in this neighbourhood seems

to cast a stigma on his name, and that the present state of affairs

should exist after three hundred years of social progress! Something is

rotten in the parish of Shoreditch. How could any modern institution

or artistic building flourish in such a fetid and vicious locality,

where the London County Council only permits the public-house to flaunt

its vile face before the public gaze. A new terror is now added to the

grand historic city of London and its outer boundaries by the glaring

posters of the Cinema theatre depicting every sort of horrid crime so

that a stranger must conclude that Englishmen are for the most part

thieves and vicious characters, caring for little else but scenes of a

most depraved nature.

Until quite recently the site of the theatre was identified with

a plot of ground formerly occupied by Deane’s Mews, situated in

the neighbourhood of the present King John’s Court. This site had

never been questioned until the appearance of the London County

Council pamphlet giving the details where the structure was erected.

Halliwell-Phillipps first described the site as being on the Deane’s

Mews property in his Illustrations to Shakespeare. The pamphlet

mentioned above is the work of Mr. W. W. Braines, whose untiring

efforts and keen critical research have succeeded in revealing the

exact spot on which the first theatre was erected. For years past I

had searched in vain for Deane’s Mews but without success; in fact,

this place was becoming to be regarded as a myth, no one having heard

of such a name. A friend of mine, Mr. Charles Edwards, a fellow member

of the Stock Exchange, had presented me with a handsome folio volume,

giving details of all improvements in the Metropolitan area within the

last fifty years. This compilation has been enriched with a wealth

of plans, exact measurements and the necessary explanatory notes

reflecting the greatest credit on the accomplished editor, Mr. Percy

Edwards, a brother of my friend. On referring to this book I found

Deane’s Mews plainly marked, which stood about 200 ft. south of the

true site. The Mews was swept away in the construction of Gt. Eastern

St. in 1873-76, and its site is now covered by the latter thoroughfare.

On leaving the City at the junction between Wormwood Street and

Camomile Street, where formerly stood the gate entrance to the City,

called Bishopsgate, we will proceed down Bishopsgate towards Norton

Folgate, thence passing into High Street, Shoreditch. From the High

Street we soon reach New Inn Yard, turning up this lane, at a distance

of 120 yards we arrive near the site of The Theatre, which was situated

about fifty feet north of this street and within a few feet of the

east side of the Curtain Road. In earlier times this district formed

part of the celebrated Holywell Priory. A detailed account of this

ancient abbey would be a welcome addition to the ecclesiastical and

topographical history of London. I hope this little volume from which

the above details are taken will be consulted by all Londoners, a

perusal of which might instil into their minds a greater interest in

the past history of their wonderful city. Actual experience teaches me

that few people take any intelligent interest in the subject or any

other which does not in some particular manner add to their commercial

prosperity. Naturally, where so many neglect the pleasures of the

mind, the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the people pass

unnoticed, otherwise any person totally unacquainted with the history

of the City of London would be looked upon as a common lout, fitting

only to herd with the base-minded.

I know from actual experience that few people take any intelligent

interest in this great and all-absorbing subject. I have, alas, met

several so-called educated men and women who have freely acknowledged

that they are quite indifferent concerning the history of the past,

although no subject of any importance can be thoroughly discussed

without allusion to previous events. This attitude almost of revulsion

exhibited by so many people for past history must have some deeply

based reason for its existence. Many would explain this contempt for

the past by the greater attraction of the wonderful world of science

and mechanical transport. In my opinion, the real cause of this feeling

is that the greater part of the population set up their idols to the

worship of sport, which the public schools and universities ever

delight to honour, and which, in my mind, is a public scandal which

should be inquired into, and the authorities that encourage such wild

orgies, severely reprimanded. The fascinating study of literature

and art fill no void in the daily routine of their lives, a state of

affairs greatly to be regretted; the welfare of the future generation

rests with the teachers of the elementary schools, who should endeavour

to foster in the young a genuine love for literature and all the arts

that tend in elevating the mind. My enquiry why so few take any

interest in these refining studies is generally met with the foolish

and ill-bred answer that no immediate benefit is derived from these

studies, as if the delights of the mind can be gauged by material

benefits.

One more parting shaft. A governing corporation that sanctioned the

demolition of Crosby Hall ought themselves to be demolished, or at

least hounded out of the City by the citizens that placed them in power.

Although this theatre was situated outside the City boundary, the

distance from the Metropolis was so short that Londoners were able

to reach their destination without undue discomfort and fatigue.

Notwithstanding that The Theatre was surrounded by fields, this

obstacle proved to be of a negligible quantity. The novelty of the

building and the vigorous dramatic force of the plays appealed to a

populace ever seeking for amusement, and made this playhouse a success

from its inauguration until its final destruction nearly a quarter

of a century later. Londoners of to-day would consider any place

surrounded by fields a pretty fair distance from the Metropolis, but

towards the end of the sixteenth century the country could be reached

in about a quarter of an hour by sharp walking from any point in the

City, which at that date constituted London proper. The reason that

Burbage, the proprietor, sought a locality for his projected theatre

outside the centre of the business life of the City was primarily

on account of the intense puritanical hatred against all theatrical

entertainments, the mark of the beast being shown by the Lord Mayor

and Corporation, who threatened with ejectment all the players from

the City. The crisis came in 1576, when an order was promulgated by

which all places of amusement were to be closed. This order principally

affected all inn-yards where plays were held, also bear and bull

baiting establishments. Driven almost to desperation, the players

resolved on quitting the City before the order was set in motion.

James Burbage, one of the leading actors in the Earl of Leicester’s

Company, was by trade a joiner, and quite appropriately the builder

of the first organized theatre not only in England but in modern

Europe. This momentous decision proved of untold benefit in the course

of the development of the drama, besides protecting his company from

molestation and persecution. This almost inspired act prepared the

way for the mighty genius who holds the world in awe, who was thus

able to profit by this vast improvement and decisive innovation in

the dramatic world. By taking this bold step the object of the City

Fathers was completely frustrated, and their deep-laid schemes, in

which the poor player was to be totally annihilated, recoiled on their

own heads. The new venture was an instant success, instilling into the

drama fresh blood and a long lease of life, daily growing more popular

and prosperous and drawing within the charmed circle every class of

citizen, with the exception of the puritan brigade.

The site chosen by Burbage for his first theatre was within the

precincts of the ancient Priory of Holywell, a celebrated landmark in

early Tudor times. The Priory was an ancient foundation originally

built in the second decade of the twelfth century. The ground on which

it stood was bequeathed by a Canon of St. Paul’s to a religious body

of women known as the Benedictine Nuns. The building remained in their

possession until the total suppression of all monastic orders in this

country by the Mandate of Henry the Eighth. The Dissolution began about

the year 1538, but the total extinction of the Abbey, including the

Chantries, Chapels, and Churches, was not finally accomplished until

ten years later. The last notice of the Priory as a living centre

can be traced to the year 1539, when Sybilla Newdigate, the prioress,

delivered up her house to the King. The suppression of the Monasteries

was one of those drastic acts by which means the King defied the

spiritual and temporal power of Rome, and proclaimed to the English

people that he alone was supreme head of the Church in England.

The origin of the name Holywell is traceable to a well which existed

in the parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, early in the twelfth

century. The exact site of this well is unknown, but somewhere in

close proximity to the new theatre. One authority states explicitly

that it is discoverable, but now concealed from view in the present

Bateman’s Row. An interesting relic of the ancient Priory can still be

seen in the shape of an old stone wall about 50 ft. long, in a timber

yard in High Street, Shoreditch. I must candidly admit that I have not

seen this relic, but its existence is vouched by excellent authority.

Immediately succeeding the Dissolution, the Priory was demolished

and let out on building leases to various tenants. Stow, the London

historian, writes: “Thence up to the late dissolved Priory, called

Holywell, a house of Nuns. The Priory was valued at the Suppression

to having lands £293 by year and was surrendered in 1539. The Church

thereof being pulled down, many houses have been builded for the

lodging of noblemen, of strangers and of others.” When the old Abbey

was portioned into estates, one important lot fell into the hands of

Henry Webb, who eventually disposed of it to Christopher Bumsted, who

disposed of the same property to Giles Allen, from whom James Burbage

took over a lease in 1576. All the minute particulars respecting the

site of The Theatre are mostly due to a protracted lawsuit between

Giles and Burbage, the records of which have been fortunately

preserved, and were made public by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. The

lease granted by Giles to Burbage contained a curious clause to the

effect that Burbage was willing to accept a lease for twenty-one

years provided that, at the termination of that period, the said

Burbage, having expended the sum of not less than two hundred pounds

on the building in the course of ten years, should have the option of

taking down and removing the same to any locality he might select. A

further clause also provided for an extension of the lease after the

expiration of 21 years. For the present we will pass over the first 21

years and come to the critical year in the affairs of this playhouse.

When the first lease was on point of expiry, James Burbage commenced

negotiations for an extension of time, but unfortunately, while these

particulars were being discussed, the original lessee, James Burbage

died. By his will the interest of his Shoreditch property devolved

upon his two sons, Richard and Cuthbert, the former being the famous

actor; of the latter little is known, he may have been an actor in his

brother’s company. The two sons, in an interview with Allen, the owner

of the property, now demanded afresh an extension of the lease, Allen

would have acceded to their request provided they paid an additional

ten pounds a year and further stipulated that after five years from the

signing of the new lease they must be prepared to use the property for

other purposes than theatrical entertainments.

The new lease was never signed; nevertheless, for a brief period the

Burbages remained in possession. No one will deny but that the tenants

had a very uncomfortable and insecure tenure of the premises. The

lessees must have realized the perilous position of their tenancy,

which was liable to foreclosure at any moment. Being faced with this

predicament they hit upon a desperate remedy. As stated above, a

clause was inserted in the original lease whereby they had the right

in pulling down and removing the said building. No sooner had they

resolved upon this expedient than the plan was quietly carried into

effect, thereby causing the lawsuit with Giles Allen, and incidentally

throwing light on the early annals of the theatre. The following

paragraph is an extract from Allen’s Bill of Complaints against

Cuthbert Burbage, who “unlawfully combining and confederating himself

with the said Richard Burbage and one Peter Street, William Smith, and

divers other persons to the number of twelve, to your subject unknown,

did about the eighth and twentieth day of December, in the one and

fortieth year of your Highness’ reign, and since then your Highness’

last and general pardon by the confederacy aforesaid notoriously

assemble themselves with divers and many unlawful and offensive

weapons as namely, swords, daggers, billes, axes, and such like, and

so armed did then repair unto the said Theatre, and then and there

armed as aforesaid in very riotous, outrageous and forcible manner,

and contrary to the laws of your Highness’ realm, attempted to pull

down the said Theatre whereupon divers of your subjects, servants

and farmers, then going about in peaceable manner to procure them

from that their unlawful enterprise, that the said riotous persons

aforesaid, notwithstanding procured then thereon with great violence,

not only then and there forcible and riotously resisting your subjects,

servants and farmers, and also then and there pulling down, breaking

and throwing down the said Theatre in very outrageous and violent and

riotous sort to the great disturbance and terrifying, not only of your

subjects, said servants and farmers, but of divers others of your

Majesty’s loving subjects there near inhabiting and having so done did

then also in most forcible and riotous manner take and carry away from

thence all the wood and timber thereof unto the Bankside in the parish

of St. Overyes and there erected a new playhouse with the said timber

and wood!”

All the world knows that the said new playhouse was the famous Globe

Theatre, the glory of the Bankside and the scene of Shakespeare’s

everlasting creations. Stow, the historian of London, in the first

edition of the Survey of the City of London, mentions The Theatre by

name in the following paragraph: “The church thereof being pulled

downe, many houses have been builded for the lodging of noblemen of

strangers borne and other. And neare thereunto are builded two publique

houses for the acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies and Histories

for recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, the other the

Theatre, both standing on the Southwest side towards the field.” The

last few lines from “Whereof to field” were omitted in the second

edition in 1603. The learned editor of the latest and best edition of

this famous book, Charles Kingsford, M.A., by a slip of the pen, in a

note to this passage, refers to the Curtain as having been demolished

in 1600; of course, it should be the Theatre, and the date should

be 1598. The field mentioned by Stow formed part of the well-known

Finsbury Fields, the playground of Elizabethan Londoners; these fields

abutted on Moorfields, which formed the boundary of North-East London.

Many citizens took advantage of these open fields and used them as a

short cut to the playhouse, generally going thither on horseback. This

manner of approaching the playhouse may account for the tradition that

Shakespeare on his first arrival in London held horses outside the

building.

Sometime in 1576 the players were safely installed in the new

building, notwithstanding the removal from the precincts of the City,

persecution soon dogged their footsteps, inaugurated by a bitter attack

from the puritan section of the community. The onslaught came from a

clergyman in a book entitled _A Treatise against Dicing, Dancing and

Interludes with other idle pastimes_, published in 1577. The author

of this venomous tirade rebuking all kinds of amusement was John

Northbroke, a preacher and procurator for the Bristol Clergy in the

Synod of London. The tract is in the form of a dialogue between Youth

and Age.

“Youth. Do you speak against these places also which are made up and

builded for such plays and interludes as The Theatre and Curtain are

and other such like places tendes.”

“Age. Yea, truly for I am persuaded that Satan hath not a more speedy

way and fitter school to work and teach his desire to bring men and

women into his snare than these places and plays and theatres are, and

therefore necessary that these places and plays should be forbidden and

dissolved and put down by authority.”

One of the earliest references to the recently built theatres was made

by Thomas Wilcox, a notorious divine, on December 9th, 1576, whose life

will be found in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. He referred to

the Theatre and the Curtain as “those sumptuous theatre houses.”

The earliest references to The Theatre, by name, is mentioned in an

order of the Privy Council, dated 1st August, 1577, “for the avoiding

of the sickness likely to happen through the heat of the weather and

assemblies of the people of London to plays,” measures should be taken

that “such as are and do use to play without the Liberties of the City

... as the theater and such like, shall forbear any more to play until

Mighelmas be past.”

After an interval of one year from the Rev. Northbroke’s outburst

another preacher mounted the pulpit, delivering a vigorous sermon in

denunciation of “The Theatre.” This divine was a schoolmaster named

Stockton, headmaster of Tonbridge School, where he held indisputable

sway, widely known as a severe disciplinarian, and a writer of many

devotional works. The following is an extract from a sermon preached

at St. Paul’s Cross: “Have we not houses of purpose built with great

charges for the maintenance of them, and that without the Liberties,

as who shall say ‘There let them say what they will we will play.’ I

know not how I might with the godly learned especially more discommend

the gorgeous playing places erected in the fields than term it as they

please to have it called a Theatre. Will not a filthy play with a blast

of a trumpet sooner call thither a thousand than an hour’s tolling

of the bell bring to a sermon a hundred? Nay, even here in the City,

without it be at this place and some other ordinary audience where you

shall find a rehearsal of company, whereas if you visit to the Theatre

the Curtain and other places of players in the City you shall on the

Lord’s Day have their places with many other that I cannot reckon so

full as possible they can throng.”

In most ages, even the present one, the clergy have persistently set

their faces against play acting without sufficiently analysing the

reasons for their embittered attacks, therefore their testimony must be

accepted as prejudiced partisans, which neither voice the view of the

populace nor of the cultured classes. Contemporary records afford ample

proof that the stage was frequented by all sorts and conditions of

people, the rowdy section seeming to predominate, only the puritanical

section, chiefly composed of the middle classes, kept aloof. The

popularity of the drama, acclaimed by the upper classes, saved it from

complete annihilation, otherwise the authorities would have banished

every player beyond the City walls. The sole cause of hatred against

the players can only be accounted for by the strong puritanical feeling

existing in the breasts of the City Fathers, which expressed itself in

denouncing with unseemly rage and bitterness any kind of entertainment

in which the citizens evinced the slightest pleasure. Any pretext,

however flimsy, was seized upon with avidity, thereby exhibiting their

petty spite against the players. When the plague raged the theatres

were closed. If any act of disturbance occurred the theatres were

closed. On Saints’ days, Holydays and Festivals the theatres were

closed. Orders were frequently issued permitting stage plays only

on certain days in the week. Every device was instituted in their

endeavour to persecute the poor player, but, in spite of all these

tyrannical enactments, the drama continued to flourish exceedingly,

attracting hundreds of people who found employment in connexion with

the stage.

Another early reference to the Theatre is found in a volume of a

contemporary author. John Florio, an Italian refugee, who instructed

the English aristocracy in the niceties of the Italian language, in

a book entitled _Dialogues and Proverbs First Frutes_, published in

1578, is the following passage: “We will go into the Fields. Let us go

to the Theatre to see a comedie. What pastimes are they in England on

holidays? Of all sortes of pastyme, as Comedies, Tragedies, leaping,

dancing, playes of defence, Baiting of Beasts, etc.” The above

paragraph is in the form of a dialogue. This reference is rarely met

with, I believe Mrs. Carmichael Stopes was the first to point it out.

“In the year 1580, Burbage was summoned before the Middlesex Court on a

charge of bringing together unlawful assemblies of people to hear and

see certain colloquies or interludes called plays, exercised by James

Burbage and divers other persons unknown, at a certain place called

The Theatre, in Halliwell, in the aforesaid county. By reason of which

unlawful assembly of the people great affrays, assaults and tumults

and quasi-insurrections and divers other misdeeds and enormities have

been then and there done and perpetrated by very many ill-disposed

persons to the great disturbance of the peace.” This statement is a

gross exaggeration, but its very overstatement suffices in explaining

the attitude the authorities assumed in the extreme measures adopted

by them in suppressing play-acting. How unfair and unjust appear the

means by which a body of English magistrates endeavoured to abolish

theatrical institutions. No statement was too false, no lie uttered was

deemed sinful; the airiest motive was seized upon with eagerness if

by such means any discredit was cast upon the acting fraternity. For

years they were harassed, tormented and bandied about from place to

place, and this persecution lasted even whilst the greatest dramatic

literature of all time was daily being represented before an ever

increasing and admiring public.

For this drastic treatment we may seek some condonement and

extenuating circumstances in the religious belief of the country,

the people being chiefly guided by the clergy, who instilled in them

the belief that all things connected with the stage were injurious

and harmful to the community. Imbued with these ideas the clergy

considered themselves justified by using every means in their power

in overthrowing and abolishing the stage out of the kingdom. Many of

these reverend fanatics were admitted on the Council of Administration,

who continually persisted in their endeavours to oust the players,

at any rate, out of the City; in furtherance of their plans they

preached the sinfulness of the drama in order to drive away the people

from the playhouses. Their pleadings were partially successful; by

continual exhortations they succeeded in poisoning the minds of the

middle classes, who accordingly absented themselves from all places of

amusement. The chief patrons of the drama were drawn from the upper

and lower classes much in the same way as the Turf to-day exercises on

the same classes, the middle class in this instance displaying great

good sense and morality by staying away from such an unhealthy and

discreditable amusement.

Although the Corporation were powerful enough in forcing the players

from places under their control, they were powerless in suppressing

play-acting during the entire reigns of Elizabeth and James. The year

1584 was memorable on account of a disturbance which occurred outside

the Theatre, thereby causing the assembly of a great crowd. Quickly

seizing this event as an excuse, the authorities petitioned that this

building and the Curtain should be pulled down. The Court considered

the punishment too drastic; nevertheless, the Corporation persisted,

eventually obtaining letters ordering the demolition of both theatres:

“Upon Sunday my Lord sent 2 Aldermen to the Court for the suppressing

and pulling down of the Theatre and Curtain for all the Lords agreed

thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlain and Mr. Viech, but we obtained a

letter to suppress them all. Upon the same night I sent for the Queen’s

players and my Lord Arundel his players, and they all well nigh obeyed

the Lords’ letters. The chiefest of her Highness’ players advised me to

send for the owner of the Theatre, who was a stubborn fellow, and to

bind him. I did so. He sent me word that he was my Lord Hunsdon’s man,

and that he would not come to me, but he would in the morning ride to

my Lord. Then I sent the under Sheriff for him, and he brought him to

me, and at his coming he shouted me out very Justice, and in the end I

showed him my Lord his master’s hand, and then he was more quiet, but

to die for it he would not be bound. And then I, minding to send him to

prison, he made suit that he might be bound to appear at the Oyer and

determined the which is to-morrow, where he said he was sure the Court

would not bind him, being a counselor’s man, and so I have granted

his request, where he shall be sure to be bound or else is like to do

worse.”

Again, for fear of riots, official notices were distributed that

the Theatre be closed. “There shall be no plays at the Theatre or

other usual place where the same are commonly used.” These orders

were frequently circulated; whether they were put into execution is

doubtful. Considering the restrictions that hemmed around the poor

player, Shakespeare’s lament that through ill-fortune he became a

player need cause no surprise, considering the persecution that was

directed against the theatrical profession.

A passage in Dante’s “Inferno” might, with slight alterations, exactly

fit the actions of our own civic authorities during the reign of

Elizabeth. “As in the Venetian Arsenal, the pitch boils in the winter

time wherewith to caulk their rotten ships. But, looking down into

the chasm, I could see nothing except the bubbles that its boiling

raised. And as I looked at it fixedly and wondered, my guide drew me

back hastily, saying, ‘Look! look!’ And when I turned I saw behind us

a black devil come running along the rocks. Oh, how wild his face,

oh, how bitter his action, as he came with his wings wide, light upon

his feet, on his shoulder he bore a sinner grasped by both haunches,

and when he came to the bridge foot he cried down the pit: ‘Here’s an

Alderman from the City of London; put him under that I may fetch more

for the land is full of such.’”

Before the total destruction of The Theatre there is a reference to the

“unfrequented Theatre” in Skialetheia, a series of satires entered in

the Stationers’ Register on the 15th September, 1598.

The literature of the day barely mentions the name of The Theatre,

yet this building had flourished for over a period of twenty years.

Stow mentions the Theatre once, only to be withdrawn from his second

edition, possibly the sour old Puritan, condemned in his heart all play

acting, and fervently desired the expulsion of all actors, plays, and

their authors from the domain of the City. The antiquary, Stow, may

well represent a type of the better class citizen utterly unsympathetic

with the new drama, and entirely adverse to all kinds of amusement.

This prejudiced feeling may account for the complete silence in any of

his works of theatrical life, which during his time was daily growing

into importance and significance. We have explained the silence of the

old topographer, but how can we interpret the passing over of this

side of London life by all literary coteries. The Metropolis swarmed

with writers of books and pamphlets dealing with contemporary events,

most of the authors were connected with the theatrical world, yet you

may search in vain thousands of books in the expectation of finding

any critical or explanatory notices of the stage. The conspiracy of

silence is so well maintained that we are left almost unacquainted with

theatrical conditions which governed the Elizabethan stage, whilst of

the Greek stage which flourished over two thousand years previously we

have minute particulars in all its branches. Why such a great novelty,

as an enclosed theatre should not have been freely discussed, written

about, and above all, criticised, remains one of the mysteries of the

age? Fortunately, a few foreigners from among the throng who visited

these shores jotted down their experiences of London, including therein

the amusements of the town, not forgetting to describe briefly a list

of theatres.

No drawing, print, or any kind of illustration depicting the first

theatre erected in London has been handed down to us. Under these

circumstances conjectural reconstruction of its walls is quite

permissible, although extreme caution is necessary when guided by

imaginary probabilities. The information we possess regarding the later

theatres may in some measure help us in forming a fairly accurate

account of the early theatres. A period of over twenty years had

elapsed between the building of The Theatre and that of the Fortune;

concerning the latter, interesting details are forthcoming. Between

these dates the type may have altered and improvements been introduced,

which is only natural considering the long interval. We obtain our

first glimpse of the early theatre buildings from quite a most

unexpected quarter.

Samuel Kiechel, a foreigner, visited England in 1585. On his arrival

in London he patronised several places of amusement, recording in his

Diary the impressions and facts of his journey. The following extract

is taken from his published journal; the notice about the stage

only concerns us. “There are some peculiar houses in which are so

constructed that they have about three galleries one above the other.

It may indeed happen that the players take from £10 to £12 at a time,

particularly if they act anything new, when people have to pay double.

And that they perform nearly every day in the week, notwithstanding

that plays are forbidden on Friday and Saturday; this prohibition is

not observed.”

Contemporary literature informs us that the exterior of The Theatre

was round, either hexagonal or octagonal, differing little from the

illustrations as shown in maps of the period. Nash, in the _Unfortunate

Traveller_, writes: “I saw a banquetting house belonging to a merchant

that was the marvel of the world. It was built round, of green marble

like a Theatre without.”

As will be seen above, only scraps of evidence are available in piecing

together the reconstruction of The Theatre; as regards the interior

absolutely nothing definitely is known beyond the important statement

that three galleries surrounded the building. The first theatre was not

solely devoted to dramatic entertainments, as records exist of fencing

matches and other exhibitions of skill taking place there. Stow, the

historian, notes that “activities were produced within its walls.” The

word “activities” denotes tumbling, rope dancing, vaulting and other

acrobatic feats. Halliwell-Phillipps publishes a letter dated July

1st, 1582, from the Earl of Warwick to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen,

requesting them to allow his servant, John David, to play at “The Bull”

in Bishopsgate Street, or in some other convenient place. On the 23rd

of the same month the Earl again wrote to the Lord Mayor complaining of

the treatment and disgrace put upon his servant in not being allowed

to play for prizes after the publication of his bills. The following

day the Earl received a reply from the Lord Mayor saying he had not

refused permission for his servant to play for prizes, but had granted

him a licence, only restraining him from playing in an inn for fear of

the infection, and had appointed him to play in an open space at the

Leaden Hall. Not having availed himself of the permission for fourteen

days, and the infection increasing, it became necessary to prohibit the

assembly of the people to his play within the City, but permission had

been granted him to perform in the open fields. “I have herein yet

further done for your servant what I may, that is that if he may obtain

lawfully to play at The Theatre or other open place out of the City, he

hath and shall have my permission with his company, drums and show, to

pass only through the City, being not upon the Sunday, which is as much

as I may justify in this season, and for that cause I have with his own

consent appointed him Monday next.”

Another reference occurs in the following year, in which the Lord

Mayor writes to the Justice of the Peace, praying for the assistance

of the Corporation in preventing a breach of the peace by refusing

the people permission to congregate about “The Theatre.” Gosson, in

both his prose works, _The School of Abuse_ and _Plays Confuted in two

Actions_, mentions two plays usually produced at the Theatre, namely,

“The Blacksmith’s Daughter” and “Cataline’s Conspiracy”; the former is

mentioned in _Plays Confuted_ and the latter in _The School of Abuse_,

1579.

The most interesting notice in connexion with plays acted at The

Theatre will be found in a paragraph from Thomas Lodge’s book entitled

_Wit’s Miserie or the World’s Madness_, 1596, in which a reference

is made to the old play of “Hamlet,” whose authorship is generally

assigned to Thomas Kyd, the writer of the famous “Spanish Tragedy,”

the most popular drama of the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare himself

refers to this play more than once. Although the old “Hamlet” is lost

there are excellent grounds for presuming that this play is the main

source of Shakespeare’s supreme masterpiece of “Hamlet,” the greatest

achievement in the dramatic literature of the world. The paragraph

in reference to the Theatre reads as follows: “He looks as pale as

the vizard of the ghost which cries so miserably at the Theatre like

an oysterwife Hamlet revenge.” The Theatre is again referred to by

Middleton in the Black Book, 1604: “He had a head of hair like one of

the devils in Dr. Faustes when the old Theatre cracked and frightened

the audience.”

A foreign prince visited these shores in 1596, and wrote a poem in

commemoration of the event, dated the same year as his visit. He writes

that London possesses four theatres, which are utilized not only for

dramatic purposes but for baiting of bulls, besides cock fighting.

Another early reference to The Theatre occurs in a rare pamphlet

called “Tarlton’s Newes out of Purgatory,” published without date,

but definitely known to be printed either in 1590 or earlier. The

passage is as follows: “And forsooth upon Whitsun Monday last I would

needs to the Theatre to a play when I came I found such a concourse of

unrulye people that I thought it better solitary to walk in the fields.

Feeding my humour with this fancy, I stept by Dame Anne of Cleares well

where after I had rested awhile I fell asleep.” Nash, the dramatist,

mentions Tarlton as playing at the Theatre in a pamphlet named “Pierce

Penilesse,” 1592. Stow, in his survey of London, mentions this well;

the origin of the name is founded on a sordid story of old London. A

rich London widow, named Annis Cleare, who, matching herself with a

riotous courtier in the time of Edward II, who vainly consumed all her

wealth and leaving her in much poverty, there she drowned herself,

being then but a shallow ditch or running water. Mr. Kingsford, in his

learned edition of the Survey, notes “that this well was near Paul’s

St., Finsbury, in the neighbourhood of which there still is a St.

Agnes Terrace. The name of St. Agness Clare Fields continued till a

hundred years ago.” I wandered all over this district in the hope of

finding St. Agnes Terrace, but my search was fruitless. On my return

I consulted the London County Council’s directory of the Streets of

London, and after looking through that ponderous volume for over one

hour, I found that the terrace was formerly a part of what is now

Tabernacle Street, the old name being abolished in 1884.

During the early years of the theatres the stage was merely a platform,

which could be easily removed when necessary; as before mentioned, the

theatres were used for other than dramatic performances. The stage

platform jutted out far into the yard, the technical name for the

space allotted to the audience. The spectators who occupied this part

of the building were called the groundlings. The yard surrounded the

platform on three sides, the stage buildings occupying the fourth,

the audience reaching up as far as the barrier, which divided the

stage from the auditorium. The roof was open to the sky, the actors

protecting themselves from the elements by erecting a kind of lean-to

or pent-house, sloping down from the tiring house; this contrivance

was technically called the “Heavens” or “shadow,” either thatched or

tiled. At the rear of the stage was the tiring-house, sometimes used

as an inner-stage, when not required by the actors, and was concealed

by a curtain. Above the inner stage stood a balcony, flanked on both

sides by rooms for noblemen or gentry. These special places were known

as the Lords’ rooms. Over the second story rose a turret, from which

commanding view a flag fluttered announcing the immediate performance

of a play. Only two doors of entry were considered necessary, one in

front of the house admitting the audience to the yard and galleries,

and a second situated at the back of the building, used by the actors

and better class of spectators who occupied the expensive seats. The

reason for the limited number of doors can be explained by the terms of

agreement between the lessee and the actors. Burbage did not lease his

theatre to a company of actors, but shared the risk of the undertaking

with them, receiving for his share the money taken for the galleries,

the players dividing among themselves the rest of the proceeds. This

arrangement, in course of time, was subject to alterations. The same

system, with slight variations, was adopted in all theatres during the

Shakespearean era.

The chief action of the play took place on the outer stage, no curtain

of any description concealing this part of the stage either before or

after or during the performance, the only curtain or tapestry in lieu

of a curtain noticeable was that dividing the inner from the outer

stage, and even beyond Shakespeare’s time this ever open stage existed.

When the Theatre was first erected in 1576 there may have been no

inner stage, and the entire change of properties may have been placed

in sight of the audience. The Theatre was built entirely of wood, and

only good fortune must have saved the building from being destroyed

by fire. The Theatre, no doubt, stood in its own grounds, and this

isolated position accounts for its withstanding the accidents which all

wooden buildings are more or less subject. All performances in a public

theatre were enacted during the day time, in the afternoon between the

hours of two and five or three and six. The theatre, not being lighted,

necessarily enforced the closing of the play before dusk. The acting of

a play lasted between two to three hours; a Shakespearean drama would

take nearer three than two hours to perform, sometimes even longer,

even in those days the blue pencil was liberally used, many passages

being cut, not on account of dramatic propriety but merely to shorten

the performance. On entering an Elizabethan theatre the first object

that met the eye of the spectator was a placard announcing the name of

the play for the afternoon. Although theatre posters were put up in

different parts of the City and on the theatre walls, informing the

public of the date of a given play, unforeseen circumstances sometimes

prevented the advertised play being performed. Unfortunately none

of these bills has survived. How interesting would be the perusal

of the play bill announcing the first performance of “Hamlet.” That

these placards were affixed to posts is corroborated by the following

anecdote related by Taylor, the water-poet, in one of his pamphlets.

“A merchant was riding down Fleet Street at a great pace, when he was

stopped by an actor, who questioned him as to the name of the play

being acted. The merchant was indignant at being thus waylaid, and

asked the man why he had stopped him; the answer he made was ‘I took

you for the post you went so fast.’”

How a play was presented before a public audience when first produced

at The Theatre cannot be satisfactorily solved, the subject dealing

with all branches of theatrical customs, has never been thoroughly

investigated, owing chiefly to want of the necessary literary

materials; every writer on the subject may thus air his theories

without much fear of contradiction, the critics themselves disagreeing

how far scenic decorations had advanced during the Shakespearean era.

Though the little we do know on this thorny subject would seem to

militate against scenery of any description being employed, I have

always held the opinion that the stage was not so bare of scenic

effects as most historians of the early stage would have us believe.

Stage properties of every size and description were extensively used by

all companies of players of any importance. With respect to the stage,

the general view maintained is that the outer stage or platform of The

Theatre closely resembled the stage of a French theatre during the

performance of a play of Molière’s; in that case the Elizabethan stage

would be absolutely bare with the exception of a table and a couple

of chairs. Experience convinces me that in the course of time this

theory will be thoroughly revolutionized, and proof will be forthcoming

that scenic effect with certain limitations, flourished during the

Shakespearean age.

As previously stated, the title of the play was exhibited on the stage,

printed or written in large text letters. Some writers affirm that the

title was exposed in full view of the audience from the balcony of the

stage. Exact confirmation on these minor details cannot be expected.

When the play advertised on the posts differed from the one actually

performed, the playgoer was entitled to have his money refunded

provided he quitted the theatre.

Three blasts of a trumpet announced the beginning of a play, and a

flag was displayed flying from the turret showing that a play was in

progress. The spectators in the yard, being unprovided with seats, were

left standing during the entire performance.

I remember years ago visiting a theatre in Vienna, where a musical

comedy was acted, and where all the occupants of the _parterre_, or

pit, viewed the play standing, as no seats of any kind were provided in

this part of the theatre.

How a change of scene was notified, if indeed any change was made,

nothing definitely is known. The most likely plan adopted lacking

painted scenery, would be by what is technically known as locality

boards, something resembling the device employed by the modern music

hall artist engaged in character sketches. A board is placed in a

prominent position of the stage in full view of the audience with the

name of the character assumed by the performer, the board being changed

on each separate occasion when a different character is assumed.

Apply this method in the changing of the scene in an Elizabethan

theatre and then you can better understand Shakespeare’s exhortation

in his prologues of “Henry V” when he urges the audience that their

imagination must fill up the void caused by want of necessary scenery.

To our modern notions the number of scenes in a Shakespearean play

is quite bewildering; the very number precludes the idea that the

scene was changed at all. The question is such a difficult one, and

of such an intricate and technical nature that further discussion at

our present state of knowledge would only confuse the reader without

providing him with a key for its solution.

The primitive device of locality boards was sarcastically alluded to

by Sir Philip Sidney in his “Defence of Poesie”: “What childe is there

that coming to a Play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters on

an olde doore, doth believe that it is Thebes. You shall have Asia on

the one side and Africa on the other and so many other under Kingdoms

that the player when he cometh in must even begin with telling where

he is or else the tale will not be conceived. Now ye shall have three

ladies walk to gather flowers and then we must believe the stage to

be a garden. By and by we have news of a shipwreck in the same place,

and then we are to blame if we accept it not for a rock. Upon the back

of that comes out a hideous monster with fire and smoke, and then the

miserable beholders are bound to take it for a cave. While in the

meantime two armies fly in represented with four swords and bucklers,

and then what hard heart will not receive it for a pitched field.”

In reading the above paragraph the reader must bear in mind that this

ironical criticism was penned many years before Shakespeare commenced

his dramatic career. During the long interval several improvements

may have taken place in stage effects, so that a Shakesperean play

may have been produced under more promising conditions than Sidney’s

statement would allow.

An interesting chapter could be written explaining the mode of

payment existing at these times on entering an inn-yard or theatre

when a play was in progress. On the erection of the public theatres

our information, although scanty, becomes a trifle more definitive;

unfortunately no light is thrown on the methods in vogue at the

inn-yards, although we learn that payment was collected on entering a

theatre. As we should naturally expect, the system is different in many

respects from modern methods. From literary sources we gather that a

man, or even a woman, was stationed at the entrance door of a theatre,

in his hand he held a box into which everyone who entered dropped a

penny; note well that the money was always deposited in the box and not

handed over into the keeping of the boxholder, by which act we must

regretfully conclude that Elizabethan doorkeepers were in no way more

trusted than our ’bus and tram conductors of the present day, more’s

the pity! This preliminary payment admitted the playgoer into the yard,

where he could remain without further fee; if a more comfortable place

was desired, the disbursement of an extra penny provided for him a seat

or stool in the topmost gallery. At this stage we learn how the extra

money was collected. At each separate entrance of the different parts

of the house stood a doorkeeper, technically known as a “gatherer.”

This system of payment was adopted on account of the lessee of the

theatre sharing in the profits of the house instead of, as in modern

times, leasing the building into the hands of a third party, only

receiving the rent and taking no share in the proceeds of the house.

In a lawsuit respecting the different shares claimed by each

shareholder, Cuthbert Burbage, the son of the original builder of The

Theatre, states that his father, James Burbage, borrowed large sums of

money at interest with which he built the first playhouse known as The

Theatre. The players that lived in these times, 1576-1597, had only

the profits arising from the doors, but now the players receive all

the comings in at the doors to themselves. By the term “housekeepers”

is meant the proprietors, those that are responsible for the rent and

money laid out in connexion with the managing of a theatre.

The entrance fee for seats in the lowest tier of the gallery was

sixpence, twelvepence was the charge for a seat in the Lords’ room;

these boxes were partitioned off from the other seats in the lowermost

gallery. Rooms and boxes were also provided on each side of the

balcony, which formed part of the stage buildings; these seats were

also expensive, but in later years they were abandoned on account of

the poor view, and also for the evil repute into which they had fallen.

These high-price seats equalled the price of a stall at our present

West End theatres. Whether these charges ruled at all Elizabethan

theatres during the last decade of the sixteenth century cannot be

definitely affirmed, but considering the conservatism maintained in

theatrical customs, for generations, no doubt, only slight changes were

introduced. Whether seats were allowed on the stage of “The Theatre” is

nowhere recorded; most probably this was a much later custom. Even at

the Globe Theatre, built twenty years after the erection of the first

theatre, a well known historian of the stage positively asserts that

seats on the Globe stage for privileged spectators were practically

unknown.

A list of plays acted at the Theatre would have been a valuable and

interesting document, but unfortunately no such account exists, in

place thereof we must be thankful for the known fragmentary records.

Gosson, in his _School of Abuse_, 1579, mentions the Blacke Smith’s

Daughter and Catalins Conspiracies “usually brought into the Theatre”;

he likewise refers to “the history of Cæsar & Pompey and the Playe of

the Fabic, at the Theatre.” The old “Hamlet” and Marlowe’s “Dr. Fauste”

were also produced there.

The last order issued against The Theatre appeared in 1597 from the

office of the Privy Council to certain of the Middlesex Justices to

the effect that “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great

disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that

are handled on the stage, and by resort and confluence of bad people,

hath given direction that these playhouses that are erected and built

only for such purposes, shall be plucked down, namely, The Curtain and

The Theatre near to Shoreditch. They were accordingly commanded to send

for the owners of the Curtain theatre or any other common playhouse and

enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the stages,

galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in, and to deface

the same as they may not be employed again to such use.” This order was

never enforced, but henceforth the Theatre as a playhouse was doomed,

and after that year the actors quitted it for ever.

Many of the above details connected with the early theatres are derived

from innumerable lawsuits caused by disputes among people engaged at

the different theatres; these old cases have been unearthed and printed

_in extenso_. Another source of information is obtained from the

continual bickering, backbiting and petty annoyance emanating chiefly

from the City authorities. These purse-proud, pompous and puritanical

individuals endeavoured by any means and at all costs in suppressing

theatres, players and playwrights with their followers. Through these

jealousies, acrimonious actions, on both sides ensued, quite out of

harmony with the innocent recreations of play-acting. Actions at law

followed these unseemly outbursts, thanks to which we are indebted for

many details concerning the early theatres. From the beginning of the

history of the stage, the reader will observe that the players were

always prohibited from erecting a theatre within the City boundaries.

The favour of the Court saved the actors from being excluded altogether

from the City; proof of this last statement will be found in the many

instances of the actors setting up their stages in the yards of the

City taverns and inns all through the reign of Elizabeth.

THE CURTAIN THEATRE

Within the same year of the building of the first playhouse in London,

another appeared upon the scene. The plot of ground on which this

second building stood was called the Curtene, and the theatre adopted

this name, and not, as generally supposed, receiving its nomenclature

from any theatrical accessory. Whether this establishment claimed

rivalship with Burbage’s theatre, or was another speculative venture

of this energetic and far-seeing man remains unknown, as few records

exist in connexion with this second enterprise. Anyone in search of the

actual site of the Curtain theatre must walk up Holywell Lane until

the Curtain Road is reached, then turning on the left, proceed about

one hundred paces along this road until we arrive at Hewitt Street,

formerly known as Gloucester Street, and earlier still as Gloucester

Row. In George II’s reign this alley bore the name of Curtain Court,

and is thus named in Chassereau’s map of Shoreditch. On this very spot

stood the Curtain theatre. Even so accurate a scholar as Professor

Lawrence locates the theatre as being in Gloucester Street, whereas

this street has for several years been known as Hewitt Street.

London topography is at times very misleading, and requires the

proverbial patience of the time honoured prophet in unravelling many

of its mysteries. Not a single inhabitant of Shoreditch could direct

you to the site of the theatre and would stare in bewilderment if you

enquired for Gloucester Street, even so slight an error can cause

vexation and loss of time, which is my reason for pointing out this

mistake. The form of the stage buildings, the auditorium, entrances

and exits were in all probability similar in construction with that

in vogue at the Theatre. No two theatres would exactly resemble one

another in every petty detail, but how they differed we have no means

of ascertaining, although this theatre was in existence for over three

quarters of a century.

Amidst all the rubbish that was printed during this period, barely a

reference is made concerning this place of amusement, which loomed so

largely in the life of the citizens of London.

When the clergy denounced the playhouses, they invariably coupled

the two theatres then in existence, The Theatre and The Curtain. In

the memorials of the Council the two houses are likewise associated.

An instance in which the Curtain alone is mentioned is of a most

interesting nature. The production of “Romeo and Juliet” at the Curtain

theatre brought forth the following verse, which appeared in John

Marston’s book, entitled “_The Scourge of Villanie_”, 1598.

“Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? faith now I know

I set thy lips abroach from whence doth flow

Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.

Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio,

Now I have him nere of ought did speak,

But when of Plays or Players he did treat

Hath made a common place book out of plays,

And speaks in print at least what ere he says

Is warranted by Curtaine plaudites.

If ere you heard him courting Lesbia’s eyes

Say, courteous Sir, speaks he not movingly

From out some new pathetic Tragedy.

He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts what not

And all from out his huge long scraped stock of well-penned plays.”

[Illustration:

THE

HECTOR

OF

GERMANIE,

_OR_

THE PALSGRAVE;

PRIME ELECTOR.

A New Play, an Honourable Hystorie.

As it hath beene publikely Acted at the Red Bull,

and at the Curtaine, by a Companie of

Young men of this Citie.

Made by W. SMITH, with new Additions.

_Historia vita Temporis._

LONDON,

Printed by _Thomas Creede_, for _Iosias Harrison_, and

are to be solde in Pater-Noster Row, at the

Signe of the _Golden Anker_. 1615.

]

A difficulty arises with the word “Curtain.” Does the word refer to

the theatre of that name or is it a casual way of speaking of any

theatre whereby attaching the modern theatrical meaning to the word?

Expecting a solution ready at hand, I consulted Dr. Murray’s New

English Dictionary, but in this case was grievously disappointed. The

actual phrase “Curtain Plaudities” was quoted under the definition

appertaining to Curtain or curtains without any reference being given

to the Curtain Theatre, the quotation should have been omitted, rather

than mislead the enquirer. Shakespearean students generally agree that

the phrase refers to the theatre of that name, and there can be no

question that this is the correct view, strongly supported by the fact

that at so early a date the front stage curtain was entirely unknown.

The transcriber of the manuscript from which the quarto edition of

“Romeo and Juliet” was printed in 1599, inadvertently substitutes

the name of Kemp, the actor, for the character he played, namely,

Peter. This same Kemp was quite a noted personage in his day. In

1600 he published a book, _Kemp’s Nine Daies Wonder Performed in a

Dance from London to Norwich_. Among other stories, he relates that

once when staying at an inn at Burnwood two pickpockets claimed his

acquaintance, “the officers bringing them to my inn. I justly denied

their acquaintance, saving that I remembered one of them to be a

noted cut purse, such a one as we tie to a post on our stage for all

people to wonder at, when at a play they are taken pilfering.” In the

Middlesex County Records there is a notice concerning the Recognizances

for William Hawkins, he being charged with a purse taken at the Curtain.

One can scarcely credit the idea that these wonderful dramas of

Shakespeare, so well constructed in the action of the plot, the

delicacy and skill necessary in handling and writing the diverse

stories of the play, the complex nature of the characters portrayed,

the beauty of the rhythm of the verse, combined with the easy flow

of dialogue, the possibility, I contend, is almost inconceivable

that these plays were produced in the noisy and somewhat uncouth

surroundings of an inn-yard. Every link in the chain of evidence only

confirms my implicit belief that these masterpieces were first acted in

an enclosed building, where the necessary quiet and seclusion could be

obtained for the actors in worthily interpreting the mighty thoughts

and inspired words of the almost divine author.

Although actual proof is wanting that Shakespeare’s company occupied

continually the Theatre and the Curtain during the last decade of the

sixteenth century, we may with certainty presume that these playhouses

were the scene of Shakespeare’s first dramatic productions. The oft

quoted suggestion that these plays first saw the light in an open air

yard seems incredible, especially when a properly organized theatre

was ready at hand, whose owner was father of the most prominent actor

of the day, namely, Richard Burbage, a fellow actor of Shakespeare.

On several occasions the Curtain Theatre was threatened with

total extinction. Fortunately the Bulls of excommunication never

materialized, the building surviving all the attacks and thunderbolts

which were hurled against her doors.

Immediately prior to the dismantling of the Theatre an order was signed

by the Privy Council, and issued to the Justices of Middlesex, for

the suppression of the theatres and all places of amusement in the

following terms: “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great

disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that

are handled on the stages and by resort and confluence of bad people,

hath given direction that not only no play shall be used within London

or about the City or in any public place during the time of summer, but

also the playhouses that are erected and built only for such purpose

shall be plucked down, namely, the Curtain and the Theatre near to

Shoreditch, or any other within that county. These are, therefore, in

Her Majesty’s name to charge and command you, that you take present

order there be no more plays used in any public place within three

miles of the City until Allhallows-tide next, and likewise that you do

send for the owner of the Curtain Theatre and other common playhouses

and enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the

stages, galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in and so

to deface the same as they may not be employed again to such use, which

if they shall not speedily perform you shall advertize as that order

may be taken to see the same done according to Her Majesty’s pleasure

and commandment.”

The above order was issued in 1597, but was never executed. Three years

later another attempt was made enforcing the closing of the Curtain,

during the time that the Fortune Theatre was erected. Notwithstanding

this order for utterly destroying the building, the good old theatre

stood defiant, keeping the flag waving aloft in spite of all

puritanical onslaughts for her downfall. The next year yet another

mandate was issued ordering the abolition of the Curtain; afterwards no

further commands threatening this theatre were circulated, the Curtain

continuing its career until an Act of both Houses of Parliament finally

closed the doors of all places of amusement.

A few years after the accession of King James, his consort, Anne of

Denmark, extended her patronage unto a company of players who performed

at the Curtain until 1609, when they acted at another theatre called

the Red Bull. A most important point for consideration is whether,

on transferring their allegiance to the new theatre, the Curtain was

altogether abandoned.

This theatre is again noticed in Heath’s epigrams, 1610, where

the Globe, Fortune and Curtain are mentioned as the three leading

playhouses. A later notice occurs in the year 1613 in Wither’s _Abuses

Stript and Whipt_.

“Base fellows whom mere time

Hath made sufficient to bring forth a rhyme,

A Curtain Jig, a libel a ballad.”

For many years the Curtain was let out on hire, but was chiefly

occupied by dramatic companies. A play called “Hector” was acted at

the Curtain by some young men of the City; the author of the play

was Wentworth Smith, whose initials are identical with William

Shakespeare. This same Wentworth Smith may be the author of several

plays signed with the initials W. S. which appear on the title pages of

many quarto editions of old plays. Although these plays are sometimes

associated with our poet, there is absolutely no evidence in claiming

them as his.

Another notice appears in _Vox Graculi, or the Jackdaw’s

Prognostication for 1623_: “About this time new plays will be in more

request than old, and if company come current to the Bull and Curtain

there will be more money gathered in one afternoon than will be given

to Kingsland Spittal in a whole month.” The last recorded notice yet

discovered is dated 1627. Possibly the Curtain remained open until the

order of Parliament suppressed the theatres in 1642, or when a more

stringent act, compelled by force, the closing altogether. Whether the

Curtain obeyed the first order in 1642, or waited until the forcible

ejectment in 1647, is uncertain. Professor Lawrence states that the

Curtain was pulled down in 1630, but no proof of this statement is

forthcoming.

NEWINGTON BUTTS

In all books, both old and new, concerning theatrical matters

in Elizabethan times, mention is made of a theatre existing in

Newington Butts. This district was situated near St. George’s Fields

in Southwark. Antiquaries, with imagination all compact, mark the

ground where now stands Spurgeon’s Tabernacle as the site of the old

theatre. Unfortunately, there is a lack of documentary evidence of

any description definitely stating the existence of a regular built

theatre in this locality. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence

proving that play acting constituted one of the chief amusements of

this neighbourhood.

Although not actually possessing any positive evidence of a theatre

existing in this neighbourhood, we must accept as a certainty that

either an inn-yard, town hall, or public theatre stood in this

vicinity, otherwise there is no accounting for a passage in Henslowe’s

Diary in which is recorded the event of the Lord Chamberlain’s men and

the Lord Admiral’s men acting at Newington.

“In the name of God Amen Beginning at Newington My Lord Admiral’s men

and my Lord Chamberlain’s men as followeth.” After this entry the Diary

contains a list of plays acted by these companies from June 3rd until

June 13th, 1594, then a line is drawn across the page, doubtlessly

signifying that the engagement terminated. The next entry, dated June

15th, 1594, continues indefinitely until 1597. From June, 15th, 1594,

all notices refer to plays acted at the Rose Theatre. Most writers

credit all the performances to the Newington Butts Theatre, a palpable

error, arising from insufficient study of the details connected with

this period.

The list of plays acted by the two companies is as follows:

The 3rd of June, 1594, Ry. at Hester and Askeweros

(Hester and Assuerus).

„ 4th „ “The Jewe of Malta.”

„ 5th „ “Andronicous.”

„ 6th „ “Cutlacke.”

„ 8th „ “Bellendon.”

„ 9th „ “Hamlet.”

„ 10th „ “Heaster” (Hester and Assuerus).

„ 11th „ “The tamyinge of A Shrowe.”

„ 12th „ “Andronicous.”

„ 13th „ “The Jewe” (“The Jew of Malta”).

Out of these ten performances, six may with certainty be placed, on the

credit side of the Lord Chamberlain’s men, the remaining four on those

of the Admiral’s. The “Hamlet” was, of course, the old play attributed

by all students to Thomas Kyd, the same play on which some years

later Shakespeare founded his own “Hamlet.” “The Taming of a Shrew”

is likewise an old play, upon which Shakespeare founded his “Taming

of the Shrew”; the author of the old play is not known. Shakespeare

changed the names of the principal parts, with the exception of Kate or

Katherine, developed the characters by adding greater depth of feeling

and making them living personalities instead of types of characters as

in the earlier play. He likewise contrived that the different plots

were more skilfully interwoven, and in every way improved upon the old

play. “Andronicus” may be the play attributed to Shakespeare by the

editors of the _First Folio_, or perhaps this drama was an earlier

play of Marlowe’s or one of his disciples. Although this “Andronicus”

finds a place in the _First Folio_, most critics agree that Shakespeare

was not the author. At the most, he may have revised a few scenes and

added touches here and there, but in no other way is he responsible for

this revolting and barbarous play, doubtless written by some popular

dramatist to please the ears and eyes of the groundlings, who simply

revelled in these horrors, without ever being satiated, the appetite

growing by what it fed on.

Even in our own day the disgusting and revolting posters exhibited

in all our streets entice coppers from the populace; this demand for

sensational and bloodthirsty scenes unites the Elizabethan age in

matters of beastliness with these that prevail at the present day. In

spite of three hundred years’ progress and free education and all the

aids to refinement that lie at the door of all Londoners, the mass of

the people clearly demonstrate by the class of their amusement how

little they have materially benefited by their education, constantly

demanding the villainous dreadfulness of low class entertainments

instead of encouraging the refined pleasures of a Shakesperean

performance.

Even the better educated classes cannot rise much above the red-nosed

comedian or the cracked-voiced variety artist or to visit nightly

some filthy so-called musical comedy or revue at a West End theatre,

with courtesans posing as actresses, and low music-hall performers,

introducing before a fashionable audience all sorts of vulgarisms and

indecent jokes and styling themselves heaven-born actors and actresses,

thus further insulting a noble profession.

Of “Hester and Assuerus” nothing is known beyond the name of the play.

A foreign version with the same title is extant, perhaps copied or

adapted from Henslowe’s play. Those four plays in 1594 belonged to

the repertory of Lord Strange’s company; a few years previously they

had been in the possession of another company, from whom they were

purchased by Lord Strange’s men. The three remaining plays were the

property of the Admiral’s men, namely Marlowe’s celebrated drama of the

“Jew of Malta,” acted scores of times to an ever-admiring audience. The

play called “Bellendon” has been identified with a play entered in the

_Stationers’ Register_ as “The True Tragedy and History of King Rufus

the First, with the Life and Death of Belyn Dun, the first thief that

ever was hanged in England.” The play is not extant.

“Cutlack” is also a lost play, probably alluded to in Guilpen’s

“Skialetheia,” a series of epigrams and satires published in 1598:

“Clodius methinks looks passing big of late,

With Dunstons browes and Allens Cutlacks gate.”

The Diary alluded to so frequently is the famous theatrical account

book kept by Philip Henslowe, whose stepdaughter married Edward Alleyn,

the greatest actor of his day. On his retirement from the stage he

purchased the Manor of Dulwich for £10,000. Henslowe’s connexion with

the theatrical world lasted over a quarter of a century; how he drifted

into the world of the theatre is a puzzle not easily solved, he being

by trade a dyer; possibly his son-in-law may have persuaded him in

investing money in theatrical ventures; at all events he controlled

several places of amusement, and was on friendly terms with most of

the playwrights and actors of his day. When he opened the Rose Theatre

he entered in his Diary day by day a list of plays that were produced

there. On the first production of a new play at his theatre he wrote

the letters “n e” before the title; these may signify “new enterlude”

or simply a contraction of the word “new.” Whenever the letters are

found, they always indicate that the play was a new one, or an old

play fresh-adapted for the requirements of up-to-date audiences. Many

other matters were jotted down in this Diary, especially the sums of

money lent to needy authors, or money advanced for new plays and other

services, likewise money expended on his theatres and bear-baiting

house, and a few entries of a private nature. This manuscript volume is

chiefly helpful in deciding the date and authorship of several plays.

For benefits received we are apt to regard Philip Henslowe in a more

favourable light than the illiterate, greedy and grasping theatre

manager and pawnbroking usurer really deserves. Without exception

this volume ranks as the most precious record of theatrical history

for the Elizabethan period. Everyone interested in the subject must

feel deeply grateful to Mr. W. W. Greg, who by his immense learning

and untiring industry, has given to students an edition of the Diary

beyond all praise. The original manuscript of this volume forms one of

the treasures of Dulwich College, and reposes in the library of this

excellent institution.

An important reference respecting the Newington Butts Theatre is

contained in the following document issued by the Privy Council, circa

1592, granting the Rose Theatre company permission to open their doors,

and further stating: “That not long since, upon some consideration,

their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at

the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoined them to play three days a week

at Newington Butts, but they understand that the tedium of the way

thither and for the fact that for a long time past no plays have been

performed there on weekdays, makes the use of that house inconvenient,

and also that the restraint is a cause of injury to a number of poor

watermen, they therefore order that the Justices shall permit Lord

Strange’s men or any other company to perform at the ‘Rose’ as usual.”

The next reference is of a more substantial character, as denoting

the existence of some kind of playhouse, in all probability a regular

theatre. Howe, in his continuation of _Stow’s Annals_, 1631, gives a

list of the early theatres in London, adding besides one in former

times at Newington Butts. In spite of this authentic statement, the

Newington Butts Theatre has been declared a myth, and, until further

evidence is forthcoming, is likely in thus remaining so. That a place

of entertainment for the acting of plays existed in this neighbourhood

has been proved beyond doubt.

Considering the number of years plays were acted here, how shall we

account for the lack of notices respecting the building in which the

plays were acted? Nothing more tantalizing can be recalled in the whole

history of the early drama.

When, in the year the Lord Admiral’s men and the Lord Derby’s men

played at Newington Butts, both companies had already enjoyed many

years of prosperity, and therefore quite unlikely they would give

ten consecutive performances at an inn-yard or on a stage erected in

an open place. Henslowe, in his Diary, simply remarks: “Beginning at

Newington my Lord Chamberlain’s men and my Lord Admiral’s men.” Even

this entry does not assist us in determining the nature of the place

where the plays were represented. It is to be regretted that Mr. Greg

has not elucidated this puzzle for us, no one else but himself is

capable of untying this knotty question.

Elizabethans themselves rarely allude to any of their theatres or

places where plays were acted, the Newington Butts locality seemingly

not deserving a passing notice.

THE ROSE THEATRE

The first authentic account of a theatre erected on the south side

of the Thames is that of the Rose, in Southwark. In Norden’s map

of London, dated 1593, there stands a round building marked “The

Playhouse,” situated south-east of the Bear House, also depicted on the

map. As the Rose was the only playhouse existing in the neighbourhood

at this date, the logical inference is quite fair that the theatre is

no other than the Rose. Even now there is still a Rose Alley in the

district, which perpetuates the name of the old theatre.

[Illustration: The Rose Playhouse, from Norden’s _Speculum Britanniæ_,

1593.]

Philip Henslowe, the famous owner of the Diary, was the proprietor and

sole manager. Until the appearance of an article in _The Times_ on

April 30th, 1914, by Dr. Wallace, the first opening of the Rose was

placed in 1592. Professor Wallace states that this theatre was built in

1587, and was mentioned for the first time in the “Sewer Records” in

April, 1588, as then new.

Before the article was written, several writers had questioned the late

date, but for lack of sufficient evidence the year 1592 was given in

all text books as the correct date. This is a most important discovery,

giving the citizens of London at this early date a third, or even a

fourth, theatre, whereby the leading metropolitan companies could

represent their plays at a properly constructed and organized theatre.

Henslowe’s first notice of a public performance at the Rose is as

follows:

“In the name of God, Amen, 1591, beginning the 19th of February,

my Lord Strange’s men as followeth 1591.” Although in the above

paragraph the actual name of the theatre is not mentioned, there can

be no question that the Rose is intended. An undated warrant from the

Privy Council states “that upon some considerations their Lordships

restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the

Bankside.” Notwithstanding that the warrant is undated, several reasons

indicate that the order was issued at the same time that Lord Strange’s

men were playing at the Rose. The document describes the actors as

servants of Lord Strange; now in 1593 Lord Strange became the Earl of

Derby, the events narrated in the document referred to the previous

year 1592. Henslowe’s 1591 is either a clerical error or a confusion

between the regnal year and the legal one, which commenced on the 25th

of March.

Another important entry is as follows: “A note of such carges as I

have laid owt abowte my playe house in the year of our Lord, 1592,

as ffoloweth.” Had Mr. Philip Henslowe lived in these days he would

have stood a fair chance of being elected President of the “Nu Speling

Sosieti”; a more illiterate and uneducated being would be difficult

in discovering, and this ignorance is found in conjunction with a man

who was on intimate terms of friendship with the foremost authors of

his day. His Diary is a mass of absurdities in the way of spelling,

particularly on the employment of capital letters, but his greatest

achievement is reached in recording the different titles of the plays

acted under his management:

“the gresyan comodey. The Grecian comedy.

Seser and Pompe. Cæsar and Pompey.

the frenshe docter. The French Doctor.

doctor fostes.” Doctor Faust.

and many other items equally ludicrous and illiterate.

In congratulating Mr. Greg on the wonderful manner in which he has

grappled with this extraordinary document, one must sympathize with

him in the arduous labour thereby entailed. The ingenious editor

admits once being baffled; in this instance the difficulty was solved

by another acute mind the late Mr. Fleay. The word which defied

decipherment was “an Isapryse,” which Mr. Fleay identified as “nisi

prius,” the correct solution.

The Rose Theatre, like the playhouses in Shoreditch, was erected

outside the jurisdiction of the City of London. The site was not within

the Gildable Manor, being situated within the Liberty of the Clink,

becoming thereby amenable to the Justices of the Peace for Surrey.

The Clink was the name of the noted prison in Southwark; the name is

derived from the word “clink,” to fasten securely.

An estate called “The Little Rose” is first heard of in 1552, passing

into the hands of Henslowe in 1558. In January, 1587, a deed of

partnership was drawn up between Henslowe and a grocer named Cholmley.

This deed states that a playhouse is to be erected at Henslowe’s cost,

with the assistance of John Griggs, a carpenter, Cholmley paying £8

16s. in quarterly instalments, sharing in return half the receipts.

Nothing further was known of this projected theatre before 1592 until

Professor Wallace, in 1914, discovered a document among the “Sewer

Records,” in which the theatre is named the Rose in 1588. From the year

1592 until 1603 theatrical performances were given at the Rose. Acting

was not continuous, the theatre being closed for many months, chiefly

owing to the plague. The Diary contains the following entries:

From February 19th, 1592, until June 22nd, 1592.

From December 29th, 1592, until Feb. 1st, 1593.

From December 27th, 1593, until April 8th, 1594.

From June 3rd, 1594, until Mar. 14th, 1595.

From Easter Monday, 1595, until June 26th, 1595.

From August 25th, 1595, until Feb. 27th, 1596.

From April 12th, 1596, until July 18th, 1596.

From Oct. 27th, 1596, until Nov. 15th, 1596.

From Nov. 25th, 1596, until Feb. 12th, 1597.

From May 3rd, 1597, until July 28th, 1597.

From Oct. 11th, 1597, until Oct. 31st, 1597.

From Nov. 26th, 1597, until the end of December.

“A just account of all such money as I have received of my Lord

Admiral’s and my Lord Pembroke’s men as followeth, beginning the 21st

of October, 1597.” The account commences on the aforesaid date and

finishes on the 4th of March, 1598, twenty performances in all. There

appeared the next entry as shown in the Diary:

“Here I Begigne to Receve the wholle gallereys from this daye beinge

the 29th of July, 1598.” This contract lasted until the 19th of

October, 1599, altogether forty-four performances. The titles of the

plays are omitted; the entry is simply:

By the 29th of July, 1598--xll xiiijs.

The next entry in the Diary in connexion with the Rose Theatre occurs

on the 6th of October, 1599: “Heere I begine to Receve the gallereys

again.” Representations were given from the 6th of October, 1599, until

the 13th of July, 1600. After this entry the Diary only records the

performances given at his newly-erected theatre, the Fortune in Golden

Lane. The 13th of July, 1600, contains the last notice of the Rose

until the year 1603, when the servants of the Lord Worcester occupied

the theatre for a brief period. When the Worcester men left some time

during 1603, nothing further is heard of this theatre until 1620, when

prizefighters occupied the arena; also fencing matches were held.

Rendle, in his account of the Bankside Theatres, notes that the Rose

was burnt down, and he quotes a couplet as evidence of his statement:

“In the last great fire

The Rose did expire.”

Rendle adds: “When that was, I am not clear.” He gives no reference for

the quotation.

Other investigators seem quite ignorant of this catastrophe. Professor

Lawrence simply states that the Rose is last heard of in 1622, quite

ignoring the fire couplet.

Two years before Henslowe’s lease expired, hints were casually

intimated that in future the rent would be considerably increased. This

drastic course roused the old manager’s anger up to boiling pitch,

and he vowed he would sooner pull down the Rose in the same manner

as the Burbages had acted some years earlier in connexion with the

theatre. Anyhow, the Rose was not demolished, the terms upon which the

interested parties agreed remain unknown. Alleyn, the former actor and

Lord of the Manor of Dulwich, was still paying tithe on the estate as

late as the year 1622.

[Illustration:

A

CHAST MAYD

_IN_

CHEAPE-SIDE.

_A_

Pleasant conceited Comedy

neuer before printed.

As it hath beene often acted at the

Swan on the Banke-side, by the

Lady ELIZABETH her

_Seruants_.

By THOMAS MIDELTON Gent.

_LONDON_,

Printed for _Francis Constable_ dwelling at the

signe of the _Crane_ in _Pauls_

Church-yard.

1630.

]

THE SWAN THEATRE

The second theatre erected on the Bankside was named the Swan, situated

at the extreme western end, in the Manor of Paris Garden, represented

to-day by the Blackfriars Road. The proprietor and builder was a

well-known London citizen, named Francis Langley, holding an office

under the Corporation, as one of the searchers of cloth, an appointment

much coveted by well-to-do men.

When first the plans were laid out for building a theatre on the Paris

Garden Estate, the puritan section of the Corporation rose up in arms,

vehemently protesting against the scheme being carried out. In their

eager desire in preventing such desecration, they appealed to the Lord

Treasurer, praying that a warrant might at once be issued, forbidding

the building from being completed. These proceedings took place in 1594.

The exact date of the opening is very uncertain and somewhat

conflicting. First, we have the opposition against the building in

1594; secondly, the evidence of the Dutchman De Witte, who visited and

described the Swan Theatre. De Witte’s biographer positively asserts

that he only visited these shores once, that visit taking place in the

year 1596. According to the evidence, we should expect the erection

of the theatre between these dates, namely, 1594-6. Curiously enough,

a third witness is introduced in the records of the minutes of St.

Saviour’s Vestry stating that Mr. Langley’s new buildings shall be

viewed, and that he and others shall be moved for money for the poor in

regard to the playhouse and the tithes; this order is dated 1598.

How can we best reconcile these three different dates? The mention of

Langley’s new buildings in 1598 somewhat weakens the statement that

De Witte visited the theatre in 1596, and yet the fact cannot well

be ignored. Until new documentary evidence is forthcoming the wisest

course consists in simply declaring an open verdict.

Quite apart from the interest attached to any place of amusement

in Elizabeth’s reign, the Swan Theatre has become famous, through

a startling and sensational discovery, in the form of an authentic

drawing depicting the interior of this building. The actual discovery

of this important and interesting drawing was made by Dr. Thiele,

librarian of the University of Utrecht, who found the drawing in a

manuscript volume belonging to the University Library. This interior

view is certainly the most interesting document in existence in

connexion with the early history of the theatre. By a special act

of courtesy on the part of the librarian, this precious manuscript

containing the drawing was conveyed to this country and exhibited

in the British Museum. A photograph of the drawing will be found as

frontispiece to this volume. The text accompanying the drawing is as

follows, omitting all extraneous matter:

(Fol. 131 verso).

Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis De Witt.

Amphiteatra Londinij sunt iv visendae pulcritudinis quae a

diversis intersigniis diuersa nomina fortiuntur: in iis varia

quotidie scaena populo exhibetur. Horum duo excellentiora vltra

Tamisim ad meridiam sita sunt a suspensis signis ROSA et Cygnus

nominata: Alia duo extra vrbem ad septentrionem sunt, via qua

itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgat nuncupatam. Est

etiam (Fol. 132 recto) quintum sed dispari et structura, bestiarum

concertationi destinatum, in quo multi vrsi, Tauri, et stupendae

magnitudinis canes, discretis caueis & septis aluntur, qui (drawing

occupies rest of page) (the words from quintum to qui being

written underneath) ad pugnam adseruantur, iucundissimum hominibus

spectaculum praebentes. Theatrorum autem omnium prestantissimum

est et amplissimum id cuius intersignium est cygnus (vulgo te

theatre off te cijn), quippe quod tres mille homines in sedilibus

admittat, constructum ex coaceruato lapide pyrrtide (quorum ingens

in Britannia copia est), ligneis suffultum columnis quae ob illitum

marmoreum colorem, nasutissimos quoque fallere possent. Cuius

quidem formam quod Romani operis vmbram videatur exprimere supra

adpinxi.

The above extract is taken verbatim from the manuscript book belonging

to Arend van Buchell, the friend and biographer of De Witte.

(_Translation_).

There are in London four theatres of noteworthy beauty which bear

diverse names according to their diverse signs. In them a different

action is daily presented to the people. The first two of these

are situated to the southward beyond the Thames and named from the

signs they display, The Rose and The Swan. Two others are outside

the City towards the north, and are approached (per Episcopalim

postern, in the vernacular, Bisopgate)--Bishopsgate. There is also

a fifth of dissimilar structure devoted to beast baiting, wherein

many bears, bulls and dogs of stupendous size are kept in separate

dens and cages, which being pitted against each other, afford men

a delightful spectacle. Of all the theatres, however, the largest

and most distinguished is that whereof the sign is a swan, commonly

called the Swan Theatre, since it contains three thousand persons

and is built of a concrete of flint stone, which greatly abound in

Britain, and supported by wooden columns painted in such excellent

imitation of marble that it might deceive even the most cunning.

Since its form seems to approach that of a Roman structure I have

depicted it above.

Naturally such an important document was submitted to various severe

tests regarding its authenticity, and on examination was satisfactorily

proved to be quite genuine. The next question requiring an answer was

not so easily settled. How came this drawing made by De Witte inserted

in a manuscript copy of a volume belonging to his friend, Van Buchell.

It cannot be the original drawing sketched by De Witte on the spot,

as the paper on which the sketch is made is identical with the paper

forming the leaves of the manuscript. The only conclusion possible is

that Van Buchell copied the drawing and the letters sent or lent to him

by his friend into his own commonplace book. Whether the drawing was

faithfully copied cannot be definitely answered, as De Witte’s original

is lost.

There is no reason in believing that Van Buchell deviated from the copy

sent him. The description given by De Witte to his friend may have been

orally delivered and Van Buchell may have made the sketch from memory

according to the details narrated by De Witte. The biographer of Van

Buchell states that he never visited England. De Witte’s biographer

writes that he only visited this country in 1596, but this statement

cannot be implicitly relied upon.

Arend van Buchell was a lawyer practising in Utrecht; his hobby was

collecting pictures and prints; he was intimate with Cornelis Boissers,

an engraver, and several painters and collectors of his day.

By referring to the text, the reader will notice that De Witte

estimated the seating and standing capacity of the Swan roughly about

three thousand. Of course this number is the result of guesswork, but

surely the number is nearer the mark than three hundred, the estimate

of a well-known writer and critic, who arrived at this conclusion by

inferring that three thousand was a mistake for three hundred.

On turning to the frontispiece of this volume, the reader will observe

that the arena contains three galleries: these galleries ran right

round the theatre, each one containing three or four rows. By carefully

examining the drawing, fourteen divisions can be counted in the

top-most gallery. Between each division, seats, or standing room for

three people, can be quite distinctly made out. Therefore the third

part of the gallery shown in the sketch would hold forty-two persons in

one row, the entire row encircling the theatre on three of its sides

would contain one hundred and twenty-six people; multiply this number

by eleven, the number of rows (four in the first and second tiers and

three in the top one) we get a total of 1,386. Add to this another

700 standing in the yard, we get a grand total of 2,086, which in all

probability was about the full capacity of the house.

Another point which is hotly debated is whether De Witte is correct

in stating that the exterior of the theatre was built of stone. In

Hentzner’s description of the London theatres in 1598 he positively

asserts that they all were built of wood; naturally this counter

assertion raises the question regarding the value to be placed on De

Witte’s observations in general.

He could hardly mistake wood for stone, pointing out himself the

difficulty in discerning wooden columns from marble ones. A possible

solution might be that the Swan Theatre was not built when Hentzner

described the theatres of London; they are not mentioned by name, which

adds additional force to my theory.

On a close inspection of the drawing all the characteristics of an

Elizabethan theatre are at once apparent. The first important feature

is the division of the auditorium into three distinct tiers, one

above the other, which the careful reader will remember seemed such a

novelty to Samuel Kiechel, the foreigner, who visited London in 1585.

At that date the Swan was not in existence, but the construction of

an Elizabethan theatre only varied in small details during the length

of her reign. On looking at the stage, one is not impressed with its

elaborate or elegant appearance, a more primitive kind of structure is

scarcely conceivable. There is no sign of a curtain either at the back

or front. The turned columns support what is technically known as the

“Heavens,” a kind of roof protecting the actors from the elements, and

also serving as a sounding board. Mr. Ordish, in his fascinating and

highly interesting study of the early London theatres, in describing

this sketch, strangely observes that the “heavens” over the stage are

not shown; this statement must surely be a clerical error, as they are

quite clearly marked in the drawing.

The two doors served as exits and entrances, leading to and from the

dressing room, inscribed in the sketch as “mimorum aedes.” The balcony

was divided into boxes for playgoers who were willing to pay a higher

price for their seats. When occasion required, part of the balcony was

occupied by the musicians, and frequently by the actors themselves,

especially in those scenes in which they appeared from above, as in

the play of “Romeo and Juliet,” or when soldiers appear before the

walls of a city.

From a spectator’s point of view, this part of the auditorium does not

appear the most advantageous, as only the backs of the actors could

be seen. Notwithstanding the bad position, these expensive seats were

always in demand, some motive must have kept up the price of these

boxes; the only one I can suggest is that they offered a degree of

privacy to the occupants; furthermore, they had an entrance from the

back of the stage, thus enabling the avoidance of the crowd by the

seat-holders.

Over the balcony was a kind of hutch, where most likely the stage

properties were stored. From an opening in this structure an attendant

is seen sounding a trumpet, an intimation that the play is about to

commence, although in this instance the warning is given while the

play is in progress. The significance of this small detail is rather

important, allowing us in presuming that De Witte drew the sketch after

he had left the theatre, and therefore from memory, which in many small

matters may have played him false.

The play which is being performed has all the appearance of a scene

from Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” in which Olivia, Maria and

Malvolio, with his staff of office, appear. Shakespeare’s play was

composed a few years later, but a play with similar incidents may have

been acted at this date.

An earlier play on the same subject that Shakespeare treated in

“Twelfth Night” is generally supposed to have been presented on the

stage. The roof of the hutch is surmounted by a flag, waving over

the building, bearing for its sign a swan. With the exception of the

stage, which was a movable one, the other parts of the stage buildings

were permanent structures. The different sections of the house

inscribed in the sketch are as follows: Over the topmost gallery is

a sloping roof, which ran right round the theatre, inscribed on the

right hand side facing the spectators with the word “tectum,” the

Latin for roof. This part of the theatre was either tiled or thatched

throughout. In one division of the lowermost gallery, in which were

situated the best seats, a space therein, so described with the word

“orchestra.” Professor Lawrence has written a very ingenious and

learned dissertation on the meaning of this word, in which he proves

conclusively that the place so marked was set apart for private boxes,

called in the theatrical parlance of the day “The gentlemen’s rooms.”

The word orchestra, in this sense, has no connexion with the modern

meaning of the word, or the ancient Greek definition, signifying a

place reserved for dancing, also where the chorus accompanying a Greek

play sang. The true meaning in the Shakesperean period denoted that

part of the auditorium set aside for noblemen or those willing to pay a

high price for their seats.

Cotgrave, in his English and French dictionary, published in 1611,

defines _orchestre_ as “the senators or noblemens’ places in a

theatre, between the stage and the common seats.” The knowledge of

this important fact in reconstructing intelligibly this part of an old

theatre is a debt we owe to the ingenuity and learning of Professor

Lawrence.

The word “sedilia” refers to the seats in the galleries, which proves

that seating accommodation was provided in this part of the house, a

fact which had been doubted for many years past.

The porticus was a colonnade or corridor running round the gallery

furnished with columns supporting the galleries, and may have afforded

standing room for spectators.

[Illustration: The Swan Theatre. From Visscher’s Map of London, 1616.]

“Ingressus” refers to the steps leading to the galleries, being

placed on both sides of the house. Other steps not shown in the sketch

led to the second and third galleries. At this point were stationed the

“gatherers,” who received the extra payment for entrance to these seats.

The structure behind the stage, inscribed “mimorum aedes,” is the

tiring room for the actors making their exits and their entrances

through the two doors placed one on each side. The word “proscænium” is

the Latin word for stage, derived from the Greek word Skene, a booth or

tent, in which the leader of the chorus in the early days of the Greek

drama erected his dressing room. The same word scene, in our own days,

bears many theatrical meanings almost identical with the word employed

twenty-five hundred years ago, thus contradicting the belief of most

people that we owe everything to the genius of the present generation.

The arena was the yard, in which stood the pit and gallery _habitués_

of our day, the charge for this privilege being one penny.

I hope the reader will constantly refer to the drawing whilst reading

this description, as it will materially help him in fully understanding

the interior of an Elizabethan playhouse.

The Hope Theatre was modelled on the Swan. I here append the contract

for the first-named theatre:

“The contractor, Katherens, is to take down the existing structure, and

to build in its place another game house or plaie house fit for players

to play in and for the game of bears and bulls. There is to be provided

a tyre house and a frame to be carried or taken away and to stand upon

tressels, sufficient to bear such a stage. It is agreed to build the

same of such large compass, form, wideness and height as the playhouse

called the Swan in the liberty of Paris Garden. And the said playhouse

or game place to be made in all things and in such form and fashion as

the said playhouse called the Swan, the scantling of the timbers, tiles

and foundations as is aforesaid without fraud or covin.” The last word

means conspiracy or collusion.

The separate items are:

1. Two staircases without and adjoining the playhouse of such largeness

and height as the said playhouse called the Swan.

These stairs are not shown in the sketch; perhaps they were placed

outside the building. It would be interesting to know the exact

position.

2. “Heavens” over the stage to be borne and carried away without any

posts or supporters to be fixed or set about the stage. Gutters of lead

needful for carriage of water that shall fall about the same.

The “Heavens” in the Hope contract is different somewhat from the Swan,

as the sketch plainly shows the columns supporting the “Heavens.”

3. Two boxes in the lowermost storey, fit and decent for gentlemen to

sit in, and shall make the partition between the rooms as they are at

the said playhouse called the Swan.

The boxes are marked “Orchestra” in the sketch.

4. Turned columns upon and over the stage.

5. Principals and forefront of the playhouse to be of oak; no fir to be

used in the lowermost or under stones, except the upright posts or the

back part of the said stones, all binding joists to be of oak.

6. To new tyle with English tyles all the upper roof of the said

playhouse.

7. Also a louvre or storey over the said playhouse as it now is.

Several of the above particulars confirm the exactness of the drawing.

It must not be forgotten that between the building of the Swan and that

of the Hope nearly twenty years had intervened; in that time many

improvements had taken place, but the essentials remain the same.

The Swan Theatre has little interest for students, the entertainments

being chiefly devoted to bear-baiting, and other sports of a less

exciting nature.