Chapter 26

[509]Hazlitt's Dodsley,xv, 409.

[510]Ibid., 409-10.

[511]Cited by C.H. Firth, inNotes and Queries, August 18, 1888, seriesvii, vol.vi, p. 122.

[512]Ibid.

[513]Hazlitt,The English Drama and Stage, p. 69.

[514]The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1655, p. 336.

[515]For a further account of this episode seeMercurius Fumigosus, No. 69.

[516]Cf. Wright,Historia Histrionica, p. 412; and for the general history of the actors at the Red Bull during this period see the Herbert records in Halliwell-Phillipps,A Collection of Ancient Documents.

[517]After November 8, 1660, they acted also in Gibbon's Tennis Court in Clare Market, which they had fitted up as a theatre; see Halliwell-Phillipps,A Collection of Ancient Documents, p. 34.

[518]See Pepys'Diary, April 25, 1664.

[519]Whitefriars passed under city control in 1608 by grant of King James I, but certain rights remained, notably that of sanctuary. This has been celebrated in Shadwell's play,The Squire of Alsatia, and in Scott's romance,The Fortunes of Nigel.

[520]Prynne, inHistriomastix(1633), p. 491, quotes a passage from Richard Reulidge'sMonster Lately Found Out and Discovered(1628), in which there is a reference to a playhouse as existing in Whitefriars "not long after" 1580. By "playhouse" Reulidge possibly meant an inn used for acting; but the whole passage, written by a Puritan after the lapse of nearly half a century, is open to grave suspicion, especially in its details. Again Richard Flecknoe, inA Short Discourse of the English Stage(1664), states that the Children of the Chapel Royal acted in Whitefriars. But that he confused the word "Whitefriars" with "Blackfriars" is shown by the rest of his statement.

[521]Fleay, Murray, and others are wrong in assuming that this troupe was merely a continuation of the Paul's Boys. So far as I can discover, there is no official record of the patent issued to Drayton; but that such a patent was issued is clear from the lawsuits of 1609, printed by Greenstreet inThe New Shakspere Society's Transactions(1887-90), p. 269.

[522]He was part proprietor of the Red Bull. In the case of Witterv.Heminges and Condell he was examined as a witness (see Wallace,Shakespeare and his London Associates, p. 74), but what connection, if any, he had with the Globe does not appear.

[523]Greenstreet,The New Shakspere Society's Transactions(1887-90), p. 275.

[524]The stipple walls, in the original survey colored gray, were of stone; the thinner walls of the adjoining "tenements," in the original colored red, were of brick.

[525]By a stupid error often called Lodowick Barry. For an explanation of the error see an article by the present writer inModern Philology, April, 1912,ix, 567. Mr. W.J. Lawrence has recently shown (Studies in Philology, University of North Carolina, April, 1917) that David Barry was the eldest son of the ninth Viscount Buttevant, and was called "Lording" by courtesy. At the time he became interested in the Whitefriars Playhouse he was twenty-two years old. He died in 1610.

[526]At this time the Children of Blackfriars had lost their patent, so that the Children at Whitefriars were the only Revels troupe.

[527]Also spelled Slater, Slaughter, Slather, Slawghter. Henslowe often refers to him as "Martin."

[528]Mr. Wallace (The Century Magazine, 1910,lxxx, 511) incorrectly says that Whitefriars was held by "six equal sharers."

[529]Letter of M. De La Boderie, the French Ambassador to England; quoted by E.K. Chambers,Modern Language Review,iv, 159.

[530]Greenstreet,The New Shakspere Society's Transactions(1887-90), p. 283.

[531]Printed in The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 271.

[532]See Keysarv.Burbageet al., printed by Mr. Wallace, in hisShakespeare and his London Associates, pp. 80 ff.

[533]Ibid., p. 90.

[534]Wallace,Shakespeare and his London Associates, p. 95.

[535]Miss Gildersleeve, in her valuableGovernment Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama, p. 112, says: "Just what is the meaning of 'a new Play without Book' no one seems to have conjectured." And she develops the theory that "it refers to the absence of a licensed play-book," etc. The phrase "to learn without book" meant simply "to memorize."

[536]Reliquiæ Wottonianæ(ed. 1672), p. 402. The letter is dated merely 1612-13. In connection with the play one should studyThe Hector of Germany, 1615.

[537]Malone,Variorum,iii, 52.

[538]See thechapteron "Rosseter's Blackfriars." The documents concerned in this venture are printed in The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 277.

[539]The Shakespeare Society's Papers,iv, 90. The document printed by Collier inNew Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare(1835), p. 44, as from a manuscript in his possession, is, I think, an obvious forgery.

[540]The agreement has been lost, but for a probably similar agreement, made with the actor Nathaniel Field, see Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 23.

[541]Daborne writes to Henslowe on June 5, 1613: "The company told me you were expected there yesterday to conclude about their coming over ... my own play which shall be ready before they come over." This, I suspect, refers to the moving of the company to the Swan for the summer. (See Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 72.) That Henslowe was manager of a "private" house in 1613 is revealed by another letter from Daborne, dated December 9, 1613. (See Greg,ibid., p. 79.)

[542]Bartholomew Fair,v, iii. The part of Littlewit was presumably taken by Field himself.

[543]Malone,Variorum,iii, 52.

[544]The contract is printed in full in Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 19.

[545]The height is given for the first story only. We may assume that the middle and uppermost stories were of diminishing heights, as in the case of the Fortune Playhouse, in which the galleries were respectively twelve, eleven, and nine feet in height.

[546]The MerianView of London, published in 1638 at Frankfort-am-Main, is merely a copy of the Visscher view with the addition of certain details from another and earlier view not yet identified. It has no independent value. TheView of Londonprinted in Howell'sLondinopolis(1657), is merely a slavish copy of the Merian view. Visscher's representation of the Bear Garden does not differ in any essential way from the representation in Hondius'sViewof 1610. For a fuller discussion see pages126,146,248.

[547]Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 88; cf. p. 125, where animal-baiting is said to be used "one day of every four days"—a possible error for "fourteen days." In the manuscript notes to the Phillipps copy of Stow'sSurvey(1631), we are told that baiting was used at the Hope on Tuesdays and Thursdays; but the anonymous commentator is very inaccurate.

[548]The Rose Playhouse was likewise affected. Dekker, inSatiromastix,iii, iv, says: "Th'ast a breath as sweet as the Rose that grows by the Bear Garden."

[549]Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 87. The articles of agreement between Henslowe and Meade and the company, are printed by Greg on page 23.

[550]Works, Folio of 1630; The Spenser Society's reprint, p. 307.

[551]Fennor is not to be confused (as is commonly done) with Vennar (see p. 177). Such wit-contests were popular; Fennor had recently challenged Kendall, on the Fortune Stage.

[552]John Taylor'sWorks, Folio of 1630, p. 142; The Spenser Society's reprint, p. 304.

[553]Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 89.

[554]Ibid., pp. 86, 89.

[555]Collier,Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 127; Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 91.

[556]Collier,Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 127.

[557]My interpretation of the relation of Henslowe to Prince Charles's Men differs from the interpretation given by Fleay and adopted by Greg and others. For the evidence bearing on the case see Fleay,Stage, pp. 188, 262; Greg,Henslowe's Diary,ii, 138; Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 90, note; Chambers,Modern Language Review,iv, 165; Cunningham,Revels, p. xliv; Wallace,Englische Studien,xliii, 390; Murray,English Dramatic Companies.

[558]Greg,Henslowe Papers, p. 93. Cf. also thechapteron "Rosseter's Blackfriars."

[559]Collier,The History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),iii, 102; Ordish,Early London Theatres, p. 237.

[560]Arthur Tiler,St. Saviour's, p. 51; Reed's Dodsley,ix, 175.

[561]Printed inThe Academy, October 28, 1882, p. 314. As to "Mr. Godfrey" see Collier,The History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),iii, 102.

[562]The Remembrancia, p. 478. Quoted by Ordish,Early London Theatres, p. 241.

[563]British Museum Additional MSS. 5750; quoted by Cunningham,Handbook of London(1849),i, 67.

[564]The Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer,viii, 59.

[565]James Peller Malcolm,Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London from the Roman Invasion to the Year 1700(London, 1811), p. 425.

[566]The earliest advertisement of the Bear Garden at Hockley-in-the-hole that I have come upon is dated 1700. For a discussion of the sports there see J.P. Malcolm,Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London during the Eighteenth Century(1808), p. 321; Cunningham,Handbook of London, under "Hockley"; W.B. Boulton,Amusements of Old London, vol.i, chap.i.

[567]Ordish (Early London Theatres, p. 242) is mistaken in thinking that the old building was converted into a glass house. He says: "The last reference to the Hope shows that it had declined to the point of extinction," and he quotes an advertisement from theGazette, June 18, 1681, as follows: "There is now made at the Bear Garden glass-house, on the Bankside, crown window-glass, much exceeding French glass in all its qualifications, which may be squared into all sizes of sashes for windows, and other uses, and may be had at most glaziers in London." From Strype'sSurveyit is evident that the glass house was in Bear Garden Alley, but not on the site of the old Bear Garden.

[568]Nathaniel Field, the leading actor at Whitefriars, publishedA Woman is a Weathercockin 1612, with the statement to the reader: "If thou hast anything to say to me, thou know'st where to hear of me for a year or two, and no more, I assure thee." Possibly this reflects the failure of the managers to renew the lease; after 1614 Field did not know where he would be acting. But editors have generally regarded it as meaning that Field intended to withdraw from acting.

[569]Malone,Variorum,iii, 52.

[570]The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 277. For the location of Puddlewharf see themap of the Blackfriars precincton page94.

[571]The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 277.

[572]Ibid., p. 373.

[573]The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 373.

[574]Ibid.

[575]See thechapteron "The Hope."

[576]I can find no further reference to the Puddlewharf Theatre either in theRecordsof the Privy Council or in theRemembranciaof the City. Collier, however, in hisHistory of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),i, 384, says: "The city authorities proceeded immediately to the work, and before three days had elapsed, the Privy Council was duly and formally made acquainted with the fact that Rosseter's theatre had been 'made unfit for any such use' as that for which it had been constructed." Collier fails to cite his authority for the statement; the passage he quotes may be found in the order of the Privy Council printed above.

[577]Its exact position in Drury Lane is indicated by an order of the Privy Council, June 8, 1623, concerning the paving of a street at the rear of the theatre: "Whereas the highway leading along the backside of the Cockpit Playhouse near Lincolns Inn Fields, and the street called Queens Street adjoining to the same, are become very foul," etc. (See The Malone SocietyCollections,i, 383. Queens Street may be readily found in Faithorne'sMap of London.) Malone (Variorum,iii, 53) states that "it was situated opposite the Castle Tavern." The site is said to be marked by Pit Court.

[578]Stow'sAnnals(1631), p. 1004.

[579]Some scholars have supposed that the playhouse, when attacked by the apprentices in 1617, was burned, and that the name "Phœnix" was given to the building after its reconstruction. But the building was not burned; it was merely wrecked on the inside by apprentices.

[580]Continuation of Stow'sAnnals(1631), p. 1026.

[581]William Camden,Annals, under the date of March 4, 1617. Yet Sir Sidney Lee (A Life of William Shakespeare, p. 60) says, "built about 1610."

[582]Hazlitt's Dodsley,xv, 408.

[583]Fleay and Lawrence are wrong in supposing that the Cockpit was circular.

[584]AliasChristopher Hutchinson. Several actors of the day employedaliases: Nicholas Wilkinson,aliasTooley; Theophilus Bourne,aliasBird; James Dunstan,aliasTunstall, etc. Whether Beeston admitted other persons to a share in the building I cannot learn. In a passage quoted by Malone (Variorum,iii, 121) from the Herbert Manuscript, dated February 20, 1635, there is a reference to "housekeepers," indicating that Beeston had then admitted "sharers" in the proprietorship of the building. And in an order of the Privy Council, May 12, 1637 (The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 392), we read: "Command the keepers of the playhouse called the Cockpit in Drury Lane, who either live in it or have relation to it, not to permit plays to be acted there till further order."

[585]Wallace,Three London Theatres, p. 35.

[586]Wallace,ibid., pp. 32, 46. John Smith was delivering silk and other clothes to the Queen Anne's Men at the Red Bull from 1612 until February 23, 1617.

[587]Annals(1631), p. 1026.

[588]The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 374. Collier, inThe History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),i, 386, prints a long ballad on the event; but he does not give its source, and its genuineness has been questioned. The following year threats to pull down the Fortune, the Red Bull, and the Cockpit led to the setting of special watches. See The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 377.

[589]Greenstreet, Documents,The New Shakspere Society's Transactions(1880-86), p. 504.

[590]Mr. Wallace (Three London Theatres, p. 29) says that the documents he prints make it "as certain as circumstances unsupported by contemporary declaration can make it, that Queen Anne's company occupied the Red Bull continuously from the time of its erection ... till their dissolution, 1619." His documents make it certain only that Queen Anne's Men occupied the Red Bull until February 23, 1617. Other documents prove that they occupied the Cockpit from 1617 until 1619. (Note the letter of the Privy Council quoted above.) The documents printed by Greenstreet show that Queen Anne's Men moved to the Cockpit on June 3, 1617, and continued there.

[591]Wallace,Three London Theatres, p. 33.

[592]He had joined Prince Charles's Men.

[593]Wallace,Three London Theatres, p. 38.

[594]Ibid., p. 40. Fleay, Murray, and others have contended that the Princess Elizabeth's Men came to the Cockpit in 1619, and have denied the accuracy of the title-page ofThe Witch of Edmonton(1658), which declares that play to have been "acted by the Prince's Servants at the Cockpit often." (See Fleay,A Chronicle History of the London Stage, p. 299.)

[595]Malone,Variorum,iii, 59.

[596]John Parton,Some Account of the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles in the Fields, p. 235. From a parish entry in 1660 we learn that the players had to contribute 2d.to the parish poor for each day that there was acting at the Cockpit. (Seeibid., p. 236.)

[597]In theMiddlesex County Records,iii, 6, we find that on December 6, 1625, because "the drawing of people together to places was a great means of spreading and continuing the infection ... this Court doth prohibit the players of the house at the Cockpit, being next to His Majesty's Court at Whitehall, commanding them to surcease all such their proceedings until His Majesty's pleasure be further signified." Apparently the playhouses in general had been allowed to resume performances; and since by December 24 there had been no deaths from the plague for a week, the special inhibition of the Cockpit Playhouse was soon lifted.

[598]"When Her Majesty's Servants were at the Cockpit, being all at liberty, they dispersed themselves to several companies." (Heton's Patent, 1639,The Shakespeare Society Papers,iv, 96.)

[599]Herbert Manuscript, Malone,Variorum,iii, 240.

[600]Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," ShakespeareJahrbuch,xlvi, 99. In 1639 Heton applied for a patent as "Governor" of the company at Salisbury Court.

[601]On May 10 Beeston was paid for "two plays acted by the New Company." See Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," in the ShakespeareJahrbuch,xlvi, 99.

[602]Herbert Manuscript, Malone,Variorum,iii, 240.

[603]The Malone Society'sCollections,i, 392.

[604]The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1636-1637, p. 254.

[605]Ibid.,1637, p. 420.

[606]Malone,Variorum,iii, 240.

[607]He is referred to as their Governor on August 10, 1639; see Malone,Variorum,iii, 159.

[608]Malone,Variorum,iii, 241.

[609]Collier,The History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),ii, 32; Stopes,op. cit., p. 102.

[610]Malone,Variorum,iii, 241. Herbert did not forget Beeston's insubordination, and in 1660, in issuing to Beeston a license to use the Salisbury Court Playhouse, he inserted clauses to prevent further difficulty of this kind (seeVariorum,iii, 243).

[611]Stopes (op. cit.) dates this June 5, but Collier, Malone, and Chalmers all give June 27, and Mrs. Stopes is not always quite accurate in such matters.

[612]Collier,The History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),ii, 32, note 1.

[613]John Parton,Some Account of the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles in the Fields, p. 235.

[614]Hazlitt's Dodsley,xv, 409.

[615]SeeThe Academy, October 28, 1882, p. 314. The soldiers here mentioned also "pulled down on the inside" the Fortune playhouse.

[616]For a discussion of Davenant's attempts to introduce the opera into England, see W.J. Lawrence,The Elizabethan Playhouse(Second Series), pp. 129 ff.

[617]Malone,Variorum,iii, 93; Collier,The History of English Dramatic Poetry(1879),ii, 48.

[618]For his troubles with the Master of the Revels see Halliwell-Phillipps,A Collection of Ancient Documents, p. 26.

[619]Parton,op. cit., p. 236.

[620]Malone,Variorum,iii, 244 ff.

[621]The playhouse discussed in this chapter was officially known as "The Salisbury Court Playhouse," and it should always be referred to by that name. Unfortunately, owing to its situation near the district of Whitefriars, it was sometimes loosely, though incorrectly, called "Whitefriars." Since it had no relation whatever to the theatre formerly in the Manor-House of Whitefriars, a perpetuation of this false nomenclature is highly undesirable.

[622]Malone,Variorum,iii, 66.

[623]Chalmers'sSupplemental Apology, pp. 216-17. He may also have been the author of a play calledThe Masque, which Herbert in 1624 licensed: "For the Palsgrave's Company, a new play calledThe Masque." In the list of manuscript plays collected by Warburton we find the titleA Mask, and the authorship ascribed to R. Govell. Since "R. Govell" is not otherwise heard of, we may reasonably suppose that this was Warburton's reading of "R. Gunell." Gunnell also prefixed a poem to the Works of Captain John Smith, 1626.

[624]Malone,Variorum,iii, 66, 122, 176, 177.

Back to Index Next