refers to the Swan in the following passage: “As Antipater Sidonius
was famous for extemporal verse in Greek.... And so is now our wittie
Wilson, who, for learning and extemporal witte in this facultie, is
without compare or compeere, as to his great and eternall commendations
he manifested in his chalenge at the Swanne on the Banke-side.” A very
interesting account of Shakespeare occurs in the same book: “As the
soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras so the sweete
wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honeytongued Shakespeare,
witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred sonnets among his
private friends, etc.”
A few more references to the Swan are still extant. A certain Peter
Bromville appeared at this theatre in 1600, performing acts of
activity, he having exhibited the same before the Queen. Acts of
activity correspond to those acrobatic feats often seen at our present
day music halls.
Another extract is from Dekker’s play “Satiromastic,” 1602. Tucca:
“Thou hast been at Paris Garden, hast not?” Horace: “Yes, Captain, I
have played Zulziman there.” I have searched in vain to find the name
of the play in which the part of Zulziman occurs. Ben Jonson acted the
part of Zulziman.
The Swan was often alluded to as Paris Garden. Middleton’s play of “A
Chaste Maid in Cheapside” was performed there. Another notice relates
how a knight, witnessing the last new play at the Swan, lost his purse
containing seven angels. An angel was a gold coin, valued at ten
shillings. A man named Turner was thrust through the eye and killed
here whilst contesting there for a prize.
During the last years of the Swan, only fencing matches and
gladiatorial exhibitions were given. The last notice of this theatre
appeared in a pamphlet entitled “Holland’s Leaguer,” by N. Goodman,
published in 1632: “Three famous amphitheatres can be seen from the
turret, one the continent of the world (_i.e._, the Globe), to which,
half the year, a world of beauties and brave spirits resort. A building
of excellent hope for players, wild beasts and gladiators and another,
that the lady of the Leaguer in fortress could almost shake hands with,
now fallen to decay and like a dying swan, hangs her head and sings her
own dirge.” A dying swan evidently refers to this playhouse. It was a
popular belief that a swan fluted a wild carol in her death.
Mr. Ordish attributes this pamphlet to Shakerley Marmion, who wrote a
play called “Holland’s Leaguer.” Mr. Ordish has by a clerical error
mixed the babies up.
Before taking leave of the fortunes of the Swan Theatre I wish to
relate an interesting event which took place there in the year
1602, which incidently throws considerable light on how Elizabethan
managers advertised their special shows on important occasions. The
circumstances are described in a letter from John Chamberlain to Dudley
Carleton in 1602.
“And now we are in mirth I must not forget to tell you of a cosening
prank of one Venner, of Lincoln’s Inn, that gave out bills of a famous
play on Saturday, was sevennight on the Bankside, to be acted only by
certain gentlemen and gentlewomen of account. The price at coming was
two shillings or eighteenpence at least, and when he had gotten most
part of the money into his hands he would have shewed them a fair pair
of heels, but he was not so nimble to get upon horseback, but that he
was fain to forsake that course and betake himself to the water, where
he was pursued and taken and brought before the Lord Chief Justice, who
would make nothing of it but a jest and a merriment and bound him over
on five pounds to appear at the sessions. In the meantime the common
people, when they saw themselves deluded, revenged themselves upon the
hangings, curtains, chairs, stone walls, and whatsoever came in their
way, very outrageously and made great spoil, there was great store of
good company and many noblemen.”
This event is referred to by Ben Jonson in his “Masque of Angurs,
1622.” Three of these gentlemen should have acted in that famous matter
of “England’s Joy,” in 1603, but the date should be 1602. In a poetical
effusion by Taylor, the Water Poet, he relates how one Fenner often
confused with the real writer of “England’s Joy,” Venner, advertised
himself as the author of this piece. This Fenner was the rival of
Taylor as an extempore rhymester, and being challenged and the bills
set up advertising the literary duel, Taylor prepared himself for the
meeting. On the day appointed Fenner failed to come to the scratch,
thereby causing Taylor to be branded as an impostor, which drew from
him the following lines, published in his “A Cast over Water,” 1615:
“My defence against thy offence.”
“Thou bragst what fame thou gottst upon the stage,
Indeed, thou set’st the people in a rage
In playing ‘England’s Joy’ that every man
Did judge it worse than that done at the Swan.
To all your cost he will his wits employ
To play the second part of ‘England’s Joy,’
And poor old Venner that plain-dealing man,
Who acted ‘England’s Joy’ first at the Swan,
Paid eight crowns for the writing of these things,
Besides the covers and the silken strings.”
The original play-bill announcing this performance has the following
title: ...
“The plot of the play called ‘England’s Joy,’
To be played at the Swan this 6 of March, 1602.”
This document being of such extreme interest, a photograph will be
found on the opposite page. One can see by the smallness of the print
that it was not intended for a poster, but to be distributed either
amongst the assembled audience or delivered at the houses of the gentry
or handed to passers-by in the street. The original of this broad
sheet is preserved in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries.
By the courtesy of the Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries I was
accorded the privilege of inspecting this most interesting document,
and further, allowed the favour of having the original photographed
especially for this book. Although, as stated above, the print is too
small for a poster, yet it is quite legible, almost the size of the
type of this page.
[Illustration:
THE PLOT OF THE PLAY, CALLED
_ENGLANDS JOY_.
To be Playd at the Swan this 6. of Nouember. 1602.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
FIRST, there is induct by shew and in Action; the ciuill warres of
England from _Edward_ the third, to the end of Queene _Maries_ raigne,
with the ouerthrow of Vsurpation.
2 Secondly then the entrance of Englands Ioy by the Coronation of our
Soueraigne Lady _Elizabeth_, her Throne attended with peace, Plenty,
and ciuill Pollicy: A sacred Prelate standing at her right hand,
betokening the Serenity of the Gospell: At her left hand Iustice: And
at her feete Warre, with a Scarlet Roabe of peace vpon his Armour: A
wreath of Bayes about his temples, and a braunch of Palme in his hand.
3 Thirdly is dragd in three Furies, presenting Dissention, Famine, and
Bloudshed, which are throwne downe into hell.
4 Fourthly is exprest vnder the person of a Tyrant, the enuy of
_Spayne_, who to shew his cruelty causeth his Souldiers dragge in a
beautifull Lady, whome they mangle and wound, tearing her garments and
Iewels from off her: And so leaue her bloody, with her hayre about her
shoulders, lying vpon the ground. To her come certaine Gentlemen, who
seeing her pitious dispoylment, turne to the Throne of England, from
whence one descendeth, taketh vp the Lady, wipeth her eyes, bindeth
vp her woundes, giueth her treasure, and bringeth forth a band of
Souldiers, who attend her forth: This Lady presenteth _Belgia_.
5 Fiftly, the Tyrant more enraged, taketh counsell, sends forth
letters, priuie Spies, and secret vnderminers, taking their othes, and
giuing them bagges of treasure. These signifie _Lopus_, and certaine
Iesuites, who afterward, when the Tyrant lookes for an answere from
them, are shewed to him in a glasse with halters about their neckes,
which makes him mad with fury.
6 Sixtly, the Tyrant seeing all secret meanes to fayle him, intendeth
open violence and inuasion by the hand of Warre, whereupon is set forth
the battle at Sea in 88, with Englands victory.
7 Seuenthly, hee complotteth with the Irish rebelles, wherein is layd
open the base ingratitude of _Tyrone_, the landing there of _Don John
de Aguila_, and their dissipation by the wisdome and valour of the Lord
_Mountioy_.
8 Eightly, a great triumph is made with fighting of twelue Gentlemen at
Barriers, and sundrie rewards sent from the Throne of England, to all
sortes of well deseruers.
9 Lastly, the Nine Worthyes, with seuerall Coronets, present themselues
before the Throne, which are put backe by certaine in the habite of
Angels, who set vpon the Ladies head, which represents her Maiestie, an
Emperiall Crowne, garnished with the _Sunne_, _Moone_ and _Starres_;
And so with Musicke both with voyce and Instruments shee is taken vp
into Heauen, when presently appeares, a Throne of blessed Soules, and
beneath vnder the Stage set forth with strange fireworkes, diuers
blacke and damned Soules, wonderfully discribed in their seuerall
torments.
[Illustration]
The plot of England’s Joy, specially photographed for this book, from
the original, with kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries.]
In the fifth paragraph of this most interesting programme of “England’s
Joy” appears the name of Lopus, or more correctly Lopez. This name
opens up a wide field of controversy, for the bearer was a Jew, and
English historians aver that since the expulsion of that race in 1290,
no Jew set foot on English soil until the time of Cromwell, over 350
years later than the first and only exodus. There can be no doubt that
a certain number of Jews visited these shores, and a few settled here
and made it their permanent home. This Lopez was a celebrated Jewish
physician, and was honoured by being elected house surgeon to St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital; afterwards he became physician to Queen
Elizabeth. After many years’ residence in this country he was arrested
on suspicion of being implicated In a plot to poison the Queen; he was
duly tried, convicted and sentenced to be hanged, which sentence a
few months later was carried out at Tyburn. According to Camden, the
learned antiquarian, Lopez’s last words on the scaffold were that he
loved the Queen as much as he did Jesus Christ, which naturally leads
one to the assumption that he must have been a converted Jew and have
forsaken the faith of his fathers, or else Camden may have invented
this dying confession in order to show that some Jews believed in the
Christian religion.
[Illustration: Either the Rose Theatre or the First Globe Theatre.]
When the Swan Theatre was sold it realized the sum of £1,873. A view of
the exterior of the theatre is depicted in Visscher’s Map of London,
1616. The old theatre is marked on the Map of the Manor, dated 1627.
This sketch of the interior of the Swan Theatre, dated circa 1596,
important as it is, must not be taken too literally; many discrepancies
can be detected when compared with our knowledge of the contemporary
stage. Especially noticeable is the bareness of the stage, and lack of
all signs of any suggestion of a curtain, which, judging by directions
in old plays, was a most important feature. Also be it remembered
that the Swan playhouse was not typically a playgoers’ theatre, being
devoted chiefly to feats of activity and other pastimes.
THE GLOBE THEATRE
The last theatre built on the Bankside was the most famous of all,
namely, the Globe. On the stage of this theatre the greatest of the
Shakesperean plays were first acted; here Shakespeare followed the
actor’s calling, covering a period of ten years.
The site of such a famous spot might well kindle the imagination of
every Englishman who takes a pride in the welfare of his country.
Instead of which, what do we find? Truthfully speaking, not one
Englishman in a thousand could indicate in what part of the Metropolis
the Globe Theatre stood, and many could be found totally ignorant of
the existence in early days of that theatre. Strange to relate, the
fascinating study of old London does not appeal to modern Englishmen.
What would be the opinion of the greatest creator of the grandest
literature the world has known if he could behold the vast majority of
present day citizens, the labouring class of Britons, being sweated
half-naked in factories for the benefit of a body of shareholders who
look upon them as fuel for their machines? Such is England of to-day!
and those men who accept such conditions deserve nothing but contempt.
The better class idolize sport, cultivating physical strength at
the expense of the mind; all the brains this sporting class possess
seem hidden in their hands or feet; naturally brought up under these
conditions they despise the beauties of the mind, and become slaves
of their sensuous feelings, which would even make a Chinaman look
down upon them with contempt. The only way to eradicate these vicious
symptoms is by teaching the younger generation that money-making is not
the fountain of happiness, and that hours of freedom are necessary for
the enjoyment of life and the worship of both toil and wealth are fit
only to be followed by despised nations.
If these rules are dutifully followed, Englishmen would be themselves
again, and not a crowd of unworthy people whose only topic of
conversation consists of sport, money, and amusement.
Judging from the dastardly act of razing Crosby Hall to the ground,
little care they for the beautiful and sacred memorials of the past,
otherwise such acts of vandalism would scarcely be permitted. Our
City Authorities, filled with wine, beer, and turtle soup, allow these
Philistines for the greed of gold to desecrate and demolish every
ancient building, and are equally blamable in permitting these scandals
of impiety to be carried out by the demons of improvement.
Some disgusting brewery, or evil-smelling warehouse or factory, are
the buildings generally erected on these famous sites. No doubt the
idiot guardians of the City regard these unsightly buildings as vast
improvements.
Such being the spirit of the times, there is little reason for wonder
that not even the sites of many ancient important places of interest
can be accurately delineated. Unfortunately this indictment applies
in some measure when we search for the site of the Globe Theatre.
The original plot of ground occupied by the theatre can only be
conjecturally restored, and then the deepest research and careful
reading of old documents must be diligently studied, besides which the
poring over old maps is most essential for the true discovery of the
exact sites.
An extremely illuminating article on the site of the first Globe
Theatre was contributed to the transactions of the London and Middlesex
Archæological Society in 1912 by Mr. George Hubbard, Vice-President
of the Royal Institute of British Architects. This pamphlet was first
read at the Bishopsgate Institute in February of the same year. This
learned dissertation was the result of a vehement discussion following
the fixing of a bronze tablet on the outside wall of Messrs. Barclay
and Perkins’ Brewery, situated on the south of Park Street, formerly
Maid Lane. The dispute arises over which side of the road the original
Globe Theatre occupied, either on the north or the south side of Maid
Lane, the modern Park Street. After a careful perusal of Mr. Hubbard’s
article, every sensible reader will strongly endorse the author’s views
and give his vote without demur for the north side.
Mr. William Martin, in a little special pleading, maintains in a most
able and interesting paper which appeared in the _Surrey Archæological
Collections_, vol. xxiii, that the site must be sought on the south
side, without, in my judgment, convincing anyone. Before Mr. Hubbard
entered the field of controversy, Mr. Martin’s article had already been
published.
When the Burbages dismantled their playhouse in Shoreditch, they
removed the materials of the building, which chiefly consisted of wood,
over the water, and there on the Bankside erected a new theatre. _The
Times_ printed four articles from the pen of Mr. Wallace, Professor
of English Literature in an American university, on matters of great
interest in connexion with the Globe Theatre. The document in question
relates of a family dispute, which was eventually brought into
Court. During the Shakesperean era, and later, the Law Courts were
appealed to for the settlement of disputes of the flimsiest character,
demonstrating the litigious nature of the citizens in Elizabeth’s
reign. To these quarrels and the survival of legal documents are due
the knowledge which we now possess of early theatrical history. The
plaintiff in this case was Thomasina Osteler, the widow of a well-known
actor and sharer in the Globe and Blackfriars playhouses, the defendant
being the John Hemmings, ever remembered as one of the joint editors of
the _First Folio of Shakespeare’s Works_.
The defendant was the father of the plaintiff, Thomasina, who claimed
certain shares in the Globe Theatre. Her attorney, in maintaining her
claim, cited certain leases from legal documents, and, fortunately for
us, he drew up a plan of the ground occupied by the Globe Theatre. The
following account, stripped of all legal verbiage, reads as follows;
“All that parcel of land enclosed and made into four separate garden
plots, late in the tenure of and occupation of Thomas Burt and Istrand
Morris, dyers, and of Latantius Roper, salter, citizen of London,
containing in length from east to west 200 feet of assize lying and
adjoining upon a way or lane then on one side, and abutting on a
piece of land called “The Park,” upon the north, and upon a garden in
the occupation of one John Cornish towards the west, and on another
garden plot in the occupation of one John Knowles towards the east,
with all the houses, buildings, etc. And also that parcel of land just
recently enclosed and made into three several garden plots, whereof
two of the same were in the occupation of one John Roberts, carpenter,
and another in the occupation of Thomas Ditcher, citizen and merchant
tailor, of London, containing in length from east to west 156 feet
of assize, lying and adjoining upon a garden plot in the occupation
of William Sellers towards the east, and upon another garden plot in
the occupation of John Burgram, saddler, towards the west, and upon a
lane there called Maiden Lane, towards the south, with all the houses,
buildings, etc. Upon which same premises or upon some part thereof
existed a certain playhouse fit for the showing or acting of comedies
and tragedies.”
This account was diametrically at variance with the accepted
conclusions respecting the site of the theatre, which all previous
writers had placed due south of Maid Lane. The newly-discovered
document mentions the north side of the theatre as being bounded by
the Park and the south side by Maid Lane. The stumbling block in the
new theory was the placing of the theatre north of the lane bounded
by the Park; the only Park known was Winchester Park, consisting of
about sixty acres, which lay south of Maid Lane. For the solution of
this difficult problem we must thank Mr. Hubbard, who has pointed out
that the northern boundary named “The Park” had no connexion with the
well-known Winchester Park, but refers to a strip of land called “The
Park” abutting on the shore of the Bankside. Professor Wallace notes
that: “What the Park was is not certain, possibly an inn or a little
garden, for this district boasted several such little plots variously
named. In any case, this so-called ‘Park’ was in no way connected with
the great Winchester Park.”
Further proof is shown in an entry in one of the token books, which
is preserved at Southwark Cathedral, dated 1598, in which occurs the
following memorandum: “From the Park.” The collector of the rents for
Nicholas Brend, the owner of the property on which the playhouse stood,
makes several similar entries in the “Token Books,” all dealing with
property in the neighbourhood.
In another of these Sacrament Token Books is a further entry: “Globe
Alleye Brend Rents, 1612.” “Globe Alleye Brende’s Rents nowe Bodley’s”
is an entry for the year 1613.
Mr. Hubbard thus comments on these entries: “The name Globe Alley
is first inscribed in a marginal note under the heading of Brand’s
Rents, on page 61 of the Token Book for the Clerk Liberty for the year
1619. This alley was not apparently known as Globe Alley until that
year.” This statement is not quite accurate, as Globe Alley is already
recorded in the year 1612. This alley lay north of Maid Lane, easily
identified in the old maps of London; although unnamed, the outline of
this thoroughfare is clearly discernible in the map of Ralph Aggas,
and also in that of Braun and Hogenberg, engraved by Hofnagel. Both
these views were issued in 1572, from their similarity, one engraver
must have copied the other. In Norden’s Map of London, published in
1593, this way or lane can be distinctly traced. In Rocque’s Map,
dated 1745, a Globe Alley is marked on a London map for the first
time. This alley is there shown on the south side of Maid Lane, this
insertion causing all the trouble and confusion. The writers of the
annals of the early London theatres blindly concluding that this alley
marked the entrance to the old Globe Theatre; it does nothing of the
kind. What most likely occurred is that when the second Globe Theatre
was demolished the original Globe Alley of the Token Books was also
destroyed. In later years a new Alley of the same name appears, perhaps
in commemoration of the Globe Theatre, whose exact site was quite
forgotten.
Mr. Martin adopts the fanciful view that the draftsman had before him a
rough sketch, in which the top edge of the plan lay towards the south
and Maid Lane towards the north, thus agreeing with Mr. Martin’s own
conclusions.
The exact spot where the Globe stood should be sought for between
Red Lion Wharf and Southwark Wharf, both wharves being marked in the
Ordnance Survey. The early Globe Alley will be found facing Clink
Street, on a plot of ground now called Ironworks Yard, situated on
Bankside, which in former times led to the famous Globe Theatre.
The maps of Aggas and Hofnagel depict two amphitheatres, one marked
“The Bolle bayting” and the other further east, “The Bear bayting.” On
turning to Norden’s map we find that the “Bear bayting” has vanished
and the old “Bolle bayting” sport is now marked the Beare house. Now
let us cast a glance at Visscher’s beautiful engraved view of London,
1616; there we notice in the foreground two distinct amphitheatres, the
one towards the west marked the Bear Garden, the other The Globe. From
the position of these two structures, no one, after carefully reading
the above details, can mistake the position of the Globe which stands
in Visscher’s view on the site of the original Bear House, so named in
the old maps, the site corresponding with the vacant space in Norden’s
map, and now definitely named the Globe.
The importance of locating the exact site of the most celebrated
theatre in the world has led me into a somewhat lengthy discussion on
the subject. There now remains for the Shakespeare Reading Society the
duty of removing their handsome plaque to the opposite side of the road
without further delay.
The Globe theatre was opened in the spring of 1599 with a probable
production of “Henry V.” “Within this wooden O” is mentioned in the
prologue. The Globe was round in form, and built chiefly of wood.
Another reference in the same play clearly proves that “Henry V” was
acted sometime in the year 1599.
“But now behold
In the quick forge and working house of thought
How London doth pour forth her citizens!
The Mayor and all his brethren in best sort
Like the senators of the antique Rome.
With the plebians swarming at their heels,
Go forth and fetch their conquering Caesar in,
As by a lower, but by loving likelihood,
Were now the general of our gracious empress,
As in good time he may from Ireland come,
Bringing rebellion broached on his sword,
How many would the peaceful city quit
To welcome him!”
This passage commemorates a very exciting contemporary event. The Earl
of Essex, the Queen’s favourite, was despatched to Ireland, in command
of a large force with the object of subduing the rebel Earl of Tyrone.
Essex set out in March, 1599, not returning until September of the same
year. When these lines were written, Essex was the idol of the people.
The Irish expeditionary force under his command was a complete failure,
and the Earl suffered greatly in reputation, and in no sense returned
as a conquering hero.
Professor Lawrence affirms that there does not exist any authentic view
of either the exterior or the interior of the first Globe Theatre.
Professor Baker, of Harvard University, maintains that the circular
building in the foreground of Hondius’s map of London, dated 1610, is
intended for the Globe. Halliwell-Phillipps, a great authority on all
Shakesperean matters, identifies this theatre with the first Globe.
Fleay, on the contrary, argues that the Rose is the theatre depicted.
Professor Lawrence further states that no reliance can be placed on the
evidence of old maps. They were based for the most part on surveys made
many years previously, and published in later years without careful
alterations in details, and in them the Bankside theatres are seldom
correctly located. This building must either indicate the Rose or the
Globe; nothing is known after 1606 of the Rose, which may have fallen
into desuetude whereas the Globe was at the zenith of its reputation.
Critically examined, the evidence favours the Globe, and in my opinion
may fairly be declared as the theatre indicated. The structure marked
the Globe, in Visscher’s view, is the second Globe Theatre, built after
the disastrous fire of 1613, the new theatre being erected on the site
of the old one.
This view so well known by frequent reproductions, is by most people
regarded as the original theatre. In a map, dated 1657, a copy of the
original being in my possession, four theatres are shown--namely, The
Swan, The Hope, The Rose, and The Globe. The Hope and Globe occupy the
spaces formerly marked in Aggas and Hofnagel maps as “The Bolle Bayting
and The Bear Bayting.” The Rose is misplaced in the 1657 map, being
too far north of the Hope and the Globe, the proper position should be
marked south-east of the Hope and south-west of the Globe. Considering
the historical importance of the Globe Theatre, how much cause for
regret exists that such scanty records remain of this time-honoured
building.
In spite of these limitations, diligent research by patient and skilful
scholars have greatly increased the knowledge necessary for a complete
understanding of this theatre.
The building was circular or octagonal in shape, and was open to the
sky. The roof running round the topmost gallery was thatched; a large
aperture in this part of the building admitted the light. The drawing
of the interior of the Swan, a most important Elizabethan document,
gives a fairly representative view of an early Shakesperean theatre,
and it is more than likely that the interior of the Globe presented
a like appearance. An extra volume would be required in formulating
the conditions under which a Shakesperean play was produced, and then
three-fourths of the treatise would be mere conjecture.
[Illustration: Frontispiece to James Howell’s Londinopolis, 1657,
showing the position of four London theatres, circa 1600. From left to
right are the Swan, the Hope, the Rose, and the Globe. This engraving
is taken from an original copy in the possession of the Author.]
We know for certain that the management was under a company of actors,
who occupied the theatre during the whole period until destroyed by
fire; this company was known under different names at various periods,
but chiefly as The Lord Chamberlain’s Servants. Contemporary documents
prove that Shakespeare was a member of this company, besides being
an important shareholder. How he disposed of his investments is nowhere
mentioned: they may have been sold on retiring from the stage in 1609;
his will is silent respecting these shares, a sure sign that he had
already parted with them.
For a period of fourteen years thousands of Londoners, drawn from all
classes of society, enjoyed the dramatic production offered by the
company playing at the Globe on the Bankside, yet we search in vain for
any detailed notice of even one performance. What must we think of the
critics and scribblers who had a giant in their midst and knew him not;
long notices of bull and bear fights abound, but the first performance
of “Hamlet” found no chronicler; perhaps on that day a big fight in the
bear pit was advertised, which was considered a greater attraction.
Even in our days a sensational and exciting performance would rather
engage the attention of the critics of the daily papers than, in their
eyes, the lesser attraction of a Shakesperean performance even if acted
by celebrated players.
For instance, Miss Lily Elsie, in a new musical comedy of the vulgarest
type, would appear of greater importance from a press point of view
than Forbes Robertson in the character of Hamlet.
The only evidence we obtain of plays being acted at this theatre is
from entries made in the books of the Stationers’ Register: “A book
called the _Revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke_, as it was lately
acted by the Lord Chamberlain’s servants.” The name of the Lord
Chamberlain indicating where the play was produced. Similar evidence
is likewise derived from the title pages of the early quartos issued
during the lifetime of the poet. In the whole range of Elizabethan
literature not a single page can be discovered criticising those
wonderful scenes enacted almost daily before their eyes at the Globe
or in previous years at other theatres, before that building was
erected, although a vast amount of printed matter, more than the
present generation can conceive, was constantly being issued from the
press.
London alone possessed nearly a thousand publishers, booksellers and
printers, and the number of books on all subjects was enormous. The
great part of this large output has been thoroughly ransacked with
the object of discovering Shakesperean references, unfortunately with
rather meagre results. The general public of the day reads nothing of
this mass of literature, with the exception of Shakespeare’s works,
although many of the books are really worth perusal. Even _Plutarch’s
Lives_, the most popular book of the last three centuries, is entirely
neglected.
The lengthy description which is given in relating the history of
the Swan Theatre applies in a more or less degree to all the other
Shakesperean theatres, and now the mournful duty remains of chronicling
the total destruction of the first Globe Theatre by fire.
This great catastrophe befell it on St. Peter’s Day, June 29th, 1613.
Oh, what a conflagration! In the space of two hours the building was
a heap of smouldering ruins, no doubt containing many of the previous
manuscripts of Shakespeare’s plays; this statement is quite gratuitous.
Shakespeare may have preserved his original MSS. at Stratford, or they
may have been destroyed, after the prompter’s copy had been transcribed
from the original, as being of no further use. We know the Bodleian
Library parted with their First Folio when the third appeared, as being
in the eyes of the then librarian of no account when a later edition
appeared.
When the fire broke out a performance was taking place of a play
called “Henry VIII, or All is True.” Whether this was Shakespeare’s
play of “Henry VIII” is a debatable point. The secondary title, “All
is True,” is never associated with Shakespeare’s “Henry VIII.” The
higher criticism rejects this play of “Henry VIII” as not forming
part of the Shakesperean canon, although included in the First Folio.
Wolsey’s farewell speech is such a favourite of mine that I am willing
in ascribing the whole play as Shakespeare’s.
This theatre possessed only two doors, one in front being the entrance
door and the other situated at the rear of the building. This back
entrance was used by the actors, and also for those provided with
seats in the balcony, or were accommodated with seats in the Lords’
rooms. The reason for so few entrances can be explained by the peculiar
manner in which payment was made by the gatherers of the theatre. A
most interesting reference to the Globe will be found in the journal
of _Prince Lewis of Wirtemberg_, representative of the United Foreign
Princes to France and England in 1610, written by his secretary,
Wurmsser. The original MS. is in the British Museum (_Lundi 30. S.
Eminence alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire ou l’on joue les comedies_) in a
manuscript volume, written by Dr. Forman a few months before his death
in 1611, and now preserved among the Ashmolean MSS. in the Bodleian
Library. This interesting manuscript was exhibited in the Bodleian
Library at an exhibition of rare Shakesperean books in connexion with
the tercentenary of the poet’s death. I purposely visited Oxford with
the object of examining this wonderful collection. Dr. Madun, the
learned librarian, expressly pointed out to me this interesting volume.
“In ‘Richard II’ at the glob 1611 the 30th of April. In the Winterstale
at the glob 1611 the 15th of Maye. Of Cimbal in ‘King of England.’ In
‘Macbeth’ at the Glob 1610 the 20 of April.”
Appended are notes about the different plays. By comparing the notes of
“Richard II” the play cannot be one Shakespeare wrote.
Extracts concerning the burning of the Globe Theatre:
“London, this last day of June, 1613. No longer since than
yesterday while Burbage his companie were acting at the Globe the
play of Hen 8. And there shooting of certayne chambers in way of
triumph, the fire catch’d, and fastened upon the thatch of the
house and there burned so furiously as it consumed the whole house
and all in less than two hours, the people having enough to save
themselves.”
Letter from Thomas Lakins to Sir Thos. Pickering.
“Now to let matters of state sleep, I will entertain you at the
present with what hath happened this week at the Bankside. The
King’s players had a new play called ‘All is True,’ representing
some principal pieces of the reign of Henry the 8th which was set
forth with many extraordinary circumstances of Pomp and Majesty,
even to the matting of the stage, the Knights of the Order, with
their George and Garter, the Guards with their embroidered coats
and the like sufficient in truth within a while to make Greatness
very familiar if not ridiculous. Now King Henry, making a masque
at the Cardinall’s Wolsey’s house, and certain canons being shot
off at his entry, some of the Paper or other stuff wherewith some
of them were stopped, did light on the Thatch, where being thought
at first but an idle smoak, and their eyes more attentive to the
show, it kindled inwardly and ran round like a train, consuming
within less than an hour the whole House to the very ground. This
was the Fatal period of that virtuous Fabrique, where yet nothing
did perish but Wood and straw and a few forsaken cloakes. Only one
man had his breeches set on fire, that would perhaps have broyled
him if he had not by the benefit of provident witt put it out with
bottle ale.”
Letter from Sir Henry Wotten to his nephew, Sir Edward Bain, reprinted
in _Relique Wottonae_, 1635.
“All you that please to understand
Come, listen to my story,
To see Death with his rakering brand,
Mongst such an auditorye,
Regarding neither Cardinal’s might,
Nor yet the rugged face of Henry the eighth.”
A sonnet upon the pitiful Burning of the Globe playhouse in London.
Anonymous about 1613.
“If I should have set down the several terms and damages done this
year by fire, in the very many and sundry places of this Kingdom,
it would contain many a sheet of paper, as is evident by the
incessante collections throughout the Churches of this realm for
such as have been spoyled by fire. Also upon S. Peter’s day last,
the playhouse or Theatre called the Globe, upon the Bankside neare
London, by negligent discharging of a peal of ordinance close to
the south side, the Thatch thereof took fire and the wind sudainly
disperst the Flame round about and in a very short space the whole
building was quite consumed and no man hurt, the house being filled
with people to behold the play, viz., of Henry the 8. And the next
spring it was new builded in a far finer manner than before.”
_The Annals or General Chronicle of England_, begun first by Master
John Stow and afterwards continued and augmented with matters foreign
and domestique, ancient and modern, unto the end of the present year,
1614, by Edmund Howe, Gentleman, London.
Howe evidently made a slip when he wrote ‘upon S. Peter’s Day last,’
that date would refer to the year 1614. Howe admits that he continued
the chronicle up to the end of that year, 1614. The fire took place in
1613.
“But the burning of the Globe or Playhouse on the Bankside on S.
Peter’s Day cannot escape you which fell out by a peal of chambers
that I know not upon what occasion, were to be used in the play,
the tampin or stopple of one of them lighting in the thatch that
covered the house, burned it to the ground in less than two hours
with a dwelling house adjoining, and it was a great marvel and fair
grace of God that the people had little harm having but two narrow
doors to get out at.”
John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Ralph Winwood on July 8th, 1613.
Sir Henry Wotten’s letter, previously quoted supplies us with the
use of the chambers which so puzzled John Chamberlain. This letter
acquaints us with the important fact that only two narrow doors
admitted the spectators at the theatre.
“Well-fare the Wise-man yet on the Bankside
My friends the Waterman. They could provide
Against thy furie, which to serve their needs
They made a vulcan of a sheafe of Reedes
Whom they durst handle in their holyday coates
And safely trust to dresse, not burn their boats
But O these Reeds’ they mere disdaine of them
Made thee beget that cruell stratagem
Which some are pleased to stile but thy madde pranck
Against the Globe, the Glory of the Bancke
Which though it were the Fort of the whole Parish,
Flank’d with a Ditch and forced out of a Marish,
I saw with two poorchambers taken in
And razed ere thought could urge this might have been.
See the World’s Ruins! nothing but the piles
Left, and wit senate cover it with tiles.”
Ben Jonson, in his “Execration upon Vulcan,” published among his
Miscellaneous Poems in a book called _Underwoods_, wrote a short poem
commemorating the fire.
“As gold is better when in fire tried,
So is the Bankside Globe that late was burned,
For where before it had a thatched hide
Now to a stately Theatre ’tis turned.”
In the Prologue to the “Doubtful Heir,” a play by Shirley.
The day following the fire, two ballads in the event were entered at
Stationers’ Hall; one was entitled “The Sodayne Burninge of the Globe
on the Bankside in the Play tyme of St. Peter’s Day last, 1613.” The
other was called “A doleful ballad of the generall overthrowe of the
famous theatre on the Bankside called the Globe, etc.,” by William
Parrat. Both these ballads have perished, but one of them may be
identified, in a manuscript volume of poems in the library of Sir
Mathew Wilson Mart. One stanza runs as follows:
“Some lost their hattes and some their swords,
Then out runne Burbage, too;
The Reprobates, though drunck on Monday,
Prayed for the foule-Foole and Henry Condye.
Ther with swolne eyes, like druncken Fleminges,
Distressed stood old struttering Heminges.”
Both Heminge and Condell were the editors of the famous _First Folio_.
An interesting reference to the burning of the Globe Theatre will be
found in a quaint volume entitled, “A Concordancy of Yeares, containing
a new easie and most exact Computation of Time according to the English
Account. Also the use of the English and Roman Kalendar, with briefe
Notes, Rules and Tables as well, Mathematical and legal, as vulgar for
each private man’s occasion. Newly composed, digested and augmented.”
“Nicholas Okes for Thomas Adams, 1615. By Arthur Hopten, Gentleman.”
This first edition is not in the British Museum, but a copy of the
second edition, dated 1616, will be found in that institution. At
the end of the volume is a calendar, or what we should term a diary,
of chief events of the year. The calendar commences from 1066 until
the date of publication. In the British Museum copy of the second
edition the events are jumbled together without mentioning the date,
but in the first edition, which by good chance I happened to see at
Sotheby’s auction rooms, most of the events are dated thus: Middleton’s
Waterworks finished 1611; the House of Correction, Clerkenwell, opened
1615. In the year 1613 three events are chronicled: Death of Prince
Henry, the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Palatine, and the
play-house on fire, which last event happened on June 29th, 1613. I did
not have time to consult the diary carefully, but I think in all other
years only one event is given to each year.
In 1644 Sir Mathew Brand, the son of Nicholas Brand, the original owner
of the ground on which both the first and second Globe Theatres were
built, pulled down the building and erected tenements, which in course
of time were likewise demolished, giving place to a dwelling-house;
on the latter being cleared away, warehouses were erected which are
standing at the present day.
The sign of the first Globe Theatre was a figure of Atlas supporting
the Globe, bearing underneath an inscription: “Totus mundus agit
histrionem.” A rendering into English occurs in Jacques’ soliloquy in
“As You Like It”: “All the world’s a stage.”
THE FORTUNE
The opening of the Globe Theatre in the spring of 1599 proved from the
outset a most successful venture, seriously curtailing the profits of
its near rival, the Rose; this latter theatre gradually discontinued
the legitimate drama, diverting its energies in an entirely different
channel.
[Illustration: The First Fortune Theatre. Built in 1600. Situated
midway between Golden Lane and Whitecross Street.]
Henslowe, the proprietor of this neglected playhouse, was a man of
varied resources, combined with unbounded capital, two great advantages
in speculative undertakings. Foreseeing that the opposition would
eventually overwhelm him, a swift plan of action was devised which
enabled him in continuing uninterruptedly his theatrical prosperity.
Without hesitating, he formulated a scheme of erecting a new theatre
on the north side of the Thames. The building was far removed from
the keen competition, such as was in vogue at the Globe, of the Lord
Chamberlain’s servants. The Fortune Theatre, for such was the name of
Henslowe’s latest enterprise, was situated in a district northwest of
the heart of the City.
[Illustration:
The Roaring Girle,
OR
_Moll Cut-Purse_.
As it hath lately beene Acted on the Fortune-stage by
_the Prince his Players_.
Written by _T. Middleton_ and _T. Dekkar_.
[Illustration]
My case is alter’d, I must worke for my liuing.
Printed at _London_ for _Thomas Archer_, and are to be sold at his
shop in Popes head-pallace, neere the Royall
Exchange. 1611.
My case is alter’d, I must worke for my liuing.
]
In searching for the exact site, the enquirer must walk straight
down Aldersgate Street until he strikes the Barbican, then follow
the Barbican until Beech Street is reached; at each end of this
thoroughfare two streets branch off, both leading to Old Street;
midway between these two streets, named respectively Golden Lane and
Whitecross Street, stood the Fortune Theatre. A distant reminder of the
past will be noticed by a street called Playhouse Yard, a turning off
Golden Lane. Why this place should be termed a yard is rather puzzling,
as outwardly it bears the monotonous look of an ordinary London street,
which most readers will agree is far from picturesque.
Professor Lawrence, in his exhaustive list of the early London
theatres, can find no view of this theatre; on the other hand,
Professor Baker gives an illustration of this theatre, taken from
Ryther’s Map of London, dated 1604. “In the district I have described
is to be seen a building from the top of which a flag is flying; on
the churches marked in the map a cross is seen.” This distinction is
decidedly in favour of Professor Baker’s theory.
In the last month of the year 1600 the Fortune was opened to the
public, meeting with bitter opposition from the City Authorities and
the Puritanical section of the people. Notwithstanding all those
obstacles, coupled with innumerable complaints, Henslowe and Allen,
his son-in-law, steadily proceeded with their undertaking, being
eventually rewarded for all the anxiety and persecution by the complete
success of their new venture.
The documentary evidence in proof of the opposition they encountered
has been preserved in a letter addressed by the Earl of Nottingham, the
Lord Admiral: “To all and every of her Majesty’s Justices and other
Ministers and Offices in the County of Middlesex requiring them to
suffer his servant Edward Alleyn to proceed unmolested in the founding
of his new playhouse near Redcross Street.” This letter does not seem
to have produced the desired effect; thereupon, Allen caused a petition
to be drawn up by the most influential inhabitants of Finsbury, in
whose Lordship lay the site of the Fortune, beseeching the Lords of the
Privy Council that the erection of the new house might be allowed to
proceed, on the grounds that the site was conveniently chosen, so as
to cause no annoyance, and that the projectors had promised a weekly
allowance to the poor of the parish. Twenty-seven names were attached
to this petition, which was engrossed on the first week in April, 1600.
On the 8th of April a warrant was issued on behalf of the Privy
Council, and signed by the Earl of Nottingham, Lord Hunsdon, the
Lord Chamberlain, and Robert Cecil, to the following effect: “To the
Justices of Peace and the County of Middlesex, especially of St. Giles,
without Cripplegate.” The document refers to the petition of the
inhabitants, and adds that Allen’s choice of a site in Golden Lane is
recommended by some of the Justices themselves.
Another item mentioned is that of an old theatre to be pulled down;
this would lead one in inferring that when the new theatre was licensed
that either the Rose or the Curtain would be demolished, and presumably
promises were given to that effect. However, the said theatres
continued their career for many years after these interdicts. Even
after the warrant from the Privy Council certain parties were still
clamouring for the reduction of the number of playhouses, as is evident
by a letter from the Privy Council addressed to the Lord Mayor for the
restraint of the immoderate use and company of playhouses and players.
In reading the Privy Council’s Bill of Complaint, one would conclude
that the Lords of the Council played a double part, one in urging the
restriction of the playhouses and actors, the other in protecting
the same. The latter proceeds to state: “That there shall be about
the City two houses and no more allowed to serve for the use of the
common stage plays. And forasmuch as their Lordships have been informed
by Edmund Tylney, esquire, her Majesty’s servant and Master of the
Revels, that the house now in hand to be built by the said Edward
Alleyn is not intended to increase the number of playhouses but to be
instead of another, namely, the Curtain, which is either to be ruined
and plucked down, or to be put to some other good use, as also that
the situation thereof is meet and convenient for that purpose, it is
likewise ordered that the said house of Alleyn shall be allowed to
be one of the two houses, and namely for the house to be allowed in
Middlesex for the company of players belonging to the Lord Admiral, so
as the house called the Curtain be as it is pretended, either ruined or
applied to some other good use, and for the other house allowed to be
on the Surrey side, whereas their Lordships are pleased to permit to
the company of players that shall play there to make their own choice
which they will have of divers houses, that are there, choosing one of
them and no more, and the said company of players being the servants
of the Lord Chamberlain and that are to play these have made choice
of the house called the Globe, it is ordered that the said house and
none other shall be allowed there. And speedily it is forbidden that
any stage plays shall be played as sometimes they have been in any
common inn for public assembly in or near about the City. Further, it
is ordered that the two several companies of players assigned unto the
two houses allowed may play each of them in their several houses twice
a week and no oftener, and specially they shall refrain to play on the
Sabbath day upon pain of imprisonment and further penalty, and that
they shall forbear altogether in the time of Lent and likewise at such
times as of extraordinary sickness or infection of disease shall appear
to be in or about the City.”
This document sums up the position of theatrical matters in the last
year of the sixteenth century, and, frankly speaking, the outlook was
not a particularly rosy one.
However, this order of the Council was quite a dead letter and need
not have been written. Theatrical managers took no notice of these
commands, and the threatened theatres remained undisturbed.
There must have been some reason why this order was disobeyed; many
critics contend that the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain were
desirous of creating a monopoly for their servants, others with more
show of reason point out that the Privy Council tried to sugar over
the feelings of the City Authorities by writing polite letters, but
when the fatal moment arrived they refused the permission granted in
the correspondence. Perhaps the Queen took a greater share in these
transactions than is generally supposed by the historians of the
theatre, protecting in her own person the poor player.
All these points are merely surmises; further documents may enable us
to discover the true solution of this interesting enigma. Fortunately
the contract for the building of this theatre is still in existence.
The extreme importance attaching to this document warrants its
transcription in full, respecting the chief items. The contract was
made out on the 8th day of January, 1599, between Philip Henslowe
and Edward Allen on one part and Peter Short, citizen and carpenter,
of London, on the other, for the building and setting up a new House
and stage for a playhouse in and upon a certain plot of ground near
Goldinge Lane, in the parish of St. Giles, without Cripplegate. “The
frame of the house to be set up square, and to continue 80 feet of
lawful assize every way square, without and 55 feet of like assize
square every way within, with a good, sure and strong foundation of
piles, brick, lime and sand both without and within, to be wrought one
foot of assize at the least above ground, and the said frame to contain
three stories in height, the first a lower storey to contain twelve
foot of lawful assize in height, the second storey eleven foot of
lawful assize in height, and the third or upper storey nine foot. All
which storeys shall contain twelve foot and a half of lawful assize in
breadth throughout, besides a jutty forwards in either of the two upper
storeys of ten inches, with four convenient divisions for gentlemen’s
rooms and other sufficient and convenient divisions for twopenny rooms,
with necessary seats to be placed and set as well in these rooms as
throughout all the rest of the galleries, and with such like stairs,
conveyances and divisions without and within, as are made and contrived
in and to the late erected play house on the Bank, in the said parish
of Saint Saviour’s, called the Globe, with a stage and tiring house
to be made, erected and set up within the said frame, with a shadow
or cover over the said stage, which stage shall be placed and set, as
also the staircases of the said frame in such sort as is prefigured,
in a plot thereon drawn, and which stage shall contain in length forty
and three foot of lawful assize, and in breadth to extend to the middle
of the yard of the said house, the same stage to be paled in below with
good strong and sufficient new oaken boards, and likewise the lower
storey of the said frame withinside, and the same lower storey to be
also laid over and fenced with strong iron piles. And the said stage
to be in all other proportions contrived and fashioned like unto the
stage of the said Playhouse called the Globe, with convenient windows
and lights glazed to the said tiring house. And the said frame, stage
and staircases to be with tile, and to have sufficient gutter of lead,
to carry and convey the water from the covering of the said stage to
fall backwards, and also the said frame and the staircases thereof to
be sufficiently enclosed without with lath, lime and hair. And the
gentlemen’s rooms and twopenny rooms to be ceiled with lath, lime and
hair, and all the floors of the said galleries, storeys and stage
to be boarded with good and sufficient new deal boards of the whole
thickness where need shall be. And the said house and other things
before mentioned to be made and done, to be in all other contrivitions,
conveyances, fashions, thing and things effected, finished and done
according to the manner and fashion of the said house called the Globe,
saving only that all the principle and main posts of the said frame and
stage forward shall be square and wrought pilaster wise with carved
proportions called Satyres, to be placed and set on the top of every
of the same posts, and saving also that the said Peter Short shall
not be charged with any manner of painting in or about the said frame
house and stage or any part thereof nor rendering the walls within nor
ceiling any more other rooms than the gentlemen’s rooms, twopenny
rooms and stage before mentioned. That the said Philip Henslowe and
Edward Allen will well and truly pay to the said Peter Short the full
sum of four hundred and forty pounds (£440) of lawful money of England.”
[Illustration: The second Fortune Theatre, 1621.]
This contract is noteworthy as affording the means in some measure of
reconstructing the Globe, also corroborating the evidence of the Swan
sketch, especially with regard to the auditorium, which corresponds in
most particulars with the plans formulated in the Fortune indenture.
During Henslowe’s lifetime--he died in 1616--the only company of
players which appeared at the Fortune were those of the Lord Admiral,
which in former days had their headquarters at the Rose. The last entry
in Henslowe’s Diary is a note detailing the accounts received from the
Fortune in 1608, beginning at the Christmas holidays.
For many years past the Diary had ceased chronicling the name of the
plays acted day by day, as we find in the Rose accounts, consequently
nothing is known of the repertoire of this theatre. The Admiral’s men
continued acting at this house until its total destruction by fire in
1621. Allen notifies this event in his diary. “This night at 12 of the
clock the Fortune was burnt.”
On the death of his father-in-law, Allen took control of all his
property, either by bequest or in right of his wife. The estate
included the Fortune Theatre. Henslowe’s will was at first disputed
by his nephew, John Henslowe; this action must have failed, as Allen
became the sole possessor of his father-in-law’s property.
[Illustration:
SWEINAM,
THE
Woman-hater,
ARRAIGNED BY
WOMEN.
_A new Comedie_,
Acted at the _Red Bull_, by the late
Queenes Seruants.
[Illustration]
LONDON,
Printed for _Richard Meighen_, and are to be sold at his Shops
at Saint _Clements_ Church, ouer-against _Essex_ House, and
at _Westminster_ Hall. 1620.
]
In 1616 Allen leased the theatre to the Admiral’s men, thus becoming
responsible only for the building. The loss of everything else through
the fire fell upon the shoulders of the company. An account of the
burning of the Fortune Theatre is recorded under the date of December
15th, 1621, in a letter written by John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley
Carleton. “On Sunday night there was a great fire at the Fortune, in
Golden Lane, the fayrest playhouse in this town. It was quite burnt
downe in two hours and all their apparell and playbooks lost, whereby
the poor companions are quite undone.”
A new Fortune arose three years later on the site of the old one,
namely in 1624. An improvement in the building was effected by
constructing the house of brick. Allen possessed shares in the new
theatre, otherwise he had no interest or responsibility in the
undertaking.
During the Civil War the theatre was dismantled, and the playhouse
ceased for evermore its connexion with the drama. In 1682, Church
Services were held there, and finally it became many years later a
fully established brewery. The shape of the interior of the second
Fortune is a matter of controversy, well known experts disagreeing on
this point. The exterior is illustrated in Wilkinson’s _Londonia_, and
shows a square-shaped building.
The house took its name from the image of a Goddess which stood in
front of the theatre, but whether it was a sculptured sign or a
painting must remain undecided.
THE RED BULL THEATRE
The next theatre on our list is the Red Bull, until lately unanimously
assigned to the year 1609. Professor Lawrence, in his second series of
Elizabethan studies, would antedate this reckoning by nearly a decade;
unfortunately no reference is given for this early date. After spending
many fruitless hours in search of fresh discoveries, I inserted a note
in _Notes and Queries_, receiving by return one private communication,
and a few answers through the journal itself. Although my note was
perfectly clear, the information was what was already known, and dealt
chiefly with the later fortunes of the Red Bull.
Professor Baker, even as late as 1907, dates the opening of the theatre
after 1608. The observant reader will readily perceive that the
history of the early English stage is in a state of chaos. Scholars
such as Mr. Greg, Mr. Chambers, Sir Sidney Lee, and Prof. Lawrence,
who are especially endowed with thorough knowledge of the subject,
should for the benefit of posterity undertake the colossal task of
re-writing the history of the stage during the Shakesperean period. Mr.
Fleay’s chronicle history of the stage is much too fragmentary, from
the theatrical point of view, for the guidance either of the general
student or readers interested in the subject.
In my opinion all Collier’s works must be entirely discarded as this
dishonest _littérateur_ forged documents, notes, and even whole
books, in order to substantiate his theories. Certainly he possessed
great knowledge of the matter, and may well be termed the pioneer in
scientific research, but his criminal methods require that the student
must verify all his statements, therefore if the reader is wise, all
this author’s works should be rejected on account of the difficulty of
distinguishing the true from the false.
The site of the Red Bull is situated near the Clerkenwell Road end of
St. John Street, formerly called St. John Street Road. On the left hand
side, going towards the Angel, Islington, is Hayward’s Place; close
by is Woodbridge Street, on this space stood the Red Bull. Previous
to the year 1609 nothing is heard of this theatre in the annals of
the stage. Recently documents have come to light proving its earlier
existence, and, as stated above, Professor Lawrence would place the
date as early as 1600. A well-known print of this theatre, of which
I possess the original copy, is generally styled “The inside of the
Red Bull Theatre.” This engraving first appeared in a book called
Kirkman’s _Wits or Sport upon Sport_, published in two parts, a second
edition being reissued in one volume in 1673, with the engraving as
frontispiece, the original print does not bear any inscription; this
is found only on the modern reproduction issued in 1809. The print
was sold separately which may possibly account for the fanciful
description. One glance at the drawing will convince the student that
the print can in no way be associated with the old Red Bull Theatre.
The Red Bull was a public theatre, being open to the sky, with a
thatched roof, performances being given only in the daytime. Now the
print plainly indicates by the inclusion of chandeliers hanging from
the roof, as well as a row of rabbit-eared footlights along the front,
that if a contemporary theatre is represented a private one is intended.
[Illustration: Reproduced from an original engraving in the possession
of the Author. Erroneously inscribed as the interior of the Red Bull
Theatre. Now generally identified as the inside of a theatre during the
Commonwealth.]
The massing of spectators on either side of the stage is evidence
that the drawing is an imaginary one, made up partly from an early
Elizabethan stage, combined with the Restoration Stage of Charles II.
Possibly it may represent a real stage of the latter period, but cannot
under any circumstances resemble the old Red Bull Playhouse during any
time of its existence. Seven characters are represented on the stage,
illustrating a few of the plays that could be acted by a strolling
company. The principal motive of Kirkman’s book is “for those players
who intend to wander or go a strolling; this very Book and a few
ordinary properties are enough to set them up and get money in any Town
in England.”
1. Sir J. Falstafe and Hostes represent characters of that name in
Shakespeare’s “Henry IV.”
2. The figure emerging from behind the curtain is Green, the actor,
who took the part of Bubble, the City Gallant, whose answer to every
complaint is “Tu quoque,” the play on this account being re-christened
“Tu quoque.” The play was published in 1614, and is still extant. There
is evidence that the drama was acted at the Red Bull in the year 1611.
3. Clause is one of the chief characters in the “Lame Commonwealth,”
taken from “The Beggar’s Bush,” a tragic-comedy, by John Fletcher,
circa 1615. The scene is laid somewhere in Flanders, but the play is
named after a well-known tree, called “The Beggar’s Bush,” between
Huntingdon and Coxton. The play was first printed in 1647. On looking
up an old theatrical dictionary, dated 1792, this play is ascribed to
Beaumont and Fletcher, and is written “The Beggar’s Bush.”
4. “French Dancing Mr.,” a droll taken from the Duke of Newcastle’s
play called “Variety,” printed in 1647. The dictionary adds that this
play was acted with very great applause at the Black Fryars.
5. “Simpleton” seems to be an independent farce, in which one, Robert
Cox, an actor, made a great hit and caused roars of laughter from the
unsophisticated audience by eating a huge slice of bread and butter,
and complaining that a man cannot be left undisturbed to eat a little
bit for his afternoon luncheon.
6. The “Changling” is a character in Middleton’s tragedy of that name.
Antonio, who pretends idiocy in order that he may gain access to the
wife of a mad doctor. This play was acted before the Court at Whitehall
in 1624.
The history of this theatre still awaits an historian.
Its most enthusiastic supporters were the rougher elements of the
population, who then, as now, chiefly delighted in lurid melodrama
of a very pronounced type. The Chancery proceedings, in 1617, elicit
the fact that certain members of the Red Bull company were sued for
money owed; further proceedings state that they were unable to satisfy
the claim--certain evidence that their finances were anything but
prosperous.
This theatre cannot claim any Shakesperean associations, although
enjoying a longer lease of life than any other playhouse of that
period, being last named as a theatre as late as the year 1663. Pepys,
the celebrated Diarist, visited the Red Bull in 1661. Mr. Barton Baker,
in his history of the London stage, suggests that the Red Bull Theatre
was originally an inn-yard, theatrical performances taking place there;
he also casually mentions an accident caused by the collapse of the
auditorium. By the word auditorium I presume he means the galleries
that surrounded the yard on three sides. Mr. Baker does not give any
references for these statements, or give further details of the event.
An interesting notice of this theatre, which existed during the early
days of the Commonwealth, will be found in Randolphe’s “Muses’ Looking
Glass.”
THE GLOBE.
Wherein, quoth he, reigns a whole world of vice,
Had been consumed, the Phœnix burnt to ashes,
The Fortune whipped for a blind--Blackfriars,
He wonders how it escaped demolishing
In the time of Reformation; lastly he wished
The Bull might cross the Thames to the Bear-gardens
And there be soundly baited.
Edward Allen, the Elizabethan actor, also mentions this theatre in a
manuscript note preserved at Dulwich College: “Went to the Red Bull
and received for the Younger Brother (a play) but £3 6s. 4d.”
In 1629 a company of French comedians acted here for one day only.
After being deserted by the actors, the Red Bull offered various
entertainments to the public. There is extant a bill which was formerly
in possession of Mr. Eliot Hodgson, advertising a fencing match at the
Red Bull on Whit Monday, 30th May, 1664. This is surmounted by a large
woodcut of the Royal Arms, and is printed on a sheet of coarse paper,
measuring 5⅚ inches by 7½ inches. No authentic view of either the
interior or the exterior is in existence.
Above the illustration of the Red Bull Theatre check will be found a
facsimile of an admission to the Roman Coliseum, built A.D.
72. This rare specimen is perfectly genuine, and was purchased by me
many years ago at the Buxton Forman sale. It is an interesting souvenir
of ancient theatrical times; the numerals, VII, on the reverse refer
to one of the sections of the vast building, and may have been a
complimentary ticket before the tax on deadheads came into vogue.
When the building was finally demolished is likewise uncertain.
An interesting metal check ticket, giving admittance to the Upper
Gallery of the Red Bull, is extant, the date of which is between the
Restoration and the closing of the Red Bull as a theatre, namely,
1660-1663. The obverse has the head of a bull, within a wreath, tied
in a knot with ribbons; a double ring encircles the entire figure.
The reverse has simply the words UPPER GALLERY one above the
other, a star is over the second P in upper, and another under the
second L of Gallery; the whole is within a double lined circle.
[Illustration: Facsimile of an admission ticket to the Roman Coliseum.
Circa A.D. 90. Reproduced from a genuine ivory ticket in the
possession of the Author.]
[Illustration: Ticket of Admission to the Red Bull Theatre.]
The writer of an article on Shakespeare, in which an illustration
appears, considers this check as a souvenir of the Globe; this
ascription may be due to a clerical error. Most writers on
Shakesperean matters, unless they are expert students, are seldom
accurate in their statements; they are too apt in seeking information
from paragraphs culled from ancient encyclopædias, a very unsafe medium
for sound knowledge. Almost every sentence requires patient research;
in some instances a dozen or more books must be consulted in verifying
quite an ordinary statement, and very few writers possess the necessary
patience for such monotonous work. For suchlike people I would
recommend novel writing--a much easier task, and which can be pursued
without interruption.
[Illustration: The large theatre in the foreground is the Second Globe
Theatre, 1614. The small one is the Hope.]
THE HOPE THEATRE
The last theatre set up on the Bankside, and also the last public
theatre opened during Shakespeare’s lifetime, was the Hope, built in
the year 1614, two years before his death. This reconstructed building
had originally served as an amphi-theatre for bull baiting, being
marked on the maps of both Aggas and Hofnagel in 1572, also in Norden’s
map of 1593.
Twenty years after Aggas’ map appeared, the bull-baiting house had been
converted into a bear-baiting establishment; the old bear-baiting house
seen in these maps was, in 1599, occupied by the famous Globe Theatre.
The playhouse marked in Norden’s map is the Rose, then the sole theatre
on the Bankside.
The cause of the Bear-house being turned into a theatre was due to the
Globe Theatre being burnt to the ground in the previous year 1613.
Cunning old Henslowe, seizing an opportunity of taking advantage of
this catastrophe, converted his rival’s misfortune to his own profit.
The contract for demolishing the old Bear Garden is still in existence,
setting forth that an arena for the exhibition of bear-baiting,
likewise a stage suitable for play acting, was to be erected. Under
these conditions the stage was a movable one, thereby permitting the
performance of either entertainments.
The contract states that it was to be built like the Swan, a theatre
erected nearly twenty years previously, a proof that few alterations or
improvements were made in theatrical structures during this long period.
Most people interested in theatrical matters are aware that customs
appertaining to the theatre are handed down from generation to
generation, and innovations in stage tradition are seldom, if ever,
introduced, even in such an improving age as our own.
This theatre is without any Shakesperean association, and the only
stage play, so far as is known, publicly acted there is Ben Jonson’s
“Bartholomew Fair,” in 1614. This play contains several theatrical
allusions, one of which is defining the spectators of the pit as “the
understanding gentlemen of the ground.” Shakespeare names the same
audience as the “groundlings” in Hamlet’s speech to the players. For
several days in the week the Hope was given over to bear-baiting and
other sports. There is an account of one Fenner, who challenged Taylor,
the Water Poet, to a combat of wits. On the day appointed, Fenner
failed to put in an appearance, thereby causing the great enmity of
Taylor, who wrote some rather poignant and sarcastic verses in memory
of the event. Fenner replied by a mock epitaph:
“O! ’twas that foolish scurvie play
At Hope that took his sense away.”
Taylor replied:
“Thou writest a hotch potch of some forty lines
About my play at Hope and my designs.”
On the rebuilding of the Globe, the Hope stood little chance against
such a powerful rival; in fact, this building was never seriously
regarded as a theatre. When the new Globe was entirely rebuilt the Hope
gradually resumed its former occupation as a bear-baiting house, which
in reality had never been discarded.
As a bear-baiting garden, a reference is found in Swetnam’s
_Arraignment of Women_, 1617: “If you mean to see the bear-baiting of
women then trudge to this bear garden apace, and get in betimes and
view every room where thou may best sit for thy pleasure.”
The further history of the Hope after 1616 is quite unconnected with
the drama. It flourished for many years. After Shakespeare’s death,
Cunningham, in his _Handbook of London_, says that the best account
of its last days is narrated in Howe’s MS., a continuation of Stow’s
Survey; this must be by some other hand than Howe’s, as he died in
1631. “The Hope, on the bankside in Southwark, commonly called the
Beare Garden, a playhouse for stage players on Mondays, Wednesdays,
Fridays, and Saturdays, and for the baiting of the Beares on Tuesdays
and Thursdays, the stage being made to take up and down when they
please.”
It was built in the year 1610, and was pulled down to make tenements,
by Thomas Walker, petticoat maker, in Cannon Street, on Tuesday, the
25th of March, 1656.
Seven of Mr. Godfrie’s Bears, by command of Thomas Pride, then High
Sheriff of Surrey, were then shot to death on Saturday, the 9th of
February, 1655, by a company of soldiers. A few years later, after
the Restoration, the Bear Garden, was renamed, and continued giving
exhibitions until 1691. In an advertisement, dated 1682, the Hope is
still styled by its old name. This paragraph, which appeared in the
_Loyal Protestant_, must refer to some new building, or perhaps the old
name was still in use.
[Illustration:
THE
TWO
NOBLE
KINSMEN:
Presented at the Blackfriers
by the Kings Maiesties servants,
with great applause:
Written by the memorable Worthies
of their time;
{ M^r. _John Fletcher_, and } Gent.
{ M^r. _William Shakspeare_. }
[Illustration]
Printed at _London_ by _Tho. Coses_, for _Iohn Waterson_:
and are to be sold at the signe of the _Crowne_
in _Pauls_ Church-yard. 1634.
]
The last we hear of this new Hope is in 1691, when an advertisement
states there is now made at the Bear Garden glass house, on the
Bankside, crown window glass, and may be had of all glaziers in London.
Howe is in error in stating that the Hope was built in 1610; this
theatre was built soon after the Globe fire in 1614. In Visscher’s
map of London, 1616, is an excellent view of this theatre, named the
Bear Garden. Another view is seen in Hollar’s view of London, the
last differs slightly from Visscher’s in shape. During an interval of
thirty-three years a few alterations may have been introduced.
An interesting souvenir of the bear-baiting house is preserved amongst
the Dulwich papers. This relic takes the form of a modern playbill,
with the exception that the text is written instead of printed. The
advertisement is written in a large round hand, and may have been
the original placard placed in front of the building: “To-morrow
being Thursdaie, shall be seen at the Bear garden on Bankside a great
mach plaid by the gamsters of Essex, who hath chalenged all comers
whatsoever to play V dogges at the single beare for V pounds, and also
to wearie a bull dead at the stake; and for your better content shall
have pleasant sport with the horse and ape and whiping of the blind
beare. Vivat Rex.”
THE BLACKFRIARS THEATRE
The first Blackfriars theatre was opened in 1577, occupying the second
floor of a mansion belonging to Sir William More, serving, in former
times, as a dining hall, in the old monastic Priory of Blackfriars.
This part of the building, after its devolution, was converted into
separate rooms, and occupied by Sir John Cheek in 1540. A few years
later these rooms were tenanted by the Revels Office, under the
Mastership of Sir Thomas Cawarden, continuing in use until 1560, when
the offices were removed to St. John’s, Jerusalem. Eventually this
property came into the possession of Sir William More, who leased the
premises to Richard Farrant, Master of the Children of Windsor. The
site of these buildings will be found in the present Apothecaries’
Hall, in Water Lane, Blackfriars.
[Illustration:
THE
WARRES OF CYRUS
King of Persia, against _Antiochus
King of Assyria_,
with the Tragicall ende
of Panthæa.
Played by the children of her
Maiesties Chappell.
[Illustration]
LONDON
Printed by E. A. for William Blackwal,
and are to be sold at his shop ouer against
Guild-hall gate. _1594._
]
Richard Farrant, on taking possession, turned the rooms into a theatre
for the convenience of the boys in rehearsing their plays before
performing before the Queen. The owner of the property was much
displeased at Farrant’s procedure, vigorously complaining that the
tenant had damaged the property by converting the rooms into a theatre.
No views or records of the interior of this theatre exist, therefore,
in reconstructing the stage, or auditorium, from imagination,
conjecture must take the place of facts. Whether galleries surrounded
the stage, as we find in the public theatres, or whether the spectators
were seated on a level in front of the stage, is a matter of dispute.
Another point of controversy is whether the stage protruded into the
auditorium or continued from east to west in a straight line, as seen
in a modern stage. These questions at present cannot be determined with
certainty. Until Professor Wallace discovered the documents relating to
the Blackfriars property nothing was known about this early theatre.
The Children of the Chapel Royal and the Children of Windsor regularly
acted here, and for a few years were exceedingly successful, owing to
their being under the immediate patronage of the Queen. Farrant, their
Master, wrote plays for them, but none have survived. At Farrant’s
death, in 1580, the theatre was managed by his widow, but she was
unable for long to carry out the terms of the lease, and, after
endless litigation, extending over four years, the theatre again came
into the possession of the original owner, Sir William More.
[Illustration:
THE
LOVERS
Melancholy.
_ACTED_
AT THE PRIVATE
HOVSE IN THE BLACKE
Friers, and publikely at the Globe
by the Kings Maiesties Seruants.
LONDON,
Printed for _H. Seile_, and are to be sold at the Tygers
head in Saint _Pauls_ Church-yard.
1629.
]
During the four years of quarrelling and bickering, the widow Farrant
sold the lease to Hunnis, a celebrated Master of the Children of the
Chapel, who continued training the children and producing plays. The
other company, the Children of Windsor, ceased playing there two years
before the death of Farrant. Hunnis, after two years’ ownership, was
so much harassed by the proprietor, that he, in his turn, leased
the theatre to Henry Evans, who took over the management. This new
arrangement lasted but for a brief period, for in the same year Evans
disposed of the lease to the Earl of Oxford, who placed here his
company of boy actors. But eventually the Earl made a present of the
lease to Lyly, the poet and dramatist, who managed the theatre until
1584, when an order of the Court awarded the premises to Sir William
More. This ends the history of the first Blackfriars Theatre.
The second Blackfriars Theatre dates from the year 1596. James Burbage,
the father of Richard Burbage, purchased from Sir William More, for
£600, the buildings that lay between the office on the north and Lord
Hunsdon’s mansion on the south. After the purchase of the property he
immediately remodelled these rooms, making them suitable for a theatre.
James Burbage died in 1597, and his sons leased the second Blackfriars
Theatre to Henry Evans, in conjunction with Nathaniel Gyles, who
succeeded Hunnis as Master in 1597. The Children of the Chapel occupied
the stage, acting plays written by all the celebrated dramatists of
the period, with the exception of Shakespeare, whose plays are not
mentioned as acted by the Children. Most critics, including Professor
Wallace himself, contend that Shakespeare acted in this theatre. There
does not exist an item of evidence in support of this theory, beyond a
statement made by Burbage’s sons many years after Shakespeare’s death,
that Richard Burbage installed Shakespeare at this theatre, but in what
capacity is nowhere mentioned; and I doubt very much if Shakespeare
ever set foot upon the stage, in spite of the above statement. No
authentic views of this theatre are known; Professor Baker gives an
illustration of the exterior of this theatre, but its authenticity is
not beyond doubt. The second Blackfriars Theatre was situated in a
different part of the building from the first. When Burbage purchased
the property, several rooms on the south side were converted into one
large hall, measuring 66 by 46 feet. The room on the north side was
formerly the home of the boy actors, under Farrant. The Blackfriars
was a private playhouse, the word “private” denoting that the theatre
was roofed and performances were given at night time, or on account
of the theatre being within the liberties of the City, the proprietor
safeguarded himself by this designation in order to comply with the
Act of Common Council; one clause of which exempted from penalties any
private dwelling house exhibiting Enterludes, Comedies and Tragedies.
The charges were somewhat higher than those in force at the public
theatres. At this theatre, stools were allowed upon the stage, Although
called a private theatre, anyone by paying the higher price was allowed
admittance.
WHITEFRIARS THEATRE
There is some slight evidence that a stage for acting existed in the
vicinity of Whitefriars as early as 1574. Richard Rawlidge, in his
tract already referred to, enumerates, among other playhouses in the
year 1576, “one in Whitefriars.” Fleay mentions that this is the
only reference to the old Whitefriars playhouse until 1610. Professor
Lawrence is again at variance with the usual authorities: he would
assign the opening of the new Whitefriars, circa 1608. According to
a burial register of St. Dunstan’s Parish, Whitefriars, in September
29th, 1607, which records the following interment: “Gerry out of the
playhouse in the Friars buried.” Another entry is: “We present one
playhouse in the same precinct, not fitting these to be now tolerable.”
[Illustration:
THE
INSATIATE
Countesse.
A
TRAGEDIE:
_Acted at VVhite-Fryers_.
Written
By IOHN MARSTON.
[Illustration]
_LONDON_:
Printed by _T. S._ for _Thomas Archer_, and are to be sold
at his Shop in Popes-head-Pallace, neere the
_Royall-Exchange_. 1613.
]
By the date 1607 both our professors have misdated the opening of
the theatre. Another valid proof of how greatly we are in need of a
veritable authentic history of the early theatres.
The place in which the stage was first set up stood in the Refectory of
the demolished Monastery of the Carmelites, situated between the modern
Bouverie and Whitefriars Streets, in Fleet Street. The early history
of this theatre is a total blank, both as regards the stage and the
company of actors, who gave performances there.
If conjecture is permissible, probably strolling players were allowed
the use of the stage, or more likely a regular company for want of a
better place, acted here. The performers were safe from molestation,
on account of the ground being ecclesiastical property, therefore not
being subject to the jurisdiction of the City Authorities.
In 1607, or earlier, this old hall was probably converted into a
regular theatre, and from that date continued as such until 1616, when
for an indefinite period the place was abandoned. On being re-opened,
acting took place as usual, subsequently being finally abolished in
1621.
[Illustration:
THE
_Excellent Comedy, called_
THE OLD LAW:
OR
A new way to please you.
{_Phil. Maßinger_.
By {_Tho. Middleton_.
{_William Rowley_.
Acted before the King and Queene at _Salisbury House_,
and at severall other places, with great Applause.
Together with an exact and perfect Catalogue of all
the Playes, with the Authors Names, and what are
Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Pastoralls,
Masks, Interludes, more exactly Printed
then ever before.
_LONDON_,
Printed for _Edward Archer_, at the signe of the _Adam_
and _Eve_, in _Little Britaine_. 1656.
]
The Children of the Queen’s Revels made their home here. Many of the
ablest dramatists wrote plays for them. Ben Jonson’s “Epicene” was
one of the first plays they produced. A list of actors’ names is
prefixed to the printed edition of 1612. The celebrated actor, Richard
Field, is the first actor named.
THE SALISBURY COURT THEATRE
After the abolition of the Whitefriars Playhouse, another arose in the
same district, and was called the Salisbury Court Theatre. The site is
now occupied by the Salisbury Hotel, in Salisbury Square, Fleet Street.
Edward Sackville, fourth earl of Dorset, leased a piece of land to
Richard Gunnel and William Bargrave for forty-one and a half years, at
a rental of £100 per annum.
The company of the King’s Revels were the first who occupied the house.
A few years later we find the Prince’s men acting there. Among other
plays produced by them was Marmion’s “Holland’s Leaguer,” lately and
often acted by Prince Charles’ men at the Salisbury Court Theatre. A
list of actors is prefixed to the first edition of this play, printed
in 1632. In 1635, the Revel’s company again were in possession of this
theatre, and produced a play called “The Spargus Garden.” The theatre
continued in existence for many years, and was not abandoned until the
fatal year 1649, when all theatres, without exception, were finally
closed. At the Restoration this theatre was still in existence, but in
a very dilapidated state. After being made habitable, play-acting was
again resumed. Pepys records a visit to this theatre in his Diary. The
fire of London counted this building among its victims. No views of any
description are known.
THE COCKPIT
[Illustration:
_The Famous_
TRAGEDY
OF
THE RICH IEVV
OF _MALTA_.
AS IT WAS PLAYD
BEFORE THE KING AND
QVEENE, IN HIS MAJESTIES
Theatre at _White-Hall_, by her Majesties
Servants at the _Cock-pit_.
_Written by_ CHRISTOPHER MARLO.
[Illustration]
_LONDON_:
Printed by _I. B._ for _Nicholas Vavasour_, and are to be sold
at his Shop in the Inner-Temple, neere the
Church. 1633.
]
This small, roofed private theatre was first opened in 1615, and was
partially demolished by a band of wild apprentices. The cause of their
action is not known. Speedily being rebuilt, it continued under the
name of the Phœnix as a playhouse, until 1649, when the building was
dismantled.
[Illustration:
THE
TRAGEDY
OF HOFFMAN
_OR_
A Reuenge for a Father.
As it hath bin diuers times acted
with great applause, at the _Phenix_
in _Druery-lane_.
[Illustration]
_LONDON_,
Printed by _I. N._ for _Hugh Perry_, and are to bee
sold at his shop, at the signe of the _Harrow_
in _Brittaines-burse_. 1631.
]
The company of the Lady Elizabeth, daughter of James I, acted at this
house. A list of actors’ names is recorded in the Herbert MSS. After
the Restoration the theatre was once more used for play-acting, the
last recorded performance taking place in 1664. Cockpit Court, Drury
Lane, marked in Strype’s map of London, 1720, stood on the site of the
old theatre. In later years the Court was known as Pit Court, but now
this place has entirely vanished. Formerly a cockpit existed in this
neighbourhood, from which the theatre was named. Like so many other
theatres of this period, no authentic views are known.
[Illustration:
THE
PVRITAINE
Or
THE VVIDDOVV
of Watling-streete.
_Acted by the Children of Paules._
Written by W. S.
[Illustration]
Imprinted at London by G. ELD.
1607.
]
ST. PAUL’S SINGING SCHOOL
Many printed plays have inscribed on their title pages: “As played by
the Children of Powles.” Very little is known of their place of acting.
The exact site on which that part of the Cathedral was allotted to
these boy actors still remains a point of discussion. Many authorities
assert that the music room of the choir in St. Gregory’s Church, in a
corner of St. Paul’s, was the place assigned to them; others consider
the yard adjoining Convocation House, a more convenient spot, and
thoroughly suitable for a dramatic performance. Professor Lawrence
is in favour of the singing school, near the Convocation House.
Until further evidence is forthcoming the question cannot be finally
determined. St. Paul’s singing school was built in the year 1581, and
remained in use until 1596, when it was suppressed. A few years later
this room may have been occupied by the Children of St. Paul’s, and
many a famous play of that period was probably acted there. All the
great dramatists, with the exception of Shakespeare, wrote for the
Boy Actors. The place served as a training ground for young actors,
who afterwards joined the professional men’s companies. Shakespeare
bitterly satirized these juveniles in “Hamlet.”
[Illustration:
_A_
Most pleasant Comedie
of _Mucedorus_ the kings
sonne of _Valentia_ and _Amadine_
the Kings daughter of _Arragon_,
with the merie conceites
of _Mouse_.
Newly set foorth, as it hath bin
_sundrie times plaide in the honorable
Cittie of London_.
Very delectable and full
of mirth.
[Illustration]
LONDON
Printed for _William Iones_, dwelling
at Holborne conduit, at
the signe of the Gunne.
1598.
]