[Footnote 192: The Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, XV, 258.]

Paul Hentzner, the German traveler who visited London in 1598, wrote thus of the Bear Garden:

There is still another place, built in the form of a theatre, which serves for the baiting of bulls and bears; they are fastened behind, and then worried by great English bull-dogs, but not without great risk to the dogs, from the horns of the one, and the teeth of the other; and it sometimes happens they are killed upon the spot; fresh ones are immediately supplied in the places of those that are wounded or tired. To this entertainment there often follows that of whipping a blinded bear, which is performed by five or six men standing circularly with whips, which they exercise upon him without any mercy, as he cannot escape from them because of his chain; he defends himself with all his force and skill, throwing down all who come within his reach, and are not active enough to get out of it, and tearing the whips out of their hands and breaking them.

The following passage is taken from the diary of the Duke of Wirtemberg (who visited London in 1592), "noted down daily in the most concise manner possible, at his Highness's gracious command, by his private secretary":[193]

On the 1st of September his Highness was shown in London the English dogs, of which there were about 120, all kept in the same enclosure, but each in separate kennel. In order to gratify his Highness, and at his desire, two bears and a bull were baited; at such times you can perceive the breed and mettle of the dogs, for although they receive serious injuries from the bears, and are caught by the horns of the bull and tossed into the air so as frequently to fall down again upon the horns, they do not give in, [but fasten on the bull so firmly] that one is obliged to pull them back by the tails and force open their jaws. Four dogs at once were set on the bull; they however could not gain any advantage over him, for he so artfully contrived to ward off their attacks that they could not well get at him; on the contrary, the bull served them very scurvily by striking and beating at them.

[Footnote 193: The secretary was named Jacob Rathgeb, and the diary was published at Tuebingen in 1602 with a long title beginning: A True and Faithful Narrative of the Bathing Excursion which His Serene Highness, etc. A translation will be found in Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners, pp. 3-53.]

The following is a letter from one William Faunte to Edward Alleyn, then proprietor of the Bear Garden, regarding the sale of some game bulls:

I understood by a man which came with two bears from the garden, that you have a desire to buy one of my bulls. I have three western bulls at this time, but I have had very ill luck with them, for one of them hath lost his horn to the quick, that I think he will never be able to fight again; that is my old Star of the West: he was a very easy bull. And my bull Bevis, he hath lost one of his eyes, but I think if you had him he would do you more hurt than good, for I protest I think he would either throw up your dogs into the lofts, or else ding out their brains against the grates.[194]

[Footnote 194: Collier, The Alleyn Papers, p. 31.]

Finally, among the Alleyn papers of Dulwich College is an interesting bill, or advertisement, of an afternoon's performance at the Bear Garden:

To-morrow being Thursday shall be seen at the Bear Garden on the Bankside a great match played by the gamesters of Essex, who hath challenged all comers whatsoever to play five dogs at the single bear for five pounds, and also to weary a bull dead at the stake; and for your better content [you] shall have pleasant sport with the horse and ape and whipping of the blind bear. Vivat Rex!

In 1613 the Bear Garden was torn down, and a new and handsomer structure erected in its place. For the history of this building the reader is referred to the chapter on "The Hope."



CHAPTER VIII

NEWINGTON BUTTS

The Bankside, as the preceding chapter indicates, offered unusual attractions to the actors. It had, indeed, long been associated with the drama: in 1545 King Henry VIII, in a proclamation against vagabonds, players,[195] etc., noted their "fashions commonly used at the Bank, and such like naughty places, where they much haunt"; and in 1547 the Bishop of Winchester made complaint that at a time when he intended to have a dirge and mass for the late King, the actors in Southwark planned to exhibit "a solemn play, to try who shall have the most resort, they in game or I in earnest."[196] The players, therefore, were no strangers to "the Bank." And when later in the century the hostility of the Common Council drove them to seek homes in localities not under the jurisdiction of the city, the suburb across the river offered them a suitable refuge. For, although a large portion of Southwark was under the jurisdiction of London, certain parts were not, notably the Liberty of the Clink and the Manor of Paris Garden, two sections bordering the river's edge, and the district of Newington lying farther back to the southwest. In these places the actors could erect their houses and entertain the public without fear of the ordinances of the Corporation, and without danger of interruption by puritanical Lord Mayors.

[Footnote 195: It is just possible—but, I think, improbable—that the term "common players" as used in this proclamation referred to gamblers. The term is regularly used in law to designate actors.]

[Footnote 196: The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547, February 5, p. 1; cf. Tytler's Edward VI and Mary, I, 20.]

Yet, as we have seen, the first public playhouses were erected not on the Bankside—a "naughty" place,—but near Finsbury Field to the north of the city; and the reasons which led to the selection of such a quiet and respectable district have been pointed out.[197] It was inevitable, however, that sooner or later a playhouse should make its appearance in the region to the south of the city. And at an early date—how early it is impossible to say, but probably not long after the erection of the Theatre and the Curtain—there appeared in Southwark a building specially devoted to the use of players. Whether it was a new structure modeled after the theatres of Shoreditch, or merely an old building converted into a playhouse, we cannot say. It seems to have been something more than an inn-yard fitted up for dramatic purposes, and yet something less than the "sumptuous theatre houses" erected "on purpose" for plays to the north of the city.

[Footnote 197: See page 29.]

Whatever the building was, it was situated at Newington Butts (a place so called from the butts for archery anciently erected there), and, unfortunately, at a considerable distance from the river. Exactly how far playgoers from London had to walk to reach the theatre after crossing over the river we do not know; but the Privy Council speaks of "the tediousness of the way" thither,[198] and Stow notes that the parish church of Newington was "distant one mile from London Bridge." Further information about the building—its exact situation, its size, its exterior shape, its interior arrangement, and such-like details—is wholly lacking.

[Footnote 198: The Council again refers to the building in the phrase "in any of these remote places." (Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XII, 15.)]

Nor are we much better off in regard to its ownership, management, and general history. This seems to be due to the fact that it was not intimately associated with any of the more important London troupes; and to the fact that after a few unsuccessful years it ceased to exist. Below I have recorded the few and scattered references which constitute our meagre knowledge of its history.

The first passage cited may refer to the playhouse at Newington Butts. It is an order of the Privy Council, May 13, 1580, thus summarized by the clerk:

A letter to the Justices of Peace of the County of Surrey, that whereas their Lordships do understand that notwithstanding their late order given to the Lord Mayor to forbid all plays within and about the city until Michaelmas next for avoiding of infection, nevertheless certain players do play sundry days every week at Newington Butts in that part of Surrey without the jurisdiction of the said Lord Mayor, contrary to their Lordship's order; their Lordships require the Justices not only to inquire who they be that disobey their commandment in that behalf, and not only to forbid them expressly for playing in any of these remote places near unto the city until Michaelmas, but to have regard that within the precinct of Surrey none be permitted to play; if any do, to commit them and to advertise them, &c.[199]

[Footnote 199: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XII, 15.]

The next passage clearly refers to "the theatre" at Newington Butts. On May 11, 1586, the Privy Council dispatched a letter to the Lord Mayor, which the clerk thus summarized:

A letter to the Lord Mayor: his Lordship is desired, according to his request made to their Lordships by his letters of the vii th of this present, to give order for the restraining of plays and interludes within and about the city of London, for the avoiding of infection feared to grow and increase this time of summer by the common assemblies of people at those places; and that their Lordships have taken the like order for the prohibiting of the use of plays at the theatre, and the other places about Newington, out of his charge.[200]

[Footnote 200: Ibid., XIV, 102.]

Chalmers[201] thought the word "theatre" was used of the Newington Playhouse, and for this he was taken to task by Collier,[202] who says: "He confounds it with the playhouse emphatically called 'the Theatre' in Shoreditch; and on consulting the Register, we find that no such playhouse as the Newington Theatre is there spoken of." But Chalmers was right; for if we consult the "Registers" we find the following letter, dispatched to the Justices of Surrey on the very same day that the letter just quoted was sent to the Lord Mayor:

A letter to the Justices of Surrey, that according to such direction as hath been given by their Lordships to the Lord Mayor to restrain and inhibit the use of plays and interludes in public places in and about the City of London, in respect of the heat of the year now drawing on, for the avoiding of the infection like to grow and increase by the ordinary assemblies of the people to those places, they are also required in like sort to take order that the plays and assemblies of the people at the theatre or any other places about Newington be forthwith restrained and forborn as aforesaid, &c.[203]

[Footnote 201: Apology, p. 403.]

[Footnote 202: History of English Dramatic Poetry (1879), III, 131.]

[Footnote 203: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XIV, 99.]

The phrase, "the theatre or any other places about Newington," when addressed to the "Justices of the Peace of Surrey" could refer only to the Newington Butts Playhouse.

On June 23, 1592, because of a riot in Southwark, the Privy Council closed all the playhouses in and about London.[204] Shortly after this the Lord Strange's Men, who were then occupying the Rose, petitioned the Council to be allowed to resume acting in their playhouse. The Council granted them instead permission to act three times a week at Newington Butts; but the players, not relishing this proposal, chose rather to travel in the provinces. Soon finding that they could not make their expenses in the country, they returned to London, and again appealed to the Privy Council to be allowed to perform at the Rose.[205] The warrant issued by the Council in reply to this second petition tells us for the first time something definite about the Newington Butts Theatre:

To the Justices, Bailiffs, Constables, and Others to Whom it Shall Appertain:

Whereas not long since, upon some considerations, we did restrain the Lord Strange his servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoyned them to play three days [a week] at Newington Butts; now forasmuch as we are satisfied that by reason of the tediousness of the way, and that of long time plays have not there been used on working days, and for that a number of poor watermen are thereby relieved, you shall permit and suffer them, or any other, there [at the Rose] to exercise themselves in such sort as they have done heretofore, and that the Rose may be at liberty without any restraint so long as it shall be free from infection, any commandment from us heretofore to the contrary notwithstanding.[206]

[Footnote 204: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, II, 50, 73.]

[Footnote 205: Greg, Henslowe Papers, p. 42.]

[Footnote 206: Ibid., pp. 43-44.]

From this warrant we learn that so early as 1592 the Newington house was almost deserted, and that "of long time" plays had been given there only occasionally.

Two years later, on June 3, 1594, Henslowe sent the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's Men to play temporarily at the half-deserted old playhouse, probably in order to give opportunity for needed repairs at the Rose.[207] The section of his Diary, under the heading, "In the name of god Amen begininge at newington my Lord Admeralle men & my Lord Chamberlen men As followethe 1594," constitutes the fullest and clearest—and, one may add, the most illustrious—chapter in the history of this obscure building; for although it extends over only ten days, it tells us that Edward Alleyn, Richard Burbage, and William Shakespeare then trod the Newington stage, and it records the performance there of such plays as The Jew of Malta, Andronicus, The Taming of a Shrew, and Hamlet.

[Footnote 207: There is no evidence that Henslowe owned the house at Newington; he might very well have rented it for this particular occasion.]

We next hear of the building near the end of the century: in 1599, says Mr. Wallace, it was "only a memory, as shown by a contemporary record to be published later."[208]

[Footnote 208: Wallace, The First London Theatre, p. 2.]

Two other references close the history. In A Woman is a Weathercock, III, iii, printed in 1612, but written earlier, one of the actors exclaims of an insufferable pun: "O Newington Conceit!" The fact that this sneer is the only reference to the Newington Playhouse found in contemporary literature is a commentary on the low esteem in which the building was held by the Elizabethans, and its relative unimportance for the history of the drama.

The last notice is in Howe's continuation of Stow's Annals (1631).[209] After enumerating all the theatres built in London and the suburbs "within the space of three-score years," he adds vaguely, "besides one in former time at Newington Butts."

[Footnote 209: Page 1004.]



CHAPTER IX

THE ROSE

Doubtless one reason for the obscure role which the theatre at Newington played in the history of the drama was "the tediousness of the way" thither. The Rose, the second theatre to make its appearance in Surrey, was much more conveniently situated with respect to the city, for it was erected in the Liberty of the Clink and very near the river's edge. As a result, it quickly attained popularity with London playgoers, and before the end of the century had caused the centre of dramatic activity to be shifted from Finsbury Field to the Bank.

The builder of the Rose was one Philip Henslowe, then, so far as our evidence goes, unknown to the dramatic world, but destined soon to become the greatest theatrical proprietor and manager of the Tudor-Stuart age. We find him living on the Bankside and in the Liberty of the Clink at least as early as 1577. At first, so we are told, he was "but a poor man," described as "servant ... unto one Mr. Woodward." Upon the death of his employer, Woodward, he married the widow, Agnes Woodward, and thus came into the possession of considerable property. "All his wealth came by her," swore the charwoman Joan Horton. This, however, simply means that Henslowe obtained his original capital by his marriage; for, although very illiterate, he was shrewd in handling money, and he quickly amassed "his wealth" through innumerable business ventures.

As one of these ventures, no doubt, he leased from the Parish of St. Mildred, on March 24, 1585, a small piece of property on the Bankside known as "The Little Rose." "Among the early surveys, 1 Edward VI," says Rendle, "we see that this was not merely a name—the place was a veritable Rose Garden."[210] At the time of the lease the property is described as consisting of a dwelling-house called "The Rose," "two gardens adjoining the same" consisting of "void ground," and at least one other small building. The dwelling-house Henslowe probably leased as a brothel—for this was the district of the stews; and the small building mentioned above, situated at the south end of one of the gardens, he let to a London grocer named John Cholmley, who used it "to keep victualing in."[211]

[Footnote 210: W. Rendle, in The Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer, VIII, 60.]

[Footnote 211: For the earlier history of the Rose estate see Rendle, The Bankside, p. xv, and Greg, Henslowe's Diary, II, 43. "The plan of the Rose estate in the vestry of St. Mildred's Church in London marks the estate exactly, but not the precise site of the Rose Playhouse. The estate consisted of three rods, and was east of Rose Alley." (Rendle, The Bankside, p. xxx.)]

Not satisfied, however, with the income from these two buildings, Henslowe a year and a half later was planning to utilize a part of the "void ground" for the erection of a theatre. What interested him in the drama we do not know, but we may suppose that the same reason which led Burbage, Brayne, Lanman, and others to build playhouses influenced him, namely, the prospect of "great gains to ensue therefrom."[212]

[Footnote 212: Possibly the fact that Burbage had just secured control of the Curtain, and hence had a monopoly of playhouses, was one of the reasons for a new playhouse.]

For the site of his proposed playhouse he allotted a small parcel of ground ninety-four feet square and lying in the corner formed by Rose Alley and Maiden Lane (see page 245). Then he interested in the enterprise his tenant Cholmley, for, it seems, he did not wish to undertake so expensive and precarious a venture without sharing the risk with another. On January 10, 1587, he and Cholmley signed a formal deed of partnership, according to which the playhouse was to be erected at once and at the sole cost of Henslowe; Cholmley, however, was to have from the beginning a half-interest in the building, paying for his share by installments of L25 10s. a quarter for a period of eight years and three months.[213] The total sum to be paid by Cholmley, L816, possibly represents the estimated cost of the building and its full equipment, plus rental on the land.

[Footnote 213: The deed of partnership is preserved among the Henslowe papers at Dulwich College. For an abstract of the deed see Greg, Henslowe Papers, p. 2. Henslowe seems to have driven a good bargain with Cholmley.]

The building is referred to in the deed of January 10 as "a playhouse now in framing and shortly to be erected and set up." Doubtless it was ready for occupancy early in the summer. That performances were given there before the close of the year is at least indicated by an order of the Privy Council dated October 29, 1587:

A letter to the Justices of Surrey, that whereas the inhabitants of Southwark had complained unto their Lordships declaring that the order by their Lordships set down for the restraining of plays and interludes within that county on the Sabbath Days is not observed, and especially within the Liberty of the Clink, and in the Parish of St. Saviours....[214]

[Footnote 214: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XV, 271.]

The Rose was in "the Liberty of the Clink and in the Parish of St. Saviours," and so far as we have any evidence it was the only place there devoted to plays. Moreover, a distinct reference to it by name appears in the Sewer Records in April, 1588, at which date the building is described as "new."[215]

[Footnote 215: Discovered by Mr. Wallace and printed in the London Times, April 30, 1914.]

In Norden's Map of London (1593), the Rose and the adjacent Bear Garden are correctly placed with respect to each other, but are crudely drawn (see page 147). The representation of both as circular—the Bear Garden, we know, was polygonal—was due merely to this crudeness; yet the Rose seems to have been indeed circular in shape, "the Bankside's round-house" referred to in Tom Tell Troth's Message. The building is so pictured in the Hondius map of 1610 (see page 149), and in the inset maps on the title-pages of Holland's Her[Greek: o]ologia, 1620, and Baker's Chronicle, 1643 (see page 147), all three of which apparently go back to an early map of London now lost. The building is again pictured as circular, with the Bear Garden at the left and the Globe at the right, in the Delaram portrait of King James (opposite page 246).[216]

[Footnote 216: The circular building pictured in these maps has been widely heralded as the First Globe, but without reason; all the evidence shows that it was the Rose. For further discussion see the chapters dealing with the Bear Garden, the Globe, and the Hope. In the Merian View, issued in Frankfort in 1638, the Bear Garden and the Globe, each named, are shown conspicuously in the foreground; in the background is vaguely represented an unnamed playhouse polygonal in shape. This could not possibly be the Rose. Merian's View was a compilation from Visscher's View of 1616 and some other view of London not yet identified; it has no independent authority, and no value whatever so far as the Rose is concerned.]

From Henslowe's Diary we learn that the playhouse was of timber, the exterior of lath and plaster, the roof of thatch; and that it had a yard, galleries, a stage, a tiring-house, heavens, and a flagpole. Thus it differed in no essential way from the playhouses already erected in Shoreditch or subsequently erected on the Bank.[217]

[Footnote 217: If we may believe Johannes de Witt, the Rose was "more magnificent" than the theatres in Shoreditch. See page 167.]



What troupes of actors used the Rose during the first five years of its existence we do not know; indeed, until 1592 we hear nothing further of the playhouse. As a result, some scholars have wrongly inferred that the building was not erected until the spring of 1592.[218] It seems likely, as Mr. Greg suggests, that Henslowe and Cholmley let the house to some company of players at a stipulated annual rent, and so had nothing to do with the management of its finances. This would explain the complete absence of references to the playhouse in Henslowe's accounts.

[Footnote 218: Ordish, Early London Theatres, p. 155; Mantzius, A History of Theatrical Art, p. 58. Mr. Wallace's discovery of a reference to the Rose in the Sewer Records for April, 1588, quite overthrows this hypothesis.]

During this obscure period of five years Cholmley disappears from the history of the Rose. It may be that he withdrew from the undertaking at the outset;[219] it may be that he failed to meet his payments, and so forfeited his moiety; or it may be that, becoming dissatisfied with his bargain, he sold out to Henslowe. Whatever the cause, his interest in the playhouse passed over to Henslowe, who appears henceforth as the sole proprietor.

[Footnote 219: This seems unlikely. At the beginning of Henslowe's Diary we find the scrawl "Chomley when" (Greg, Henslowe's Diary I, 217); this was written not earlier than 1592, and it shows that Cholmley was at that time in Henslowe's mind.]

ologia_ (1620), from a lost map of London drawn about 1589-1599.]

In the spring of 1592 the building was in need of repairs, and Henslowe spent a large sum of money in thoroughly overhauling it.[220] The lathing and plastering of the exterior were done over, the roof was re-thatched, new rafters were put in, and much heavy timber was used, indicating important structural alterations. In addition, the stage was painted, the lord's room and the tiring-house were provided with ceilings, a new flagpole was erected, and other improvements were introduced. Clearly an attempt was made to render the building not only stronger, but also more attractive in appearance and more modern in equipment.

[Footnote 220: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 7.]

The immediate occasion for these extensive alterations and repairs was the engagement of Lord Strange's Men to occupy the playhouse under Henslowe's management. This excellent troupe, with Edward Alleyn at its head, was perhaps the best company of actors then in London. It later became the Lord Chamberlain's Company, with which Shakespeare was identified; even at this early date, although documentary proof is lacking, he may have been numbered among its obscure members. The troupe opened the Rose on February 19, 1592, with a performance of Robert Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and followed this with many famous plays, such as The Spanish Tragedy, The Jew of Malta, Orlando Furioso, and Henry VI.[221]

[Footnote 221: For a list of their plays see Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 13 ff.]

The coming of Lord Strange's Men to the Rose led to a close friendship between Henslowe and Edward Alleyn, then twenty-six years of age, and at the height of his fame as an actor, a friendship which was cemented in the autumn by Alleyn's marriage to Henslowe's stepdaughter (and only child) Joan Woodward. The two men, it seems, were thoroughly congenial, and their common interests led to the formation of a business partnership which soon became the most important single force in the theatrical life of the time.

Lord Strange's Men continued to act at the Rose from February 19 until June 23, 1592, when the Privy Council, because of a serious riot in Southwark, ordered the closing of all playhouses in and about London until Michaelmas following. Strange's Men very soon petitioned the Council to be allowed to reopen their playhouse; the Council, in reply, compromised by granting them permission to act three days a week at Newington Butts. This, however, did not please the actors, and they started on a tour of the provinces. In a short time, discovering that they could not pay their expenses on the road, they again petitioned for permission to open the Rose, complaining that "our company is great, and thereby our charge intolerable in traveling the country," and calling attention to the fact that "the use of our playhouse on the Bankside, by reason of the passage to and from the same by water, is a great relief to the poor watermen there."[222] The petition was accompanied by a supporting petition from the watermen asking the Council "for God's sake and in the way of charity to respect us your poor watermen." As a result of these petitions the Council gave permission, probably late in August, 1592, for the reopening of the playhouse.[223] But before Strange's Men could take advantage of this permission, a severe outbreak of the plague caused a general inhibition of acting, and not until December 29, 1592, were they able to resume their performances at the Rose. A month later the plague broke out again with unusual severity, and on February 1, 1593, playing was again inhibited. The year rapidly developed into one of the worst plague-years in the history of the city; between ten and fifteen thousand persons died of the epidemic, and most of the London companies, including Strange's Men, went on an extended tour of the country.

[Footnote 222: Greg, Henslowe Papers, p. 42.]

[Footnote 223: See Greg, Henslowe Papers, p. 43. For a general discussion of various problems involved, see Greg, Henslowe's Diary, II, 51-2.]

Near the close of the year, and while Strange's Men were still traveling, the plague temporarily subsided, and Sussex's Men, who were then in London, secured the use of the Rose. They began to act there on December 27, 1593; but on February 6, 1594, the plague having again become threatening, acting was once more inhibited. This brief occupation of the Rose by Sussex's Men was notable only for the first performance of Titus Andronicus.[224]

[Footnote 224: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 16.]



At Easter, April 1, Strange's Men being still absent, Henslowe allowed the Rose to be used for eight days by "the Queen's Men and my Lord of Sussex's together." This second brief chapter in the long and varied history of the playhouse is interesting only for two performances of the old King Leir.[225]

[Footnote 225: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 17.]

As a result of the severe plague and the long continued inhibition of acting, there was a general confusion and subsequent reorganization of the various London troupes. The Admiral's Men, who had been dispersed in 1591, some joining Strange's Men, some going to travel in Germany, were brought together again; and Edward Alleyn, who had formerly been their leader, and who even after he became one of Strange's Men continued to describe himself as "servant to the right honorable the Lord Admiral,"[226] was induced to rejoin them. Alleyn thereupon brought them to the Rose, where they began to perform on May 14, 1594. After three days, however, they ceased, probably to allow Henslowe to make repairs or improvements on the building.

[Footnote 226: He is so described, for example, in the warrant issued by the Privy Council on May 6, 1593, to Strange's Men.]

Strange's Men also had undergone reorganization. On April 16, 1594, they lost by death their patron, the Earl of Derby. Shortly afterwards they secured the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain, and before June 3, 1594, they had arrived in London and reported to their former manager, Henslowe.

At this time, apparently, the Rose was still undergoing repairs; so Henslowe sent both the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's Men to act at Newington Butts, where they remained from June 3 to June 13, 1594. On June 15 the Admiral's Men moved back to the Rose, which henceforth they occupied alone; and the Chamberlain's Men, thus robbed of their playhouse, went to the Theatre in Shoreditch.

During the period of Lent, 1595, Henslowe took occasion to make further repairs on his playhouse, putting in new pales, patching the exterior with new lath and plaster, repainting the woodwork, and otherwise furbishing up the building. The total cost of this work was L108 10s. And shortly after, as a part of these improvements, no doubt, he paid L7 2s. for "making the throne in the heavens."[227]

[Footnote 227: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 4.]

Near the close of July, 1597, Pembroke's Men at the Swan acted Nashe's satirical play, The Isle of Dogs, containing, it seems, a burlesque on certain persons high in authority. As a result the Privy Council on July 28 ordered all acting in and about London to cease until November 1, and all public playhouses to be plucked down and ruined.[228]

[Footnote 228: For the details of this episode see the chapter on the Swan.]

The latter part of the order, happily, was not put into effect, and on October 11 the Rose was allowed to open again. The Privy Council, however, punished the Swan and Pembroke's Company by ordering that only the Admiral's Men at the Rose and the Chamberlain's Men at the Curtain should henceforth be "allowed." As a consequence of this trouble with the authorities the best actors of Pembroke's Company joined the Admiral's Men under Henslowe. This explains the entry in the Diary: "In the name of God, amen. The xi of October began my Lord Admiral's and my Lord Pembroke's Men to play at my house, 1597."[229] The two companies were very soon amalgamated, and the strong troupe thus formed continued to act at the Rose under the name of the Admiral's Men.

[Footnote 229: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 54.]

The Chamberlain's Men, who in 1594 had been forced to surrender the Rose to the Admiral's Men and move to the Theatre, and who in 1597 had been driven from the Theatre to the Curtain, at last, in 1599, built for themselves a permanent home, the Globe, situated on the Bankside and close to the Rose. Henslowe's ancient structure[230] was eclipsed by this new and handsome building, "the glory of the Bank"; and the Admiral's Men, no doubt, felt themselves placed at a serious disadvantage. As a result, in the spring of 1600, Henslowe and Alleyn began the erection of a splendid new playhouse, the Fortune, designed to surpass the Globe in magnificence, and to furnish a suitable and permanent home for the Admiral's Men. The building was situated in the suburb to the north of the city, far away from the Bankside and the Globe.

[Footnote 230: In January, 1600, the Earl of Nottingham refers to "the dangerous decay" of the Rose. See Greg, Henslowe Papers, p. 45; cf. p. 52.]

The erection of this handsome new playhouse led to violent outbursts from the Puritans, and vigorous protests from the city fathers. Accordingly the Privy Council on June 22, 1600, issued the following order:[231]

Whereas divers complaints have heretofore been made unto the Lords and other of Her Majesty's Privy Council of the manifold abuses and disorders that have grown and do continue by occasion of many houses erected and employed in and about London for common stage-plays; and now very lately by reason of some complaint exhibited by sundry persons against the building of the like house [the Fortune] in or near Golding Lane ... the Lords and the rest of Her Majesty's Privy Council with one and full consent have ordered in manner and form as follows. First, that there shall be about the city two houses, and no more, allowed to serve for the use of the common stage-plays; of the which houses, one [the Globe] shall be in Surrey, in that place which is commonly called the Bankside, or thereabouts; and the other [the Fortune], in Middlesex.

[Footnote 231: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXX, 395.]

This sealed the fate of the Rose.

In July the Admiral's Men had a reckoning with Henslowe, and prepared to abandon the Bankside. After they had gone, but before they had opened the Fortune, Henslowe, on October 28, 1600, let the Rose to Pembroke's Men for two days.[232] Possibly the troupe had secured special permission to use the playhouse for this limited time; possibly Henslowe thought that since the Fortune was not yet open to the public, no objection would be made. Of course, after the Admiral's Men opened the Fortune—in November or early in December, 1600—the Rose, according to the order of the Privy Council just quoted, had to stand empty.

[Footnote 232: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 131.]

Its career, however, was not absolutely run. In the spring of 1602 Worcester's Men and Oxford's Men were "joined by agreement together in one company," and the Queen, "at the suit of the Earl of Oxford," ordered that this company be "allowed." Accordingly the Privy Council wrote to the Lord Mayor on March 31, 1602, informing him of the fact, and adding: "And as the other companies that are allowed, namely of me the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain, be appointed their certain houses, and one and no more to each company, so we do straightly require that this company be likewise [appointed] to one place. And because we are informed the house called the Boar's Head is the place they have especially used and do best like of, we do pray and require you that that said house, namely the Boar's Head, may be assigned unto them."[233] But the Lord Mayor seems to have opposed the use of the Boar's Head, and the upshot was that the Council gave permission for this "third company" to open the Rose. In Henslowe's Diary, we read: "Lent unto my Lord of Worcester's Players as followeth, beginning the 17 day of August, 1602."

[Footnote 233: The Remembrancia, II, 189; The Malone Society's Collections, I, 85.]

This excellent company, destined to become the Queen's Company after the accession of King James, included such important actors as William Kempe, John Lowin, Christopher Beeston, John Duke, Robert Pallant, and Richard Perkins; and it employed such well-known playwrights as Thomas Heywood (the "prose Shakespeare," who was also one of the troupe), Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, John Day, Wentworth Smith, Richard Hathway, and John Webster. The company continued to act at the Rose until March 16, 1603, when it had a reckoning with Henslowe and left the playhouse.[234] In May, however, after the coming of King James, it returned to the Rose, and we find Henslowe opening a new account: "In the name of God, amen. Beginning to play again by the King's license, and laid out since for my Lord of Worcester's Men, as followeth, 1603, 9 of May."[235] Since only one entry follows, it is probable that the company did not remain long at the Rose. No doubt, the outbreak of the plague quickly drove them into the country; and on their return to London in the spring of 1604 they occupied the Boar's Head and the Curtain.

[Footnote 234: On March 19 the Privy Council formally ordered the suppression of all plays. This was five days before the death of Queen Elizabeth.]

[Footnote 235: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 190.]

After this there is no evidence to connect the playhouse with dramatic performances.

Henslowe's lease of the Little Rose property, on which his playhouse stood, expired in 1605, and the Parish of St. Mildred's demanded an increase in rental. The following note in the Diary refers to a renewal of the lease:

Memorandum, that the 25 of June, 1603, I talked with Mr. Pope at the scrivener's shop where he lies,[236] concerning the taking of the lease anew of the little Rose, and he shewed me a writing betwixt the parish and himself which was to pay twenty pound a year rent,[237] and to bestow a hundred marks upon building, which I said I would rather pull down the playhouse than I would do so, and he bad me do, and said he gave me leave, and would bear me out, for it was in him to do it.[238]

[Footnote 236: Some scholars have supposed that this was Morgan Pope, a part owner of the Bear Garden; but he is last heard of in 1585, and by 1605 was probably dead. Mr. Greg is of the opinion that Thomas Pope, the well-known member of the King's Men at the Globe, is referred to. From this has been developed the theory that Pope, acting for the Globe players, had rented the Rose and closed it in order to prevent competition with the Globe on the Bankside. I believe, however, that the "Mr. Pope" here referred to was neither of these men, but merely the agent of the Parish of St. Mildred. It is said that he lived at a scrivener's shop. This could not apply to the actor Thomas Pope, for we learn from his will, made less than a month later, that he lived in a house of his own, furnished with plate and household goods, and cared for by a housekeeper; and with him lived Susan Gasquine, whom he had "brought up ever since she was born."]

[Footnote 237: The old rental was L7 a year.]

[Footnote 238: Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 178.]

Henslowe did not renew his lease of the property. On October 4, 1605, the Commissioners of the Sewers amerced him for the Rose, but return was made that it was then "out of his hands."[239] From a later entry in the Sewer Records, February 14, 1606, we learn that the new owner of the Rose was one Edward Box, of Bread Street, London. Box, it seems, either tore down the building, or converted it into tenements. The last reference to it in the Sewer Records is on April 25, 1606, when it is referred to as "the late playhouse."[240]

[Footnote 239: Wallace in the London Times, April 30, 1914, p. 10. In view of these records it seems unnecessary to refute those persons who assert that the Rose was standing so late as 1622. I may add, however, that before Mr. Wallace published the Sewer Records I had successfully disposed of all the evidence which has been collected to show the existence of the Rose after 1605. The chief source of this error is a footnote by Malone in Variorum, III, 56; the source of Malone's error is probably to be seen in his footnote, ibid., p. 66.]

[Footnote 240: For the tourist the memory of the old playhouse to-day lingers about Rose Alley on the Bank.]



CHAPTER X

THE SWAN

The Manor of Paris Garden,[241] situated on the Bankside just to the west of the Liberty of the Clink and to the east of the Lambeth marshes, had once been in the possession of the Monastery of Bermondsey. At the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, the property passed into the possession of the Crown; hence it was free from the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, and was on this account suitable for the erection of a playhouse. From the Crown the property passed through several hands, until finally, in 1589, the entire "lordship and manor of Paris Garden" was sold for L850 to Francis Langley, goldsmith and citizen of London.[242]

[Footnote 241: Or "Parish Garden." See the note on page 121.]

[Footnote 242: The sale took the form of a lease for one thousand years.]

Langley had purchased the Manor as an investment, and was ready to make thereon such improvements as seemed to offer profitable returns. Burbage and Henslowe were reputed to be growing wealthy from their playhouses, and Langley was tempted to erect a similar building on his newly acquired property. Accordingly at some date before November, 1594, he secured a license to erect a theatre in Paris Garden. The license was promptly opposed by the Lord Mayor of London, who addressed to the Lord High Treasurer on November 3, 1594, the following letter:

I understand that one Francis Langley ... intendeth to erect a new stage or theatre (as they call it) for the exercising of plays upon the Bankside. And forasmuch as we find by daily experience the great inconvenience that groweth to this city and the government thereof by the said plays, I have emboldened myself to be an humble suitor to your good Lordship to be a means for us rather to suppress all such places built for that kind of exercise, than to erect any more of the same sort.[243]

[Footnote 243: The Malone Society's Collections, I, 74-76.]

The protest of the Lord Mayor, however, went unheeded, and Langley proceeded with the erection of his building. Presumably it was finished and ready for the actors in the earlier half of 1595.



The name given to the new playhouse was "The Swan." What caused Langley to adopt this name we do not know;[244] but we may suppose that it was suggested to him by the large number of swans which beautified the Thames. Foreigners on their first visit to London were usually very much impressed by the number and the beauty of these birds. Hentzner, in 1598, stated that the river "abounds in swans, swimming in flocks; the sight of them and their noise is vastly agreeable to the boats that meet them in their course"; and the Italian Francesco Ferretti observed that the "broad river of Thames" was "most charming, and quite full of swans white as the very snow."[245]

[Footnote 244: The swan was not uncommon as a sign, especially along the river; for example, it was the sign of one of the famous brothels on the Bankside, as Stow informs us.]

[Footnote 245: Quoted in Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners, p. 183.]

From a map of the Manor of Paris Garden carefully surveyed by order of the King in 1627[246] (see page 163), we learn the exact situation of the building. It was set twenty-six poles, or four hundred and twenty-six feet, from the bank of the river, in that corner of the estate nearest London Bridge. Most of the playgoers from London, however, came not over the Bridge, but by water, landing at the Paris Garden Stairs, or at the near-by Falcon Stairs, and then walking the short distance to the theatre.

[Footnote 246: Reproduced by Rendle, The Bankside, Southwark, and the Globe Playhouse.]



An excellent picture of the exterior of the Swan is furnished by Visscher's View of London, 1616, (see page 165). From this, as well as from the survey of 1627 just mentioned, we discover that the building was duodecahedral—at least on the outside, for the interior probably was circular. At the time of its erection it was, so we are told, "the largest and the most magnificent playhouse" in London. It contained three galleries surrounding an open pit, with a stage projecting into the pit; and probably it differed in no essential respect from the playhouses already built. In one point, however, it may have differed—although of this I cannot feel sure: it may have been provided with a stage that could be removed so as to allow the building to be used on occasions for animal-baiting. The De Witt drawing shows such a stage; and possibly Stow in his Survey (1598) gives evidence that the Swan was in early times employed for bear-baiting:

And to begin at the west bank as afore, thus it followeth. On this bank is the bear gardens, in number twain; to wit, the old bear garden [i.e., the one built in 1583?] and the new [i.e., the Swan?], places wherein be kept bears, bulls, and other beasts, to be baited at stakes for pleasure; also mastiffs to bait them in several kennels are there nourished.[247]

[Footnote 247: Stow's original manuscript (Harl. MSS., 544), quoted by Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry (1879), III, 96, note 3. The text of the edition of 1598 differs very slightly.]

Moreover, in 1613 Henslowe used the Swan as the model for the Hope, a building designed for both acting and animal-baiting. It should be noted, however, that in all documents the Swan is invariably referred to as a playhouse, and there is no evidence—beyond that cited above—to indicate that the building was ever employed for the baiting of bears and bulls.

In the summer of 1596 a Dutch traveler named Johannes de Witt, a priest of St. Mary's in Utrecht, visited London, and saw, as one of the most interesting sights of the city, a dramatic performance at the Swan. Later he communicated a description of the building to his friend Arend van Buchell,[248] who recorded the description in his commonplace-book, along with a crude and inexact drawing of the interior (see page 169), showing the stage, the three galleries, and the pit.[249] The description is headed: "Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis de Witt." After a brief notice of St. Paul's, and a briefer reference to Westminster Cathedral, the traveler begins to describe what obviously interested him far more. I give below a translation of that portion relating to the playhouses:

There are four amphitheatres in London [the Theatre, Curtain, Rose, and Swan] of notable beauty, which from their diverse signs bear diverse names. In each of them a different play is daily exhibited to the populace. The two more magnificent of these are situated to the southward beyond the Thames, and from the signs suspended before them are called the Rose and the Swan. The two others are outside the city towards the north on the highway which issues through the Episcopal Gate, called in the vernacular Bishopgate.[250] There is also a fifth [the Bear Garden], but of dissimilar structure, devoted to the baiting of beasts, where are maintained in separate cages and enclosures many bears and dogs of stupendous size, which are kept for fighting, furnishing thereby a most delightful spectacle to men. Of all the theatres,[251] however, the largest and the most magnificent is that one of which the sign is a swan, called in the vernacular the Swan Theatre;[252] for it accommodates in its seats three thousand persons, and is built of a mass of flint stones (of which there is a prodigious supply in Britain),[253] and supported by wooden columns painted in such excellent imitation of marble that it is able to deceive even the most cunning. Since its form resembles that of a Roman work, I have made a sketch of it above.

[Footnote 248: Apparently he allowed Van Buchell to transcribe the description and the rough pen-sketch from his notebook or traveler's diary.]

[Footnote 249: This interesting document was discovered by Dr. Karl T. Gaedertz, and published in full in Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen Buehne (Bremen, 1888).]

[Footnote 250: "Via qua itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgate nuncupatam."]

[Footnote 251: "Theatrorum."]

[Footnote 252: "Id cuius intersignium est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn)." Mr. Wallace proposes to emend the last clause to read: "te theatre off te cijn off te Swan," thus making "cijn" mean "sign"; but is not this Flemish, and does not "cijn" mean "Swan"?]

[Footnote 253: It is commonly thought that De Witt was wrong in stating that the Swan was built of flint stones. Possibly the plaster exterior deceived him; or possibly in his memory he confused this detail of the building with the exterior of the church of St. Mary Overies, which was indeed built of "a mass of flint stones." On the other hand, the long life of the building after it had ceased to be of use might indicate that it was built of stones.]

Exactly when the Swan was opened to the public, or what troupes of actors first made use of it, we do not know. The visit of Johannes de Witt, however, shows that the playhouse was occupied in 1596; and this fact is confirmed by a statement in the lawsuit of Shaw v. Langley.[254] We may reasonably suppose that not only in 1596, but also in 1595 the building was used by the players.

[Footnote 254: Discovered by Mr. Wallace and printed in Englische Studien (1911), XLIII, 340-95. These documents have done much to clear up the history of the Swan and the Rose in the year 1597.]



Our definite history of the Swan, however, begins with 1597. In February of that year eight distinguished actors, among whom were Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriel Spencer, William Bird, and Thomas Downton, "servants to the right honorable the Earl of Pembroke," entered into negotiations with Langley, or, as the legal document puts it, "fell into conference with the said Langley for and about the hireing and taking a playhouse of the said Langley, situate in the old Paris Garden, in the Parish of St. Saviours, in the County of Surrey, commonly called and known by the name of the sign of the Swan." The result of this conference was that the members of Pembroke's Company[255] became each severally bound for the sum of L100 to play at the Swan for one year, beginning on February 21, 1597.

[Footnote 255: I cannot agree with Mr. Wallace that Langley induced these players to desert Henslowe, secured for them the patronage of Pembroke, and thus was himself responsible for the organization of the Pembroke Company.]

This troupe contained some of the best actors in London; and Langley, in anticipation of a successful year, "disbursed and laid out for making of the said house ready, and providing of apparel fit and necessary for their playing, the sum of L300 and upwards." Since he was at very little cost in making the Swan ready, "for the said house was then lately afore used to have plays in it," most of this sum went for the purchase of "sundry sort of rich attire and apparel for them to play withall."

Everything seems to have gone well until near the end of July, when the company presented The Isle of Dogs, a satirical play written in part by the "young Juvenal" of the age, Thomas Nashe, and in part by certain "inferior players," chief of whom seems to have been Ben Jonson.[256] The play apparently attacked under a thin disguise some persons high in authority. The exact nature of the offense cannot now be determined, but Nashe himself informs us that "the troublesome stir which happened about it is a general rumour that hath filled all England,"[257] and the Queen herself seems to have been greatly angered. On July 28, 1597, the Privy Council sent a letter to the Justices of Middlesex and of Surrey informing them that Her Majesty "hath given direction that not only no plays shall be used within London or about the city or in any public place during this time of summer, but that also those playhouses that are erected and built only for such purposes shall be plucked down." Accordingly the Council ordered the Justices to see to it that "there be no more plays used in any public place within three miles of the city until Allhallows [i.e., November 1] next"; and, furthermore, to send for the owners of the various playhouses "and enjoin them by vertue 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."[258]

[Footnote 256: For an account of The Isle of Dogs see E.K. Chambers, Modern Language Review (1909), IV, 407, 511; R.B. McKerrow, The Works of Thomas Nashe, V, 29; and especially the important article by Mr. Wallace in Englische Studien already referred to.]

[Footnote 257: Nashes Lenten Stuffe (1599), ed. McKerrow, III, 153.]

[Footnote 258: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXVII, 313. Possibly the other public playhouses were suppressed along with the Swan in response to the petition presented to the Council on July 28, (i.e. on the same day) by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen requesting the "final suppressing of the said stage plays, as well at the Theatre, Curtain, and Bankside as in all other places in and about the city." See The Malone Society's Collections, I, 78.]

The Council, however, did not stop with this. It ordered the arrest of the authors of the play and also of the chief actors who took part in its performance. Nashe saved himself by precipitate flight, but his lodgings were searched and his private papers were turned over to the authorities. Robert Shaw and Gabriel Spencer, as leaders of the troupe, and Ben Jonson, as one of the "inferior players" who had a part in writing the play,[259] were thrown into prison. The rest of the company hurried into the country, their speed being indicated by the fact that we find them acting in Bristol before the end of July.

[Footnote 259: In a marginal gloss to Nashes Lenten Stuffe (1599), ed. McKerrow, III, 154, Nashe says: "I having begun but the induction and first act of it, the other four acts without my consent or the best guess of my drift or scope, by the players were supplied, which bred both their trouble and mine too."]

Some of these events are referred to in the following letter, addressed by the Privy Council "to Richard Topclyfe, Thomas Fowler, and Richard Skevington, esquires, Doctor Fletcher, and Mr. Wilbraham":

Upon information given us of a lewd play that was played in one of the playhouses on the Bankside, containing very seditious and slanderous matter, we caused some of the players [Robert Shaw, Gabriel Spencer, and Ben Jonson[260]] to be apprehended and committed to prison, whereof one of them [Ben Jonson] was not only an actor but a maker of part of the said play. Forasmuch as it is thought meet that the rest of the players or actors in that matter shall be apprehended to receive such punishment as their lewd and mutinous behaviour doth deserve, these shall be therefore to require you to examine those of the players that are committed (whose names are known to you, Mr. Topclyfe), what is become of the rest of their fellows that either had their parts in the devising of that seditious matter, or that were actors or players in the same, what copies they have given forth[261] of the said play, and to whom, and such other points as you shall think meet to be demanded of them, wherein you shall require them to deal truly, as they will look to receive any favour. We pray you also to peruse such papers as were found in Nashe his lodgings, which Ferrys, a messenger of the Chamber, shall deliver unto you, and to certify us the examinations you take.[262]

[Footnote 260: The identity of the three players is revealed in an order of the Privy Council dated October 8, 1597: "A warrant to the Keeper of the Marshalsea to release Gabriel Spencer and Robert Shaw, stage-players, out of prison, who were of late committed to his custody. The like warrant for the releasing of Benjamin Jonson." (Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXVIII, 33.)]

[Footnote 261: Such a copy was formerly preserved in a volume of miscellaneous manuscripts at Alnwick Castle, but has not come down to modern times. See F.J. Burgoyne, Northumberland Manuscripts (London, 1904).]

[Footnote 262: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXVII, 338.]

This unfortunate occurrence destroyed Langley's dream of a successful year. It also destroyed the splendid Pembroke organization, for several of its chief members, even before the inhibition was raised, joined the Admiral's Men. On August 6 Richard Jones went to Henslowe and bound himself to play for two years at the Rose, and at the same time he bound his friend Robert Shaw, who was still in prison; on August 10 William Bird came and made a similar agreement; on October 6 Thomas Downton did likewise. Their leader, Gabriel Spencer, also probably had an understanding with Henslowe, although he signed no bond; and upon his release from the Marshalsea he joined his friends at the Rose.[263]

[Footnote 263: Langley sued these actors on their bond to him of L100 to play only at the Swan; see the documents printed by Mr. Wallace. Ben Jonson also joined Henslowe's forces at the Rose, as did Anthony and Humphrey Jeffes, who were doubtless members of the Pembroke Company.]

In the meantime the Queen's anger was abating, and the trouble was blowing over. The order to pluck down all the public playhouses was not taken seriously by the officers of the law, and Henslowe actually secured permission to reopen the Rose on October 11. The inhibition itself expired on November 1, but the Swan was singled out for further punishment. The Privy Council ordered that henceforth license should be granted to two companies only: namely, the Admiral's at the Rose, and the Chamberlain's at the Curtain. This meant, of course, the closing of the Swan.

In spite of this order, however, the members of Pembroke's Company remaining after the chief actors had joined Henslowe, taking on recruits and organizing themselves into a company, began to act at the Swan without a license. For some time they continued unmolested, but at last the two licensed companies called the attention of the Privy Council to the fact, and on February 19, 1598, the Council issued the following order to the Master of the Revels and the Justices of both Middlesex and Surrey:

Whereas license hath been granted unto two companies of stage players retayned unto us, the Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain ... and whereas there is also a third company who of late (as we are informed) have by way of intrusion used likewise to play ... we have therefore thought good to require you upon receipt hereof to take order that the aforesaid third company may be suppressed, and none suffered hereafter to play but those two formerly named, belonging to us, the Lord Admiral and Lord Chamberlain.[264]

[Footnote 264: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXVIII, 327.]

Thus, after February 19, 1598, the Swan stood empty, so far as plays were concerned, and we hear very little of it during the next few years. Indeed, it never again assumed an important part in the history of the drama.

In the summer of 1598[265] it was used by Robert Wilson for a contest in extempore versification. Francis Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, writes: "And so is now our witty Wilson, who for learning and extemporall wit in this faculty is without compare or compeere, as, to his great and eternal commendations, he manifested in his challenge at the Swan on the Bankside."

[Footnote 265: After the order of February 19, when the "intruding company" was driven out, and before September 7 when Meres's Palladis Tamia was entered in the Stationers' Registers.]

On May 15, 1600, Peter Bromvill was licensed to use the Swan "to show his feats of activity at convenient times in that place without let or interruption."[266] The Privy Council in issuing the license observed that Bromvill "hath been recommended unto Her Majesty from her good brother the French King, and hath shewed some feats of great activity before Her Highness."

[Footnote 266: Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council, XXX, 327.]

On June 22, 1600, the Privy Council "with one and full consent" ordered "that there shall be about the city two houses, and no more, allowed to serve for the use of the common stage plays; of the which houses, one [the Globe] shall be in Surrey ... and the other [the Fortune] in Middlesex."[267] This order in effect merely confirmed the order of 1598 which limited the companies to two, the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's.

[Footnote 267: Ibid., 395.]

Early in 1601 Langley died; and in January, 1602, his widow, as administratrix, sold the Manor of Paris Garden, including the Swan Playhouse, to Hugh Browker, a prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas. The property remained in the possession of the Browker family until 1655.[268]

[Footnote 268: For this and other details as to the subsequent history of the property see Wallace, Englische Studien, XLIII, 342; Rendle, The Antiquarian Magazine, VII, 207; and cf. the map on page 163.]

On November 6, 1602, the building was the scene of the famous hoax known as England's Joy, perpetrated upon the patriotic citizens of London by one Richard Vennar.[269] Vennar scattered hand-bills over the city announcing that at the Swan Playhouse, on Saturday, November 6, a company of "gentlemen and gentlewomen of account" would present with unusual magnificence a play entitled England's Joy, celebrating Queen Elizabeth. It was proposed to show the coronation of Elizabeth, the victory of the Armada, and various other events in the life of "England's Joy," with the following conclusion: "And so with music, both with voice and instruments, she is taken up into heaven; when presently appears a throne of blessed souls; and beneath, under the stage, set forth with strange fire-works, diverse black and damned souls, wonderfully described in their several torments."[270] The price of admission to the performance was to be "two shillings, or eighteen pence at least." In spite of this unusually high price, an enormous audience, including a "great store of good company and many noblemen," passed into the building. Whereupon Vennar seized the money paid for admission, and showed his victims "a fair pair of heels." The members of the audience, when they found themselves thus duped, "revenged themselves upon the hangings, curtains, chairs, stools, walls, and whatsoever came in their way, very outrageously, and made great spoil."[271]

[Footnote 269: Many writers, including Mr. Wallace, have confused this Richard Vennar with William Fennor, who later challenged Kendall to a contest of wit at the Fortune. For a correct account, see T.S. Graves, "Tricks of Elizabethan Showmen" (in The South Atlantic Quarterly, April, 1915, XIV) and "A Note on the Swan Theatre" (in Modern Philology, January, 1912, IX, 431).]

[Footnote 270: From the broadside printed in The Harleian Miscellany, X, 198. For a photographic facsimile, see Lawrence, The Elizabethan Playhouse (Second Series), p. 68.]

[Footnote 271: Letters Written by John Chamberlain, Camden Society (1861), p. 163; The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1601-1603, p. 264. See also Manningham's Diary, pp. 82, 93.]

On February 8, 1603, John Manningham recorded in his Diary: "Turner and Dun, two famous fencers, playd their prizes this day at the Bankside, but Turner at last run Dun so far in the brain at the eye, that he fell down presently stone dead; a goodly sport in a Christian state, to see one man kill another!" The place where the contest was held is not specifically mentioned, but in all probability it was the Swan.[272]

[Footnote 272: This seems to be the source of the statement by Mr. Wallace (Englische Studien, XLIII, 388), quoting Rendle (The Antiquarian Magazine, VII, 210): "In 1604, a man named Turner, in a contest for a prize at the Swan, was killed by a thrust in the eye." Rendle cites no authority for his statement.]

For the next eight years all is silence, but we may suppose that the building was occasionally let for special entertainments such as those just enumerated.

In 1611 Henslowe undertook to manage the Lady Elizabeth's Men, promising among other things to furnish them with a suitable playhouse. Having disposed of the Rose in 1605, he rented the Swan and established his company there. In 1613, however, he built the Hope, and transferred the Lady Elizabeth's Men thither.

The Swan seems thereafter to have been occupied for a time by Prince Charles's Men. But the history of this company and its intimate connection with the Lady Elizabeth's Company is too vague to admit of definite conclusions. So far as we can judge, the Prince's Men continued at the Swan until 1615, when Henslowe transferred them to the Hope.[273]

[Footnote 273: These dates are in a measure verified by the records of the Overseers of the Poor for the Liberty of Paris Garden, printed by Mr. Wallace (Englische Studien, XLIII, 390, note 1). Mr. Wallace seems to labor under the impression that this chapter in the history of the Swan (1611-1615) was unknown before, but it was adequately treated by Fleay and later by Mr. Greg.]

After 1615 the Swan was deserted for five years so far as any records show. But in 1621 the old playhouse seems to have been again used by the actors. The Overseers of the Poor in the Liberty of Paris Garden record in their Account Book: "Monday, April the 9th, 1621, received of the players L5 3s. 6d."[274] From this it is evident that in the spring of 1621 some company of players, the name of which has not yet been discovered, was occupying the Swan. Apparently, however, the company did not remain there long, for the Account Book records no payment the following year; nor, although it extends to the year 1671, does it again record any payments from actors at the Swan. There is, indeed, no evidence to connect the playhouse with dramatic performances after 1621.[275] In the map of 1627 it is represented as still standing, but is labeled "the old playhouse," and is not even named.

[Footnote 274: Wallace, op. cit., p. 390, note 1.]

[Footnote 275: Rendle quotes a license of 1623 for "T.B. and three assistants to make shows of Italian motions at the Princes Arms or the Swan." (The Antiquarian Magazine, 1885, VII, 211.) But this may be a reference to an inn rather than to the large playhouse.]

Five years later it is referred to in Nicolas Goodman's Holland's Leaguer (1632), a pamphlet celebrating one of the most notorious houses of ill fame on the Bankside.[276] Dona Britannica Hollandia, the proprietress of this house, is represented as having been much pleased with its situation:

Especially, and above all the rest, she was most taken with the report of three famous amphitheatres, which stood so near situated that her eye might take view of them from the lowest turret. One was the Continent of the World [i.e., the Globe], because half the year a world of beauties and brave spirits resorted unto it; the other was a building of excellent Hope, and though wild beasts and gladiators did most possess it, yet the gallants that came to behold those combats, though they were of a mixt society, yet were many noble worthies amongst them; the last which stood, and, as it were, shak'd hands with this fortress, being in times past as famous as any of the other, was now fallen to decay, and like a dying Swanne, hanging down her head, seemed to sing her own dirge.

[Footnote 276: What seems to be a picture of this famous house may be seen in Merian's View of London, 1638 (see opposite page 256), with a turret, and standing just to the right of the Swan.]

This is the last that we hear of the playhouse, that was "in times past as famous as any of the other." What finally became of the building we do not know. It is not shown in Hollar's View of London, in 1647, and probably it had ceased to exist before the outbreak of the Civil War.



CHAPTER XI

THE SECOND BLACKFRIARS

In 1596 Burbage's lease of the plot of ground on which he had erected the Theatre was drawing to a close, and all his efforts at a renewal had failed. The owner of the land, Gyles Alleyn, having, in spite of the terms of the original contract, refused to extend the lease until 1606, was craftily plotting for a substantial increase in the rental; moreover, having become puritanical in his attitude towards the drama, he was insisting that if the lease were renewed, the Theatre should be used as a playhouse for five years only, and then should either be torn down, or be converted into tenements. Burbage tentatively agreed to pay the increased rental, but, of course, he could not possibly agree to the second demand; and when all negotiations on this point proved futile, he realized that he must do something at once to meet the awkward situation.

In the twenty years that had elapsed since the erection of the Theatre and the Curtain in Holywell, the Bankside had been developed as a theatrical district, and the Rose and the Swan, not to mention the Bear Garden, had made the south side of the river the popular place for entertainments. Naturally, therefore, any one contemplating the erection of a playhouse would immediately think of this locality. Burbage, however, was a man of ideas. He believed that he could improve on the Bankside as a site for his theatre. He remembered how, at the outset of his career as a theatrical manager, he had had to face competition with Richard Farrant who had opened a small "private" playhouse in Blackfriars. Although that building had not been used as a "public" playhouse, and had been closed up after a few years of sore tribulation, it had revealed to Burbage the possibilities of the Blackfriars precinct for theatrical purposes. In the first place, the precinct was not under the jurisdiction of the city, so that actors would not there be subject to the interference of the Lord Mayor and his Aldermen. As Stevens writes in his History of Ancient Abbeys, Monasteries, etc.: "All the inhabitants within it were subject to none but the King ... neither the Mayor, nor the sheriffs, nor any other officers of the City of London had the least jurisdiction or authority therein." Blackfriars, therefore, in this fundamental respect, was just as desirable a location for theatres as was Holywell to the north of the city, or the Bankside to the south. In the second place, Blackfriars had a decided advantage over those two suburban localities in that it was "scituated in the bosome of the Cittie,"[277] near St. Paul's Cathedral, the centre of London life, and hence was readily accessible to playgoers, even during the disagreeable winter season. In the third place, the locality was distinctly fashionable. To give some notion of the character of its inhabitants, I record below the names of a few of those who lived in or near the conventual buildings at various times after the dissolution: George Brooke, Lord Cobham; William Brooke, Lord Cobham, Lord Chamberlain of the Queen's Household; Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; Sir Thomas Cheney, Treasurer of the Queen's Household, and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, Lord Chamberlain of the Queen's Household; George Carey, Lord Hunsdon, who as Lord Chamberlain was the patron of Shakespeare's troupe; Sir Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels; Sir Henry Jerningham, Fee Chamberlain to the Queen's Highness; Sir Willam More, Chamberlain of the Exchequer; Lord Zanche; Sir John Portynary; Sir William Kingston; Sir Francis Bryan; Sir John Cheeke; Sir George Harper; Sir Philip Hoby, Lady Anne Gray; Sir Robert Kyrkham; Lady Perrin; Sir Christopher More; Sir Henry Neville; Sir Thomas Saunders; Sir Jerome Bowes; and Lady Jane Guildford.[278] Obviously the locality was free from the odium which the public always associated with Shoreditch and the Bankside, the recognized homes of the London stews.[279]

[Footnote 277: The Petition of 1619, in The Malone Society's Collections, I, 93.]

[Footnote 278: It is true that poor people also, feather-dealers and such-like, lived in certain parts of Blackfriars, but this, of course, did not affect the reputation of the precinct as the residence of noblemen.]

[Footnote 279: In Samuel Rowlands's Humors Looking Glass (1608), a rich country gull is represented as filling his pockets with money and coming to London. Here a servant "of the Newgate variety" shows him the sights of the city:

Brought him to the Bankside where bears do dwell, And unto Shoreditch where the whores keep hell.]

Thus, a playhouse erected in the precinct of Blackfriars would escape all the grave disadvantages of situation which attached to the existing playhouses in the suburbs, and, on the other hand, would gain several very important advantages.

Burbage's originality, however, did not stop with the choice of Blackfriars as the site of his new theatre; he determined to improve on the form of building as well. The open-air structure which he had designed in 1576, and which had since been copied in all public theatres, had serious disadvantages in that it offered no protection from the weather. Burbage now resolved to provide a large "public" playhouse, fully roofed in, with the entire audience and the actors protected against the inclemency of the sky and the cold of winter. In short, his dream was of a theatre centrally located, comfortably heated, and, for its age, luxuriously appointed.

With characteristic energy and courage he at once set about the task of realizing this dream. He found in the Blackfriars precinct a large building which, he thought, would admirably serve his purpose. This building was none other than the old Frater of the Monastery, a structure one hundred and ten feet long and fifty-two feet wide, with stone walls three feet thick, and a flat roof covered with lead. From the Loseley documents, which M. Feuillerat has placed at the disposal of scholars,[280] we are now able to reconstruct the old Frater building, and to point out exactly that portion which was made into a playhouse.[281]

[Footnote 280: Blackfriars Records, in The Malone Society's Collections, (1913).]

[Footnote 281: For a reconstruction of the Priory buildings and grounds, and for specific evidence of statements made in the following paragraphs, the reader is referred to J.Q. Adams, The Conventual Buildings of Blackfriars, London, in the University of North Carolina Studies in Philology, XIV, 64.]

At the time of the dissolution, the top story consisted of a single large room known as the "Upper Frater," and also as the "Parliament Chamber" from the fact that the English Parliament met here on several occasions; here, also, was held the trial before Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey for the divorce of the unhappy Queen Catherine and Henry VIII—a scene destined to be reenacted in the same building by Shakespeare and his fellows many years later. In 1550 the room was granted, with various other properties in Blackfriars, to Sir Thomas Cawarden.[282]

[Footnote 282: Feuillerat, Blackfriars Records, pp. 7, 12.]



The space below the Parliament Chamber was divided into three units. At the northern end was a "Hall" extending the width of the building. It is mentioned in the Survey[283] of 1548 as "a Hall ... under the said Frater"; and again in the side-note: "Memorandum, my Lorde Warden claimeth the said Hall." Just to the south of the Hall was a "Parlor," or dining-chamber, "where commonly the friars did use to break their fast." It is described in the Survey as being "under the said Frater, of the same length and breadth." The room could not have been of the "same length and breadth" as the great Parliament Chamber, for not only would such dimensions be absurd for an informal dining-room, but, as we are clearly told, the "Infirmary" was also under the Parliament Chamber, and was approximately one-third the size of the latter.[284] Accordingly I have interpreted the phrase, "of the same length and breadth," to mean that the Parlor was square. When the room was sold to Burbage it was said to be fifty-two feet in length from north to south, which is exactly the breadth of the building from east to west. The Parlor, as well as the Hall, was claimed by the Lord Warden; and both were granted to Sir Thomas Cawarden in 1550.

[Footnote 283: Feuillerat, Blackfriars Records, p. 7.]

[Footnote 284: Feuillerat, Blackfriars Records, pp. 105-06.]

South of the Parlor was the Infirmary, described as being "at the western corner of the Inner Cloister" (of which the Frater building constituted the western side), as being under the Parliament Chamber, and as being approximately one-third the size of the Parliament Chamber. The Infirmary seems to have been structurally distinct from the Hall and Parlor.[285] It was three stories high, consisting of a "room beneath the Fermary," the Infirmary itself, a "room above the same";[286] while the Parliament Chamber, extending itself "over the room above the Fermary," constituted a fourth story. Furthermore, not only was the Infirmary a structural unit distinct from the Hall and the Parlor at the north, but it never belonged to Cawarden or More, and hence was not included in the sale to Burbage. It was granted in 1545 to Lady Mary Kingston,[287] from whom it passed to her son, Sir Henry Jerningham, then to Anthony Kempe, who later sold it to Lord Hunsdon;[288] and at the time the playhouse was built, the Infirmary was still in the occupation of Hunsdon.

[Footnote 285: In all probability it was separated from the Hall and Parlor by a passage leading through the Infirmary into the Inner Cloister yard.]

[Footnote 286: One reason for the greater height may have been the slope of the ground towards the river; a second reason was the unusual height of the Parlor.]

[Footnote 287: Feuillerat, Blackfriars Records, p. 105.]

[Footnote 288: Ibid., p. 124.]

At the northern end of the Frater building, and extending westward, was a narrow structure fifty feet in length, sixteen feet in breadth, and three stories in height, regarded as a "part of the frater parcel." The middle story, which was on the same level with the Parliament Chamber, was known as the "Duchy Chamber," possibly because of its use in connection with the sittings of Parliament, or with the meetings of the Privy Council there. The building was granted to Cawarden in 1550.[289]

[Footnote 289: Feuillerat, Blackfriars Records, p. 8.]

Upon the death of Cawarden all his Blackfriars holdings passed into the possession of Sir William More. From More, in 1596, James Burbage purchased those sections of the Frater building which had originally been granted to Cawarden[290]—that is, all the Frater building except the Infirmary—for the sum of L600, in modern valuation about $25,000.[291] Evidently he had profited by Farrant's experience with More and by his own experience with Gyles Alleyn, and had determined to risk no more leases, but in the future to be his own landlord, cost what it might.

[Footnote 290: For the deed of sale see ibid., p. 60.]

[Footnote 291: It should be observed, however, that Burbage paid only L100 down, and that he immediately mortgaged the property for more than L200. The playhouse was not free from debt until 1605. See Wallace, The First London Theatre, p. 23.]

The properties which he thus secured were:

(1) The Parliament Chamber, extending over the Hall, Parlor, and Infirmary. This great chamber, it will be recalled, had previously been divided by Cawarden into the Frith and Cheeke Lodgings;[292] but now it was arranged as a single tenement of seven rooms, and was occupied by the eminent physician William de Lawne:[293] "All those seven great upper rooms as they are now divided, being all upon one floor, and sometime being one great and entire room, with the roof over the same, covered with lead." Up into this tenement led a special pair of stairs which made it wholly independent of the rest of the building.

[Footnote 292: The northern section of the Cheeke Lodging (a portion of the old Buttery) which had constituted Farrant's private theatre, and which was no real part of the Frater building, had been converted by More into the Pipe Office.]

[Footnote 293: A prosperous physician. His son was one of the illustrious founders of the Society of Apothecaries, and one of its chief benefactors. His portrait may be seen to-day in Apothecaries' Hall. See C.R.B. Barrett, The History of the Society of Apothecaries of London.]

(2) The friar's "Parlor," now made into a tenement occupied by Thomas Bruskett, and called "the Middle Rooms, or Middle Stories"—possibly from the fact that it was the middle of three tenements, possibly from the fact that having two cellars under its northern end it was the middle of three stories. It is described as being fifty-two feet in length north and south, and thirty-seven feet in width. Why a strip of nine feet should have been detached on the eastern side is not clear; but that this strip was also included in the sale to Burbage is shown by later documents.

(3) The ancient "Hall" adjoining the "Parlor" on the north, and now made into two rooms. These rooms were combined with the ground floor of the Duchy Chamber building to constitute a tenement occupied by Peter Johnson: "All those two lower rooms now in the occupation of the said Peter Johnson, lying directly under part of the said seven great upper rooms." The dimensions are not given, but doubtless the two rooms together extended the entire width of the building and were approximately as broad as the Duchy Chamber building, with which they were united.

(4) The Duchy Chamber building "at the north end of the said seven great upper rooms, and at the west side thereof." At the time of the sale the ground floor of this building was occupied by Peter Johnson, who had also the Hall adjoining it on the west; the middle story was occupied by Charles Bradshaw; and the top story by Edward Merry.[294]

[Footnote 294: Mr. Wallace's description of the building and the way in which it was converted into a playhouse (The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, pp. 37-41) is incorrect. For the various details cited above see the deed of sale to Burbage.]

Out of this heterogeneous property Burbage was confronted with the problem of making a playhouse. Apparently he regarded the Parliament Chamber as too low, or too inaccessible for the purposes of a theatre; this part of his property, therefore, he kept as a lodging, and for many years it served as a dormitory for the child-actors. The Duchy Chamber building, being small and detached from the Frater building, he reserved also as a lodging.[295] In the Hall and the Parlor, however, he saw the possibility of a satisfactory auditorium. Let us therefore examine this section of the Frater building more in detail, and trace its history up to the time of the purchase.

[Footnote 295: This may have contained the two rooms in which Evans lived, and "the schoolhouse and the chamber over the same," which are described (see the documents in Fleay's A Chronicle History of the London Stage, p. 210 ff.) as being "severed from the said great hall." In another document this schoolhouse is described as "schola, anglice schoolhouse, ad borealem finem Aulae praedictae." (Wallace, The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars, p. 40.)]