Shakespearean Playhouses Part 15

[Footnote 260: The ident.i.ty 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 ma.n.u.scripts at Alnwick Castle, but has not come down to modern times. See F.J. Burgoyne, _Northumberland Ma.n.u.scripts_ (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 100 to play only at the Swan; see the doc.u.ments 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 Middles.e.x 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 a.s.sumed 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_, x.x.x, 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 Middles.e.x."[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 Sat.u.r.day, November 6, a company of "gentlemen and gentlewomen of account" would present with unusual magnificence a play ent.i.tled _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 d.a.m.ned souls, wonderfully described in their several torments."[270] The price of admission to the performance was to be "two s.h.i.+llings, or eighteen pence at least." In spite of this unusually high price, an enormous audience, including a "great store of good company and many n.o.blemen," pa.s.sed 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 5 3_s._ 6_d._"[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 a.s.sistants 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 n.o.ble 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 att.i.tude 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 compet.i.tion 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 fas.h.i.+onable. 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 a.s.sociated with Sh.o.r.editch and the Bankside, the recognized homes of the London stews.[279]

[Footnote 277: The Pet.i.tion 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 n.o.blemen.]

[Footnote 279: In Samuel Rowlands's _Humors Looking Gla.s.s_ (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 Sh.o.r.editch where the wh.o.r.es keep h.e.l.l.]

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.