Shakespearean Playhouses Part 13

[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 friends.h.i.+p between Henslowe and Edward Alleyn, then twenty-six years of age, and at the height of his fame as an actor, a friends.h.i.+p 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 partners.h.i.+p 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 pet.i.tioned 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 b.u.t.ts. 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 pet.i.tioned 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 pa.s.sage to and from the same by water, is a great relief to the poor watermen there."[222] The pet.i.tion was accompanied by a supporting pet.i.tion from the watermen asking the Council "for G.o.d's sake and in the way of charity to respect us your poor watermen." As a result of these pet.i.tions 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 Suss.e.x'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 Suss.e.x's Men was notable only for the first performance of _t.i.tus Andronicus_.[224]

[Footnote 224: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 16.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: JOAN WOODWARD ALLEYN

The stepdaughter and only child of Philip Henslowe, whose marriage to the great actor Edward Alleyn led to the Henslowe-Alleyn theatrical enterprises. The portrait is here reproduced for the first time. (From the Dulwich Picture Gallery, by permission.)]

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 Suss.e.x'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 b.u.t.ts, 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 Sh.o.r.editch.

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 furbis.h.i.+ng up the building. The total cost of this work was 108 10_s._ And shortly after, as a part of these improvements, no doubt, he paid 7 2_s._ 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 G.o.d, 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 surpa.s.s 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 Middles.e.x.

[Footnote 231: Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, x.x.x, 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 a.s.signed 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 G.o.d, 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 compet.i.tion 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 7 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 a.s.sert 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