Shakespearean Playhouses Part 26

[Footnote 469: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, I, 114.]

[Footnote 470: The College appealed to the Lord Keeper, who on January 26 ordered the payment of the sum. But two years later, February, 1640, we find the College again pet.i.tioning the Lord Keeper to order the lessees of the Fortune property to pay an arrearage of 104 14_s._ 5_d._ See Collier, _The Alleyn Papers_, pp. 95-98.]

This "restraint" was removed on October 2, 1637, and the players resumed their performances at the Fortune. But in the early summer of 1639 they fell victims to another bit of ill luck even more serious than their long inhibition. In a letter of Edmond Rossingham, dated May 8, 1639, we read: "Thursday last the players of the Fortune were fined 1000 for setting up an altar, a bason, and two candlesticks, and bowing down before it upon the stage; and although they allege it was an old play revived, and an altar to the heathen G.o.ds, yet it was apparent that this play was revived on purpose in contempt of the ceremonies of the Church."[471]

[Footnote 471: Printed in _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1639_, p. 140.]

During the Easter period, 1640, the players returned to their old quarters at the Red Bull. After their unhappy experiences at the Fortune they were apparently glad to occupy again their former home.

The event is celebrated in a Prologue ent.i.tled _Upon the Removing of the Late Fortune Players to the Bull_, written by John Tatham, and printed in _Fancies Theatre_ (1640):[472]

Here, gentlemen, our anchor's fixt; and we Disdaining _Fortune's_ mutability, Expect your kind acceptance.

[Footnote 472: The Prologue is printed in full by Malone, _Variorum_, III, 79.]

The writer then hurls some uncomplimentary remarks at the Fortune, observing complacently: "We have ne'er an actor here has mouth enough to tear language by the ears." It is true that during these later years the Fortune had fallen into ill repute with persons of good taste. But so had the Red Bull, and the actors there had no right to throw stones. Apparently the large numbers that could be accommodated in the great public theatres, and the quality of the audience attracted by the low price of admission, made noise and rant inevitable.[473] As chief sinners in this respect the Fortune and the Red Bull are usually mentioned together.

[Footnote 473: Not even the Globe was entirely free from this; see the Prologue to _The Doubtful Heir_.]

Upon the departure of the Red Bull Company, the Prince Charles's Men (originally the Admiral's, and later the Palsgrave's Men), who had been occupying the Red Bull, came to the Fortune.[474] Thus after an absence of nearly nine years, the old company (though sadly altered in personnel), for which the Fortune had been built, returned to its home to remain there until the end.

[Footnote 474: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 79.]

On September 2, 1642, the Long Parliament pa.s.sed an ordinance suppressing all stage-plays; but for a time the actors at the Fortune seem to have continued their performances. In the fifth number of _The Weekly Account_, September 27-October 4, 1643, we find among other entries: "The players' misfortune at the Fortune in Golding Lane, their players' clothes being seized upon in the time of a play by authority from the Parliament."[475] This, doubtless, led to the closing of the playhouse.

[Footnote 475: _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1643_, p.

564.]

After the Fortune was thus closed, the lessees were in a predicament.

By a specific clause in their lease they were prevented from using the building for any purpose other than the acting of stage-plays, and now Parliament by a specific ordinance had forbidden the acting of stage-plays. Hence the lessees, some of whom were poor persons, being unable to make any profit from the building, refused to pay any rent.

The College entered suit against them, and exhausted all legal means to make them pay, but without success.[476]

[Footnote 476: For an interesting comment on the situation, especially in the year 1649, see _Notes and Queries_ (series X), I, 85.]

When the ordinance prohibiting plays expired in January, 1648, the actors promptly reopened the Fortune, and we learn from _The Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer_ that on January 27 no fewer than one hundred and twenty coaches were crowded about the building. But on February 9 Parliament pa.s.sed a new and even more stringent ordinance against dramatic performances, placing penalties not only upon the players, but also upon the spectators. This for ever put an end to acting at the Fortune.

In 1649 the arrears of the lessees having reached the sum of 974 5_s._ 8_d._, the authorities of the College took formal possession of the playhouse.

From certain ma.n.u.script notes[477] entered in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_ (1631), we learn that "a company of soldiers, set on by the sectaries of these sad times, on Sat.u.r.day, the 24 day of March, 1649," sacked the Salisbury Court Playhouse, the Phoenix, and the Fortune. The note states that the Fortune was "pulled down on the inside by the soldiers"; that is, the stage and the seats were dismantled[478] so as to render the building unusable for dramatic purposes.

[Footnote 477: Printed in _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314.]

[Footnote 478: See _The Journals of the House of Commons_, July 26, 1648.]

In the following year, 1650, the inhabitants of the Parish of St.

Giles "represent that they are poor, and unable to build a place of wors.h.i.+p for themselves, but think it would be convenient if that large building commonly known by the name of the Fortune Playhouse might be allotted and set apart for that purpose." The request was not granted.[479]

[Footnote 479: Warner, _Catalogue_, x.x.xI; Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, II, 65.]

By July, 1656, the condition of the old playhouse was such that the Masters and Wardens of the College appointed two experts to view the building and make recommendations. They reported "that by reason the lead hath been taken from the said building, the tiling not secured, and the foundation of the said playhouse not kept in good repair, great part of the said playhouse is fallen to the ground, the timber thereof much decayed and rotten, and the brick walls so rent and torn that the whole structure is in no condition capable of repair, but in great danger of falling, to the hazard of pa.s.sengers' lives"; and they add: "The charge for demolis.h.i.+ng the same will be chargeable and dangerous. Upon these considerations our opinion is that the said materials may not be more worth than eighty pound."[480]

[Footnote 480: The entire report is printed in Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 95.]

The authorities of Dulwich took no action on this report. However, on March 5, 1660, they ordered that the property be leased, making a casual reference to the playhouse as "at present so ruinous that part thereof is already fallen down, and the rest will suddenly follow."

Accordingly, they inserted in the _Mercurius Politicus_ of February 14-21, 1661, the following advertis.e.m.e.nt: "The Fortune Playhouse, situate between Whitecross Street and Golding Lane, in the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, with the ground thereto belonging, is to be let to be built upon."[481]

[Footnote 481: Discovered by Stevens, and printed in Malone, _Variorum_, III, 55, note 5. Mr. W.J. Lawrence, _Archiv fur das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen_ (1914), p. 314, says that the date of this advertis.e.m.e.nt is 1660. But the same advertis.e.m.e.nt is reprinted by H.R. Plomer in _Notes and Queries_ (series X), VI, 107, from _The Kingdom's Intelligencer_ of March 18, 1661.]

No one seems to have cared to lease the property; so on March 16, following, the materials of the building were sold to one William Beaven for the sum of 75;[482] and in the records of the College, March 4, 1662, we read that "the said playhouse ... is since totally demolished."[483]

[Footnote 482: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, II, 265.]

[Footnote 483: Collier, _The Alleyn Papers_, p. 101. I am aware of the fact that there are references to later incidents at the Fortune (for example, the statement that it was visited by officers in November, 1682, in an attempt to suppress secret conventicles that had long been held there), but in view of the unimpeachable doc.u.mentary evidence cited above (in 1662 the College authorities again refer to it as "the late ruinous and now demolished Fortune playhouse"), we must regard these later references either as inaccurate, or as referring to another building later erected in the same neighborhood. The so-called picture of the Fortune, printed in Wilkinson's _Londina Ill.u.s.trata_, and often reproduced by modern scholars, cannot possibly be that of the playhouse erected by Alleyn. For an interesting surmise as to the history of this later building see W.J. Lawrence, _Restoration Stage Nurseries_, in _Archiv fur das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen_ (1914), p. 301.]

CHAPTER XIV

THE RED BULL

The builder of the Red Bull Playhouse[484] was "one Aaron Holland, yeoman," of whom we know little more than that he "was utterly unlearned and illiterate, not being able to read."[485] He had leased "for many years" from Anne Beddingfield, "wife and administratrix of the goods and chattles of Christopher Beddingfield, deceased," a small plot of land, known by the name of "The Red Bull." This plot of land, which contained one house, was situated "at the upper end of St.

John's Street" in the Parish of St. James, Clerkenwell, the exact location being marked by "Red Bull Yard" in Ogilby and Morgan's _Map of London_, printed in 1677. The property was not much more distant from the heart of the city than the Fortune property, and since it could be easily reached through St. John's Gate, it was quite as well situated for dramatic purposes as was the Fortune.

[Footnote 484: This playhouse is not to be confused with the famous Bull Tavern in Bishopsgate Street, for many years used as a theatre.]

[Footnote 485: These statements are based upon the Woodford _v._ Holland doc.u.ments, first discovered by Collier, later by Greenstreet, and finally printed in full by Wallace, _Three London Theatres_.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE SITE OF THE RED BULL PLAYHOUSE

The site is indicated by Red Bull Yard. (From Ogilby and Morgan's _Map of London_, 1677.)]

In or before 1605[486] Holland erected on this plot of ground "a playhouse for acting and setting forth plays, comedies, and tragedies." We may suspect that he did this at the instigation of the Earl of Worcester's Men, who had just been taken under the patronage of the Queen, and had been selected by the Privy Council as one of three companies to be "allowed." The warrant of the Privy Council, April 9, 1604, orders the Lord Mayor to "permit and suffer the three companies of players to the King, Queen, and Prince publickly to exercise their plays in their several and usual houses for that purpose, and no other, viz. the Globe, situate in Maiden Lane on the Bankside in the county of Surrey, the Fortune in Golding Lane, and the Curtain, in Holywell."[487] Among these three companies, as Dekker tells us, there was much rivalry.[488] No doubt the Queen's Men, forced to occupy the old Curtain Playhouse, suffered by comparison with the King's Men at the handsome Globe, and the Prince's Men at the new and magnificent Fortune; and this, I suspect, furnished the immediate cause for the erection of the Red Bull. In a draft of a license to the Queen's Men, made late in 1603 or early in 1604, the fact is disclosed that the actors, of whom Thomas Greene was the leader, were contemplating a new playhouse. The company was licensed to use any "playhouse not used by others, by the said Thomas Greene elected, _or by him hereafter to be built_."[489] Whether or no Greene and his fellows had some understanding with Holland, we cannot say.

But in 1605 we find Holland disposing of one share in the new playhouse to Thomas Swynnerton, a member of Queen Anne's Troupe; and he may at the same time have disposed of other shares to other members, for his transaction with Swynnerton comes to our notice only through a subsequent lawsuit. The words used in the doc.u.ments connected with the suit clearly suggest that the playhouse was completed at the time of the purchase. From the fact that Holland granted "a seventh part of the said playhouse and galleries, with a gatherer's place thereto belonging or appertaining, unto the said Thomas Swynnerton for diverse years,"[490] it appears that the owners.h.i.+p of the playhouse had been divided into seven shares, some of which, according to custom, may have been subdivided into half-shares.

[Footnote 486: Sir Sidney Lee (_A Life of William Shakespeare_, p. 60) says that the Red Bull was "built about 1600." He gives no evidence, and the statement seems to be merely a repet.i.tion from earlier and unauthoritative writers.]

[Footnote 487: The original warrant is preserved at Dulwich, and printed by Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 61. Cf. also Dasent, _Acts of the Privy Council_, x.x.xII, 511.]

[Footnote 488: _Raven's Almanack_ (1609); Dekker's _Works_ (ed.

Grosart), IV, 210.]

[Footnote 489: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 265.]

[Footnote 490: Wallace, _Three London Theatres_, p. 18.]

The name of the playhouse, as in the case of the Rose and the Curtain, was taken from the name of the estate on which it was erected. Of the building we have no pictorial representation; the picture in Kirkman's _The Wits_ (1672), so often reproduced by scholars as "The Interior of the Red Bull," has nothing whatever to do with that building. The Kirkman picture shows a small enclosed room, with a narrow stage illuminated by chandeliers and footlights; the Red Bull, on the contrary, was a large, open-air building, with its stage illuminated by the sun. It is thus described in Wright's _Historia Histrionica_ (1699): "The Globe, Fortune, and Bull were large houses, and lay partly open to the weather."[491] Before its door was displayed a sign on which was painted a red bull; hence the playhouse is sometimes referred to simply as "at the sign of the Red Bull."