diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 04:53:13 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 04:53:13 -0800 |
| commit | 939d43817ae1bf314e80dc34f83bf059f13d3bd7 (patch) | |
| tree | d05d427765e90d6b6a7cfd49338c22edd5988f1b /old/67423-0.txt | |
| parent | 5ba0672b559ab130ad58e1ca12faf20900ad0951 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67423-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67423-0.txt | 29045 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 29045 deletions
diff --git a/old/67423-0.txt b/old/67423-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f73f3a5..0000000 --- a/old/67423-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,29045 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Elizabethan Stage (Vol 2 of 4), by -E. K. Chambers - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Elizabethan Stage (Vol 2 of 4) - -Author: E. K. Chambers - -Release Date: February 17, 2022 [eBook #67423] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tim Lindell, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE (VOL 2 -OF 4) *** - - - - - - THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE - - VOL. II - - - - - Oxford University Press - - _London_ _Edinburgh_ _Glasgow_ _Copenhagen_ - _New York_ _Toronto_ _Melbourne_ _Cape Town_ - _Bombay_ _Calcutta_ _Madras_ _Shanghai_ - - Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY - - [Illustration: FROM THE ENGRAVING BY WENCESLAUS HOLLAR IN DUGDALE’S - - _St. Paul’s_ 1658] - - - - - THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE - - BY E. K. CHAMBERS. VOL. II - - - OXFORD: AT THE CLARENDON PRESS - - M.CMXXIII - - - - - Printed in England - - - - - CONTENTS - - VOLUME II - - - BOOK III. THE COMPANIES - - PAGE - - - XII. INTRODUCTION. THE BOY COMPANIES 1 - - A. Introduction 3 - - B. The Boy Companies-- - - i. Children of Paul’s 8 - - ii. Children of the Chapel and Queen’s Revels 23 - - iii. Children of Windsor 61 - - iv. Children of the King’s Revels 64 - - v. Children of Bristol 68 - - vi. Westminster School 69 - - vii. Eton College 73 - - viii. Merchant Taylors School 75 - - ix. The Earl of Leicester’s Boys 76 - - x. The Earl of Oxford’s Boys 76 - - xi. Mr. Stanley’s Boys 76 - - - XIII. THE ADULT COMPANIES 77 - - i. The Court Interluders 77 - - ii. The Earl of Leicester’s Men 85 - - iii. Lord Rich’s Men 91 - - iv. Lord Abergavenny’s Men 92 - - v. The Earl of Sussex’s Men 92 - - vi. Sir Robert Lane’s Men 96 - - vii. The Earl of Lincoln’s (Lord Clinton’s) Men 96 - - viii. The Earl of Warwick’s Men 97 - - ix. The Earl of Oxford’s Men 99 - - x. The Earl of Essex’s Men 102 - - xi. Lord Vaux’s Men 103 - - xii. Lord Berkeley’s Men 103 - - xiii. Queen Elizabeth’s Men 104 - - xiv. The Earl of Arundel’s Men 116 - - xv. The Earl of Hertford’s Men 116 - - xvi. Mr. Evelyn’s Men 117 - - xvii. The Earl of Derby’s (Lord Strange’s) Men 118 - - xviii. The Earl of Pembroke’s Men 128 - - xix. The Lord Admiral’s (Lord Howard’s, Earl of - Nottingham’s), Prince Henry’s, and - Elector Palatine’s Men 134 - - xx. The Lord Chamberlain’s (Lord Hunsdon’s) - and King’s Men 192 - - xxi. The Earl of Worcester’s and Queen Anne’s - Men 220 - - xxii. The Duke of Lennox’s Men 241 - - xxiii. The Duke of York’s (Prince Charles’s) Men 241 - - xxiv. The Lady Elizabeth’s Men 246 - - - XIV. INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES 261 - - i. Italian Players in England 261 - - ii. English Players in Scotland 265 - - iii. English Players on the Continent 270 - - - XV. ACTORS 295 - - - BOOK IV. THE PLAY-HOUSES - - - XVI. INTRODUCTION. THE PUBLIC THEATRES 353 - - A. Introduction 355 - - B. The Public Theatres-- - - i. The Red Lion Inn 379 - - ii. The Bull Inn 380 - - iii. The Bell Inn 381 - - iv. The Bel Savage Inn 382 - - v. The Cross Keys Inn 383 - - vi. The Theatre 383 - - vii. The Curtain 400 - - viii. Newington Butts 404 - - ix. The Rose 405 - - x. The Swan 411 - - xi. The Globe 414 - - xii. The Fortune 435 - - xiii. The Boar’s Head 443 - - xiv. The Red Bull 445 - - xv. The Hope 448 - - xvi. Porter’s Hall 472 - - - XVII. THE PRIVATE THEATRES 475 - - i. The Blackfriars 475 - - ii. The Whitefriars 515 - - - XVIII. THE STRUCTURE AND CONDUCT OF THEATRES 518 - - - - - LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - Domus Capitularis S^{ti} Pauli a Meridie Prospectus. - By Wenceslaus Hollar. From Sir William Dugdale, - _History of St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (1658) _Frontispiece_ - - Diagrams of the Blackfriars Theatres p. 504 - - Interior of the Swan Theatre. From the drawing - after Johannes de Witt in Arend van Buchell’s - commonplace book p. 521 - - - - - NOTE ON SYMBOLS - - -I have found it convenient, especially in Appendix A, to use the symbol -< following a date, to indicate an uncertain date not earlier than that -named, and the symbol > followed by a date, to indicate an uncertain -date not later than that named. Thus 1903 < > 23 would indicate the -composition date of any part of this book. I have sometimes placed the -date of a play in italics, where it was desirable to indicate the date -of production rather than publication. - - - - - BOOK III - - THE COMPANIES - - ‘Has led the drum before the English tragedians.’ - _All’s Well that Ends Well._ - - - - - XII - - INTRODUCTION. THE BOY COMPANIES - - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The first systematic investigation - into the history of the companies was that of F. G. Fleay, - which, after tentative sketches in his _Shakespeare Manual_ - (1876) and _Life and Work of Shakespeare_ (1886), took shape in - his _Chronicle History of the Stage_ (1890). Little is added by - the compilations of A. Albrecht, _Das Englische Kindertheater_ - (1883), H. Maas, _Die Kindertruppen_ (1901) and _Äussere - Geschichte der Englischen Theatertruppen_ (1907), and J. A. - Nairn, _Boy-Actors under the Tudors and Stewarts_ (_Trans. of - Royal Soc. of Lit._ xxxii). W. W. Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_ - (1904–8), made a careful study of all the companies which had - relations with Philip Henslowe, and modified or corrected many - of Fleay’s results. An account of the chief London companies - is in A. H. Thorndike, _Shakespeare’s Theater_ (1916), and - utilizes some new material collected in recent years. W. - Creizenach, _Schauspiele der Englischen Komödianten_ (1889), - and E. Herz, _Englische Schauspieler und Englisches Schauspiel_ - (1903), have summarized the records of the travels of English - actors in Germany. C. W. Wallace, besides his special work on - the Chapel, has published the records of several theatrical - lawsuits in _Advance Sheets from Shakespeare, the Globe, and - Blackfriars_ (1909), in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix - (1909), 287; x (1910), 261; xiii (1913), 1, and in _The Swan - Theatre and the Earl of Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _Englische - Studien_, xliii. 340); the present writer has completed the - information drawn from the _Chamber Accounts_ in P. Cunningham’s - _Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court_ (1842) by - articles in _M. L. R._ ii (1906), 1; iv (1909), 153 (cf. App. - B); and a number of documents, new and old, including the texts - of all the patents issued to companies, have been carefully - edited in vol. i of the _Collections of the Malone Society_ - (1907–11). Finally, J. T. Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_ - (1910), has collected the published notices of performances - in the provinces, added others from the municipal archives - of Barnstaple, Bristol, Coventry, Dover, Exeter, Gloucester, - Marlborough, Norwich, Plymouth, Shrewsbury, Southampton, - Winchester, and York, and on the basis of these constructed - valuable accounts of all the London and provincial companies - between 1558 and 1642. Most of the present chapter was written - before Murray’s book appeared, but it has been carefully - revised with the aid of his new material. I have not thought - it necessary to refer to my original provincial sources, where - they are included in his convenient Appendix G, but in using - his book it should be borne in mind that he has made a good - many omissions in carrying data from this Appendix to the - tables of provincial visits, which he gives for each company. - For a few places I have had the advantage of sources not drawn - upon by Murray, and these should be treated as the references - for any facts as regards such places not discoverable in - Murray’s Appendix. They are:--for Belvoir and other houses - of the Earls of Rutland, _Rutland MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), iv. - 260; for the house of Richard Bertie and his wife the Duchess - of Suffolk at Grimsthorpe, _Ancaster MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), - 459; for Wollaton, the house of Francis Willoughby, _Middleton - MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), 446; for Maldon and Saffron Walden in - Essex, A. Clark’s extracts in _10 Notes and Queries_, vii. - 181, 342, 422; viii. 43; xii. 41; for Newcastle-on-Tyne, G. B. - Richardson, _Reprints of Rare Tracts_, vol. iii, and _10 N. - Q._ xii. 222; for Reading, _Hist. MSS._ xi. 177; for Oxford, - F. S. Boas in _Fortnightly Review_ (Aug. 1913; Aug. 1918; May - 1920); for Stratford, J. O. Halliwell, _Stratford-upon-Avon in - the Time of the Shakespeares, illustrated by Extracts from the - Council-Books_ (1864); for Weymouth, H. J. Moule, _Weymouth and - Melcombe Regis Documents_ (1883), 136; for Dunwich, _Various - Collections_ (_Hist. MSS._), vii. 82; for Aldeburgh, Suffolk, - C. C. Stopes, _William Hunnis_, 314. References for a few other - scattered items are in the foot-notes. The warning should - be given that the dates assigned to some of the provincial - performances are approximate, and may be in error within a - year or so either way. For this there are more reasons than - one. The zealous antiquaries who have made extracts from local - records have not realized that precise dates might be of - value, and have often named a year without indicating whether - it represents the calendar year (Circumcision style) or the - calendar year (Annunciation style) in which a performance fell, - or the calendar year in which a regnal, mayoral, or accounting - year, in which the performance fell, began or ended. When they - are clearly dealing with accounting years, they do not always - indicate whether these ended at Michaelmas or at some other - date. They sometimes give only the year of a performance, when - they might have given, precisely or approximately, the month - and day of the month as well. But it is fair to add that the - accounts of City Chamberlains and similar officers, from which - the notices of plays are generally derived, are not always so - kept as to render precise dating feasible. Some accountants - specify the days, others the weeks to which their entries - relate; others put their entries in chronological order and - date some of them, so that it is possible to fix the dates of - the rest within limits; others again render accounts analysed - under heads, grouping all payments to players perhaps under a - head of ‘Gifts and Rewards’, and in such cases you cannot be - sure that the companies are even entered in the order of their - visits, and if months and days are not specified, cannot learn - more than the year to which a visit belongs. Where, for whatever - reason, I can only assign a performance to its accounting year, - I generally give it under the calendar year in which the account - ends. This, in the case of a London company and of a Michaelmas - year (much the commonest year for municipal accounts), is pretty - safe, as the touring season was roughly July to September. Some - accounting years (Coventry, Marlborough, Stratford-on-Avon) end - later still, but if, as at Bath, the year ends about Midsummer, - it is often quite a toss-up to which of two years an entry - belongs. In the case of Leicester performances before 1603, I - have combined the indications of Michaelmas years in M. Bateson, - _Leicester Records_, vol. iii, with those of calendar years in - W. Kelly, _Notices Illustrative of the Drama_ (1865), 185, and - distinguished between performances before and after Michaelmas. - I hope Kelly has not misled me, and that he found evidence in - the entries for his dating. After 1603 he is the only source. I - do not think that the amount of error which has crept into the - following chapter from the various causes described is likely to - be at all considerable. I have been as careful as possible and - most of Murray’s own extracting is excellently done. I should, - however, add that the Ipswich dates, as given both here and by - Murray, ii. 287. from _Hist. MSS._ ix. i, 248, are unreliable, - because some of the rolls from which they are taken contain - membranes properly belonging to those for other years; cf. my - notes on Leicester’s (pp. 89, 91), Queen’s (p. 106), Warwick’s - (p. 99), Derby’s (p. 120), King’s (p. 209).] - - - A. INTRODUCTION - -The present chapter contains detailed chronicles--too often, I -fear, lapsing into arid annals of performances at Court or in the -provinces--of all the companies traceable in London during any year -between 1558 and 1616. The household and other establishments to which -the companies were attached are taken as the basis of classification. -This principle is open to criticism. Certainly it has not always the -advantage of presenting economic units. It is improbable that there -was any continuity as regards membership between the bodies of actors -successively appearing, often after long intervals, under the names of -Sussex or Hunsdon or Derby. On the other hand, particular associations -of actors can sometimes be discerned as holding together under a change -of patrons. Thus between 1571 and 1583 Laurence and John Dutton seem to -have led a single company, which earned the nickname of the Chameleons, -first in the service of Sir Robert Lane and then, turn by turn, in that -of the Earls of Lincoln, Warwick, and Oxford. The real successors, -again, of the Derby’s men of 1593 are less the Derby’s men of 1595–1618 -than the Hunsdon’s men of 1594–1603, who in course of time became the -King’s men without any breach of their unity as a trading association. -Nevertheless, an arrangement under patrons is a practicable one, since -companies nearly always appear under the names of their patrons in -official documents, while an arrangement under trading associations -is not. Actors are a restless folk, and the history of the Admiral’s -men, or the Queen’s Revels, or the Lady Elizabeth’s men, will show how -constantly their business organizations were disturbed by the coming -and going of individuals, and by the breaking and reconstruction of the -agreements on which they were based. It is but rarely that we have any -clue to these intricacies; and I have therefore followed the households -as the best available guides, indicating breaches of continuity and -affiliations, where these appear to exist, and adopting as far as -possible an order which, without pretence of being scientific, will -bring each household under consideration roughly at the point at -which its servants become of the greatest significance to the general -history of the stage. The method may perhaps be described as that of a -λαμπαδηφορία. - -A study of the succession of the companies gives rise to a few general -considerations. During the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign the drama -is under the domination of the boy companies. This may be in part due -to the long-standing humanistic tradition of the Renaissance, although -the lead is in fact taken not so much by schoolboys in the stricter -sense, as by the trained musical establishments of the royal chapels -and still more that of the St. Paul’s choir under Sebastian Westcott. -More important points perhaps are, that the Gentlemen of the Chapel, -who had been prominent under Henry VIII, had ceased to perform, that -the royal Interluders had been allowed to decay, and that the other -professional companies had not yet found a permanent economic basis in -London, while their literary accomplishment was still upon a popular -rather than a courtly level. Whatever the cause or causes, the fact is -undeniable. Out of seventy-eight rewards for Court performances between -1558 and 1576, twenty-one went to the Paul’s boys, fifteen to the royal -chapels, and ten to schoolboys, making a total of forty-six, as against -only thirty-two paid to adult companies. And if the first half of this -period only be taken, the disproportion is still greater, for by 1567 -the Paul’s boys had received eleven rewards, other boys two, and the -adult companies six. A complete reversal of this position coincides -rather markedly with the building of the first permanent theatres in -1576. Between 1576 and 1583 the adult companies had thirty-nine rewards -and the boys only seventeen. There is also a rapid growth in the number -of companies. Before 1576 the Earl of Leicester’s men and the Duttons -were alone conspicuous. After 1576 the entertainment of a London -company seems to become a regular practice with those great officers -the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Admiral, as well as with special -favourites of the Queen, such as the Earl of Leicester himself or the -Earl of Oxford. Stockwood in 1578 speaks of ‘eighte ordinarie places’ -in the City as occupied by the players. A Privy Council order of the -same year limits the right to perform to six companies selected to take -part in the Court festivities at Christmas, namely Leicester’s men, -Warwick’s, Sussex’s, Essex’s, and the Children of the Chapel and St. -Paul’s. Gabriel Harvey, writing to Edmund Spenser of the publication of -his virelays in the following summer, says: - - ‘Ye have preiudished my good name for ever in thrustinge me - thus on the stage to make tryall of my extemporall faculty, - and to play Wylsons or Tarletons parte. I suppose thou wilt - go nighe hande shortelye to sende my lorde of Lycesters or my - lorde of Warwickes, Vawsis, or my lord Ritches players, or sum - other freshe starteupp comedanties unto me for sum newe devised - interlude, or sum maltconceivid comedye fitt for the Theater, or - sum other paintid stage whereat thou and thy lively copesmates - in London maye lawghe ther mouthes and bellyes full for pence or - twoepence apeece.’[1] - -Doubtless many of this mushroom brood of ‘freshe starteupp comedanties’ -never succeeded in making good their permanent footing in the -metropolis. Lord Vaux’s men, whom Harvey mentions, were never fortunate -enough to be summoned to Court; and the same may be said of Lord -Arundel’s men, Lord Berkeley’s, and Lord Abergavenny’s. Such men, after -their cast for fortune, had to drift away into the provinces, and pad -the hoof on the hard roads once more. - -The next septennial period, 1583–90, witnessed the extinction, for -a decade or so, of the boy companies, in spite of the new impulse -given to the latter by the activity as a playwright of John Lyly. Of -forty-five Court payments made during these years, thirty apparently -went to men and only fifteen to boys. This ultimate success of -the professional organizations may largely have been due to their -employment of such university wits as Marlowe, Peele, Greene, Lodge, -and Nashe in the writing of plays, with which Lyly could be challenged -on his own ground before the Court, while a sufficient supply of -chronicle histories and other popular stuff could still be kept on -the boards to tickle the ears of the groundlings. The undisputed -pre-eminence lay during this period with the Queen’s men, who made -within it no less than twenty-one appearances at Court. This company -enjoyed the prestige of the royal livery, transferred to it from the -now defunct Interluders, which had a ready effect in the unloosing of -municipal pockets. And at its foundation in 1583 it incorporated, in -addition to Tarlton, whose origin is unknown, the leading members of -the pre-existing companies: Wilson and Laneham from Leicester’s, Adams -from Sussex’s, and John Dutton from Oxford’s. The former fellows of -these lucky ones were naturally hardly able to maintain their standing. -In January 1587 Leicester’s, Oxford’s, and the Admiral’s were still -setting up their bills side by side with those of the Queen’s.[2] But -the first two are not heard of at Court again, and even the Admiral’s -were hardly able to make a show except by coalition with other -companies. Thus we find the Admiral’s combining with Hunsdon’s in -1585, and with Strange’s perhaps from 1589 onwards, and it became the -destiny of this last alliance, under the leadership of Edward Alleyn, -to dispossess the Queen’s men, after the death of Tarlton in 1588, from -their pride of place. The fall of the Queen’s men was sudden. In 1590–1 -they gave four Court plays to two by their rivals; in 1591–2 they gave -one, and their rivals six. In their turn they appear to have been -reduced to forming a coalition with Lord Sussex’s men. - -The plague-years of 1592–4 brought disaster, chaos, and change -into the theatrical world. Only the briefest London seasons were -possible. The necessities of travelling led to further combinations -and recombinations of groups, one of which may have given rise to -the ephemeral existence of Lord Pembroke’s men. And, by the time the -public health was restored, the Queen’s had reconciled themselves -to a provincial existence, and continued until 1603 to make their -harvest of the royal name, as their predecessors in title had done, -without returning to London at all. The combination of which Alleyn -had been the centre broke up, and its component elements reconstituted -themselves as the two great companies of the Chamberlain’s and the -Admiral’s men. Between these there was a vigorous rivalry, which -sometimes showed itself in lawsuits, sometimes in the more legitimate -form of competing plays on similar themes. Thus a popular sentiment -offended by the Chamberlain’s men in _1 Henry IV_ was at once appealed -to by the Admiral’s with _Sir John Oldcastle_. And when the Admiral’s -scored a success by their representation of forest life in _Robin -Hood_, the Chamberlain’s were quickly ready to counter with _As You -Like It_. I think the Chamberlain’s secured the better position of the -two. They had their Burbadge to pit against the reputation of Alleyn; -they had their honey-tongued Shakespeare; and they had a business -organization which gave them a greater stability of membership than -any company in the hands of Henslowe was likely to secure. If one may -once more use the statistics of Court performances as a criterion, -they are found to have appeared thirty-two times and their rivals only -twenty times from 1594 to 1603. Between them the Chamberlain’s and the -Admiral’s enjoyed for some years a practical monopoly of the London -stage, which received an official recognition by the action of the -Privy Council in 1597. But this state of things did not long continue. -Ambitious companies, such as Pembroke’s, disregarded the directions of -the Council. Derby’s men, Worcester’s, Hertford’s, one by one obtained -at least a temporary footing at Court, and in 1602 the influence of -the Earl of Oxford was strong enough to bring about the admission to -a permanent home in London of a third company made up of his own and -Worcester’s servants. Even more dangerous, perhaps, to the monopoly -was the revival of the boy companies, Paul’s in 1599 and the Chapel in -1600. The imps not only took by their novelty in the eyes of a younger -generation of play-goers. They began a warfare of satire, in which they -‘berattled the common stages’ with a vigour and dexterity that betray -the malice of the poets against the players which had been a motive in -their rehabilitation.[3] - -No material change took place at the coming of James. The three adult -companies, the Chamberlain’s, the Admiral’s, Worcester’s, passed -respectively under the patronage of James, Prince Henry, and Queen -Anne.[4] On the death of Prince Henry in 1612 his place was taken -by the Elector Palatine. The Children of the Chapel also received -the patronage of Queen Anne, as Children of the Queen’s Revels. The -competition for popular favour continued severe. Dekker refers to it in -1608 and the preacher Crashaw in 1610.[5] It is to be noticed, however, -that Dekker speaks only of ‘a deadly war’ between ‘three houses’, -presumably regarding the boy companies as negligible. And in fact -these companies were on the wane. By 1609 the Queen’s Revels, though -still in existence, had suffered from the wearing off of novelty, -from the tendency of boys to grow older, from the plague-seasons of -1603–4 and 1608–9, which they were less well equipped than the better -financed adults to withstand, from the indiscretions and quarrels of -their managers, and from the loss of the Blackfriars, of which the -King’s men had secured possession.[6] The Paul’s boys had been bought -off by the payment of a ‘dead rent’ or blackmail to the Master. A -third company, the King’s Revels, had been started, but had failed to -establish itself.[7] The three houses were not, indeed, left with -an undisputed field. Advantage was taken of the predilection of the -younger members of the royal family for the drama, and patents were -obtained, in 1610 for a Duke of York’s company, and in 1611 for a Lady -Elizabeth’s company. These also had but a frail life. In 1613 the -Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels coalesced under the dangerous -wardenship of Henslowe. In 1615 the Duke of York’s, now Prince -Charles’s, men joined the combination. And finally in 1616 the Prince’s -men were left alone to make up the tale of four London companies, -and the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels disappeared into the -provinces. The list of men summoned before the Privy Council in March -1615 to account for playing in Lent contains the names of the leaders -of the four companies, the King’s, the Queen’s, the Palsgrave’s, and -the Prince’s. The King’s played at the Globe and Blackfriars, the -Queen’s at the Red Bull, whence they moved in 1617 to the Cockpit, the -Palsgrave’s at the Fortune, and the Prince’s at the Hope. The supremacy -of the King’s men during 1603–16 was undisputed. Of two hundred and -ninety-nine plays rewarded at Court for that period, they gave one -hundred and seventy-seven, the Prince’s men forty-seven, the Queen’s -men twenty-eight, the Duke of York’s men twenty, the Lady Elizabeth’s -men nine, the Queen’s Revels boys fifteen, and the Paul’s boys three. -Their plays, moreover, were those usually selected for performance -before James himself. It is possible, however, that the Red Bull and -the Fortune were better able to hold their own against the Globe when -it came to attracting a popular audience. - - - B. THE BOY COMPANIES - - i. Children of Paul’s. - ii. Children of the Chapel and Queen’s Revels. - iii. Children of Windsor. - iv. Children of the King’s Revels. - v. Children of Bristol. - vi. Westminster School. - vii. Eton College. - viii. Merchant Taylors School. - ix. Earl of Leicester’s Boys. - x. Earl of Oxford’s Boys. - xi. Mr. Stanley’s Boys. - - - i. THE CHILDREN OF PAUL’S - -_High Masters of Grammar School_:--William Lily (1509–22); John Ritwise -(1522–32); Richard Jones (1532–49); Thomas Freeman (1549–59); John Cook -(1559–73); William Malim (1573–81); John Harrison (1581–96); Richard -Mulcaster (1596–1608). - -_Masters of Choir School_:--? Thomas Hikeman (_c._ 1521); John Redford -(_c._ 1540);? Thomas Mulliner (?); Sebastian Westcott (> 1557–1582); -Thomas Giles (1584–1590 <); Edward Pearce (> 1600–1606 <). - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The documents bearing upon the early - history of the two cathedral schools, often confused, are - printed and discussed by A. F. Leach in _St. Paul’s School - before Colet_ (_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 191) and in _Journal of - Education_ (1909), 503. M. F. J. McDonnell, _A History of St. - Paul’s School_ (1909), carries on the narrative of the grammar - school. The official chroniclers of the cathedral, perhaps - owing to the loss of archives in the Great Fire, have given - no connected account of the choir school; with the material - available on the dramatic side they appear to be unfamiliar. - Valuable contributions are W. H. G. Flood, _Master Sebastian_, - in _Musical Antiquary_, iii. 149; iv. 187; and H. N. Hillebrand, - _Sebastian Westcote, Dramatist and Master of the Children of - Paul’s_ (1915, _J. G. P._ xiv. 568). Little is added to the - papers on _Plays Acted by the Children of Paul’s and Music in - St. Paul’s Cathedral_ in W. S. Simpson, _Gleanings from Old St. - Paul’s_ (1889), 101, 155, by J. S. Bumpus, _The Organists and - Composers of St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (1891), and W. M. Sinclair, - _Memorials of St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (1909).] - -Mr. Leach has succeeded in tracing the grammar school, as part of -the establishment of St. Paul’s Cathedral, to the beginning of the -twelfth century. It was then located in the south-east corner of the -churchyard, near the bell-tower, and here it remained to 1512, when it -was rebuilt, endowed, and reorganized on humanist lines by Dean Colet, -and thereafter to 1876, when it was transferred to Horsham in Sussex. -Originally the master was one of the canons; but by the beginning -of the thirteenth century this officer had taken on the name of -chancellor, and the general supervision of the actual schoolmaster, a -vicar choral, was only one of his functions. Distinct from the grammar -school was the choir school, for which the responsible dignitary was -not the chancellor, but the precentor, in whose hands the appointment -of a master of the song school rested.[8] There was, however, a third -branch of the cathedral organization also concerned with the training -of boys. The almonry or hospital, maintained by the chapter for the -relief of the poor, seems to have been established at the end of the -twelfth century, and statutes of about the same date make it the duty -of a canon residentiary to assist in the maintenance of its _pueri -elemosinarii_, and prescribe the special services to be rendered them -at their great annual ceremony of the Boy Bishop on Innocents’ Day.[9] -In the thirteenth century the supervision of these boys was in the -hands of another subordinate official, appointed by the chapter and -known as the almoner. The number of the boys was then eight; it was -afterwards increased, apparently in 1358, to ten.[10] The almoner is -required to provide for their literary and moral education, and their -liturgical duties are defined as consisting of standing in pairs at -the corners of the choir and carrying candles.[11] A later version of -the statutes provides for their musical education, and it is clear -that these _pueri elemosinarii_ were in fact identical with or formed -the nucleus of the boys of the song school.[12] During the sixteenth -century the posts of almoner and master of the song school, although -technically distinct, were in practice held together, and the holder -was ordinarily a member of the supplementary cathedral establishment -known as the College of Minor Canons.[13] To this college had been -appropriated the parish church of St. Gregory, on the south side of St. -Paul’s, just west of the Chapter or Convocation House, and here the -song school was already housed by the twelfth century.[14] The college -had also a common hall on the north of the cathedral, near the Pardon -churchyard; and hard by was the almonry in Paternoster Row.[15] The -statutes left the almoner the option of either giving the boys their -literary education himself, or sending them elsewhere. It naturally -proved convenient to send them to the grammar school, and the almoners -claimed that they had a right to admission without fees.[16] On the -other side we find the grammar school boys directed by Colet to attend -the Boy Bishop ceremony and make their offerings.[17] Evidently there -was much give and take between song school and grammar school. - -As early as 1378 the scholars of Paul’s are said to have prepared a -play of the History of the Old Testament for public representation -at Christmas.[18] Whether they took a share in the other miracles -recorded in mediaeval London, it is impossible to say. A century and -a half later the boys of the grammar school, during the mastership -of John Ritwise, are found contributing interludes, in the humanist -fashion, to the entertainment of the Court. On 10 November 1527 they -gave an anti-Lutheran play in Latin and French before the King and -the ambassadors of Francis I, and in the following year the _Phormio_ -before Wolsey, who also saw them, if Anthony Wood can be trusted, in -a _Dido_ written by Ritwise himself.[19] There is no evidence that -Ritwise’s successors followed his example by bringing their pupils -to Court; and the next performances by Paul’s boys, which can be -definitely traced, began a quarter of a century later, and were under -the control of Sebastian Westcott, master of the song school, and were -therefore presumably given by boys of that school. Westcott in 1545 was -a Yeoman of the Chamber at Court.[20] He was ‘scolemaister of Powles’ -by New Year’s Day 1557, when he presented a manuscript book of ditties -to Queen Mary.[21] Five years earlier, he had brought children to -Hatfield, to give a play before the Princess Elizabeth; and the chances -are that these were the Paul’s boys.[22] With him came one Heywood, -who may fairly be identified with John Heywood the dramatist; and this -enables us, more conjecturally, to reduce a little further the gap -in the dramatic history of the Paul’s choir, for some years before, -in March 1538, Heywood had already received a reward for playing an -interlude with ‘his children’ before the Lady Mary.[23] There is -nothing beyond this phrase to suggest that Heywood had a company of -his own, and it is not probable that he was ever himself master of -the choir school.[24] But he may very well have supplied them with -plays, both in Westcott’s time and also in that of his predecessor John -Redford. Several of Heywood’s verses are preserved in a manuscript, -which also contains Redford’s _Wyt and Science_ and fragments of other -interludes, not improbably intended for performance by the boys under -his charge.[25] A play ‘of childerne sett owte by Mr. Haywood’ at Court -during the spring of 1553 may also belong to the Paul’s boys.[26] -Certain performances ascribed to them at Hatfield, during the Princess -Elizabeth’s residence there in her sister’s reign, have of late fallen -under suspicion of being apocryphal.[27] - -From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign Westcott’s theatrical -enterprise stands out clearly enough. On 7 August 1559 the Queen was -entertained by the Earl of Arundel at Nonsuch with ‘a play of the -chylderyn of Powlles and ther Master Se[bastian], Master Phelypes, -and Master Haywod’.[28] If ‘Master Phelypes’ was the John Philip or -Phillips who wrote _Patient Grissell_ (_c._ 1566), this play may also -belong to the Paul’s repertory. Heywood could not adapt himself again -to a Protestant England, and soon left the country. Sebastian Westcott -was more fortunate. In 1560 he was appointed as Head of the College -of Minor Canons or Sub-dean.[29] Shortly afterwards, being unable to -accept the religious settlement, he was sentenced to deprivation of -his offices, which included that of organist, but escaped through the -personal influence of Elizabeth, in spite of some searchings of the -heart of Bishop Grindal as to his suitability to be an instructor of -youth.[30] In fact he succeeded in remaining songmaster of Paul’s for -the next twenty-three years, and during that period brought his boys to -Court no less than twenty-seven times, furnishing a far larger share of -the royal Christmas entertainment, especially during the first decade -of the reign, than any other single company. The chronicle of his -plays must now be given. There was one at each of the Christmases of -1560–1 and 1561–2, one between 6 January and 9 March 1562, and one at -the Christmas of 1562–3.[31] During the next winter the plague stopped -London plays. At the Christmas of 1564–5 there were two by the Paul’s -boys, of which the second fell on 2 January, and at that of 1565–6 -three, two at Court and one at the Lady Cecilia’s lodging in the Savoy. -There were two again at each of the Christmases of 1566–7 and 1567–8, -and one on 1 January 1569. During the winter of 1569–70 the company -was, exceptionally, absent from Court. They reappeared on 28 December -1570, and again at Shrovetide (25–7 February) 1571. On 28 December -1571 they gave the ‘tragedy’ of _Iphigenia_, which Professor Wallace -identifies with the comedy called _The Bugbears_, but which might, for -the matter of that, be Lady Lumley’s translation from the Greek of -Euripides. At the Christmas of 1572–3 they played before 7 January. On -27 December 1573 they gave _Alcmaeon_. They played on 2 February 1575, -and a misfortune which befell them in the same year is recorded in a -letter of 3 December from the Privy Council, which sets out that ‘one -of Sebastianes boyes, being one of his principall plaiers, is lately -stolen and conveyed from him’, and instructs no less personages than -the Master of the Rolls and Dr. Wilson, one of the Masters of Requests, -to examine the persons whom he suspected and proceed according to law -with them.[32] Five days later the Court of Aldermen drew up a protest -against Westcott’s continued Romish tendencies.[33] The next Court -performance by the boys was on 6 January 1576. On 1 January 1577 they -gave _Error_, and on 19 February _Titus and Gisippus_. They played on -29 December 1577, and one wonders whether it was anything amiss with -that performance which led to an entry in the Acts of the Privy Council -for the same day that ‘Sebastian was committid to the Marshalsea’.[34] -Whether this was so or not, the Paul’s boys were included in the -list of companies authorized to practise publicly in the City for -the following Christmas. On 1 January 1579 they gave _The Marriage -of Mind and Measure_, on 3 January 1580 _Scipio Africanus_, and on 6 -January 1581 _Pompey_. A play on 26 December 1581 is anonymous, but may -possibly be the _Cupid and Psyche_ mentioned as ‘plaid at Paules’ in -Gosson’s _Playes Confuted_ of 1582.[35] - -In the course of 1582 Sebastian Westcott died, and this event led to -an important development in the dramatic activities of the boys.[36] -Hitherto their performances, when not at Court, had been in their own -quarters ‘at Paules’, although the notice of 1578, as well as Gosson’s -reference, suggests that the public were not altogether excluded from -their rehearsals. Probably they used their singing school, which may -have been still, as in the twelfth century, the church of St. Gregory -itself.[37] This privacy, even if something of a convention, had -perhaps enabled them to utilize the services of the grammar school -when they had occasion to make a display of erudition.[38] After -Westcott’s death, however, they appear to have followed the example -of the Chapel, who had already in 1576 taken a step in the direction -of professionalism, by transferring their performances to Farrant’s -newly opened theatre at the Blackfriars. Here, if the rather difficult -evidence can be trusted, the Paul’s boys appear to have joined them, -and to have formed part of a composite company, to which Lord Oxford’s -boys also contributed, and which produced the _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and -Phao_ of the earl’s follower John Lyly. Lyly took these plays to Court -on 1 January and 3 March 1584, and Henry Evans, who was also associated -with the enterprise, took a play called _Agamemnon and Ulysses_ on 27 -December. On all three occasions the official patron of the company -was the Earl of Oxford. In _Agamemnon and Ulysses_ it must be doubtful -whether the Paul’s boys had any share, for in the spring of 1584 -the Blackfriars theatre ceased to be available, and the combination -probably broke up.[39] This, however, was far from being the end of -Lyly’s connexion with the boys, for the title-pages of no less than -five of his later plays acknowledge them as the presenters. They had, -indeed, a four years’ period of renewed activity at Court, under the -mastership of Thomas Giles, who, being already almoner, became Master -of the Song School on 22 May 1584, and in the following year received -a royal commission to ‘take up’ boys for the choir, analogous to that -ordinarily granted to masters of the Chapel Children.[40] There is -no specific mention of plays in the document, but its whole basis -is in the service which the boys may be called upon to do the Queen -in music and singing. Under Giles the company appeared at Court nine -times during four winter seasons; on 26 February 1587, on 1 January -and 2 February 1588, on 27 December 1588, 1 January and 12 January -1589, and on 28 December 1589, 1 January and 6 January 1590. The -title-pages of Lyly’s _Endymion_, _Galathea_, and _Midas_ assign the -representation of these plays at Court to a 2 February, a 1 January, -and a 6 January respectively. _Endymion_ must therefore belong to 1588 -and _Midas_ to 1590; for _Galathea_ the most probable of the three -years is 1588. _Mother Bombie_ and _Love’s Metamorphosis_ can be less -precisely dated, but doubtless belong to the period 1587–90. At some -time or other, and probably before 1590, the Paul’s boys performed a -play of _Meleager_, of which an abstract only, without author’s name, -is preserved. It is not, I think, to be supposed that Lyly, although -he happened to be a grandson of the first High Master of Colet’s -school, had any official connexion either with that establishment or -with the choir school. It is true that Gabriel Harvey says of him in -1589, ‘He hath not played the Vicemaster of Poules and the Foolemaster -of the Theatre for naughtes’.[41] But this is merely Harvey’s jesting -on the old dramatic sense of the term ‘vice’, and the probabilities -are that Lyly’s relation as dramatist to Giles as responsible manager -of the company was much that which had formerly existed between John -Heywood and Sebastian Westcott. Nevertheless, it was this connexion -which ultimately brought the Paul’s plays to a standstill. Lyly was -one of the literary men employed about 1589 to answer the Martin -Marprelate pamphleteers in their own vein, and to this end he availed -himself of the Paul’s stage, apparently with the result that, when -it suited the government to disavow its instruments, that stage was -incontinently suppressed.[42] The reason may be conjectural, but the -fact is undoubted. The Paul’s boys disappear from the Court records -after 1590. In 1591 the printer of _Endymion_ writes in his preface -that ‘Since the Plaies in Paules were dissolved, there are certaine -Commedies come to my handes by chaunce’, and the prolongation of this -dissolution is witnessed to in 1596 by Thomas Nashe, who in his chaff -of Gabriel Harvey’s anticipated practice in the Arches says, ‘Then we -neede neuer wish the Playes at Powles vp againe, but if we were wearie -with walking, and loth to goe too farre to seeke sport, into the Arches -we might step, and heare him plead; which would bee a merrier Comedie -than euer was old Mother _Bomby_’.[43] - -A last theatrical period opened for the boys with the appointment about -1600 of a new master. This was one Edward Pearce or Piers, who had -become a Gentleman of the Chapel on 16 March 1589, and by 15 August -1600, when his successor was sworn in, had ‘yealded up his place for -the Mastership of the children of Poules’.[44] I am tempted to believe -that in reviving the plays Pearce had the encouragement of Richard -Mulcaster, who had become High Master of the grammar school in 1596, -and during his earlier mastership of Merchant Taylors had on several -occasions brought his boys to Court. Pearce is first found in the -Treasurer of the Chamber’s Accounts as payee for a performance on 1 -January 1601, but several of the extant plays produced during this -section of the company’s career are of earlier date, and one of them, -Marston’s _I Antonio and Mellida_, can hardly be later than 1599. A -stage direction of this play apparently records the names of two of the -performers as Cole and Norwood.[45] The Paul’s boys, therefore, were -‘up again’ before their rivals of the Chapel, who cannot be shown to -have begun in the Blackfriars under Henry Evans until 1600.[46] This -being so, they were probably also responsible for Marston’s revision -in 1599 of _Histriomastix,_ which by giving offence to Ben Jonson, led -him to satire Marston’s style in _Every Man Out of His Humour_, and so -introduced the ‘war of the theatres’.[47] Before the end of 1600 they -had probably added to their repertory Chapman’s _Bussy d’Ambois_, and -certainly _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_, _The Wisdom of Dr. Dodipoll_, -and _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, all three of which were entered on -the Stationers’ Register, and the first two printed, during that year. -_Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ followed in 1601 and contains the following -interesting passage of autobiography:[48] - - _Sir Edward Fortune._ I saw the Children of _Powles_ last night, - And troth they pleas’d me prettie, prettie well: - The Apes in time will doe it handsomely. - - _Planet._ I faith, I like the audience that frequenteth there - With much applause: A man shall not be chokte - With the stench of Garlick; nor be pasted - To the barmie Iacket of a Beer-brewer. - - _Brabant Junior._ ’Tis a good, gentle audience, and I hope the boies - Will come one day into the Court of requests. - - _Brabant Senior._ I, and they had good Plaies. But they produce - Such mustie fopperies of antiquitie, - And do not sute the humorous ages backs, - With clothes in fashion. - -The criticism, being a self-criticism, must not be taken too seriously. -So far as published plays are concerned, _Histriomastix_ is the only -one to which it applies. In Marston, Chapman, and Middleton the company -had enlisted vigorous young playwrights, who were probably not sorry to -be free from the yoke of the professional actors, and appear to have -followed the exceptional policy of printing some at least of their new -plays as soon as they were produced. - -On 11 March 1601, two months after the boys made their first bow at -Court, the Lord Mayor was ordered by the Privy Council to suppress -plays ‘at Powles’ during Lent. It is to be inferred that they were, -as of old, acting in their singing school. Confirmation is provided -by a curious note appended by William Percy to his manuscript volume -of plays, presumably in sending them to be considered with a view to -production by the boys. The plays bear dates in 1601–3, but it can -hardly be taken for granted that they were in fact produced by the -Paul’s or any other company. The note runs: - - A note to the Master of Children of Powles. - - Memorandum, that if any of the fine and formost of these - Pastorals and Comoedyes conteyned in this volume shall but - overeach in length (the children not to begin before foure, - after prayers, and the gates of Powles shutting at six) the - tyme of supper, that then in tyme and place convenient, you do - let passe some of the songs, and make the consort the shorter; - for I suppose these plaies be somewhat too long for that place. - Howsoever, on your own experience, and at your best direction, - be it. Farewell to you all.[49] - -Both parts of Marston’s _Antonio and Mellida_ were entered on the -Stationers’ Register in the autumn of 1601 and printed in 1602. The -second part may have been on the stage during 1601, and in the same -year the boys probably produced John Marston’s _What You Will_, and -certainly played ‘privately’, as the Chamberlain’s men did ‘publicly’, -_Satiromastix_ in which Dekker, with a hand from Marston, brought his -swashing blow against the redoubtable Jonson. This also was registered -in 1601 and printed in 1602. There is no sign of the boys at Court -in the winter of 1601–2. In the course of 1602 their play of _Blurt -Master Constable_, by Middleton, was registered and printed. They -were at Court on 1 January 1603, for the last time before Elizabeth, -and on 20 February 1604, for the first time before James. Either the -choir school or the grammar school boys took part in the pageant -speeches at the coronation triumph on 15 March 1604.[50] To the year -1604 probably belongs _Westward Ho!_ which introduced to the company, -in collaboration with Dekker, a new writer, John Webster. _Northward -Ho!_ by the same authors, followed in 1605. The company was not at -Court for the winter of 1604–5, but during that of 1605–6 they gave two -plays before the Princes Henry and Charles. For these the payee was not -Pearce, but Edward Kirkham, who is described in the Treasurer of the -Chamber’s account as ‘one of the Mr^{es} of the Childeren of Pawles’. -Kirkham, who was Yeoman of the Revels, had until recently been a -manager of the Children of the Revels at the Blackfriars. It may have -been the disgrace brought upon these by _Eastward Ho!_ in the course -of 1605 that led him to transfer his activities elsewhere.[51] With -him he seems to have brought Marston’s _The Fawn_, probably written -in 1604 and ascribed in the first of the two editions of 1606 to the -Queen’s Revels alone, in the second to them ‘and since at Poules’. The -charms of partnership with Kirkham were not, however, sufficient to -induce Pearce to continue his enterprise. The last traceable appearance -of the Paul’s boys was on 30 July 1606, when they gave _The Abuses_ -before James and King Christian of Denmark.[52] Probably the plays were -discontinued not long afterwards. This would account for the large -number of play-books belonging to the company which reached the hands -of the publishers in 1607 and 1608. The earlier policy of giving plays -to the press immediately after production does not seem to have endured -beyond 1602. Those now printed, in addition to _Bussy D’Ambois_, _What -You Will_, _Westward Ho!_ and _Northward Ho!_ already mentioned, -included Middleton’s _Michaelmas Term_, _The Phoenix_, _A Mad World, -my Masters_, and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_, together with _The -Puritan_, very likely also by Middleton, and _The Woman Hater_, the -first work of Francis Beaumont. _The Puritan_ can be dated, from a -chronological allusion, in 1606. The title-pages of _The Woman Hater_, -_A Mad World, my Masters_, and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_ specify -them to have been ‘lately’ acted. It is apparent from the second quarto -of _A Trick to Catch the Old One_ that the Children of the Blackfriars -took it over and presented it at Court on 1 January 1609. This was -probably part of a bargain as to which we have another record. Pearce -may have had at the back of his mind a notion of reopening his theatre -some day. But it is given in evidence in the lawsuit of _Keysar v. -Burbadge_ in 1610 that, while it was still closed, he was approached -on behalf of the other ‘private’ houses in London, those of the -Blackfriars and the Whitefriars, and offered a ‘dead rent’ of £20 a -year, ‘that there might be a cessation of playeinge and playes to be -acted in the said howse neere S^t. Paules Church’.[53] This must have -been in the winter of 1608–9, just as the Revels company was migrating -from the Blackfriars to the Whitefriars. The agent was Philip Rosseter -who, with Robert Keysar, was financially interested in the Revels -company. When the King’s men began to occupy the Blackfriars in the -autumn of 1609, they took on responsibility for half the dead rent, but -whether the arrangement survived the lawsuit of 1610 is unknown. - - - ii. THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AND OF THE QUEEN’S REVELS - - The Children of the Chapel (1501–1603). - _Masters of the Children_: William Newark (1493–1509), - William Cornish (1509–23), William Crane (1523–45), Richard - Bower (1545–61), Richard Edwardes (1561–6), William Hunnis - (1566–97), Richard Farrant (acting, 1577–80), Nathaniel Giles - (1597–1634). - - The Children of the Queen’s Revels (1603–5). - - The Children of the Revels (1605–6). - _Masters_: Henry Evans, Edward Kirkham, and others. - - The Children of the Blackfriars (1606–9). - - The Children of the Whitefriars (1609–10). - _Masters_: Robert Keysar and others. - - The Children of the Queen’s Revels (1610–16). - _Masters_: Philip Rosseter and others. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Official records of the Chapel are - to be found in E. F. Rimbault, _The Old Cheque Book of the - Chapel Royal_ (1872, _Camden Soc._). Most of the material for - the sixteenth-century part of the present section was collected - before the publication of C. W. Wallace, _The Evolution of the - English Drama up to Shakespeare_ (1912, cited as Wallace, i), - which has, however, been valuable for purposes of revision. - J. M. Manly, _The Children of the Chapel Royal and their - Masters_ (1910, _C. H._ vi. 279), W. H. Flood, _Queen Mary’s - Chapel Royal_ (_E. H. R._ xxxiii. 83), H. M. Hildebrand, _The - Early History of the Chapel Royal_ (1920, _M. P._ xviii. 233), - are useful contributions. The chief published sources for - the seventeenth century are three lawsuits discovered by J. - Greenstreet and printed in full by F. G. Fleay, _A Chronicle - History of the London Stage_ (1890), 127, 210, 223. These are - (a) _Clifton v. Robinson and Others_ (Star Chamber, 1601), (b) - _Evans v. Kirkham_ (Chancery, May–June 1612), cited as _E. v. - K._, with Fleay’s pages, and (c) _Kirkham v. Painton and Others_ - (Chancery, July–Nov. 1612), cited as _K. v. P._ Not much beyond - dubious hypothesis is added by C. W. Wallace, _The Children of - the Chapel at Blackfriars_ (1908, cited as Wallace, ii). But - Professor Wallace published an additional suit of importance, - (d) _Keysar v. Burbadge and Others_ (Court of Requests, - Feb.–June 1610), in _Nebraska University Studies_ (1910), x. - 336, cited as _K. v. B._ This is apparently one of twelve suits - other than Greenstreet’s, which he claims (ii. 36) to have - found, with other material, which may alter the story. In the - meantime, I see no reason to depart from the main outlines - sketched in my article on _Court Performances under James the - First_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 153).] - -The Chapel was an ancient part of the establishment of the Household, -traceable far back into the twelfth century.[54] Up to the end of -the fourteenth, we hear only of chaplains and clerks. These were -respectively priests and laymen, and the principal chaplain came to -bear the title of Dean.[55] Children of the Chapel first appear under -Henry IV, who appointed a chaplain to act as Master of Grammar for them -in 1401.[56] In 1420 comes the first of a series of royal commissions -authorizing the impressment of boys for the Chapel service, and in -1444 the first appointment of a Master of the Children, John Plummer, -by patent.[57] It is probably to the known tastes of Henry VI that the -high level of musical accomplishment, which had been reached by the -singers of the Chapel during the next reign was due.[58] The status -and duties of the Chapel are set out with full detail in the _Liber -Niger_ about 1478, at which date the establishment consisted of a Dean, -six Chaplains, twenty Clerks, two Yeomen or Epistolers, and eight -Children. These were instructed by a Master of Song, chosen by the Dean -from ‘the seyd felyshipp of Chapell’, and a Master of Grammar, whose -services were also available for the royal Henchmen.[59] There is no -further record of the Master of Grammar; but with this exception the -establishment continued to exist on much the same footing, apart from -some increase of numbers, up to the seventeenth century.[60] Although -subject to some general supervision from the Lord Chamberlain and -to that extent part of the Chamber, it was largely a self-contained -organization under its own Dean. Elizabeth, however, left the post of -Dean vacant, and the responsibility of the Lord Chamberlain then became -more direct.[61] It probably did not follow, at any rate in its full -numbers, a progress, but moved with the Court to the larger ‘standing -houses’, except possibly to Windsor where there was a separate musical -establishment in St. George’s Chapel.[62] It does not seem, at any -rate in Tudor times, to have had any relation to the collegiate chapel -of St. Stephen in the old palace of Westminster.[63] The number of -Children varied between eight and ten up to 1526, when it was finally -fixed by Henry VIII at twelve.[64] The chaplains and clerks were -collectively known in the sixteenth century as the Gentlemen of the -Chapel, and the most important of them, next to one who acted as -subdean, was the Master of the Children, who trained them in music -and, as time went on, also formed them into a dramatic company. The -Master generally held office under a patent during pleasure, and was -entitled in addition to his fee of 7½_d._ a day or £91 8_s._ 1½_d._ -a year as Gentleman and his share in the general ‘rewards’ of the -Chapel, to a special Exchequer annuity of 40 marks (£26 13_s._ 4_d._), -raised in 1526 to £40, ‘pro exhibicione puerorum’, which is further -defined in 1510 as ‘pro exhibicione vesturarum et lectorum’ and in -1523 as ‘pro sustencione et diettes’.[65] To this, moreover, several -other payments came to be added in the course of Henry VIII’s reign. -Originally the Chapel dined and supped in the royal hall; but this -proved inconvenient, and a money allowance from the Cofferer of the -Household was substituted, which was fixed in 1544 at 1_s._ a day for -each Gentleman and 2_s._ a week for each Child.[66] The allowance for -the Children was afterwards raised to 6_d._ a day.[67] Long before -this, however, the Masters had succeeded in obtaining an exceptional -allowance of 8_d._ a week for the breakfast of each Child, which was -reckoned as making £16 a year and paid them in monthly instalments of -26_s._ 8_d._ by the Treasurer of the Chamber. The costs of the Masters -in their journeys for the impressment of Children were also recouped -by the Treasurer of the Chamber. And from him they also received -rewards of 20_s._ when _Audivi vocem_ was sung on All Saints’ Day, £6 -13_s._ 4_d._ for the Children’s feast of St. Nicholas on 6 December, -and 40_s._ when _Gloria in Excelsis_ was sung on Christmas and St. -John’s Days. These were, of course, over and above any special rewards -received for dramatic performances.[68] In the provision of _vesturae_ -the Masters were helped by the issue from the Great Wardrobe of black -and tawny camlet gowns, yellow satin coats, and Milan bonnets, which -presumably constituted the festal and penitential arrays of the -choir.[69] The boys themselves do not appear to have received any -wages but, when their voices had broken, the King made provision for -them at the University or otherwise, and until this could be done, the -Treasurer of the Chamber sometimes paid allowances to the Master or -some other Gentleman for their maintenance and instruction.[70] - -The earlier Masters were John Plummer (1444–55), Henry Abyngdon -(1455–78), Gilbert Banaster (1478–83?), probably John Melyonek -(1483–5), Lawrence Squier (1486–93), and William Newark -(1493–1509).[71] Some of these have left a musical or literary -reputation, and Banaster is said to have written an interlude in -1482.[72] But until the end of this period only occasional traces of -dramatic performances by the Chapel can be discerned. An alleged play -by the Gentlemen at the Christmas of 1485 cannot be verified.[73] The -first recorded performance, therefore, is one of the disguisings at the -wedding of Prince Arthur and Katharine of Spain in 1501, in which two -of the children were concealed in mermaids ‘singing right sweetly and -with quaint hermony’.[74] - -Towards the end of Henry VII’s reign begins a short series of plays -given at the rate of one or two a year by the Gentlemen, which lasted -through 1506–12.[75] Thereafter there is no other play by the Gentlemen -as such upon record until the Christmas of 1553, when they performed -a morality of which the principal character was Genus Humanum.[76] -This had been originally planned for the coronation on the previous 1 -October, and as a warrant then issued states that a coronation play -had customarily been given ‘by the gentlemen of the chappell of our -progenitoures’, it may perhaps be inferred that Edward VI’s coronation -play of ‘the story of Orpheus’ on 22 February 1547 was also by the -Gentlemen.[77] In the meantime the regular series of Chapel plays at -Court had been broken after 1512, and when it was taken up again in -1517 it was not by the Gentlemen, but by the Children.[78] This is, -of course, characteristic of the Renaissance.[79] But an immediate -cause is probably to be found in the personality of William Cornish, a -talented and energetic Master of the Children, who succeeded William -Newark in the autumn of 1509, and held office until his death in -1523.[80] Cornish appears to have come of a musical family.[81] He took -part in a play given by the Gentlemen of the Chapel shortly before -his appointment as Master. And although it was some years before he -organized the Children into a definite company, he was the ruling -spirit and chief organizer of the elaborate disguisings which glorified -the youthful court of Henry VIII from the Shrovetide of 1511 to the -visit of the Emperor Charles V in 1522, and hold an important place in -the story, elsewhere dealt with, of the Court mask.[82] In these revels -both the Gentlemen and the Children of the Chapel, as well as the King -and his lords and ladies took a part, and they were often designed so -as to frame an interlude, which would call for the services of skilled -performers.[83] - -In view of Cornish’s importance in the history of the stage at Court, -it is matter for regret that none of his dramatic writing has been -preserved, for it is impossible to attach any value to the fantastic -attributions of Professor Wallace, who credits him not only with the -anonymous _Calisto and Meliboea_, _Of Gentleness and Nobility_, _The -Pardoner and the Frere_, and _Johan Johan_, but also with _The Four -Elements_ and _The Four P. P._, for the authorship of which by John -Rastell and John Heywood respectively there is good contemporary -evidence.[84] Cornish was succeeded as Master of the Children by -William Crane (1523–45) and Crane by Richard Bower, whose patent was -successively renewed by Edward VI, presumably by Mary, and finally -by Elizabeth on 30 April 1559.[85] His service was almost certainly -continuous, and it is therefore rather puzzling to be told that a -commission to take up singing children for the Chapel, similar to that -of John Melyonek in 1484, was issued in February 1550 to Philip van -Wilder, a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber.[86] Neither the full text nor -a reference to the source for the warrant is given, and I suspect the -explanation to be that it was not for the Chapel at all. Philip van -Wilder was a lutenist, one of a family of musicians of whom others were -in the royal service, and he may not improbably have had a commission -to recruit a body of young minstrels with whom other notices suggest -that he may have been connected.[87] Bower himself had a commission -for the Chapel on 6 June 1552.[88] Although the Children continued to -give performances at Court both under Crane and under Bower, it may -be doubted whether they were quite so prominent as they had been in -Cornish’s time. Certainly they had to contend with the competition of -the Paul’s boys. Crane himself is not known to have been a dramatist. -It has been suggested that Bower’s authorship is indicated by the -initials R. B. on the title-page of _Apius and Virginia_ (1575), but, -in view of the date of the publication, this must be regarded as very -doubtful. The chief Marian producer of plays was Nicholas Udall, but it -remains uncertain whether he wrote for the Chapel Children. Professor -Wallace has no justification whatever for his confident assertions -that John Heywood ‘not only could but did’ write plays for the Chapel, -that he ‘had grown up in the Chapel under Cornish’, and that ‘as -dramatist and Court-entertainer’ he ‘was naturally associated with -the performances of the Chapel’.[89] There is no proof whatever that -Heywood began as a Chapel boy, and although he certainly wrote plays -for boys, they are nowhere said or implied to have been of the Chapel -company. There are scraps of evidence which indicate that they may have -been the Paul’s boys.[90] It is also conceivable that they may have -been Philip van Wilder’s young minstrels. - -When Elizabeth came to the throne, then, the Chapel had already a -considerable dramatic tradition behind it. But for a decade its share -in the Court revels remains somewhat obscure. The Treasurer of the -Chamber records no payments for performances to its Masters before -1568.[91] A note in a Revels inventory of 1560 of the employment of -some white sarcenet ‘in ffurnishinge of a pley by the children of -the Chapple’ may apparently refer to any year from 1555 to 1560, and -it is therefore hazardous to identify the Chapel with the anonymous -players of the interlude of 31 December 1559 which contained ‘suche -matter that they wher commondyd to leyff off’.[92] Bower may of course -have retained Catholic sympathies, but he died on 26 July 1561, and -it is difficult to suppose that the high dramatic reputation of his -successor Richard Edwardes was not based upon a greater number of Court -productions than actually stand to his name.[93] Edwardes had been a -Gentleman of the Chapel from 1556 or earlier. His patent as Master is -dated on 27 October 1561, and on the following 10 December he received -a commission the terms of which served as a model for those of the next -two Masterships:[94] - - Memorandum quod x^o die Januarii anno infra scripto istud - breve deliberatum fuit domino custodi magni Sigilli apud - Westmonasterium exequendum. - -Elizabeth by the grace of God Quene of England Fraunce & Ireland -defender of the faythe &c. To our right welbeloved & faythfull -counsaylour Sir Nicholas Bacon knight Keper of our great Seale of -Englande, commaundinge you that vnder our great Seale aforsayd -ye cause to be made our lettres patentes in forme followinge. To -all mayours sherifs bayliefes constables & all other our officers -gretinge. For that it is mete that our chappell royall should be -furnysshed with well singing children from tyme to tyme we have & by -these presentes do authorise our welbeloved servaunt Richard Edwardes -master of our children of our sayd chappell or his deputie beinge -by his bill subscribed & sealed so authorised, & havinge this our -presente comyssion with hym, to take as manye well singinge children -as he or his sufficient deputie shall thinke mete in all chathedrall -& collegiate churches as well within libertie[s] as without within -this our realme of England whatsoever they be, And also at tymes -necessarie, horses, boates, barges, cartes, & carres, as he for the -conveyaunce of the sayd children from any place to our sayd chappell -royall [shall thinke mete] with all maner of necessaries apperteynyng -to the sayd children as well by lande as water at our prices ordynarye -to be redely payed when they for our service shall remove to any place -or places, Provided also that if our sayd servaunt or his deputie or -deputies bearers hereof in his name cannot forthwith remove the chyld -or children when he by vertue of this our commyssyon hathe taken hym or -them that then the sayd child or children shall remayne there vntill -suche tyme as our sayd servaunt Rychard Edwardes shall send for him -or them. Wherfore we will & commaunde you & everie of you to whom -this our comyssion shall come to be helpinge aydinge & assistinge to -the vttermost of your powers as ye will answer at your vttermoste -perylles. In wytnes wherof &c. Geven vnder our privie seale at our -Manor of St James the fourth daye of Decembre in the fourth yere of our -Raigne. - - R. Jones. - -At Christmas 1564–5 the boys appeared at Court in a tragedy by -Edwardes, which may have been his extant _Damon and Pythias_.[95] On -2 February 1565 and 2 February 1566 they gave performances before the -lawyers at the Candlemas feasts of Lincoln’s Inn.[96] There is nothing -to show that the Chapel had any concern with the successful play of -_Palamon and Arcite_, written and produced by Edwardes for Elizabeth’s -visit to Oxford in September 1566. Edwardes died on the following 31 -October, and on 15 November William Hunnis was appointed Master of -the Children.[97] His formal patent of appointment is dated 22 April -1567, and the bill for his commission, which only differs from that of -Edwardes in minor points of detail, on 18 April.[98] Hunnis had been a -Gentleman at least since about 1553, with an interval of disgrace under -Mary, owing to his participation in Protestant plots. He was certainly -himself a dramatist, but none of his plays are known to be extant, -and a contemporary eulogy speaks of his ‘enterludes’ as if they dated -from an earlier period than that of his Mastership. It is, however, -natural to suppose that he may have had a hand in some at least of the -pieces which his Children produced at Court. The first of these was a -tragedy at Shrovetide 1568. In the following year is said to have been -published a pamphlet entitled _The Children of the Chapel Stript and -Whipt_, which apparently originated in some gross offence given by the -dramatic activities of the Chapel to the growing Puritan sentiment. -‘Plaies’, said the writer, ‘will never be supprest, while her maiesties -unfledged minions flaunt it in silkes and sattens. They had as well -be at their Popish service, in the deuils garments.’ And again, ‘Even -in her maiesties chappel do these pretty upstart youthes profane -the Lordes Day by the lascivious writhing of their tender limbs, -and gorgeous decking of their apparell, in feigning bawdie fables -gathered from the idolatrous heathen poets’. I should feel more easy in -drawing inferences from this, were the book extant.[99] But it seems -to indicate either that the controversialist of 1569 was less careful -than his successors to avoid attacks upon Elizabeth’s private ‘solace’, -or that the idea had already occurred to the Master of turning his -rehearsals of Court plays to profit by giving open performances in -the Chapel. That the Court performances themselves took place in the -Chapel is possible, but not very likely; the usual places for them seem -to have been the Hall or the Great Chamber.[100] But no doubt they -sometimes fell on a Sunday. - -The boys played at Court on 6 January 1570 and during Shrovetide 1571. -On 6 January 1572 they gave _Narcissus_, and on 13 February 1575 a -play with a hunt in it.[101] On all these occasions Hunnis was payee. -An obvious error of the clerk of the Privy Council in entering him as -‘John’ Hunnis in connexion with the issue of a warrant for the payment -of 1572 led Chalmers to infer the existence of two Masters of the name -of Hunnis.[102] During the progress of 1575 Hunnis contributed shows to -the ‘Princely Pleasures’ of Kenilworth, and very likely utilized the -services of the boys in these.[103] And herewith his active conduct -of the Chapel performances appears to have been suspended for some -years. A play of _Mutius Scaevola_, given jointly at Court by the -Children of the Chapel and the Children of Windsor on 6 January 1577, -is the first of a series for which the place of Hunnis as payee is -taken by Richard Farrant. To this series belong unnamed plays on 27 -December 1577 and 27 December 1578, _Loyalty and Beauty_ on 2 March -1579, and _Alucius_ on 27 December 1579.[104] Farrant, who is known -as a musician, had been a Gentleman of the Chapel in 1553, and had -left on 24 April 1564, doubtless to take up the post of Master of the -Children of Windsor, in which capacity he annually presented a play -at Court from 1566–7 to 1575–6.[105] But evidently the two offices -were not regarded as incompatible, for on 5 November 1570, while still -holding his Mastership, he was again sworn in as Gentleman of the -Chapel ‘from Winsore’.[106] A recent discovery by M. Feuillerat enables -us to see that his taking over of the Chapel Children from Hunnis -in 1576 was part of a somewhat considerable theatrical enterprise. -Stimulated perhaps by the example of Burbadge’s new-built Theatre, he -took a lease of some of the old Priory buildings in the Blackfriars; -and here, either for the first time, or in continuation of a similar -use of the Chapel itself, which had provoked criticism, the Children -appeared under his direction in performances open to the public.[107] -The ambiguous relation of the Blackfriars precinct to the jurisdiction -of the City Corporation probably explains the inclusion of the Chapel -in the list of companies whose exercises the Privy Council instructed -the City to tolerate on 24 December 1578. It is, I think, pretty clear -that, although Farrant is described as Master of the Chapel Children by -the Treasurer of the Chamber from 1577 to 1580, and by Hunnis himself -in his petition of 1583,[108] he was never technically Master, but -merely acted as deputy to Hunnis, probably even to the extent of taking -all the financial risks off his hands. Farrant was paid for a comedy -at Lincoln’s Inn at Candlemas 1580 and is described in the entry as -‘one of the Queen’s chaplains’.[109] On 30 November 1580 he died and -Hunnis then resumed his normal functions.[110] The Chapel played at -Court on 5 February 1581, 31 December 1581, 27 February 1582, and 26 -December 1582. One of these plays may have been Peele’s _Arraignment -of Paris_; that of 26 December 1582 was _A Game of Cards_, possibly the -piece which, according to Sir John Harington, was thought ‘somewhat -too plaine’, and was championed at rehearsal by ‘a notable wise -counseller’.[111] On the first three of these occasions the Treasurer -merely entered a payment to the Master of the Children, without giving -a name, but in the entry for the last play Hunnis is specified. It -is known, moreover, that Hunnis, together with one John Newman, took -a sub-lease of the Blackfriars from Farrant’s widow on 20 December -1581. They do not seem to have been very successful financially, for -they were irregular in their rent, and neglected their repairs. It -was perhaps trepidation at the competition likely to arise from the -establishment of the Queen’s men in 1583, which led them to transfer -their interest to one Henry Evans, a scrivener of London, from whom, -when Sir William More took steps to protect himself against the breach -of covenant involved in an alienation without his consent, it was -handed on to the Earl of Oxford and ultimately to John Lyly.[112] In -November 1583, therefore, Hunnis found himself much dissatisfied with -his financial position, and drew up the following memorial, probably -for submission to the Board of Green Cloth of the royal household:[113] - - ‘Maye it please your honores, William Hunnys, M^r of the - Children of hir highnes Chappell, most humble beseecheth to - consider of these fewe lynes. First, hir Maiestie alloweth for - the dyett of xij children of hir sayd Chappell daylie vi^d a - peece by the daye, and xl^{li} by the yeare for theyre aparrell - and all other furneture. - - ‘Agayne there is no ffee allowed neyther for the m^r of the - sayd children nor for his ussher, and yet neuertheless is he - constrayned, over and besydes the ussher still to kepe bothe a - man servant to attend upon them and lykewyse a woman seruant to - wash and kepe them cleane. - - ‘Also there is no allowance for the lodginge of the sayd - chilldren, such tyme as they attend vppon the Courte, but the - m^r to his greate charge is dryuen to hyer chambers both for - himself, his usher chilldren and servantes. - - ‘Also theare is no allowaunce for ryding jornies when occasion - serueth the m^r to trauell or send into sundrie partes within - this realme, to take vpp and bring such children as be thought - meete to be trayned for the service of hir Maiestie. - - ‘Also there is no allowance ne other consideracion for those - children whose voyces be chaunged, whoe onelye do depend vpon - the charge of the sayd m^r vntill such tyme as he may preferr - the same with cloathing and other furniture, vnto his no smalle - charge. - - ‘And although it may be obiected that hir Maiesties allowaunce - is no whitt less then hir Maiesties ffather of famous memorie - therefore allowed: yet considering the pryces of thinges present - to the tyme past and what annuities the m^r then hadd out of - sundrie abbies within this realme, besydes sondrie giftes from - the Kinge, and dyuers perticuler ffees besydes, for the better - mayntenaunce of the sayd children and office: and besides also - there hath ben withdrawne from the sayd chilldren synce hir - Maiesties comming to the crowne xij^d by the daye which was - allowed for theyr breakefastes as may apeare by the Treasorer - of the Chamber his acompt for the tyme beinge, with other - allowaunces incident to the office as appeareth by the auntyent - acomptes in the sayd office which I heere omytt. - - ‘The burden heerof hath from tyme to tyme so hindred the M^{rs} - of the Children viz. M^r Bower, M^r Edwardes, my sellf and M^r - Farrant: that notwithstanding some good helpes otherwyse some of - them dyed in so poore case, and so deepelie indebted that they - haue not left scarcelye wherewith to burye them. - - ‘In tender consideracion whereof, might it please your honores - that the sayde allowaunce of vj^d a daye apeece for the - childrens dyet might be reserued in hir Maiesties coffers during - the tyme of theyre attendaunce. And in liew thereof they to be - allowed meate and drinke within this honorable householde for - that I am not able vppon so small allowaunce eny longer to beare - so heauie a burden. Or otherwyse to be consydred as shall seeme - best vnto your honorable wysdomes. - - ‘[_Endorsed_] 1583 November. The humble peticion of the M^r of - the Children of hir highnes Chappell [_and in another hand_] - To have further allowances for the finding of the children for - causes within mentioned.’ - -The actual request made by Hunnis seems a modest one. He seems to -have thought that for his boys to have the run of their teeth at the -tables of Whitehall would be a better bargain than the board-wages -of 6_d._ a day. Doubtless he knew their appetites. I do not think -that the Green Cloth met his views, for in the next reign the 6_d._ -was still being paid and was raised to 10_d._ for the benefit of -Nathaniel Giles.[114] Possibly Hunnis did get back the £16 a year for -breakfasts, which seems to be the fee described by him as 1_s._ a day, -although that in fact works out to £18 5_s._ a year, and the £9 13_s._ -4_d._ for largess, if that also had been withdrawn, since these are -included in fee lists for 1593 and 1598.[115] The ‘perticuler ffees’ -to which he refers are presumably the allowances occasionally paid by -Henry for the maintenance of boys whose voices had changed. In any -case Hunnis’s personal grievance must have been fully met by liberal -grants of Crown lands which were made him in 1585.[116] It will be -observed that he says nothing of any profits derived by him from the -dramatic activities of the Children; whether in the form of rewards -at Court or in that of admission fees to public performances. Plays -were no part of the official functions of the Chapel, although it is -consistent with the general policy of the reign towards the London -stage to suppose that Elizabeth and her economical ministers were -well enough content that the deficiencies of her Chapel maintenance -should be eked out, and her Christmas ‘solace’ rendered possible, out -of the profits of public exercise. So far, however, as the Chapel was -concerned, this convenient arrangement was, for the time, nearly at -an end. The facts with regard to the boy companies during 1584 are -somewhat complicated. The Treasurer of the Chamber paid the Master -of the Chapel Children, without specifying his name, for plays on 6 -January and 2 February 1584. He also paid John Lyly for plays by the -Earl of Oxford’s ‘servants’ on 1 January and 3 March 1584, and Henry -Evans for a play by the Earl of Oxford’s ‘children’ on 27 December -1584. Were this all, one would naturally assume that Oxford had brought -to Court the ‘lads’ who appeared under his name at Norwich in 1580, -and that these formed a company, quite distinct from the Chapel, of -which the Earl entrusted the management either jointly or successively -to Lyly and Evans. Lyly, of course, is known to have been at one time -in the Earl’s service.[117] One would then be left to speculate as -to which company played at the Blackfriars during 1584 and where the -other played. But the real puzzle begins when it is realized that in -the same year 1584 two of Lyly’s plays, _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and -Phao_, were for the first time printed, that these have prologues ‘at -the Blackfriars’, that their title-pages indicate their performance at -Court, not by Oxford’s company, but by the Chapel and the Paul’s boys, -of which latter the Treasurer of the Chamber makes no mention, and -that the title-pages of the two issues of _Campaspe_ further specify, -in the one case Twelfth Night, and in the other, which is apparently -corrected, New Year’s Day, as the precise date of performance, while -that of _Sapho and Phao_ similarly specifies Shrove Tuesday. But New -Year’s Day and Shrove Tuesday of 1584 are the days which the Treasurer -of the Chamber assigns not to the Chapel, but to Oxford’s company; and -even if you accept Professor Feuillerat’s rather far-fetched assumption -that the days referred to in the title-pages were not necessarily -those falling in the year of issue, you will not find a New Year’s Day, -or for the matter of that a Twelfth Night, since the opening of the -Blackfriars, which, if a play-day at all, is not occupied either by -some Chapel or Paul’s play of which the name is known, or by some other -company altogether.[118] The conjecture seems inevitable that, when he -found himself in financial straits and with the rivalry of the Queen’s -men to face in 1583, Hunnis came to an arrangement with the Paul’s -boys, who had recently lost Sebastian Westcott, on the one hand, and -with the Earl of Oxford and his agents Lyly and Evans on the other, and -put the Blackfriars at the disposal of a combination of boys from all -three companies, who appeared indifferently at Court under the name of -the Master or that of the Earl. In the course of 1584 Sir William More -resumed possession of the Blackfriars. Henry Evans must have made some -temporary arrangement to enable the company to appear at Court during -the winter of 1584–5.[119] But for a year or two thereafter there were -no boys acting in London until in 1586 an arrangement with Thomas -Giles, Westcott’s successor at St. Paul’s, afforded a new opportunity -for Lyly’s pen.[120] - -The Chapel had contributed pretty continuously to Court drama for -nearly a century. They now drop out of its story for about seventeen -years.[121] In addition to the two plays of Lyly, one other of their -recent pieces, Peele’s _Arraignment of Paris_, was printed in 1584. -Two former Children, Henry Eveseed and John Bull, afterwards well -known as a musician, became Gentlemen on 30 November 1585 and in -January 1586 respectively.[122] Absence from Court did not entail -an absolute cessation of dramatic activities. Performances by the -Children are recorded at Ipswich and Norwich in 1586–7 and at Leicester -before Michaelmas in 1591. There is, however, little to bear out the -suggestion that the Chapel furnished the boys who played at Croydon, -probably in the archbishop’s palace, during the summers of 1592 and -1593, other than the fact that the author of the play produced in 1593, -_Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, was Thomas Nashe, who was also part -author with Marlowe of _Dido_, one of two plays printed as Chapel plays -in 1594. The extant text of the other play, _The Wars of Cyrus_, seems -to be datable between 1587 and 1594. Hunnis died on 6 June 1597, and on -9 June 1597 Nathaniel Giles, ‘being before extraordinary’, was sworn as -a regular Gentleman of the Chapel and Master of the Children. Giles, -like Farrant, came ‘from Winsore’. Born about 1559, he was educated -at Magdalen College, Oxford, and was appointed Clerk in St. George’s -Chapel, Windsor, and Master of the Children on 1 October 1595. He -earned a considerable reputation as a musician, and died in possession -of both Masterships at the age of seventy-five on 24 January 1634.[123] -His patent of appointment to the Chapel Royal is dated 14 July and -his commission 15 July 1597.[124] They closely follow in terms those -granted to Hunnis.[125] - -Three years later the theatrical enterprise which had been dropped in -1584 was renewed by Giles, in co-operation with Henry Evans, who had -been associated with its final stages. The locality chosen was again -the Blackfriars, in the building reconstructed by James Burbadge in -1596, and then inhibited, on a petition of the inhabitants, from use -as a public play-house. Of this, being ‘then or late in the tenure or -occupacion of’ Henry Evans, Richard Burbadge gave him on 2 September -1600 a lease for twenty-one years from the following Michaelmas at a -rent of £40.[126] According to Burbadge’s own account of the matter, -Evans ‘intended then presentlye to erect or sett vp a companye of boyes -... in the same’, and knowing that the payment of the rent depended -upon the possibility of maintaining a company ‘to playe playes and -interludes in the said Playhowse in such sort as before tyme had bene -there vsed’, he thought it desirable to take collateral security in -the form of a bond for £400 from Evans and his son-in-law Alexander -Hawkins.[127] Long after, the Blackfriars _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 -describe the lease as being to ‘one Evans that first sett vp the boyes -commonly called the Queenes Majesties Children of the Chapell’.[128] I -find nothing in this language to bear out the contention of Professor -Wallace that Evans’s occupation of the Blackfriars extended back long -before the date of his lease, and that, as already suggested by Mr. -Fleay, the Chapel plays began again, not in 1600, but in 1597.[129] -Burbadge speaks clearly of the setting up of the company as still an -intention when the lease was drawn, and the reference to earlier plays -in the house may either be to some use of it unknown to us between -1596 and 1600, or perhaps more probably to the performances by Evans -and others before the time of James Burbadge’s reconstruction. Mr. -Fleay’s suggestion rested, so far as I can judge, upon the evidence for -the existence of Jonson’s _Case is Altered_ as early as January 1599 -and its publication as ‘acted by the children of the Blacke-friers’. -But this publication was not until 1609 and represents a revision -made not long before that date; and as will be seen the company -did not use the name Children of the Blackfriars until about 1606. -There is no reason to suppose that they were the original producers -of the play. A confirmatory indication for 1600 as the date of the -revival may be found in the appearance of the Chapel at Court, for -the first time since 1584, on 6 January and 22 February 1601. On both -occasions Nathaniel Giles was payee. The performance of 6 January, -described by the Treasurer of the Chamber as ‘a showe with musycke -and speciall songes’ was probably Jonson’s _Cynthia’s Revels_, which -that description well fits; that of 22 February may have been the -anonymous _Contention between Liberality and Prodigality_. Both of -these were published in 1601. Jonson has preserved for us in his Folio -of 1616 the list of the principal actors of _Cynthia’s Revels_, who -were ‘Nat. Field, Sal. Pavy, Tho. Day, Ioh. Underwood, Rob. Baxter -and Ioh. Frost’. The induction of the play is spoken by ‘Iacke’ and -two other of the Children, of whom one, impersonating a spectator, -complains that ‘the vmbrae, or ghosts of some three or foure playes, -departed a dozen yeeres since, haue bin seene walking on your stage -heere’. _Liberality and Prodigality_ may be one of the old-fashioned -plays here scoffed at, but it is probable that Jonson also had in -mind Lyly’s _Love’s Metamorphosis_, which was published in 1601 as -‘first playd by the Children of Paules, and now by the Children of -the Chappell’, and there may have been other revivals of the same -kind. The company was included in the Lenten prohibition of 11 March -1601. Later in the year they produced Jonson’s _Poetaster_, containing -raillery of the common stages, which stimulated a reply in Dekker’s -_Satiromastix_, and which, together with their growing popularity, -sufficiently explains the reference to the ‘aerie of children, little -eyases’ in _Hamlet_.[130] The _Poetaster_ was published in 1602 and -the actor-list of the Folio of 1616 contains the names of ‘Nat. Field, -Sal Pavy, Tho. Day, Ioh. Underwood, Wil. Ostler and Tho. Marton’. The -full name of Pavy, who died after acting for three years, is given as -Salathiel in the epigram written to his memory by Jonson; it appears -as Salmon in a document which adds considerably to our knowledge both -of the original constitution of the company and of the lines on which -it was managed. This is a complaint to the Star Chamber by one Henry -Clifton, Esq., of Toftrees, Norfolk, against a serious abuse of the -powers of impressment entrusted under the royal commission to Nathaniel -Giles.[131] Clifton alleged that Giles, in confederacy with Evans, -one James Robinson and others, had set up a play-house for their own -profit in the Blackfriars, and under colour of the commission had taken -boys, not for the royal service in the Chapel Royal, but employment in -acting interludes. He specified as so taken, ‘John Chappell, a gramer -schole scholler of one Mr. Spykes schole neere Criplegate, London; -John Motteram, a gramer scholler in the free schole at Westmi[n]ster; -Nathan ffield, a scholler of a gramer schole in London, kepte by one -Mr. Monkaster; Alvery Trussell, an apprentice to one Thomas Gyles; -one Phillipp Pykman and Thomas Grymes, apprentices to Richard and -Georg Chambers; Salmon Pavey, apprentice to one Peerce’. These were -all children ‘noe way able or fitt for singing, nor by anie the sayd -confederates endevoured to be taught to singe’. Finally they had -made an attempt upon Clifton’s own son Thomas, a boy of thirteen, -who had been seized by Robinson in Christ Church cloister on or -about 13 December 1600, as he went from Clifton’s house in Great St. -Bartholomew’s to the grammar school at Christ Church, and carried off -to the play-house ‘to exercyse the base trade of a mercynary enterlude -player, to his vtter losse of tyme, ruyne and disparagment’. Clifton -went to the Blackfriars, where his son was ‘amongste a companie of -lewde and dissolute mercenary players’, and made a protest; but Giles, -Robinson, and Evans replied that ‘yf the Queene would not beare them -furth in that accion, she should gett another to execute her comission -for them’, that ‘they had aucthoritie sufficient soe to take any noble -mans sonne in this land’, and that ‘were yt not for the benefitt they -made by the sayd play howse, whoe would, should serve the Chappell -with children for them’. Then they committed Thomas Clifton to the -charge of Evans in his father’s presence, with a threat of a whipping -if he was not obedient, and ‘did then and there deliuer vnto his sayd -sonne, in moste scornefull disdaynfull and dispightfull manner, a -scrolle of paper, conteyning parte of one of theire sayd playes or -enterludes, and him, the sayd Thomas Clifton, comaunded to learne -the same by harte’. Clifton appealed to Sir John Fortescue and got -a warrant from him for the boy’s release after a day and a night’s -durance. It was not, however, until a year later, on 15 December 1601, -that he made his complaint.[132] During the following Christmas Giles -brought the boys to Court on 6 and 10 January and 14 February 1602, -and then with the hearing of the case in the Star Chamber during -Hilary Term troubles began for the syndicate. Evans was censured ‘for -his vnorderlie carriage and behauiour in takinge vp of gentlemens -childeren against theire wills and to ymploy them for players and -for other misdemeanors’, and it was decreed that all assurances made -to him concerning the play-house or plays should be void and should -be delivered up to be cancelled.[133] Evans, however, had apparently -prepared himself against this contingency by assigning his lease to -his son-in-law Alexander Hawkins on 21 October 1601. This at least -is one explanation of a somewhat obscure transaction. According to -Evans himself, the assignment was to protect Hawkins from any risk -upon the bond given to Burbadge. On the other hand, there had already -been negotiations for the sale of a half interest in the undertaking -to three new partners, Edward Kirkham, William Rastall, and Thomas -Kendall, and it was claimed later by Kirkham that the assignment to -Hawkins had been in trust to reassign a moiety to these three, in -return for a contribution of capital variously stated at from £300 to -£600. No such reassignment was, however, carried out.[134] But although -the lease from Burbadge was certainly not cancelled as a result of the -Star Chamber decree, it probably did seem prudent that the original -managers of the theatre should remain in the background for a time. -Nothing more is heard of James Robinson, while the partnership between -Evans and Hawkins on the one side and Kirkham, Rastall, and Kendall on -the other was brought into operation under articles dated on 20 April -1602. For the observance of these Evans and Hawkins gave a bond of -£200.[135] Kirkham, Rastall, and Kendall in turn gave Evans a bond of -£50 as security for a weekly payment of 8s., ‘because after the said -agreements made, the complainant [Kirkham] and his said parteners would -at their directions haue the dieting and ordering of the boyes vsed -about the plaies there, which before the said complainant had, and for -the which he had weekely before that disbursed and allowed great sommes -of monie’.[136] - -Of the new managers, Rastall was a merchant and Kendall a haberdasher, -both of London.[137] Kirkham has generally been assumed to be the -Yeoman of the Revels, but of this there is not, so far as I know, -any definite proof. The association did not prove an harmonious one. -According to Evans, Kirkham and his fellows made false information -against him to the Lord Chamberlain, as a result of which he was -‘comaunded by his Lordship to avoyd and leave the same’, had to quit -the country, and lost nearly £300 by the charge he was put to and the -negligence of Hawkins in looking after his profits.[138] This seems -to have been in May 1602. Meanwhile the performances continued. The -company did not appear at Court during the winter of 1602–3, but _Sir -Giles Goosecap_ and possibly Chapman’s _Gentleman Usher_ were produced -by them before the end of Elizabeth’s reign; and on 18 September -1602 a visit was paid to the theatre by Philipp Julius, Duke of -Stettin-Pomerania, of which the following account is preserved in the -journal of Frederic Gerschow, a member of his suite:[139] - - ‘Von dannen sind wir auf die Kinder-comoediam gangen, welche - im Argument iudiciret eine castam viduam, war eine historia - einer königlichen Wittwe aus Engellandt. Es hat aber mit dieser - Kinder-comoedia die Gelegenheit: die Königin hält viel junger - Knaben, die sich der Singekunst mit Ernst befleissigen müssen - und auf allen Instrumenten lernen, auch dabenebenst studieren. - Diese Knaben haben ihre besondere praeceptores in allen - Künsten, insonderheit sehr gute musicos.’ - - ‘Damit sie nun höfliche Sitten anwenden, ist ihnen aufgelegt, - wöchentlich eine comoedia zu agiren, wozu ihnen denn die Königin - ein sonderlich theatrum erbauet und mit köstlichen Kleidern zum - Ueberfluss versorget hat. Wer solcher Action zusehen will, muss - so gut als unserer Münze acht sundische Schillinge geben, und - findet sich doch stets viel Volks auch viele ehrbare Frauens, - weil nutze argumenta und viele schöne Lehren, als von andern - berichtet, sollen tractiret werden; alle bey Lichte agiret, - welches ein gross Ansehen macht. Eine ganze Stunde vorher höret - man eine köstliche musicam instrumentalem von Orgeln, Lauten, - Pandoren, Mandoren, Geigen und Pfeiffen, wie denn damahlen ein - Knabe cum voce tremula in einer Basgeigen so lieblich gesungen, - dass wo es die Nonnen zu Mailand ihnen nicht vorgethan, wir - seines Gleichen auf der Reise nicht gehöret hatten.’ - -This report of a foreigner must not be pressed as if it were precise -evidence upon the business organization of the Blackfriars. Yet it -forms the main basis of the theory propounded by Professor Wallace -that Elizabeth personally financed the Chapel plays and personally -directed the limitation of the number of adult companies allowed to -perform in London, as part of a deliberate scheme of reform, which -her ‘definite notion of what the theatre should be’ had led her to -plan--a theory which, I fear, makes his _Children of the Chapel at -Blackfriars_ misleading, in spite of its value as a review of the -available evidence, old and new, about the company.[140] Professor -Wallace supposes that Edward Kirkham, acting officially as Yeoman of -the Revels, was Elizabeth’s agent, and that, even before he became a -partner in the syndicate, he dieted the boys and supplied them with the -‘köstlichen Kleidern zum Ueberfluss’ mentioned by Gerschow, accounting -for the expenditure either through the Revels Accounts or through some -other unspecified accounts ‘yet to be discovered’.[141] Certainly no -such expenditure appeared in the Revels Accounts, and no other official -account with which Kirkham was concerned is known. It may be pointed -out that, if we took Gerschow’s account as authoritative, we should -have to suppose that Elizabeth provided the theatre building, which -we know she did not, and I think it may be taken for granted that her -payments for the Chapel were no more than those with which we are -already quite familiar, namely the Master’s fee of £40 ‘pro exhibicione -puerorum’, the board-wages of 6_d._ a day for each of twelve children, -possibly the breakfast allowance of £16 a year and the largess of £9 -13_s._ 4_d._ for high feasts, and the occasional rewards for actual -performances. None of these, of course, passed through the Revels -Office, and although this office may, as in the past, have helped to -furnish the actual plays at Court, the cost of exercising in public -remained a speculation of the Master and his backers, who had to look -for recoupment and any possible profits to the sums received from -spectators. If it is true, as Gerschow seems to say, that performances -were only given on Saturdays, the high entrance charge of 1_s._ is -fully explained. The lawsuits, of course, bear full evidence to the -expenditure by the members of the syndicate upon the ‘setting forward’ -of plays.[142] Nor is there any ground for asserting, as Professor -Wallace does, that there were two distinct sets of children, one lodged -in or near the palace for chapel purposes proper, and the other kept -at the Blackfriars for plays.[143] It is true that Clifton charged -Giles with impressing boys who could not sing, but Gerschow’s account -proves that there were others at the Blackfriars who could sing well -enough, and it would be absurd to suppose that there was one trained -choir for the stage and another for divine service. Doubtless, however, -the needs of the theatre made it necessary to employ, by agreement -or impressment, a larger number of boys than the twelve borne on the -official establishment.[144] And that boys whose voices had broken were -retained in the theatrical company may be inferred from the report -about 1602 that the Dowager Countess of Leicester had married ‘one -of the playing boyes of the chappell’.[145] I cannot, finally, agree -with Professor Wallace in assuming that the play attended by Elizabeth -at the Blackfriars on 29 December 1601 was necessarily a public one -at the theatre; much less that it was ‘only one in a series of such -attendances’. She had dined with Lord Hunsdon at his house in the -Blackfriars. The play may have been in his great chamber, or he may -have borrowed the theatre next door for private use on an off-day. And -the actors may even more probably have been his own company than the -Chapel boys.[146] - -The appointment of a new Lord Chamberlain by James I seems to have -enabled Evans to return to England. He found theatrical affairs in a -bad way, owing to the plague of 1603, and ‘speach and treatie’ arose -between him and Burbadge about a possible surrender of his lease.[147] -By December, however, things looked brighter. Evans did some repairs -to the Blackfriars, and the enterprise continued.[148] Like the adult -companies, the partners secured direct royal protection under the -following patent of 4 February 1604:[149] - -[Sidenote: De licencia speciali pro Eduardo Kirkham et aliis pro le -Revell domine Regine.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Mayors Shiriffes Justices - of Peace Baliffes Constables and to all other our officers - mynisters and lovinge Subiectes to whome theis presentes shall - come, greeting. Whereas the Queene our deerest wief hath for her - pleasure and recrea[~c]on when she shall thinke it fit to have - any playes or shewes appoynted her servauntes Edward Kirkham - Alexander Hawkyns Thomas Kendall and Robert Payne to provyde and - bring vppe a convenient nomber of Children, whoe shalbe called - children of her Revelles, knowe ye that we have appointed and - authorized and by theis presentes doe authorize and appoynte - the said Edward Kirkham Alexander Hawkins Thomas Kendall and - Robert Payne from tyme to tyme to provide keepe and bring vppe a - convenient nomber of Children, and them to practize and exercise - in the quality of playinge by the name of Children of the - Revells to the Queene within the Black-fryers in our Cytie of - London, or in any other convenient place where they shall thinke - fit for that purpose. Wherefore we will and commaunde [you] and - everie of you to whome it shall appertayne to permytt her said - Servauntes to keepe a convenient nomber of Children by the name - of Children of her Revells and them to exercise in the quality - of playing according to her pleasure. Provided allwaies that noe - such Playes or Shewes shalbee presented before the said Queene - our wief by the said Children or by them any where publiquelie - acted but by the approbacion and allowaunce of Samuell Danyell, - whome her pleasure is to appoynt for that purpose. And theis - our lettres Patentes shalbe your sufficient warraunte in this - behalfe. In witnes whereof &c., witnes our self at Westminster - the fourth day of February. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -Apparently it was still thought better to keep the name of Evans out of -the patent, and he was represented by Hawkins; of the nature of Payne’s -connexion with the company I know nothing. The adoption of the name of -Children of the Queen’s Revels should perhaps be taken as indicating -that, as the boy-actors grew older, the original connexion with the -Chapel became looser. The use of Giles’s commission as a method of -obtaining recruits was probably abandoned, and there is no evidence -that he had any further personal association with the theatre.[150] -The commission itself was, however, renewed on 13 September 1604, -with a new provision for the further education of boys whose voices -had changed;[151] and in December Giles was successful in getting the -board-wages allowed for his charges raised from 6_d._ to 10_d._ a -day.[152] - -The Revels children started gaily on the new phase of their career, and -the _Hamlet_ allusion is echoed in Middleton’s advice to a gallant, -‘if his humour so serve him, to call in at the Blackfriars, where he -should see a nest of boys able to ravish a man’.[153] They were at -Court on 21 February 1604 and on 1 and 3 January 1605. Their payees -were Kirkham for the first year and Evans and Daniel for the second. -Evidently Daniel was taking a more active part in the management than -that of a mere licenser. Their play of 1 January 1605 was Chapman’s -_All Fools_ (1605), and to 1603–5 may also be assigned his _Monsieur -d’Olive_ (1606), and possibly his _Bussy d’Ambois_ (1607), and _Day’s -Law Tricks_ (1608). I venture to conjecture that the boys’ companies -were much more under the influence of their poets than were their -adult rivals; it is noteworthy that plays written for them got -published much more rapidly than the King’s or Prince’s men ever -permitted.[154] And it is known that one poet, who now began for the -first time to work for the Blackfriars, acquired a financial interest -in the undertaking. This was John Marston, to whom Evans parted, at -an unspecified date, with a third of the moiety which the arrangement -of 1602 had left on his hands.[155] Marston’s earliest contributions -were probably _The Malcontent_ (1604) and _The Dutch Courtesan_ -(1605). From the induction to the _Malcontent_ we learn that it -was appropriated by the King’s men, in return for the performance -by the boys of a play on Jeronimo, perhaps the extant _I Jeronimo_, -in which the King’s claimed rights. Marston’s satirical temper did -not, however, prove altogether an asset to the company; and I fear -that the deference of its directors to literary suggestions was not -compatible with that practical political sense, which as a rule enabled -the professional players to escape conflicts with authority. The -history of the next few years is one of a series of indiscretions, -which render it rather surprising that the company should throughout -have succeeded in maintaining its vitality, even with the help of -constant reconstructions of management and changes of name. The first -trouble, the nature of which is unknown, appears to have been caused -by Marston’s _Dutch Courtesan_. Then came, ironically enough, the -_Philotas_ of the company’s official censor, Samuel Daniel. Then, in -1605, the serious affair of _Eastward Ho!_ for which Marston appears -to have been mainly responsible, although he saved himself by flight, -whereas his fellow authors, Jonson and Chapman, found themselves in -prison and in imminent danger of losing their ears.[156] I do not -think that the scandal arose on the performance of the play, but on -its publication in the late autumn.[157] The company did not appear -at Court during the winter of 1605–6, but the ingenious Kirkham seems -to have succeeded in transferring one of its new plays, Marston’s -_Fawn_, and possibly also _Bussy D’Ambois_, to Paul’s, and appeared -triumphantly before the Treasurer of the Chamber’s paymaster the -following spring as ‘one of the Masters of the Children of Pawles’. -Meanwhile the Blackfriars company went on acting, but it is to be -inferred from the title-pages of its next group of plays, Marston’s -_Sophonisba_ (1606), Sharpham’s _The Fleir_ (1607), and Day’s _Isle of -Gulls_ (1606), that its misdemeanour had cost it the direct patronage -of the Queen, and that it was now only entitled to call itself, not -Children of the Queen’s Revels, but Children of the Revels.[158] -Possibly the change of name also indicates that thereafter, not -Daniel, but the Master of the Revels, acted as its censor. Anne -herself, by the way, must have felt the snub, for it was probably at -the Blackfriars that, if the French ambassador may be trusted, she had -attended representations ‘to enjoy the laugh against her husband’.[159] -The alias, whatever it connoted, proved but an ephemeral one. By -February 1606 one of the plays just named, the _Isle of Gulls_, had -given a new offence. Some of those responsible for it were thrown into -Bridewell, and a fresh reconstruction became imperative.[160] It was -probably at this date that one Robert Keysar, a London goldsmith, came -into the business. Kirkham, like Evans before him, discreetly retired -from active management, and the Children, with Keysar as ‘interest -with them’, became ‘Masters themselves’, taking the risks and paying -the syndicate for the use of the hall.[161] Kirkham claims that under -this arrangement the moiety of profits in which he had rights amounted -to £150 a year, as against £100 a year previously earned.[162] Shortly -afterwards the dissociation of the Chapel from the Blackfriars was -completed by a new commission issued to Giles on 7 November 1606, to -which was added the following clause: - - ‘Prouided alwayes and wee doe straightlie charge and commaunde - that none of the saide Choristers or Children of the Chappell - so to be taken by force of this commission shalbe vsed or - imployed as Comedians or Stage players, or to exercise or acte - any Stage playes Interludes Comedies or tragedies, for that it - is not fitt or decent that such as shoulde singe the praises - of God Allmightie shoulde be trayned vpp or imployed in suche - lascivious and prophane exercises.’[163] - -It is presumably to this pronouncement that Flecknoe refers in 1664, -when he speaks of the Chapel theatre being converted to the use of the -Children of the Revels, on account of the growing precision of the -people and the growing licentiousness of plays.[164] It is, however, -curious to observe that the abandoned titles of the company tended to -linger on in actual use. Evans in 1612 speaks of the syndicate as ‘the -coparteners sharers, and Masters of the Queenes Maiesties Children -of the Revells (for so yt was often called)’ in 1608;[165] while the -name Children of the Chapel is used in the Stationers’ Register entry -of _Your Five Gallants_ in 1608, at Maidstone in 1610, and even -in such official documents as the Revels Accounts for 1604–5 and the -Chamber Accounts for 1612–13. - -Under Keysar the name was Children of the Blackfriars. For a couple -of years the company succeeded in keeping clear of further disaster. -But on 29 March 1608 the French ambassador, M. de la Boderie, reported -that all the London theatres had been closed, and were now threatened -by the King with a permanent inhibition on account of two plays which -had given the greatest offence.[166] Against one of these, which -dealt with the domestic affairs of the French king, he had himself -lodged a protest, and his description leaves no doubt that this was -one of the parts of Chapman’s _Conspiracy and Tragedy of Byron_, -which was published, without the offending scene, later in the year, -as ‘acted at the Black-Friars’. The other play was a personal attack -upon James himself. ‘Un jour ou deux devant’, says La Boderie, ‘ilz -avoient dépêché leur Roi, sa mine d’Escosse, et tous ses favorits -d’une estrange sorte; car aprés luy avoir fait dépiter le ciel sur -le vol d’un oyseau, et faict battre un gentilhomme pour avoir rompu -ses chiens, ils le dépeignoient ivre pour le moins une fois le jour.’ -This piece is not extant, but I have recently come across another -allusion to it in a letter of 11 March 1608 to Lord Salisbury from -Sir Thomas Lake, a clerk of the signet in attendance upon the King at -Thetford.[167] - - ‘His ma^{tie} was well pleased with that which your lo. - advertiseth concerning the committing of the players y^{t} - have offended in y^{e} matters of France, and commanded me to - signifye to your lo. that for y^{e} others who have offended in - y^{e} matter of y^{e} Mynes and other lewd words, which is y^{e} - children of y^{e} blackfriars, That though he had signified - his mynde to your lo. by my lo. of Mountgommery yet I should - repeate it again, That his G. had vowed they should never play - more, but should first begg their bred and he wold have his vow - performed, And therefore my lo. chamberlain by himselfe or your - ll. at the table should take order to dissolve them, and to - punish the maker besides.’ - -Sir Thomas Lake appears to have been under the impression that two -companies were concerned, and that the ‘matters of France’ were not -played by the Children of Blackfriars. If so, we must suppose that -_Byron_ was originally produced elsewhere, perhaps by the King’s -Revels, and transferred to the Blackfriars after ‘reformation’ by the -Council. M. de la Boderie, however, writes as if the same company -were responsible for both plays, and perhaps it is on the whole more -probable that Sir Thomas Lake misunderstood the situation. I feel -very little doubt that the maker of the play on the mines was once -more Marston, who was certainly summoned before the Privy Council and -committed to Newgate, on some offence not specified in the extant -record, on 8 June 1608.[168] And this was probably the end of his -stormy connexion with the stage. He disappeared from the Blackfriars -and from literary life, leaving _The Insatiate Countess_ unfinished, -and selling the share in the syndicate which he had acquired from Evans -about 1603 to Robert Keysar for £100. Before making his purchase, -Keysar, who tells us that he put a value of £600 on the whole of the -enterprise, got an assurance, as he thought, from the King’s men -that they would not come to any arrangement with Henry Evans which -would prejudice his interests.[169] This the King’s men afterwards -denied, and as a matter of fact the negotiations, tentatively opened -as far back as 1603, between Evans and Burbadge for a surrender of -the lease were now coming to a head, and its actual surrender took -place about August 1608.[170] On the ninth of that month Burbadge -executed fresh leases of the theatre to a new syndicate representing -the King’s men.[171] The circumstances leading up to Evans’s part in -this transaction became subsequently the subject of hostile criticism -by Kirkham, who asserted that the lease, which Alexander Hawkins -held in trust, had been stolen from his custody by Mrs. Evans, and -that the surrender was effected with the fraudulent intention of -excluding Kirkham from the profits to which he was entitled under the -settlement of 1602.[172] According to Evans, however, Kirkham was at -least implicitly a consenting party, for it was he who, after the -King’s inhibition had brought the profits to an end, grew weary of -the undertaking and initiated measures for winding it up. On or about -26 July 1608 he had had the ‘apparells, properties and goods’ of the -syndicate appraised and an equitable division made. When some of the -boys were committed to prison he had ‘said he would deale no more with -yt, “for”, quoth he, “yt is a base thing”, or vsed wordes to such, or -very like effect’. And he had ‘delivered up their commission, which he -had vnder the greate seale aucthorising them to plaie, and discharged -divers of the partners and poetts’. In view of this, Evans claimed that -he was fully justified in coming to terms with Burbadge.[173] - -After all, the King’s anger proved only a flash in the pan. Perhaps -the company travelled during the summer of 1608, if they, and not -the King’s Revels, were ‘the Children of the Revells’ rewarded at -Leicester on 21 August.[174] But by the following Christmas they were -in London, and with Keysar as their payee gave three plays at Court, -where they had not put in an appearance since 1604–5. Two of these were -on 1 and 4 January 1609. As they still bore the name of Children of -Blackfriars, they had presumably remained on sufferance in their old -theatre, which the King’s men may not have been in a hurry to occupy -during a plague-stricken period.[175] But when a new season opened in -the autumn of 1609, new quarters became necessary. These they found at -Whitefriars, which had been vacated by the failure of the short-lived -King’s Revels company, and it was as the Children of Whitefriars that -Keysar brought them to Court for no less than five plays during the -winter of 1609–10. He had now enlisted a partner in Philip Rosseter, -one of the lutenists of the royal household, who carried out a scheme, -with the co-operation of the King’s men, for buying off with a ‘dead -rent’ the possible competition of the Paul’s boys, who had closed their -doors about 1606, but might at any moment open them again.[176] More -than this, through the influence of Sir Thomas Monson, Rosseter was -successful in obtaining a new patent, dated on 4 January 1610, by which -the Children once more became entitled to call themselves Children of -the Queen’s Revels.[177] It ran as follows: - -[Sidenote: De concessione Roberto Daborne & aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c., To all Maiors Sheriffes Iustices - of peace Bayliffes Constables and to all other our Officers - Ministers and loving Subiects to whome theis presentes shall - come Greeting. Whereas the Quene our deerest wyfe hathe for - hir pleasure, and recreacion, when shee shall thinke it fitt - to have any Playes or Shewes, appoynted hir servantes Robert - Daborne, Phillippe Rosseter, Iohn Tarbock, Richard Iones, and - Robert Browne to prouide and bring vpp a convenient nomber of - Children whoe shalbe called Children of hir Revelles, knowe ye - that wee haue appoynted and authorised, and by theis presentes - do authorize and appoynte the said Robert Daborne, Phillipp - Rosseter, Iohn Tarbock, Richard Iones, and Robert Browne from - tyme to tyme to provide keepe and bring vpp a convenient nomber - of children, and them to practice and exercise in the quality of - playing, by the name of Children of the Revells to the Queene, - within the white ffryers in the Suburbs of our Citty of London, - or in any other convenyent place where they shall thinke fitt - for that purpose. Wherfore wee will and commaund you and euery - of you to whome it shall appertayne to permitt her said seruants - to keepe a conuenient nomber of Children by the name of the - Children of hir Revells, and them to exercise in the qualitye - of playing according to hir pleasure, And theis our lettres - patentes shalbe your sufficient warrant in this behaulfe. - Wittnes our self at Westminster, the ffourth daye of Ianuary. - per breve de priuato sigillo. - -Of the new syndicate Browne and Jones were old professional actors -who had belonged to the Admiral’s men a quarter of a century before, -and had since been prominent, Browne in particular, as organizers -of English companies for travel in Germany. Daborne was or became a -playwright. Of Tarbock I know nothing; he may have been a nominee of -Keysar, whose own name, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, does not -appear in the patent. He may, of course, have retired, but a lawsuit -which he brought in 1610 suggests that his connexion with the company -was not altogether broken. The Whitefriars had not the tradition of -the Blackfriars, and Keysar was aggrieved at the surrender of the -Blackfriars lease by Evans over his head. On 8 February 1610 he laid a -bill in the Court of Requests against the housekeepers of the King’s -men, claiming a share in their profits since the date of surrender, -which he estimated at £1,500, on the strength of the one-sixth interest -in the lease assigned by Evans to Marston and by Marston to him.[178] -He asserted that he had kept boys two years in the hope of playing -‘vpon the ceasing of the generall sicknes’, and had spent £500 on -that and on making provision in the house, and had now, at a loss of -£1,000, had to disperse ‘a companye of the moste exparte and skilful -actors within the realme of England to the number of eighteane or -twentye persons all or moste of them trayned vp in that service, in -the raigne of the late Queene Elizabeth for ten yeares togeather and -afterwardes preferred into her Maiesties service to be the Chilldren -of her Revells’.[179] Burbadge and his fellows denied that they had -made £1,500, or that they had attempted to defraud Keysar either about -the surrender of the lease or, as he also alleged, the ‘dead rent’ to -Paul’s, and they pointed out that his losses were really due to the -plague. He could recover his share of the theatrical stock from Evans. -Evans had had no legal right to assign his interest under the lease. -As only the pleadings in the case and not the depositions or the order -of the court are extant, we do not know what Evans, who was to be a -witness, had to say.[180] The fact that one of the new Blackfriars -leases of 1608 was to a Thomas Evans leaves the transaction between -Henry Evans and Burbadge not altogether free from a suspicion of bad -faith. Kirkham also found that he had been either hasty or outwitted in -1608, and as the deaths of Rastall and Kendall in that year had left -him the sole claimant to any interest under the arrangement of 1602, he -had recourse to litigation. In the course of 1611 and 1612 he brought -a ‘multiplicitie of suites’ against Evans and Hawkins, and was finally -non-suited in the King’s Bench.[181] Then, in May 1612, Evans in his -turn brought a Chancery action against Kirkham, in the hope of getting -his bond of 1602 cancelled, and thus securing himself against any -further persecution for petty breaches of the articles of agreement. -The result of this is unknown, but in the course of it many of the -incidents of 1600–8 were brought into question, and Kirkham claimed -that not merely had Evans shut him out in 1604 from certain rooms in -the Blackfriars which he was entitled to use, but that by the surrender -of the lease in 1608 he had lost profits which he estimated at £60 -a year.[182] Finally in July 1612 Kirkham brought a Chancery action -against Evans, Burbadge, and John Heminges, and also against the widow -of Alexander Hawkins and Edward Painton, to whom she was now married, -for reinstatement in his moiety of the lease. In this suit much of the -same ground was again traversed, but the Court refused to grant him any -relief. - -It is not altogether easy to disentangle the plays produced at the -Blackfriars under Keysar from those produced immediately afterwards -at the Whitefriars. The only title-page which definitely names the -Children of the Blackfriars is that of Jonson’s _The Case is Altered_ -(1609). But Chapman’s _Byron_ (1608) and _May Day_ (1611) and -Middleton’s _Your Five Gallants_ (n.d.?1608) also claim to have been -acted at the Blackfriars. The Q_{1} of Middleton’s _A Trick to Catch -the Old One_ (1608) assigns it to Paul’s; the Q_{2} both to Paul’s and -Blackfriars, with an indication of a Court performance on New Year’s -Day, which can only be that of 1 January 1609. This play, therefore, -must have been taken over from Paul’s, when that house closed in 1606 -or 1607. As Middleton is not generally found writing for Blackfriars, -_Your Five Gallants_ may have been acquired in the same way. It is also -extremely likely that Chapman’s _Bussy d’Ambois_ passed from Paul’s -to Blackfriars on its way to the King’s men. No name of company or -theatre is attached to Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Knight of the Burning -Pestle_ (1613) or to _The Faithful Shepherdess_ (_c._ 1609). But the -_K. B. P._ was published with an epistle to Keysar as its preserver -and can be securely dated in 1607–8; it refers to the house in which -it was played as having been open for seven years, which just fits -the Blackfriars. _The Faithful Shepherdess_ is of 1608–9 and a boys’ -play; the commendatory verses by Field, Jonson, and Chapman justify -an attribution to the company with which they had to do. Chapman’s -_The Widow’s Tears_ (1612) had been staged both at Blackfriars and at -Whitefriars before publication, and was probably therefore produced -shortly before the company moved house. The greatest difficulty is -Jonson’s _Epicoene_ (S. R. 20 September 1610). No edition is known to -be extant earlier than the Folio of 1616, in which Jonson ascribed the -production to ‘1609’ and to the Children of the Revels. According to -the system of dating ordinarily adopted by Jonson in this Folio, ‘1609’ -should mean 1609 and not 1609–10. Yet the Children were not entitled -to call themselves ‘of the Revels’ during 1609. Either Jonson’s -chronology or his memory of the shifting nomenclature of the company -has slipped. The actor-list of _Epicoene_ names ‘Nat. Field, Gil. -Carie, Hug. Attawel, Ioh. Smith, Will. Barksted, Will. Pen, Ric. Allin, -Ioh. Blaney’. Amongst these Field is the sole direct connecting link -with the Chapel actor-lists of 1600 and 1601. Keysar’s pleading shows -us that from 1600 to 1610 the company had maintained a substantial -identity throughout all its phases, as successively Children of the -Chapel, Children of the Queen’s Revels, Children of the Blackfriars, -Children of the Whitefriars; but part of his grievance is its -dispersal, and possibly the continuity with the second Children of the -Revels may not have been quite so marked. ‘In processe of time’, say -the Burbadges in the _Blackfriars Sharers Papers_ of 1635, ‘the boyes -growing up to bee men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler, and were -taken to strengthen the King’s service’.[183] This, which is written in -relation to the acquisition of the Blackfriars, is doubtless accurate -as regards Ostler and Underwood, and their transfer may reasonably be -placed in the winter of 1609–10. But it was not until some years later -that Field joined the King’s men. - -The career of the second Queen’s Revels, but for the temporary -suppression of _Epicoene_ owing to a misconstruction placed on it by -Arabella Stuart, was comparatively uneventful. They are recorded at -Maidstone as the Children of the Chapel about March 1610. They made -no appearance at Court during the following winter, and were again -travelling in the following autumn, when they came to Norwich under -the leadership of one Ralph Reeve, who showed the patent of 4 January -1610, and at first claimed to be Rosseter, but afterwards admitted -that he was not. As he could show no letters of deputation, he was not -allowed to play, although he received a reward on the following day, -which was recorded, not quite correctly, as paid to ‘the master of the -children of the King’s Revells’. By 29 August Barksted and Carey had -left the company to join the newly formed Lady Elizabeth’s men. We may -therefore place at some time before this date Barksted’s completion of -Marston’s _Insatiate Countess_, which was published in 1613 as ‘acted -at Whitefriars’. The entry in the Stationer’s Register of Field’s -_A Woman is a Weathercock_ (1612) on 23 November 1611 shows that he -also had begun to experiment in authorship. As this had been acted at -Court, as well as by the Queen’s Revels at Whitefriars, it probably -dates back to the winter of 1609–10. The company returned to court on -5 January 1612 with Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Cupid’s Revenge_, and the -Clerk of the Revels entered them as the Children of Whitefriars.[184] -The travels of 1612 were under the leadership of Nicholas Long, and on -20 May another _contretemps_ occurred at Norwich. The instrument of -deputation was forthcoming on this occasion, but the mayor chose to -interpret the patent as giving authority only to teach and instruct -children, and not to perform with them; and so once again ‘the Master -of the Kings Revells’ got his reward of 20s., but was not allowed to -play. Between Michaelmas and Christmas ‘the queens maiesties revellers’ -were at Bristol, and at some time during 1612–13 ‘two of the company of -the childeren of Revells’ received a reward at Coventry. Conceivably -the provincial company of Reeve and Long was a distinct organization -from that in London. Rosseter was payee for four performances at Court -during the winter of 1612–13. On the first occasion, in the course of -November, the play was Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Coxcomb_; on 1 January -and again on 9 January it was _Cupid’s Revenge_; and on 27 February it -was _The Widow’s Tears_. In one version of the _Chamber Accounts_ the -company appears this year as the Children of the Queen’s Revels, but -in another under the obsolete designation of Children of the Chapel. -In addition to the plays already named, Chapman’s _Revenge of Bussy_ -had been on the Whitefriars stage before it was published in 1613; and -it is conceivable that Chapman’s _Chabot_ and Beaumont and Fletcher’s -_Monsieur Thomas_ and _The Nightwalker_ may be Queen’s Revels plays of -1610–13. They may also, indeed, be Lady Elizabeth’s plays of 1613–16, -but during this period the Lady Elizabeth and the Queen’s Revels appear -to have been practically amalgamated, under an arrangement made between -Henslowe and Rosseter in March 1613 and then modified, first in 1614, -and again on the addition of Prince Charles’s men to the ‘combine’ -in 1615. Yet in some way the Children of the Revels maintained a -separate individuality, at least in theory, during these years, as -may be seen from the patent of 3 June 1615, which licensed Rosseter -and Reeve, together with Robert Jones and Philip Kingman, to build a -new Blackfriars theatre in the house known as Porter’s Hall.[185] The -main purpose of this undertaking was expressed to be the provision -of a new house for the Children of the Queen’s Revels instead of the -Whitefriars, where Rosseter’s lease was now expired, although it was -also contemplated that use might be made of it by the Prince’s and the -Lady Elizabeth’s players. Porter’s Hall only stood for a short time -before civic hostility procured its demolition, and the single play, -which we can be fairly confident that the Children of the Revels gave -in it, is Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Scornful Lady_. This presumably -fell after the amalgamation under Henslowe broke up about the time -of his death early in 1616. Field appears to have joined the King’s -men about 1615. The Queen’s Revels dropped out of London theatrical -life. Their provincial travels under Nicholas Long had apparently -terminated in 1612, as in 1614 he is found using the patent of the -Lady Elizabeth’s men (q. v.) in the provinces. But some members of the -company seem to have gone travelling during the period of troubled -relations with Henslowe, and are traceable at Coventry on 7 October -1615, and at Nottingham in February 1616 and again later in 1616–17. On -31 October 1617 a new Queen’s Revel’s company was formed by Rosseter, -in association with Nicholas Long, Robert Lee of the Queen’s men, and -William Perry of the King’s Revels.[186] - - - iii. THE CHILDREN OF WINDSOR - - _Masters of the Children_:--Richard Farrant (1564–80), - Nathaniel Giles (1595–1634). - -The Chapel Royal at Windsor was served by an ecclesiastical college, -which had been in existence as far back as the reign of Henry I, and -had subsequently been resettled as St. George’s Chapel in connexion -with the establishment of the Order of the Garter by Edward III, -finally incorporated under Edward IV, and exempted from dissolution at -the Reformation. Edward III had provided for a warden, who afterwards -came to be called dean, 12 canons, 13 priest vicars, 4 clerks, 6 -boy choristers, and 26 ‘poor knights’. The boys were to be ‘endued -with clear and tuneable voices’, and to succeed the clerks as their -voices changed. Their number was altered from time to time; during -the greater part of Elizabeth’s reign it stood at 10. Each had an -annual fee of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ They were lodged within the Castle, in a -chamber north of the chapel, and next to a building founded by James -Denton in 1520, known as the ‘New Commons’. This is now merged in the -canons’ houses, but a doorway is inscribed ‘Edes pro Sacellaenorum -et Choristarum conviviis extructae A. D. 1519’. There were also an -epistoler and a gospeller.[187] The music was ‘useyd after ye order and -maner of ye quenes chappell’.[188] One of the clerks, whose position -corresponded to that of the Gentlemen of the household Chapel Royal, -was appointed by the Chapter of the College to act as Organist and -Master of the Children. The College was privileged, like the Chapel -Royal itself, to recruit its choir by impressment. A commission for -this purpose, issued on 8 March 1560, merely repeats the terms of one -granted by Mary, which itself had confirmed earlier grants by Henry -VIII and Edward VI.[189] - -The Master at Elizabeth’s accession was one Preston.[190] But he was -deprived, as unwilling to accept the new ecclesiastical settlement; -and the first Master under whom the choristers appear to have acted at -Court was Richard Farrant. He had been a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal -from about 1553, but was replaced on 24 April 1564, doubtless on his -appointment as Master at Windsor.[191] On the following 30 September -the Chapter assigned a chantry to the teacher of the choristers for -an increase of his maintenance.[192] On 5 November 1570, Farrant was -reappointed a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal, but evidently did not -resign his Mastership.[193] On 11 February 1567 he began a series of -plays with the ‘Children of Windsor’ at Court, which was continued at -Shrovetide 1568, on 22 February and 27 December 1569, at Shrovetide -1571, on 1 January 1572, when he gave _Ajax and Ulysses_, on 1 January -1573, on 6 January 1574, when he gave _Quintus Fabius_, on 6 January -1575, when he gave _King Xerxes_, and on 27 December 1575. With the -winter of 1576–7 the entries of his name in the accounts of the -Treasurer take a new form; he is no longer ‘M^r of the children of -the Chappell at Wyndsore’ but ‘M^r of the children of the Chappell’. -The Revels Accounts for the same season record that on 6 January 1577 -_Mutius Scaevola_ was played at Court by ‘the Children of Windsore and -the Chappell’, and it is a fair inference that Farrant, in addition to -exercising his own office, was now also acting as deputy to William -Hunnis, the Master by patent of the Children of the Chapel Royal, and -had made up a combined company from both choirs for the Christmas -delectation of the Queen.[194] This interpretation of the facts was -confirmed when Professor Feuillerat was able to show from the Loseley -archives that in 1576 Farrant had taken a lease of rooms in the -Blackfriars from Sir William More and had converted them into the first -Blackfriars theatre.[195] Whether boys from Windsor continued to take -a share in the performances by the Chapel during 1577–8, 1578–9, and -1579–80, for all of which Farrant was payee, we do not know; there is -no further mention of them as actors in the Court accounts, although -they accompanied the singing men from Windsor to Reading during the -progress of 1576.[196] Farrant died on 30 November 1580, leaving a -widow Anne, who in 1582 obtained the reversion of a small lease from -the Crown, and was involved in controversies with Sir William More over -the Blackfriars tenement at least up to 1587.[197] He had acquired some -reputation as a musician, and amongst his surviving compositions are -a few which may have been intended for use in plays.[198] Farrant was -succeeded at Windsor by Nathaniel Giles, but only after an interval -of either five or fifteen years. Ashmole reports Giles’s monument as -crediting him with forty-nine years’ service as Master of St. George’s -before his death in 1634.[199] There must be an inaccuracy, either -here or in the date of 1 October ’37 Eliz.’ (1595) upon a copy of his -indenture of appointment by the Windsor chapter, which is amongst -Ashmole’s papers.[200] This recites that the chapter ‘are now destitute -of an experte and cunnynge man’, and that Giles ‘is well contented to -come and serve’ them. He is granted from the previous Michaelmas to the -end of his life ‘the Roome and place of a Clerk within the said ffree -Chappell and to be one of the Players on the Organes there, and also -the office of Instructor and Master of the ten Children or Choristers -of the same ffree Chappell, And the office of tutor, creansor, or -governor of the same tenn Children or Coristers’. He is to have an -annuity of £81 6s. 8d. and ‘tholde comons howse’, wherein John Mundie -lately dwelt, which he is to hold on the same terms as ‘one Richarde -ffarrante enjoyed the same’ at a rent of £1 6_s._ 8_d._ His fee is -to be ‘over and besides all such giftes, rewardes or benevolences as -from time to time during the naturall lief of him the said Nathanaell -Gyles shall be given bestowed or ymployed to or upon the Choristers -for singinge of Balattes, playes or for the like respects whatsoever’. -He is to maintain the children and to supply vacancies, ‘her Maiesties -comission for the taking of Children which her highnes hath alredie -graunted to the said Dean and Canons being allowed vnto him the said -Nathanaell Gyles for that purpose’. Evidently the door was left open -for a resumption of theatrical activities, such as was afterwards -brought about at the London Chapel Royal during the Mastership of Giles -there; but there is no proof that such a resumption ever took place at -Windsor. It is perhaps a fanciful conjecture that the boys may have -helped with _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ about 1600.[201] - - - iv. CHILDREN OF THE KING’S REVELS - - _Masters_:--Martin Slater and others. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The chief source of information - is J. Greenstreet, _The Whitefriars Theatre in the Time of - Shakspere_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92_, 269), which gives - the text of the bill and answer in _Androwes v. Slater_ - (1609, Chancery).] - -The accident of litigation brings into light a company of boys, who -appear to have acted for a brief and troubled period, which probably -ended in 1608 or early in 1609. The story is told by one George -Androwes a silk-weaver of London, and begins in February 1608. At -that date a part of the dissolved Whitefriars monastery was held, in -contemplation of a lease from Lord Buckhurst, by Michael Drayton and -Thomas Woodford. The lease was actually executed about the following -March, and was for six years, eight months, and twenty days, at a rent -of £50. Woodford had assigned his interest to one Lording Barry; and -Barry in turn persuaded Androwes to take over a third of it, and to -join a syndicate, of which the active manager was Martin Slater, who -is described as a citizen and ironmonger of London, but is, of course, -well known as an actor in the Admiral’s and other companies. The bill -incorporates the terms of Articles of Agreement entered into on 10 -March 1608 by Slater on the one hand and Barry, Androwes, and Drayton, -together with William Trevell, William Cooke, Edward Sibthorpe, and -John Mason, all of London, gentlemen, on the other. They throw a -good deal of light upon the business organization of a theatrical -enterprise. Slater is to have a sixth part of the net profits of ‘any -playes, showes, interludes, musique, or such like exercises’ in the -Whitefriars play-house or elsewhere, together with lodging for himself -and his family on the premises, and any profits that can be made in the -house ‘either by wine, beere, ale, tobacco, wood, coales, or any such -commoditie’. When the ‘pattent for playinge’ shall be renewed, Slater’s -name is to be joined in it with Drayton’s, because ‘if any restrainte -of their playinge shall happen by reason of the plague or other -wise, it shalbe for more creditt of the whole company that the said -Martyn shall travel with the children, and acquainte the magistrates -with their busines’. During any such travel his allowance is to be -increased to a share and a half, no apparel, books, or other property -of the company is to be removed without the consent of the sharers, -and none of them is to print any of the play-books, ‘except the booke -of Torrismount, and that playe not to be printed by any before twelve -monthes be fully expired’. In order to avoid debt, a sixth part is -to be taken up each day of the ‘chardges of the howse’ for the week, -including ‘the gatherers, the wages, the childrens bourd, musique, -booke keeper, tyreman, tyrewoman, lights, the Maister of the revells’ -duties, and all other things needefull and necessary’. The children are -to be ‘bound’ for three years to Slater, who undertakes not to part -with ‘the said younge men or ladds’ during their apprenticeship except -on the consent of his fellow sharers. - -The theatrical experience of the syndicate presumably rested with -Slater and Drayton. Of Trevell, Cooke, and Sibthorpe I know nothing, -except that Trevell, like Woodford, seems still to have had an interest -in the lease of the Whitefriars (cf. ch. xvii) in 1621. But Mason -and Barry were the authors respectively of _The Turk_ (1610, S. R. -10 March 1609), and _Ram Alley_ (1611, S. R. 9 November 1610), the -title-pages of which ascribe them to the children of the King’s Revels, -and thereby enable us to give a more definite title to the boys, who -are only described in the Chancery pleadings as ‘the Children of the -revells there beinge’, that is to say, at the Whitefriars. And we -can trace the King’s Revels a little farther back than February 1608 -with the aid of the earliest of similar entries on the title-pages of -other plays, which are, in the chronological order of publication, -Sharpham’s _Cupid’s Whirligig_ (1607, S. R. 29 June 1607), Middleton’s -_Family of Love_ (1608, S. R. 12 October 1607), Day’s _Humour Out Of -Breath_ (1608, S. R. 12 April 1608), Markham’s (and Machin’s) _The -Dumb Knight_ (1608, S. R. 6 October 1608), and Armin’s _Two Maids of -Moreclack_ (1609). If Lewis Machin was the author of the anonymous -_Every Woman In Her Humour_ (1609), it is possible that this ought to -be added to the list. Clearly the boys were playing at least as early -as the first half of 1607 and the agreement of 1608 must represent a -reconstruction of the original business organization. I do not find -anything in the plays to prove an earlier date than 1607, but it is -quite conceivable that the King’s Revels may have come into existence -as early as 1606, perhaps with the idea of replacing the Queen’s Revels -after their disgrace over _The Isle of Gulls_. But if so, the Queen’s -Revels managed to hold together under another name, and in fact proved -more enduring than their rivals. Mr. Fleay, however, suggests that the -King’s Revels were a continuation of the Paul’s boys, and played at the -singing-school, and apparently also that they were themselves continued -as the Duke of York’s men (_H. of S._ 152, 188, 202, 206). He did not, -I think, know of _Androwes v. Slater_, but _Androwes v. Slater_ does -not indicate that the King’s Revels were at Whitefriars before 1608; -rather the contrary.[202] The dates render Mr. Fleay’s conjectures -tempting, although it must be admitted that there is not much evidence. -But _The Family of Love_ was played in a round theatre and the Paul’s -house was round. The curious description of the Duke of York’s men at -Leicester in 1608 as ‘of the White Chapple, London’, might conceivably -be a mistake for ‘of the Whitefriars’, but more probably indicates that -they came from the Boar’s Head (cf. ch. xvi). ‘The Children of the -Revells’ followed them at Leicester on 21 August 1608, but these may -have been the Blackfriars children under a not quite official name. A -complete search through the Patent Rolls for 1606–8 might disinter the -patent for the King’s Revels, which is referred to in the Articles of -Agreements; I find no obvious clue to it in the printed index of signet -bills. It seems possible that William Barksted (cf. ch. xv) may have -belonged to the King’s Revels. - -The syndicate did not hold together long. It will be noticed that, in -spite of the attempt in the articles to bar the printing of plays, -these had begun to reach the stationers again as early as April 1608. -The inhibition of 1608 hardly gave the company a chance, and then came -the plague. They were probably broken before the end of 1608, and -although Mason and Barry had at least the consolation that they had -got their own plays staged, other members of the syndicate could only -reflect that they had lost their money. And when dissensions broke -out, and Slater sued Androwes on a bond of £200 given by the sharers -for observance of the articles, and this for defaults which Androwes -himself had not committed, it is not surprising that Androwes drew the -conclusion that he had been a gull. He took Slater to Chancery, and -alleged that he had been asked £90 and paid £70 for his share in the -expectation of a profit of £100 a year, and on the understanding that -the apparel was worth £400 when it was not worth £5, that he had been -led into building and other expenses to the tune of £300, that the -lease had been forfeited for non-payment of rent before any assignation -had been made to him, and that he had been clearly told by Slater -that his obligation was not to extend beyond any breaches of covenant -that he might himself commit. Slater denied any responsibility for -Androwes’s misunderstandings, and pointed out that he had himself been -the principal sufferer by the breakdown of the enterprise, since he and -his family of ten had been illegally turned out of the rooms to which -they were entitled under the articles of agreement, and were now driven -to beg their bread. The view taken by the court is not upon record. - -The company which was described as the King’s Revels at Norwich in 1611 -and 1612 was travelling under the Queen’s Revels patent of 1610, and -was therefore clearly misnamed. But a second King’s Revels company did -in fact come into existence through a licence given to William Hovell, -William Perry, and Nathan May under the royal signet on 27 February -1615. It performed only in the provinces, and is traceable at Norwich, -Coventry, and Leicester. Its warrant was condemned and withdrawn by an -order of the Lord Chamberlain on 16 July 1616 (Murray, ii. 343), and -in the following year the company seems to have amalgamated with the -provincial relics of the Queen’s Revels. - - - v. CHILDREN OF BRISTOL - - _Masters_:--John Daniel (1615–17); Martin Slater, John - Edmonds, Nathaniel Clay (1618). - -A signet bill for a patent for a company of Children of Bristol under -the patronage of Queen Anne was passed in June 1615, perhaps as a -result of her visit to that city in 1613.[203] On 10 July Sir George -Buck wrote to John Packer, the Earl of Somerset’s secretary, to say -that the grant had been made through the Queen’s influence on behalf -of Samuel Daniel, and that he was prepared to assent to it, without -prejudice to his rights as Master of the Revels.[204] The actual -patent, dated 13 July, is made out to Daniel’s brother John.[205] - -[Sidenote: De concessione regardante Iohannem Daniell.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices of peace, Mayors, - Sheriffes, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes and other our - lovinge subjectes and Officers greetinge. Knowe yee that wee at - the mocion of our most deerelie loved consort the Queene have - licenced and authorised, And by theise presentes do licence - and authorise, our welbeloved subjectes Iohn Daniell and his - Assignes to entertaine and bringe vp a company of children - and youthes vunder the name and title of the children of her - Maiesties royall Chamber of Bristoll, to vse and exercise the - arte and qualitie of playinge Comedies, histories, Enterludes, - Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes, and such other like, as they - have alreadie studied or hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell - for the solace and delight of our most derely loved Consort the - Queene whensoever they shalbe called, as for the recreacion - of our loving Subiectes, And the said Enterludes or other to - shewe and exercise publiquely to their best commoditie, aswell - in and about our said Citie of Bristoll in such vsuall houses - as themselves shall provide, as other convenient places within - the liberties and freedomes of any other Cittie, vniversitie, - Towne, or Burrowe whatsoever within our Realmes and Dominions, - willing and commaundinge you and every of you, as you tender our - pleasures, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without - any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions, and disturbances - during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge and assistinge - vnto them, yf any wronge be done vnto them or to them offred, - and to allowe them such further curtesies as have bene given - to other of the like qualitie, And alsoe what further grace - and favour you shall show vnto them for our sakes wee shall - take kindly at your handes. Provided alwaies and our will and - pleasure is, all authoritie, power, priviledge, and profitt - whatsoever belonginge and properlie apperteyninge to the Maister - of the Revelles in respect of his office shall remayne and abide - entire and in full force, effect, and vertue, and in as ample - sort as if this our Commission had never byn made. In witnes - whereof &c., witnes our selfe at Westminster the seaventeenth day - of Iuly. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -The company is not traceable in London, but Daniel brought it to -Norwich in 1616–17. By April 1618 he had assigned his privilege -to Martin Slater, John Edmonds and Nathaniel Clay, who obtained, -presumably from the Privy Council, supplementary letters of assistance -in which they are described as ‘her Maiesties servants’, and are -authorized to play as ‘her Maiesties servants of her Royall Chamber -of Bristoll’.[206] From a complaint sent in the following June by -the Mayor of Exeter to Sir Thomas Lake, it emerges that, although -the patent was for children, the company consisted of five youths -and several grown men.[207] Slater and Edmonds still held their -_status_ as Queen’s men (q.v.) in 1619. - - - vi. WESTMINSTER SCHOOL - - _Head Masters_:--John Adams (1540); Alexander Nowell - (1543–53); Nicholas Udall (1555–6); John Passey (1557–8, with - Richard Spencer as usher); John Randall (1563); Thomas Browne - (1564–9); Francis Howlyn (1570–1); Edward Graunte (1572–92); - William Camden (1593–8, Undermaster 1575–93); Richard Ireland - (1599–1610); John Wilson (1610–22). - - _Choir Masters_ (?):--William Cornish (1480); John Taylor - (1561–7); John Billingsley (1572); William Elderton (1574). - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The best sources of information are: R. -Widmore, _History of Westminster Abbey_ (1751); J. Welch [--C. B. -Phillimore], _Alumni Westmonasterienses_, ed. 2 (1852); _Appendix to -First Report of the Cathedral Commissioners_ (1854); F. H. Forshall, -_Westminster School, Past and Present_ (1884); J. Sargeaunt, _Annals -of Westminster School_ (1898); A. F. Leach, _The Origin of Westminster -School in Journal of Education_, n. s. xxvii (1905), 79. Some valuable -records have been printed by E. J. L. Scott in the _Athenaeum_, and -extracts from others are given in the _Observer_ for 7 Dec. 1919. A. F. -Leach has fixed the dates of Udall’s life in _Encycl. Brit._ s.v.] - -There is no trace of any grammar school in the abbey of Westminster -until the fourteenth century. The _Customary_ of 1259–83 (ed. E. M. -Thompson for _Henry Bradshaw Soc._) only contemplates education for the -novices, and in the earliest almoner’s accounts, which begin with 1282, -entries of 1317 ‘in maintaining Nigel at school for the love of God’ -(Leach, 80) and 1339–40, ‘pro scholaribus inueniendis ad scolas’ (E. H. -Pearce, _The Monks of Westminster Abbey_, 79), need only refer to the -support of scholars at a University. But from 1354–5 there were almonry -boys (_pueri Elemosinariae_) under the charge of the Sub-Almoner, and -these are traceable up to the dissolution. To them we may assign the -_ludus_ of the Boy Bishop on St. Nicholas’ day, mentions of which have -been noted in 1369, 1388, 1413, and 1540 (_Mediaeval Stage_, i. 360; -Leach, 80). They had a school house near ‘le Millebank’, and from 1367 -the Almoner paid a _Magister Puerorum_. From 1387 he is often called -_Magister Scolarum_ and in the fifteenth century _Magister Scolarium_. -From 1510 the boys under the _Magister_ become _pueri grammatici_, -and may be distinct from certain _pueri cantantes_ for whom since -1479–80 the Almoner had paid a separate teacher of singing. The first -of these song-masters was William Cornish, doubtless of the family so -closely connected with the Chapel Royal (q.v.). In 1540 the _pueri -grammatici_ were reorganized as the still existing College of St. -Peter, Westminster, which is therefore generally regarded as owing its -origin to Henry VIII, who on the surrender of the abbey in 1540 turned -it into a college of secular canons, and provided for a school of forty -scholars. This endured in some form through the reactionary reign of -Mary, whose favourite dramatist Nicholas Udall became its Head Master, -although the date of his appointment on 16 December 1555 (A. F. Leach -in _Encycl. Brit._, s.v. Udall) makes it probable that, if he wrote his -_Ralph Roister Doister_ for a school at all, it was for Eton (q.v.) -rather than Westminster. His predecessor Alexander Nowell is said -by Strype to have ‘brought in the reading of Terence for the better -learning the pure Roman style’, and, as the Sub-Almoner paid ‘xvi_d._ -for wryting of a play for the chyldren’ as early as 1521 (_Observer_), -the performance of Latin comedies by the boys may have been -pre-Elizabethan. It is provided for in the statutes drafted by Dean -Bill (_c._ 1560) after the restoration of her father’s foundation by -Elizabeth. These statutes also contemplate a good deal of interrelation -between the choir school and the grammar school. They are printed in -the _Report of the Cathedral Commission_ (App. I, 80). The personnel -of the foundation was to include (a) ‘_clerici duodecim_’, of whom -‘_unus sit choristarum doctor_’, (b) ‘_decem pueri symphoniaci sive -choristae_’, presumably in continuation of the former singing boys, -(c) ‘_praeceptores duo ad erudiendam iuventutem_’, (d) ‘_discipuli -grammatici quadraginta_’. The ‘_praeceptores_’ are distinguished later -in the document as ‘_archididascalus_’ and ‘_hypodidascalus_’, and the -former is also called ‘_ludimagister_’. By c. 5 the choristers are to -have a preference in elections to the grammar school. The following -section ‘_De Choristis et Choristarum Magistro_’ forms part of c. 9: - - ‘Statuimus et ordinamus ut in ecclesia nostra praedicta sint - decem choristae, pueri tenerae aetatis et vocibus sonoris ad - cantandum, et ad artem musicam discendam, et etiam ad musica - instrumenta pulsanda apti, qui choro inserviant, ministrent, - et cantent. Ad hos praeclare instituendos, unus eligatur qui - sit honestae famae, vitae probae, religionis sincerae, artis - musicae peritus, et ad cantandum et musica instrumenta pulsanda - exercitatus, qui pueris in praedictis scientiis et exercitiis - docendis aliisque muniis [? muneribus] in choro obeundis - studiose vacabit. Hunc magistrum choristarum appellari volumus. - Cui muneri doctores et baccalaureos musices aliis praeferendos - censemus. Volumus etiam quoties eum ab ecclesia nostra - abesse contingat, alterum substituat a decano vel eo absente - prodecano approbandum. Prospiciat item puerorum saluti, quorum - et in literis (donec ut in scholam nostram admittantur apti - censebuntur) et in morum modestia et in convictu educationem - et liberalem institutionem illius fidei et industriae - committimus. Quod si negligens et in docendo desidiosus, aut in - salute puerorum et recta eorum educatione minime providus et - circumspectus, et ideo non tolerandus inveniatur, post trinam - admonitionem (si se non emendaverit) ab officio deponatur. Qui - quidem choristarum magister ad officium suum per se fideliter - obeundum iuramento etiam adigetur. Choristae postquam octo - orationis partes memoriter didicerint et scribere mediocriter - noverint, ad scholam nostram ut melius in grammatica proficiant - singulis diebus profestis accedant, ibique duabus minimum horis - maneant, et a praeceptoribus instituantur.’ - -The following section ‘_De Comoediis et Ludis in Natali Domini -exhibendis_’ comes in c. 10: - - ‘Quo iuventus maiore cum fructu tempus Natalis Christi terat, - et tum actioni tum pronunciationi decenti melius se assuescat: - statuimus ut singulis annis intra 12^m post festum Natalis - Christi dies [? diem], vel postea arbitrio decani, ludimagister - et praeceptor simul Latine unam, magister choristarum Anglice - alteram comoediam aut tragoediam a discipulis et choristis suis - in aula privatim vel publice agendam, curent. Quod si non - prestiterint singuli quorum negligentia omittuntur decem solidis - mulctentur.’ - -The statutes appear never to have been confirmed by the Crown, and -their practical adoption was subject to certain exceptions. Thus, it -is stated in the report of the Public Schools Commission in 1864 (i. -159) that there is no reason to believe that the provision giving a -preference to choristers in elections for the grammar school was ever -attended to. - -Of plays and the like, however, there are various records. The first -since 1521 is at the Lord Mayor’s Day of 1561, when the Merchant -Taylors’ expenses for their pageant included items ‘to John Tayllour, -master of the Children of the late monastere of Westminster, for his -children that sung and played in the pageant’, and ‘to John Holt -momer in reward for attendance given of the children in the pageant’. -Similar payments were made to Taylor as ‘M^r of the quirysters’ for -the services of the children on the Ironmongers’ pageant of 1566.[208] -In 1562 the choristers of Westminster Abbey performed a goodly play -before the Society of Parish Clerks after their annual dinner.[209] -In 1564–5 comes the first of a series of Court performances, which -received assistance from the Revels office. To this occasion belongs -a memorandum of ‘Thexpenses of twoo playes viz. Heautontimoroumenos -Terentii and Miles Gloriosus Plauti plaied by the children of the -grammer schoole in the colledge of Westminster and before the Quenes -maiestie anno 1564’.[210] The items include, ‘At ye rehersing before -Sir Thomas Benger for pinnes and suger candee vj_d._’, ‘For a lynke -to bring thapparell from the reuells iiij_d._’, ‘At the playing of -Miles Glor: in M^r. Deanes howse for pinnes half a thousand vj_d._’, -‘Geuen to M^r. Holte yeoman of the reuells x_s._’, ‘To M^r. Taylor -his man’, ‘For one Plautus geven to ye Queenes maiestie and fowre -other vnto the nobilitie xj_s._’ It is not quite clear whether the -_Heautontimorumenus_, as well as the _Miles Gloriosus_, was given -before the Queen, but I think not. In 1565–6 Elizabeth was again -present at the play of _Sapientia Solomonis_, and there were payments -‘For drawing the city and temple of Jerusalem and paynting towers’, -‘To a woman that brawght her childe to the stadge and there attended -uppon it’, and for a copy of the play bound ‘in vellum with the Queenes -Ma^{tie} hir armes and sylke ribben strings’, almost certainly that -still extant as _Addl. MS._ 20061 (cf. App. K), which shows that -Elizabeth was accompanied by Cecilia of Sweden.[211] Whether these -plays were at the school or at Court is not quite clear. I should, -on the whole, infer the latter, but no rewards were paid for them -by the Treasurer of the Chamber. John Taylor was, however, paid for -plays by the Children of Westminster during the Shrovetide of 1566–7 -and the Christmas of 1567–8; John Billingesley for their _Paris and -Vienna_ on 19 February 1572; and William Elderton for their _Truth, -Faithfulness, and Mercy_ on 1 January 1574. In 1567 also the boys are -recorded (_Observer_) to have played at Putney before Bishop Grindal. -I suppose that Billingesley and Elderton succeeded Taylor as _Magistri -Choristarum_. Taylor himself is probably the same who on 8 September -1557 was Master of the singing children at the hospital of St. Mary -Woolnoth. Elderton is presumably the same who brought the Eton boys -to Court in 1573. Whether he is also the bibulous balladist of the -pamphleteers (cf. ch. xv) is more doubtful. The absence of a payment -for _Miles Gloriosus_ may suggest that this was given by the grammar -school who, like the Inns of Court, did not expect a reward, and that -the English plays were given by the choristers, who were on the same -footing as the choristers of Paul’s. I am not sure, however, that the -wording of the statutes quite implies such a sharp distinction between -the two sets of boys, and it will be noticed that Taylor, or his man, -was in some way concerned with the Latin play. Very possibly grammar -boys and choristers acted together. With 1574 the Court performances -end, but expenses of plays are traceable in the college accounts in -1604–5, 1605–6, 1606–7, and 1609–10, and up to about 1640, when they -stop for sixty-four years.[212] - - - vii. ETON COLLEGE - - _Head Masters_:--William Malim (c. 1555–73); William Smyth (c. - 1563); Reuben Sherwood (c. 1571); Thomas Ridley (1579); John - Hammond (1583); Richard Langley (1594); Richard Wright (1611); - Matthew Bust (1611–30). - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The best sources of information are J. - Heywood and T. Wright, _Ancient Laws of King’s College and Eton - College_ (1850); _Report of Public Schools Commission_ (1864); - W. L. Collins, _Etoniana_ 1865); H. Maxwell-Lyte, _History of - Eton_ (1875, 4th ed. 1911); W. Sterry, _Annals of Eton College_ - (1898).] - -The King’s College of Our Lady of Eton beside Windsor was founded -by Henry VI in 1441. The Statutes of 1444 provide for a Boy Bishop -(_Mediaeval Stage_, i. 365), but the custom was discontinued before -1559–61, when William Malim prepared a _Consuetudinarium_ for a Royal -Commission appointed to visit the college. By this time, however, -Christmas plays by the boys had become the practice, and Malim -writes:[213] - - ‘Circiter festum D. Andreae [Nov. 30] ludimagister eligere - solet pro suo arbitrio scaenicas fabulas optimas et quam - accommodatissimas, quas pueri feriis natalitiis subsequentibus - non sine ludorum elegantia, populo spectante, publice aliquando - peragant. Histrionum levis ars est, ad actionem tamen oratorum, - et gestum motumque corporis decentem tantopere facit, ut nihil - magis. Interdum etiam exhibet Anglico sermone contextas fabulas, - quae habeant acumen et leporem.’ - -There are ‘numerous’ entries of expenditure on these plays in the -Audit Books from 1525–6 to 1572–3, of which a few only have been -printed.[214] There is also an inventory, apparently undated, of -articles in ‘M^r. Scholemasters chamber’, which includes ‘a great -cheste bound about with yron to keepe the players coats in’, and a list -of the apparel, beards, and properties. The Eton boys played under -Udall before Cromwell in 1538 (_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196, 451), and -it is possible that _Ralph Roister Doister_ may belong to his Eton -mastership.[215] The only Court performance by Eton boys on record was -one on 6 January 1573, for which the payee was Elderton, presumably -the William Elderton who was payee for the Westminster boys in the -following year. - - - viii. MERCHANT TAYLORS SCHOOL - - _Head Masters_:--Richard Mulcaster (1561–86); Henry Wilkinson - (1586–92); Edmund Smith (1592–9); William Hayne (1599–1625). - -The London school of the Merchant Taylors was founded in 1561, and -its first master was Richard Mulcaster, or Moncaster, as his name -is spelt in some of the earlier records.[216] He was a student of -King’s, Cambridge and Christ Church, Oxford, who had been teaching -in London since 1559. The first performances by his boys, of which -record remains, were in 1572–3. In that and the following year they -played before the Merchant Taylors Company at the Common Hall.[217] -Unfortunately the audience, who had paid for their seats, and very -likely Mulcaster himself, paid more attention to the plays than to the -dignitaries in whose hall they were given. The plays were therefore -stopped, and the following pleasing example of civic pomposity inserted -in the archives of the Company on 16 March 1574:[218] - - ‘Whereas at our comon playes and suche lyke exercises whiche - be comonly exposed to be seene for money, everye lewd persone - thinketh himself (for his penny) worthye of the chiefe and most - comodious place withoute respecte of any other either for age - or estimacion in the comon weale, whiche bringeth the youthe to - such an impudente famyliaritie with theire betters that often - tymes greite contempte of maisters, parents, and magistrats - foloweth thereof, as experience of late in this our comon hall - hath sufficyently declared, where by reasone of the tumultuous - disordered persones repayringe hither to see suche playes as - by our schollers were here lately played, the Maisters of this - Worshipful Companie and their deare ffrends could not have - entertaynmente and convenyente place as they ought to have had, - by no provision beinge made, notwithstandinge the spoyle of this - howse, the charges of this Mystery, and theire juste authoritie - which did reasonably require the contrary. Therefore and ffor - the causes ffirst above saide, yt is ordeyned and decreed by - the authoritie of this presente Courte, with the assente and - consente of all the worshipfull persones aforesaide, that - henceforthe theire shall be no more plays suffered to be played - in this our Comon Hall, any use or custome heretofore to the - contrary in anywise notwithstandinge.’ - -Mulcaster, however, found more tolerant critics than his own employers. -His first appearance at Court was on 3 February 1573.[219] On 2 -February 1574 he presented _Timoclia at the Siege of Thebes_ and -on 23 February _Percius and Anthomiris_; at Shrovetide 1575 and on -6 March 1576 plays unnamed; and on 12 February 1583 _Ariodante and -Geneuora_. A reminiscence of these performances has been left us by the -seventeenth-century judge, Sir James Whitelocke, who entered the school -in 1575 and left for St. John’s, Oxford, in 1588: - - ‘I was brought up at school under M^r Mulcaster, in the famous - school of the Merchantaylors in London.... Yeerly he presented - sum playes to the court, in which his scholers wear only actors, - and I on among them, and by that meanes taughte them good - behaviour and audacitye.’[220] - -In 1586 Mulcaster quarrelled with the Merchant Taylors and resigned. -In 1596 he became High Master of St. Paul’s grammar school, but it is -only conjecture that his influence counted for anything in the revival -of plays by the choir master, Edward Pearce. Regular plays at Merchant -Taylors probably ceased on his withdrawal. When Sir Robert Lee, one -of the Company, became Lord Mayor in 1602, a payment was made to Mr. -Haines, the Schoolmaster, for a wagon and the apparel of ten scholars, -who represented Apollo and the Muses in Cheapside. But when James came -to dine at the hall on 16 July 1607, it was thought best to apply for -help to Heminges of the King’s men and Nathaniel Giles of the Chapel, -on the ground that the Schoolmaster and children were not familiar with -such entertainments.[221] - - - ix. THE EARL OF LEICESTER’S BOYS - -Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Leicester’s men). - - - x. THE EARL OF OXFORD’S BOYS - -Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Oxford’s men). - - - xi. MR. STANLEY’S BOYS - -Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Derby’s men). - - - - - XIII - - THE ADULT COMPANIES - - - i. The Court Interluders. - ii. The Earl of Leicester’s men. - iii. Lord Rich’s men. - iv. Lord Abergavenny’s men. - v. The Earl of Sussex’s men. - vi. Sir Robert Lane’s men. - vii. The Earl of Lincoln’s (Lord Clinton’s) men. - viii. The Earl of Warwick’s men. - ix. The Earl of Oxford’s men. - x. The Earl of Essex’s men. - xi. Lord Vaux’s men. - xii. Lord Berkeley’s men. - xiii. Queen Elizabeth’s men. - xiv. The Earl of Arundel’s men. - xv. The Earl of Hertford’s men. - xvi. Mr. Evelyn’s men. - xvii. The Earl of Derby’s (Lord Strange’s) men. - xviii. The Earl of Pembroke’s men. - xix. The Lord Admiral’s (Lord Howard’s, Earl of Nottingham’s), - Prince Henry’s, and Elector Palatine’s men. - xx. The Lord Chamberlain’s (Lord Hunsdon’s) and King’s men. - xxi. The Earl of Worcester’s and Queen Anne’s men. - xxii. The Duke of Lennox’s men. - xxiii. The Duke of York’s (Prince Charles’s) men. - xxiv. The Lady Elizabeth’s men. - - - i. THE COURT INTERLUDERS - - Henry VII (22 Aug. 1485--21 Apr. 1509); Henry VIII (22 Apr. - 1509--28 Jan. 1547); Edward VI (28 Jan. 1547--6 July 1553); Mary - (19 July 1553--24 July 1554); Philip and Mary (25 July 1554--17 - Nov. 1558); Elizabeth (17 Nov. 1558--24 Mar. 1603). - -The _doyen_ of the Court companies, when Elizabeth came to the throne, -was the royal company of Players of Interludes. This had already half a -century of history behind it. Its beginnings are probably traceable in -the reign of Henry VII. Richard III had entertained a company, as Duke -of Gloucester, in 1482; but nothing is known of it during his short -reign from 1583 to 1585.[222] Nor is a royal company discoverable -amongst the earlier records of Henry VII himself.[223] But from 1493 -onwards Exchequer documents testify to the continuous existence of -a body of men under the style of _Lusores Regis_, or in the vulgar -tongue, Players of the King’s Interludes. In 1494 there were four of -them, John English, Edward May, Richard Gibson, and John Hammond, and -each had an annual fee, payable out of the Exchequer, of £3 6_s._ -8_d._ In 1503 there were five, William Rutter and John Scott taking -the place of Hammond, but the total Exchequer payment to the company -of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ a year, seems to have remained unaltered to the -end of the reign.[224] They received, however, additional sums from -time to time, as ‘rewards’ for performances, which were charged to the -separate account of the Chamber.[225] In 1503, under the leadership of -John English, they attended the Princess Margaret to Edinburgh, for -her wedding with James IV of Scotland. Here they ‘did their devoir’, -both on the day of the wedding, 8 August, and on the following days. -On 11 August they played after supper, and on 13 August they played ‘a -Moralite’ after dinner.[226] - -The royal company continued under Henry VIII, who appears to have -increased its numbers, and doubled the charge upon the Exchequer.[227] -The financial records are, however, a little complicated. The -Exchequer officials presumably continued to regard the establishment -as consisting of four members drawing fees of ten instead of five -marks each.[228] But the individual members were in fact paid on -different scales. John English, the leader, got £6 13_s._ 4_d._ -Others got £3 6_s._ 8_d._ as before, and others again only two-thirds -of this amount, £2 4_s._ 5_d._ By this arrangement, it was possible -to maintain an actual establishment of from eight to ten within the -limits of the Exchequer allowance. It seems also to have been found -convenient to transfer the responsibility for some at least of the -payments from the Exchequer to the Treasurer of the Chamber.[229] -The same distinction between players of different grades is also -reflected in the annual rewards paid by the Treasurer of the Chamber -for Christmas performances. These were increased in amount, and for a -time the general reward to the players as a whole was supplemented by -an additional sum to the ‘old’ players. Ultimately an amalgamated sum -of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ became the customary reward for the company.[230] -Details of a performance of Henry Medwall’s _Finding of Truth_ on 6 -January 1514 are related by Collier from a document which cannot be -regarded as free from suspicion.[231] The name of Richard Gibson now -disappears from the notices of the company. He may, likely enough, -have given up playing on his appointment to be Porter and Yeoman -Tailor of the Great Wardrobe.[232] But in his capacity of officer in -charge of the Revels he must have maintained close relations with his -former fellows, and his Account for 1510 records the delivery to John -English of a ‘red satin ladies garment, powdered, with tassels of -silver of Kolen’.[233] English remained at the head of the company, -and is traceable in the _Chamber Accounts_ up to 1531. John Scott -died in 1528–9, in singular circumstances which are detailed by a -contemporary chronicler.[234] Other names which come in succession -before us are those of Richard Hole, George Maylor, George Birch, John -Roll or Roo (_d._ 1539), Thomas Sudbury or Sudborough (_d._ 1546), -Robert Hinstock, Richard Parrowe, John Slye, and John Young.[235] -Some interesting information is disclosed by two lawsuits, in both of -which George Maylor figured. The first of these was a dispute between -John Rastell and Henry Walton as to the dilapidations of certain -playing garments, during which George Mayler, merchant tailor, aged -40, and George Birch, coriar, aged 32, were called to give evidence -as to the value of the garments and their use for a royal banquet at -Greenwich in 1527.[236] In the second Mayler was himself a party. He -is here described as a glazier, and an agreement of November 1528 is -recited between him and one Thomas Arthur, tailor, whom he took as an -apprentice for a year, promising to teach him to play and to obtain -him admission into the King’s company and the right to the privileges -(_libertatem_) thereof and ‘the Kinges bage’. According to Mayler, he -found Arthur meat and drink and 4_d._ a day, but after seven weeks -Arthur left him, beguiling away three of his covenant servants upon a -playing tour in the provinces, out of which they made a profit of £30. -He was, adds Mayler, ‘right harde and dull too taike any lernynge, -whereby he was nothinge meate or apte too bee in service with the -Kinges grace too maike any plaiez or interludes before his highnes’. -Arthur, on the other hand, alleged that it was Mayler who had broken -the indentures, and sued him before the sheriffs of London for £26 -damages. Owing to the accident of Mayler’s being in Ludgate prison -and unable to defend himself, the jury found against him for £4, and -he appealed to Chancery to remove the action to that court.[237] The -King’s men, even apart from their other occupations as Household -servants or tradesmen, were not wholly dependent on the royal bounty. -The reward at Christmas was supplemented by minor gifts from the -Princess Mary, or from lords and ladies of the Court, such as the -Duke of Rutland and the Countess of Devon;[238] and the glamour of -the King’s badge doubtless added to the liberality of the company’s -reception in many a monastery, country mansion, and town hall. They are -found during the reign at the priories of Thetford, Dunmow (1531–2), -and Durham (1532–3), at the house of the Lestranges at Hunstanton (23 -October 1530), at New Romney (1526–7), Shrewsbury (1527, 1533, 1540), -Leicester (1531), Norwich (1533), Bristol (1535, 1536, 1537, 1541), -Cambridge (1537–8), Beverley (1540–1), and Maldon (1546–7).[239] -A private performance by the King’s men forms an episode in the -Elizabethan play of _Sir Thomas More_, although the Mason there named -cannot be traced amongst their number. - -No important change in the status of the company is to be observed -under Edward VI. Some of the existing members seem to have retired, -and four new ones, Richard Coke, John Birch, Henry Heryot, and John -Smyth, were appointed.[240] The first three of these, together with -two others, Richard Skinner and Thomas Southey, received a warrant to -the Master of the Great Wardrobe on 15 February 1548, for the usual -livery assigned to yeomen officers of the household, which consisted -of three yards of red cloth, with an allowance of 3_s._ 4_d._ for the -embroidering thereon of the royal initials.[241] The fees of these -five, and of George Birch and Robert Hinstock, who were survivors -from Henry VIII’s time, are traceable, as well as the annual reward -of £6 13_s._ 4_d._, in the Chamber Accounts.[242] Each now got £3 -6_s._ 8_d._ a year, under a warrant of 24 December 1548. The same -names appear in a list of 30 September 1552, with the exception of -Robert Hinstock, whose place had probably been taken by John Browne, -appointed as from the previous Christmas by a warrant of 9 June 1552, -which introduced the innovation of granting him a livery allowance of -£1 3_s._ 4_d._ a year instead of the actual livery.[243] If we suppose -that John Smith and John Young continued to be borne on the Exchequer -pay-roll, the total number of eight interlude-players provided for in -fee-lists of Edward’s reign is made up.[244] John Smith is probably to -be identified with the ‘disard’ or jester of that name who took part -in George Ferrers’s Christmas gambols of 1552–3.[245] John Young may -be the ‘right worshipful esquire John Yung’ to whom William Baldwin -dedicated his _Beware the Cat_ in 1553. He certainly survived into -Elizabeth’s reign and was still drawing an annuity of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ -as ‘agitator comediarum’ in 1569–70.[246] I have not noticed any -provincial performances by the company during 1547–53, except at -Maldon in 1549–50, but they are referred to more than once in the -archives of the Revels. The Revels Office made them an oven and weapons -of wood at Shrovetide 1548 and a seven-headed dragon at Shrovetide -1549. At Christmas 1551–2 the Privy Council gave them a warrant to -borrow ‘apparell and other fornyture’ from the Master, and Lord Darcy -gave John Birch and John Browne another for garments to serve in an -interlude before the King on 6 January 1552.[247] William Baldwin, in -his _Beware the Cat_, relates that during the Christmas of 1552–3, -they were learning ‘a play of Esop’s Crowe, wherin the moste part of -the actors were birds’.[248] Their only other play of which the name is -known is that of _Self Love_, for which Sir Thomas Chaloner gave them -20s. on a Shrove Monday in 1551–3.[249] - -The company no doubt took their share in Court revels during the -earlier part of Mary’s reign. But when the eclipse of gaiety came upon -her later years they travelled. They are noted as the King and Queen’s -men in 1555–6 at Ipswich and Gloucester, in 1557 at Bristol, and in -1558 at Barnstaple, and as the Queen’s men in 1555 at Leicester, in -1555–6 at Beverley, in 1556–7 at Beverley, Oxford, Norwich and Exeter, -and in 1557–8 at Beverley, Leicester, Maldon, Dover, Lyme Regis, and -Barnstaple. The nominal establishment continued to be eight.[250] But -Heriot disappears after 1552 and John Birch, Coke, and Southey after -1556, and their vacancies do not seem to have been filled.[251] - -Under Elizabeth the interlude players were certainly a moribund folk. -They were reappointed ‘during pleasure’ under a warrant of 25 December -1559, and apparently Edmund Strowdewike and William Reading took the -place of George Birch and Skinner.[252] They drew their fees of £3 -6_s._ 8_d._ and livery allowances of £1 3_s._ 4_d._ from the Treasurer -of the Chamber. The eight posts figure on the fee-lists long after -there were no holders left.[253] The last ‘reward’ to the company, not -improbably for the anti-papal farce of 6 January 1559, is to be found -in the Chamber Account for 1558–60. It may be inferred that they never -again played at Court. They were allowed to dwindle away. Browne and -Reading died in 1563, Strowdewike on 3 June 1568, and Smith survived -in solitary dignity until 1580.[254] Up to about 1573 he kept up some -sort of provincial organization, doubtless with the aid of unofficial -associates, and the Queen’s players are therefore traceable in many -municipal Account-books. In October 1559 they were at Bristol and -before Christmas at Leicester, in 1559–60 at Gloucester, in 1560–1 at -Barnstaple, in 1561 at Faversham,[255] in October–December 1561 at -Leicester, in 1561–2 at Gloucester, Maldon, and Beverley, in July 1562 -at Grimsthorpe, and on 4 October at Ipswich, in August 1563 at Bristol, -in 1563–4 at Maldon, on 12 and 20 March 1564 at Ipswich again, and on -2 August at Leicester, in 1564–5 at Abingdon, Maldon, and Gloucester, -in 1565–6 at Maldon, Oxford, and Shrewsbury, in July 1566 at Bristol, -before 29 September at Leicester, and on 9 October at Ipswich, in July -1567 at Bristol, in 1567–8 at Oxford and Gloucester, in 1568–9 at -Abingdon, Ipswich, and Stratford-upon-Avon, in August 1569 at Bristol, -and on 7 December at Oxford, in 1569–70 at Gloucester and Maldon, -before 29 September 1570 at Leicester, in 1570–1 at Winchester, and -during October-December 1571 at Leicester, in 1571–2 at Oxford, on 23 -May 1572 at Nottingham, and on 20 November at Maldon, in 1572–3 at -Ipswich, on 7 January 1573 at Beverley, and in 1573 at Winchester. This -list is not exhaustive.[256] A reward to ‘the Queens Majesty’s men’ -in the Doncaster accounts for 1575 can hardly be assumed to refer to -actors. - - - - - ii. THE EARL OF LEICESTER’S MEN - - Robert Dudley; 5th s. of John, 1st Duke of Northumberland, - _nat._ 24 June 1532 or 1533; m. (1) Amy, d. of Sir John - Robsart, 4 June 1550, (2) Douglas Lady Sheffield, d. of William, - 1st Lord Howard of Effingham, May 1573, (3) Lettice Countess of - Essex, d. of Sir Francis Knollys, 1578; Master of the Horse, 11 - Jan. 1559; High Steward of Cambridge, 1562; Earl of Leicester, - 29 Sept. 1564; Chancellor of Oxford, 31 Dec. 1564; Lord Steward, - 1584–8; Absolute Governor of United Provinces, 25 Jan. 1586–12 - Apr. 1588; _ob._ 4 Sept. 1588. - -The earliest mention of Lord Robert Dudley’s players is in a letter -which he wrote in June 1559 to the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord President -of the North, as Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, asking licence for them -to perform in that county, in accordance with the proclamation of 16 -May 1559.[257] The terms of the letter suggest that the company may -already have played in London, but it is probable, as nothing is said -of a hearing by the Queen, that they had not been at Court. They were -there at each Christmas from 1560–1 to 1562–3, and then not for a -decade. They were in 1558–9 at Norwich, in 1559–60 at Oxford, Saffron -Walden, and Plymouth, in July 1560 at Bristol, in October 1561 at -Grimsthorpe, in 1561–2 at Oxford, Maldon, and Ipswich, in September -1562 at Bristol, where they are called ‘Lord Dudley’s’ players, on 12 -November 1563 at Leicester, and on 17 November at Ipswich, in 1563–4 at -Maldon, on 2 January 1564 at Ipswich, and on 1 July at Leicester. They -are also found, as the Earl of Leicester’s, in 1564–5 at Maldon, on 6 -April 1565 at York, on 11 August 1569 at Nottingham, in January 1570 at -Bristol, on 4 May 1570 at Oxford, and in October-December at Leicester, -in 1570–1 at Abingdon, Barnstaple, and Gloucester, on 9 August 1571 -at Saffron Walden,[258] in October–December at Leicester, in the -same year at Beverley, on 15 July 1572 at Ipswich, and on 20 August -at Nottingham. The gap in my records between 1565 and 1569 is bridged -in the fuller list covering other towns given by Mr. Murray.[259] -Information as to the company in 1572 is derived from the signatures to -a letter asking for appointment by Leicester, not merely as liveried -retainers but as household servants, in order to meet the terms of the -proclamation of 3 January in that year.[260] - - To the right honorable Earle of Lecester, their good lord and - master. - - Maye yt please your honour to understande that forasmuche as - there is a certayne Procalmation out for the revivinge of a - Statute as touchinge retayners, as youre Lordshippe knoweth - better than we can enforme you thereof: We therfore, your humble - Servaunts and daylye Oratours your players, for avoydinge all - inconvenients that maye growe by reason of the saide Statute, - are bold to trouble your Lordshippe with this our Suite, humblie - desiringe your honor that (as you have bene alwayes our good - Lord and Master) you will now vouchsaffe to reteyne us at this - present as your houshold Servaunts and daylie wayters, not - that we meane to crave any further stipend or benefite at your - Lordshippes hands but our lyveries as we have had, and also your - honors License to certifye that we are your houshold Servaunts - when we shall have occasion to travayle amongst our frendes as - we do usuallye once a yere, and as other noble-mens Players do - and have done in tyme past, Wherebie we maye enjoye our facultie - in your Lordshippes name as we have done hertofore. Thus beyinge - bound and readie to be alwayes at your Lordshippes commandmente - we committ your honor to the tuition of the Almightie. - - Long may your Lordshippe live in peace, - A pere of noblest peres: - In helth welth and prosperitie - Redoubling Nestor’s yeres. - - Your Lordshippes Servaunts most bounden - Iames Burbage. - Iohn Perkinne. - Iohn Laneham. - William Iohnson. - Roberte Wilson. - Thomas Clarke. - -Several of these men were to achieve distinction in their ‘quality’; -of none of them is there any earlier record, unless John Perkin is to -be identified with the Parkins who had been in 1552–3 one of the train -of the Lord of Misrule.[261] By 6 December 1571 the company were in -London.[262] Three years later they obtained a very singular favour in -the patent of 10 May 1574, the general bearings of which have already -been discussed.[263] - -[Sidenote: pro Iacobo Burbage & aliis de licencia speciali] - - Elizabeth by the grace of God quene of England, &c. To all - Iustices, Mayors, Sheriffes, Baylyffes, head Constables, vnder - Constables, and all other our officers and mynisters gretinge. - Knowe ye that we of oure especiall grace, certen knowledge, - and mere mocion haue licenced and auctorised, and by these - presentes do licence and auctorise, oure lovinge Subiectes, - Iames Burbage, Iohn Perkyn, Iohn Lanham, William Iohnson, and - Roberte Wilson, seruauntes to oure trustie and welbeloued Cosen - and Counseyllor the Earle of Leycester, to vse, exercise, and - occupie the arte and facultye of playenge Commedies, Tragedies, - Enterludes, stage playes, and such other like as they haue - alredie vsed and studied, or hereafter shall vse and studie, - aswell for the recreacion of oure loving subiectes, as for oure - solace and pleasure when we shall thincke good to see them, - as also to vse and occupie all such Instrumentes as they haue - alredie practised, or hereafter shall practise, for and during - our pleasure. And the said Commedies, Tragedies, Enterludes, - and stage playes, to gether with their musicke, to shewe, - publishe, exercise, and occupie to their best commoditie during - all the terme aforesaide, aswell within oure Citie of London - and liberties of the same, as also within the liberties and - fredomes of anye oure Cities, townes, Bouroughes &c. whatsoeuer - as without the same, thoroughte oure Realme of England. - Willynge and commaundinge yow and everie of yowe, as ye tender - our pleasure, to permytte and suffer them herein withoute anye - yowre lettes, hynderaunce, or molestacion duringe the terme - aforesaid, anye acte, statute, proclamacion, or commaundement - heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, to the contrarie - notwithstandinge. Prouyded that the said Commedies, Tragedies, - enterludes, and stage playes be by the master of oure Revells - for the tyme beynge before sene & allowed, and that the same be - not published or shewen in the tyme of common prayer, or in the - tyme of greate and common plague in oure said Citye of London. - In wytnes whereof &c. wytnes oure selfe at Westminster the - x^{th} daye of Maye. - per breve de priuato sigillo - -The names in this patent only differ from those in the letter of 1572 -by the omission of Thomas Clarke. By the time of its issue Leicester’s -men were again a Court company. They had made their reappearance -at the Christmas of 1572–3 with three plays, all given before the -end of December. They continued to appear in every subsequent year -until the formation of the Queen’s men in 1583. The building of the -Theatre by James Burbadge in 1576 gave them a valuable head-quarters -in London[264]; but they are still found from time to time about the -provinces. Their detailed adventures are as follows. In 1572–3 they -were at Stratford-on-Avon, on 8 August 1573 at Beverley, on 1 September -at Nottingham, and in October at Bristol. On 26 December they played -_Predor and Lucia_ at Court, on 28 December _Mamillia_, and on 21 -February 1574 _Philemon and Philecia_. In 1573–4 they were at Oxford -and Leicester, on 13 June 1574 at Maldon, on 3 December at Canterbury. -In 1574 they were also at Doncaster, where they played in the church. -For the Court they rehearsed _Panecia_, and this was probably either -their play of 26 December in which ‘my Lord of Lesters boyes’ appeared, -or that of 1 January 1575, in which there were chimney-sweepers. From -9 to 27 July 1575 Elizabeth paid her historic visit to Kenilworth, and -there is no proof, but much probability, that the company were called -upon to take their part in her entertainment. Its chronicler, Robert -Laneham, may well have been a kinsman of the player. I have not come -across them elsewhere this year, except at Southampton. They played -at Court on 28 December 1575 and 4 March 1576, and are described in -the account for their payment as ‘Burbag and his company’. A record -of them at Ipswich in 1575–6 as ‘my Lorde Robertes’ men is probably -misdated. On 30 December 1576 they acted _The Collier_ at Court. In -1576–7 they were at Stratford-on-Avon, in September 1577 at Newcastle, -and between 13 and 19 October at Bristol, where they gave _Myngo_.[265] -In 1577–8 they were also at Bath. They were at Court on 26 December -1577 and were to have performed again on 11 February 1578, but were -displaced for Lady Essex’s men. They may have been at Wanstead in May -1578 when Leicester entertained Elizabeth with Sidney’s _The May Lady_. -On 1 September they were at Maldon, on 9 September at Ipswich, and on -3 November at Lord North’s at Kirtling. They played _A Greek Maid_ -at Court on 4 January 1579.[266] Their play on 28 December 1579 fell -through because Elizabeth could not be present, but they played on 6 -January 1580. In 1579–80 they were at Ipswich and Durham, and from 15 -to 17 May 1580 at Kirtling. Vice-Chancellor Hatcher’s letter of 21 -January 1580 to Burghley about Oxford’s men (_vide infra_) shows that -Leicester’s had then recently been refused leave to play at Cambridge. -They played _Delight_ at Court on 26 December and appeared again on 7 -February 1581. That Wilson was still a member of the company in 1581 is -shown by the reference to him in the curious Latin letter written by -one of Lord Shrewsbury’s players on 25 April of that year.[267] In the -following winter they did not come to Court, but on 10 February 1583 -they returned with _Telomo_.[268] - -The best of Leicester’s men, including Laneham, Wilson, and Johnson, -appear to have joined the Queen’s company on its formation in -March 1583. Probably the Queen’s also took over the Theatre. James -Burbadge himself may have given up acting. Nothing more is heard of -Leicester’s men until 1584–5, when players under his name visited -Coventry, Leicester, Gloucester, and Norwich. They were at Dover in -June 1585, and at Bath as late as August. These may have been either -the relics of the old company, or a new one formed to attend the Earl -in his expedition to aid the States-General in the Low Countries. -He was appointed to the command of the English forces on 28 August, -and reached Flushing on 10 December. The pageants in his honour -at Utrecht, Leyden, and the Hague were remarkable. Stowe records -festivities at Utrecht on St. George’s Day, 23 April 1586. These -included an after-dinner show of ‘dauncing, vauting, and tumbling, with -the forces of Hercules, which gave great delight to the strangers, for -they had not seene it before’.[269] It is a reasonable inference that -the performers in _The Forces of Hercules_ were English.[270] And on 24 -March 1586 Sir Philip Sidney, writing to Walsingham from Utrecht, says: - - ‘I wrote to yow a letter by Will, my lord of Lester’s jesting - plaier, enclosed in a letter to my wife, and I never had answer - thereof ... I since find that the knave deliverd the letters to - my ladi of Lester.’[271] - -That the ‘jesting plaier’ was William Shakespeare is on the whole less -likely than that he was the famous comic actor, William Kempe; and this -theory is confirmed by a mention in an earlier letter of 12 November -1585 from Thomas Doyley at Calais to Leicester himself of ‘Mr. Kemp, -called Don Gulihelmo’, as amongst those remaining at Dunkirk.[272] -Leicester returned to England in November 1586. ‘Wilhelm Kempe, -instrumentist’ and his lad ‘Daniell Jonns’ were at the Danish Court at -Helsingör in August and September of the same year; and so, from 17 -July to 18 September, were five ‘instrumentister och springere’ whose -names may evidently be anglicized as Thomas Stevens, George Bryan, -Thomas King, Thomas Pope, and Robert Percy (cf. ch. xiv). Some or all -of these men are evidently the company of English comedians referred to -by Thomas Heywood as commended by the Earl of Leicester to Frederick II -of Denmark. Stevens and his fellows, but not apparently Kempe, went on -to Dresden. Some of them ultimately became Lord Strange’s men. But it -seems to me very doubtful whether, as is usually suggested, they passed -direct into his service from that of Leicester.[273] They did not leave -Dresden until 17 July 1587. But Leicester’s were at Exeter on 23 March -1586. They played at Court on 27 December 1586, and were in London -about 25 January 1587. They were at Abingdon, Bath, Lathom, Coventry, -Leicester, Oxford, Stratford-on-Avon, Dover, Canterbury, Marlborough, -Southampton, Exeter, Gloucester, and Norwich during 1586–7. Kempe may, -of course, have been with them on these occasions; but if Stevens and -the rest passed as Leicester’s in the Low Countries, it is likely that -they ceased to do so when they went to Denmark. - -Finally, Leicester’s men were at Coventry, Reading, Bath, Maidstone, -Dover, Plymouth, Gloucester, York, Saffron Walden, and probably Exeter -in 1587–8.[274] On 4 September they were at Norwich, and here William -Stonage, a cobbler, was committed to prison at their suit, ‘for lewd -words uttered against the ragged staff’.[275] As late as 14 September -they did not yet know that the lord in whose name they wore this badge -was dead, for on that day, unless the records are again in error, they -were still playing at Ipswich.[276] - - - iii. LORD RICH’S MEN - - Richard Rich; _nat._ _c._ 1496; cr. 1st Baron Rich, 26 Feb. - 1548; Lord Chancellor, 23 Oct. 1548–21 Dec. 1551; m. Elizabeth - Jenks; _ob._ 12 June 1567. - - Robert, s. of 1st Baron; _nat._ _c._ 1537; succ. as 2nd Baron, - 1567; _ob._ 1581. - -The company was at Ipswich on 3 May 1564, Saffron Walden in 1563–4, -Maldon in 1564–5, York on 6 April 1565, and Ipswich on 31 July 1567. -Then it secured a footing in London, and appeared at Court during the -Christmas of 1567–8, on 26 December 1568, and on 5 February 1570. -On 2 February 1570 it played at the Lincoln’s Inn Candlemas ‘Post -Revels’.[277] It was also at Canterbury in 1569, Saffron Walden in -1569–70, and Maldon in 1570. Presumably it was a later company to which -Gabriel Harvey referred in 1579 (cf. p. 4), and the death of Lord -Rich in 1581 might naturally have led to its disbandment or change of -service. - - - iv. LORD ABERGAVENNY’S MEN - - Henry Neville, s. of George, 3rd Lord Abergavenny; succ. as 4th - Lord, 1535; _ob._ 1586. - -The only London record of this company is a civic licence for it of 29 -January 1572 (App. D, No. xxi), but it is found in provincial records -at Dover, Canterbury, Leicester, Bristol, and Faversham in 1571 and -1572, and at Ludlow in 1575–6. - - - v. THE EARL OF SUSSEX’S MEN - - Thomas Radcliffe, s. of Henry, 2nd Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1526; m. - (1) Elizabeth, d. of Thomas Earl of Southampton, (2) Frances, d. - of Sir William Sidney, 26 Apr. 1555; succ. as 3rd Earl, 17 Feb. - 1557; Lord Chamberlain, 13 July 1572; _ob._ 9 June 1583. - - Henry Radcliffe, s. of Henry, 2nd Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1530; m. - Honora, d. of Anthony Pound, before 24 Feb. 1561; succ. as 4th - Earl, 1583; _ob._ 14 Dec. 1593. - - Robert Radcliffe, s. of 4th Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1569; m. (1) - Bridget, d. of Sir Charles Morison, who _ob._ Dec. 1623, (2) - Frances Shute; succ. as 5th Earl, 1593; acting Earl Marshal, - 1597, 1601; _ob._ 22 Sept. 1629. - -The third Earl of Sussex had a company, which proved one of the most -long-lived of the theatrical organizations of Elizabeth’s time and held -together, now in London and now in the provinces, under no less than -three earls. It first makes its appearance at Nottingham on 16 March -1569, at Maldon in 1570, on 28 January 1571, and on 20 August 1572, at -Ipswich in 1571–2, at Canterbury and Dover in 1569 and 1570, and in -1569–70 at Bristol, Gloucester, and Ludlow, where it was of six men. -Sussex became Chamberlain in July 1572 and in the following winter -his company came to the Court, whose Christmases it helped to enliven -pretty regularly until the death of its first patron in 1583. As I have -shown elsewhere (ch. vi), Sussex seems to have had occasional deputies -in Lord Howard of Effingham and Lord Hunsdon during his term of office, -but it is probably justifiable to assume that, when the Chamberlain’s -men are referred to at any time during 1572–83, Sussex’s men are meant, -and in 1577 and 1581 there is clear evidence that the names are used -synonymously. Oddly enough, Howard’s men are also referred to in one -record of 1577 (cf. p. 134) as the Chamberlain’s, but that is probably -a slip. The detailed history of the company during this period is as -follows. In 1572–3 they were at Bath, in July 1573 at Leicester, on 14 -September at Nottingham, in 1573–4 at Coventry, in 1574, on some date -before 29 September, at Leicester again, on 13 July at Maldon, and -in September at Wollaton (Francis Willoughby’s). They rehearsed two -Court plays for Christmas on 14 December, _Phedrastus_ and _Phigon and -Lucia_, but in the end did not give a performance. In 1574–5 they were -at Gloucester, in 1575 at Maldon, and before 29 September at Leicester. -They played at Court on 2 February 1576. Their payee was John Adams, -the only actor whose name is recorded in connexion with the company. In -1575–6 they were at Ipswich, on 27 July 1576 at Cambridge, and between -29 July and 5 August at Bristol, where they played _The Red Knight_. On -2 February 1577 they played _The Cynocephali_ at Court. In 1576–7 they -were at Coventry and Bath, on 30 May 1577 at Ipswich, and on 31 August -at Nottingham. On 2 February 1578 they played at Court. In 1577–8 they -were at Bath, on 15 July 1578 at Maldon, in the same year at Bristol, -and in 1578–9 at Bath. Thereafter their activities seem to have been -mainly confined to London. They were named by the Privy Council to the -Lord Mayor among the Court companies for the Christmas of 1578–9 (App. -D, No. xl), and played _The Cruelty of a Stepmother_ on 28 December -1578, _The Rape of the Second Helen_ on 6 January, and _Murderous -Michael_ on 3 March 1579. In the following winter their pieces were -_The Duke of Milan and the Marquess of Mantua_ on 26 December, _Portio -and Demorantes_ on 2 February, and _Sarpedon_ on 16 February 1580.[278] -The names of their Court plays on 27 December 1580 and 2 February 1581 -are unfortunately not recorded. On 14 September they recur in the -provinces, at Nottingham.[279] They missed the next winter at Court, -and made their last appearance there for a decade in _Ferrar_ on 6 -January 1583. - -Either the death of their patron in June 1583, or possibly the -formation of the Queen’s men in the previous March, eclipsed them, but -in 1585 they reappear as a provincial company, visiting Dover on 15 -May, Bath on 22 July and in May 1586, Coventry twice in 1585–6, Ipswich -in 1586–7, York in 1587, Leicester before Michaelmas of the same year, -and Coventry in September. Here they were playing under the name of the -Countess of Sussex. In 1587–8 they were at Coventry and Bath, on 18 -April 1588 at Ipswich, on 17 February 1589 at Leicester, on 1 March at -Ipswich, on 19 November at Leicester again, in the course of 1589 at -Faversham, and in 1588–9 at Aldeburgh. On 17 February 1590 they were -at Ipswich. In the spring of 1591 they appear to have made a temporary -amalgamation with a group of the Queen’s men (q.v.) and appeared with -them on 14 February at Southampton, on 24 March at Coventry, and during -1590–1 at Gloucester. This arrangement probably terminated in May, and -on 11 August Sussex’s were alone at Leicester.[280] - -They enter the charmed London circle again with a Court performance -on 2 January 1592.[281] It is possible that they had attracted the -services of Marlowe, for Kyd in a letter, probably to be dated in 1593, -speaks of himself as having been in the service of a lord for whose -players Marlowe was writing, and there are some traces of connexion -between Kyd and the house of Radcliffe. During the plague of 1593 the -company were obliged to travel again, and on 29 April the Privy Council -Register records the issue of - - ‘an open warrant for the plaiers, servantes to the Erle of - Sussex, authorysinge them to exercyse theire qualitie of - playinge comedies and tragedies in any county, cittie, towne or - corporacion not being within vij^{en} miles of London, where the - infection is not, and in places convenient and tymes fitt.’[282] - -The company were at Ipswich, Newcastle, and York in 1592–3. They -were at Winchester on 7 December 1593; then came to London under the -patronage of the fifth Earl, and, although not at Court, had a season -of about six weeks, beginning on 26 December and ending on 6 February, -with Henslowe, probably at the Rose. The names and dates of their -plays and sums received at each, probably by himself as owner of the -theatre, are noted by Henslowe in his diary. The company performed -on thirty nights, in twelve plays. Henslowe’s receipts averaged £1 -13_s._, amounting to £3 1_s._ on the first night and £3 10_s._ on each -of the next two, and thereafter fluctuating greatly, from a minimum of -5_s._ to a maximum of £3 8_s._ This last was at the production of the -one ‘new’ play of the season, _Titus Andronicus_, on 24 January. The -enterprise was brought to an abrupt termination by a renewed alarm of -plague, and a consequent inhibition of plays by the Privy Council on -3 February. _Titus Andronicus_ was played for the third and last time -on 6 February, and on the same day the book was entered for copyright -purposes in the Stationers’ Register. The edition published in the -same year professes to give the play as it was played by ‘the Earle -of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their Servants’. I -suppose it to have passed, probably in a pre-Shakespearian version, -from Pembroke’s to Sussex’s, when the former were bankrupt in the -summer of 1593 (cf. _infra_), and to have been revised for Sussex’s -by the hand of Shakespeare. If so, it is a plausible conjecture that -certain other plays, which were once Pembroke’s and ultimately came to -the Chamberlain’s men, also passed through the hands of Sussex’s. Such -were _The Taming of A Shrew_, _The Contention of York and Lancaster_, -and perhaps the _Ur-Hamlet_, _1 Henry VI_, and _Richard III_. There -is no basis for determining whether any of Shakespeare’s work on the -York tetralogy was done for Sussex’s; but it is worth noting that one -of their productions was _Buckingham_, a title which might fit either -_Richard III_ or that early version of _Henry VIII_, the existence of -which, on internal grounds, I suspect. Of Sussex’s other plays in this -season, one, _George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield_, was published -as theirs in 1599; another, Marlowe’s _Jew of Malta_, probably belonged -to Henslowe, as it was acted in turn by nearly every company which he -financed; and of the rest, _God Speed the Plough_, _Huon of Bordeaux_, -_Richard the Confessor_, _William the Conqueror_, _Friar Francis_, -_Abraham and Lot_, _The Fair Maid of Italy_, and _King Lud_, nothing is -known, except for the entry of _God Speed the Plough_ in 1601 and an -edifying tale related about 1608 by Thomas Heywood in connexion with -an undated performance of _Friar Francis_ by the company at King’s -Lynn.[283] - -At Easter 1594 Henslowe records another very brief season of eight -nights between 1 and 9 April, during which the Queen’s and Sussex’s -men played ‘together’. This suggests to Dr. Greg that the companies -appeared on different nights, but to me rather that they combined -their forces, as they seem to have already done at Coventry in 1591. -Henslowe’s receipts averaged £1 17_s._ The repertory included, -besides _The Fair Maid of Italy_ and _The Jew of Malta_, _King Leare_, -doubtless to be identified with _King Leire and his Three Daughters_ -(1605), _The Ranger’s Comedy_, and _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_. -The latter was published in 1594 as a Queen’s play. Both it and _The -Ranger’s Comedy_ were played at a later date by the Admiral’s, and may -have belonged to Henslowe. Strange’s had played _Friar Bacon_ in 1592–3. - -Thereafter Sussex’s men vanish from the annals; they may have been -absorbed in the Queen’s men for travelling purposes. Later players -under the same name are recorded at Coventry in 1602–3, Dover in -1606–7, Canterbury in 1607–8, Bristol, Norwich, and Dunwich in 1608–9, -Leicester on 31 August 1615, and Leominster in 1618, and it may be -these to whom Heywood alludes as visiting King’s Lynn. If so, their -possession of _Friar Francis_ suggests some affiliation to the earlier -company. - - - vi. SIR ROBERT LANE’S MEN - - Robert Lane, of Horton, Northants; _nat._ _c._ 1528; Kt. 2 Oct. - 1553; m. (1) Catherine, d. of Sir Roger Copley, (2) Mary, d. of - John Heneage. - -I have not come across Sir Robert Lane’s men except at Bristol in -August 1570, and at Court during the Christmas of 1571–2. On 27 -December 1571 they played _Lady Barbara_ and on 17 February 1572 -_Cloridon and Radiamanta_. The first performance was paid for by a -warrant of 5 January to Laurence Dutton; the second by a warrant of -26 February, in which, according to the entry in the Privy Council -Register, Dutton was again named.[284] But the Treasurer of the Chamber -records the payment as made to John Greaves and Thomas Goughe. Probably -this company is identical with that found next year in the service of -the Earl of Lincoln. - - - vii. THE EARL OF LINCOLN’S (LORD CLINTON’S) MEN - - Edward Fiennes de Clinton; s. of Thomas, 8th Lord Clinton and - Saye, _nat._ 1512; m. (1) Elizabeth Lady Talboys, d. of Sir - John Blount, 1534, (2) Ursula, d. of William Lord Stourton, - _c._ 1540, (3) Elizabeth Lady Browne, ‘the fair Geraldine,’ d. - of Gerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, _c._ 1552; succ. as 9th Baron, - 1517; Lord High Admiral, 1550–3, and again 13 Feb. 1558; 1st - Earl of Lincoln, 4 May 1572; ambassador to France, 1572; Lord - Steward, 1581–5; _ob._ 16 Jan. 1585. - - Henry Fiennes de Clinton, s. of Edward and Ursula; _nat._ _c._ - 1541; m. (1) Catharine, d. of Francis, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon, - Feb. 1557, (2) Elizabeth, d. of Sir Richard Morison and wid. - of William Norreys, after 1579; Kt. 29 Sept. 1553; succ. as 2nd - Earl, 16 Jan. 1585; _ob._ 29 Sept. 1616. - -Players serving the Lord Admiral were at Winchester in 1566–7. A -company under the name of the Earl of Lincoln and led by Laurence -Dutton played at Court during the Christmas of 1572–3, and a company -under that of Lord Clinton, and also led by Dutton, in _Herpetulus -the Blue Knight and Perobia_ on 3 January 1574, and on 27 December -1574 and 2 January 1575. For 1574–5 they rehearsed three plays, one of -which was _Pretestus_. Probably these are the same company transferred -by the Lord Admiral to his son. Dutton was with Sir Robert Lane’s men -in 1571–2 and with the Earl of Warwick’s in 1575–6. The whole company -may have taken service with Lincoln instead of Lane as a result of the -statute of 1572 (App. D, No. xxiv), but it does not seem to have been -altogether absorbed in Warwick’s, as Lord Clinton’s men are found at -Southampton on 24 June 1577, when they were six in number, at Bristol -in July, and at Coventry in 1576–7. A later company under the name of -the Earl of Lincoln has a purely provincial record in 1599–1604. There -is an isolated notice at Norwich in 1608–9. - - - viii. THE EARL OF WARWICK’S MEN - - Ambrose Dudley, 3rd s. of John, 1st Duke of Northumberland; - _nat._ _c._ 1528; m. (1) Anne Whorwood, (2) Elizabeth Talboys, - _c._ 1553, (3) Anne, d. of Francis, Earl of Bedford, 11 Nov. - 1565; Master of Ordnance, 12 Apr. 1560; Earl of Warwick, 26 Dec. - 1561; Chief Butler of England, 4 May 1571; Privy Councillor, 5 - Sept. 1573; _ob._ 20 Feb. 1590. - -Dudley seems to have had players in London in January 1562, when they -were rewarded by the Duchess of Suffolk.[285] They are also found in -1559–64 at Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, Plymouth, Winchester, Dover, -Canterbury, and Norwich. Their only Court performances upon record were -two during the Christmas of 1564–5. In 1564–5 they were apparently at -Canterbury.[286] - -After an interval of ten years there are Warwick’s men at Court on -14 February 1575 and also at Stratford in the course of 1574–5, at -Lichfield between 27 July and 3 August during the progress,[287] and -at Leicester before 29 September 1575. At the following Christmas they -gave three plays at Court, on 26 December 1575 and 1 January and on -5 March 1576. John and Laurence Dutton and Jerome Savage were their -payees. Laurence Dutton and possibly others of the company had been, a -year before, in Lord Clinton’s service. During the next four winters -they appeared regularly at Court, and are recorded at Leicester in -1576 and Nottingham on 1 September 1577. On 26 December 1576 they -played _The Painter’s Daughter_, and on 18 February 1577 _The Irish -Knight_. The names of their plays on 28 December 1577 and 6 January -and 9 February 1578 are not preserved. They were notified by the -Privy Council to the Lord Mayor as one of the Court companies for the -Christmas of 1578–9 (App. D, No. xl), and played _The Three Sisters of -Mantua_ on 26 December and _The Knight in the Burning Rock_ on 1 March. -A play intended for 2 February was not performed, but payment was made -to Jerome Savage. Gabriel Harvey (cf. p. 4) mentions them as a London -company in the summer of 1579. On 1 January 1580 they played _The Four -Sons of Fabius_. A Winchester record of ‘Lord Ambrose Dudley’s’ men in -1581–2 must be an error. - -The Duttons were evidently a restless folk, and the disappearance of -Warwick’s men and the appearance of Oxford’s men in 1580 is to be -explained by another transfer of their services. This is referred to in -the following verses:[288] - - _The Duttons and theyr fellow-players forsakyng the Erle of - Warwycke theyr mayster, became followers of the Erle of Oxford, - and wrot themselves his_ COMOEDIANS, _which certayne Gentlemen - altered and made_ CAMOELIONS. _The Duttons, angry with that, - compared themselves to any gentleman; therefore these armes were - devised for them._ - - The fyeld, a fart durty, a gybbet crosse-corded, - A dauncing Dame Flurty of alle men abhorred; - A lyther lad scampant, a roge in his ragges, - A whore that is rampant, astryde wyth her legges, - A woodcocke displayed, a calfe and a sheepe, - A bitch that is splayed, a dormouse asleepe; - A vyper in stynche, _la part de la drut_, - Spell backwarde this Frenche and cracke me that nut. - - Parcy per pillery, perced with a rope, - To slythe the more lytherly anoynted with sope; - A coxcombe crospate in token of witte, - Two eares perforate, a nose wythe slytte. - Three nettles resplendent, three owles, three swallowes, - Three mynstrellmen pendent on three payre of gallowes, - Further sufficiently placed in them - A knaves head, for a difference from alle honest men. - - The wreathe is a chayne of chaungeable red, - To shew they ar vayne and fickle of head; - The creste is a lastrylle whose feathers ar blew, - In signe that these fydlers will never be trew; - Whereon is placed the horne of a gote, - Because they ar chast, to this is theyr lotte, - For their bravery, indented and parted, - And for their knavery innebulated. - - Mantled lowsy, wythe doubled drynke, - Their ancient house is called the Clynke; - Thys Posy they beare over the whole earthe, - Wylt please you to have a fyt of our mirthe? - But reason it is, and heraultes allowe welle, - That fidlers should beare their armes in a towelle. - -In 1587–8 tumblers were at Bath under Warwick’s name. I do not -understand the entry of his men in the Ipswich accounts, as playing -on 10 March 1592. Ambrose Dudley died in 1590, and his doubtfully -legitimate nephew, Sir Robert Dudley, does not seem even to have -claimed the title until 1597. The Ipswich records are unreliable, but -possibly Lady Warwick maintained a company for a while. The Corporation -of London were considering some ‘cause’ of hers as to plays in May 1594 -(App. D, No. xcviii). - - - ix. THE EARL OF OXFORD’S MEN - - John de Vere, s. of John, 15th Earl of Oxford; _nat._ _c._ 1512; - succ. as 16th Earl and Lord Great Chamberlain, 21 Mar. 1540; m. - Margaret Golding, 1547; _ob._ 3 Aug. 1562. - - Edward de Vere, s. of John, 16th Earl of Oxford; _nat._ 2 Apr. - 1550; succ. as 17th Earl and Lord Great Chamberlain, 3 Aug. - 1562; m. (1) Anne, d. of William Lord Burghley, Dec. 1571, - (2) Elizabeth Trentham, _c._ 1591; _ob._ 24 June 1604. Of his - daughters by (1), Elizabeth m. William Stanley, 6th Earl of - Derby, 26 Jan. 1595; Bridget m. Francis, Lord Norris; Susan m. - Sir Philip Herbert, afterwards Earl of Montgomery, 27 Dec. 1604. - -The Earls of Oxford had their players as far back as 1492.[289] A -company belonging to the 16th Earl caused a scandal by playing in -Southwark at the moment when a dirge was being sung for Henry VIII -in St. Saviour’s on 6 February 1547.[290] It is probably the same -company which is traceable in 1555–6 at Dover, in 1557–8 at Ipswich, in -1559–60 and 1560–1 at Maldon, and in 1561–2 at Barnstaple, Maldon, and -Ipswich. Murray (ii. 63) adds a few notices. There is no sign of it at -Court, and it is likely that the 17th Earl discontinued it soon after -his succession. The last notices of it are at Leicester, Plymouth, and -Ipswich in 1562–3. - -At a later date, however, this Earl was clearly interested in things -dramatic. He took part in a Shrovetide device at Court in 1579, and -is recorded in Francis Meres’s _Palladis Tamia_ (1598) to have been -himself a playwright and one of ‘the best for comedy amongst us’ (App. -C, No. lii). In 1580 the Duttons and the rest of the Earl of Warwick’s -men transferred themselves to his service, and thereby laid themselves -open to satire upon their fickleness (cf. _supra_). I do not know -whether it was their resentment at this that brought them into trouble, -but on 12 April 1580 the Lord Mayor wrote to Sir Thomas Bromley, the -Lord Chancellor, about a disorder at the Theatre two days before, which -he understood to be already before the Privy Council; and on 13 April -we find the Council committing Robert Leveson and Laurence Dutton, -servants of the Earl of Oxford, to the Marshalsea for a fray with the -Inns of Court. On 26 May the matter was referred to three judges for -examination, and on 18 July Thomas Chesson, sometime servant to the -Earl, was released on bail (App. D, Nos. xliii, xliv). These notices -suggest that the company had arranged, possibly during the absence of -Leicester’s men from town, to occupy the Theatre. In view of their -disgrace, it was no doubt better for them to travel, and on 21 June -John Hatcher, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, wrote to Lord Oxford’s -father-in-law, Lord Burghley, to acknowledge recommendations received -from him, as well as from the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chamberlain -Sussex, that Oxford’s men should be allowed to ‘show their cunning in -several plays already practised by them before the Queen’s majesty’, -and to explain that, in view of pestilence, the need for industry -at commencement, a previous refusal to Leicester’s men, and a Privy -Council order of 1575 against assemblies in Cambridge, he had thought -it better to give them 20_s._, and send them away unheard.[291] They -are traceable provincially in 1580–3.[292] At Norwich (1580–1) the -payment was made to ‘the Earle of Oxenfordes lads’, and at Bristol -(Sept. 1581) there were nine boys and a man. These were probably boys -of the Earl’s domestic chapel, travelling either with the Duttons or as -a separate company. - -The Duttons joined the Queen’s company, John on its first establishment -in 1583. It is in the following winter, however, that an Oxford’s -company first appears at Court. Here the Earl’s ‘servauntes’ performed -on 1 January and 3 March 1584. Their payee was John Lyly, who had -probably been for some years in the Earl’s service. Provincial -performances continue during 1583–5, and in the records the company -are always described as ‘players’ or ‘men’.[293] On 27 December 1584 -_Agamemnon and Ulysses_ was played at Court by the Earl of Oxford’s -‘boyes’. For this the payee was Henry Evans, probably the same who -in 1600 set up the Chapel plays. I do not feel much doubt that the -companies under Lyly and Evans were the same, or that in 1583–4 they -in fact consisted of a combination of Oxford’s boys, Paul’s and the -Chapel, working under Lyly and Evans at the Blackfriars theatre.[294] -This arrangement had, no doubt, to be modified when Sir William More -recovered possession of the premises in the spring of 1584, and after -the performance of December 1584 Oxford perhaps ceased to maintain boy -players and contented himself with another company of his servants, who -made an appearance at Court on 1 January 1585, under John Symons, in -feats of activity and vaulting. These tumblers had apparently been Lord -Strange’s men in 1583, and by 1586 had returned into the service of the -Stanley family. - -An Oxford’s company did not again perform at Court, but his ‘plaiers’ -were at Norwich in 1585–6, and Ipswich in 1586–7,[295] and players -under his name were notified to Walsingham amongst others setting up -their bills in London on 25 January 1587 (App. D, No. lxxviii). They -were at York in June 1587 and Maidstone in 1589–90. Finally, at the end -of the reign, comes a letter from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor -on 31 March 1602, which informs him that at the Earl’s suit the Queen -has tolerated a new company formed by a combination of his servants -and those of the Earl of Worcester, and that they are to play at the -Boar’s Head (App. D, No. cxxx). Oxford’s men had probably then been -established for some little time, as they are indicated as having -played _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_ (1600, S. R. 23 October 1600) by -the title-page, and _The History of George Scanderbarge_ by the entry -in the Stationers’ Register (3 July 1601). Meres’s reference to Oxford -in 1598 suggests that they may have been in existence still earlier, as -it is natural to suppose that he wrote comedies for his own men. Some -of the writers, however, with whom Meres groups him belong to the early -years of the reign, although others are contemporary. From 1602 the -company was no doubt merged in Worcester’s, which in its turn became -Queen Anne’s. - - - x. THE EARL OF ESSEX’S MEN - - Walter Devereux, s. of Sir Richard Devereux and g.s. of Walter, - Lord Bourchier and 1st Viscount Hereford; _nat._ 1541; succ. - as 2nd Viscount Hereford, 1558; m. Lettice, d. of Sir Francis - Knollys, _c._ 1561; 1st Earl of Essex, 4 May 1572; _ob._ 22 - Sept. 1576. - - Lettice, Countess of Essex, b. _c._ 1541; m. (2) Robert, Earl of - Leicester, 21 Sept. 1578, (3) Sir Christopher Blount, July 1589; - _ob._ 25 Dec. 1634. - - Robert Devereux, s. of 1st Earl of Essex; b. 19 Nov. 1566; succ. - as 2nd Earl, 1576; m. Frances, Lady Sidney, d. of Sir Francis - Walsingham, 1590; Master of the Horse, 23 Dec. 1587; Earl - Marshal, 28 Dec. 1597; Chancellor of Cambridge University, 10 - Aug. 1598; rebelled, 8 Feb. 1601; executed, 25 Feb. 1601. - -The Bourchiers, Earls of Essex, whom the Devereux succeeded through -an heiress, had their players well back into the fifteenth century. -In fact, the earliest household troop on record is that of Henry -Bourchier, first earl of the senior creation, which is found at Maldon -in 1468–9 and at Stoke-by-Nayland on 9 January 1482.[296] - -Walter Devereux had a company, which visited Bath, Bristol, Gloucester, -and Nottingham in 1572–3, Wollaton (Francis Willoughby’s) in July -1574, Coventry on 29 August, and Leicester before 29 September 1574, -Gloucester, Dover, and Coventry in 1574–5, Coventry and Leicester in -1575–6, Nottingham in September 1576, and Bristol in September 1577. -On the Earl’s death the Countess retained the company, and under her -name it appeared at Coventry and Oxford in 1576–7. On 11 February 1578 -it gave its only performance at Court, taking the place of Leicester’s -men, to whom that day had originally been assigned. It was included -in the list of Court companies sent to the Lord Mayor in December -1578 (App. D, No. xl), but gave no play that winter. The Privy Council -described it as the Earl of Essex’s men, and it played under that -name at Coventry in 1577–8 and at Ipswich in 1579–80; but at Oxford, -Coventry, and Stratford-on-Avon in 1578–9, and at Oxford in 1579–80, -it is still called the Countess of Essex’s. It could hardly have borne -that name after August 1579, when the Countess’s secret marriage -with Leicester was revealed to Elizabeth, and doubtless her disgrace -debarred it from any further Court favour. - -Robert Earl of Essex had a provincial company from 1581 to 1596. -In 1581–2 it was at Exeter, in July 1584 at Ludlow, in 1583–4 at -Leicester, Stratford-on-Avon, and Ipswich, and in 1584–5 at Bath. On -26 June 1585 it played at Thorpe in Norwich, in spite of a prohibition -by the Corporation, and was sentenced to be excluded from civic reward -in future. In 1585–6 it was at Coventry and Ipswich, in 1586 before -29 September at Leicester, and possibly about May at Oxford, on 27 -February 1587 at York, on 16 July at Leicester, and in the course of -the year at Stratford-on-Avon. In 1587–8 it was at Coventry, Ipswich, -Saffron Walden, and Leicester, in 1588–9 at Bath, Saffron Walden, and -Reading, on 7 September 1589 at Knowsley, on 31 October at Ipswich, and -in the same year at Faversham. It was also at Coventry and Faversham in -1589–90, at Maldon in 1590, and twice at Faversham in 1590–1, and is -last recorded at Ludlow in April 1596. Murray adds some intermediate -dates. A company of Essex’s men which appeared at Coventry in 1600–1 is -probably distinct. The execution of Essex on 25 February 1601 must have -brought it to a premature end. - - - xi. LORD VAUX’S MEN - - William Vaux, 3rd Lord Vaux; _nat._ _c._ 1542; m. (1) Elizabeth - Beaumont, (2) Mary Tresham; _ob._ 20 Aug. 1595. - - Edward Vaux, 4th Lord Vaux; _nat._ 1588; _ob._ 1661. - -These companies are extremely obscure. Gabriel Harvey mentions -the first in 1579 (cf. p. 4); the second was at Leicester in -October-December 1601, Coventry in 1603–4 and 1608, and Skipton in 1609. - - - xii. LORD BERKELEY’S MEN - - Henry FitzHardinge Berkeley, Baron Berkeley; succ. 1553; m. - Catherine, d. of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey; _ob._ 1613; - father of Thomas Berkeley, _nat._ 11 July 1575; m. Elizabeth, - d. of Sir G. Carey, afterwards 2nd Baron Hunsdon, 19 Feb. 1596; - _ob._ 22 Nov. 1611. - -The only London record of this company is in July 1581, when some of -them, including Arthur King and Thomas Goodale, were committed to the -Counter after a brawl with Inns of Court men. Lord Berkeley apologized -to the Lord Mayor on their behalf, and said that they would go to the -country (App. D, Nos. xlix, l). Their other appearances are all in -the country, at Bristol between 6 and 12 July 1578, where they played -_What Mischief Worketh in the Mind of Man_, at Bath on 11 July 1578 and -on another day in 1578–9, at Abingdon in 1579–80, Stratford-on-Avon -in 1580–1, Maldon in 1581, Stratford-on-Avon in 1582–3, Barnstaple in -1583–4, and Bath in 1586–7. Long after they, or a later company under -the same name, reappear at Coventry in 1597–8, at Leicester in 1598 -before Michaelmas, at Saffron Walden in 1598–9, and at Coventry and -elsewhere in 1603–10. Lord Berkeley’s name is sometimes misspelt in the -account-books as ‘Bartlett’.[297] - - - xiii. QUEEN ELIZABETH’S MEN - -The origin of this company, the most famous of all the London companies -during the decade of the ’eighties, can be dated with an extreme -minuteness.[298] The Revels Accounts for 1582–3 record an expenditure -of 20s. in travelling charges by - - ‘Edmond Tylney Esquire Master of the office being sente for - to the Courte by Letter from M^r. Secreatary dated the x^{th} - of Marche 1582. To choose out a companie of players for her - majestie.’[299] - -The date then was 10 March 1583, and the business was in the hands -of Sir Francis Walsingham. Lord Chamberlain Sussex, to whom it would -naturally have fallen, was ill in the previous September[300] and died -on the following 9 June. Walsingham’s agency in the matter is confirmed -in the account of the formation of the company inserted by Edmund Howes -in the 1615 and 1631 editions of Stowe’s _Annales_: - - ‘Comedians and stage-players of former time were very poor - and ignorant in respect of these of this time: but being now - grown very skilful and exquisite actors for all matters, they - were entertained into the service of divers great lords: out - of which companies there were twelve of the best chosen, and, - at the request of Sir Francis Walsingham, they were sworn the - queens servants and were allowed wages and liveries as grooms - of the chamber: and until this yeare 1583, the queene had no - players. Among these twelve players were two rare men, viz. - Thomas Wilson, for a quicke, delicate, refined, extemporall - witt, and Richard Tarleton, for a wondrous plentifull pleasant - extemporall wit, he was the wonder of his time. He lieth buried - in Shoreditch church. [In a note] He was so beloved that men use - his picture for their signs.’[301] - -Howes is not altogether accurate. ‘Thomas’ is obviously a mistake -for ‘Robert’ Wilson. Elizabeth had maintained players before, the -Interluders, although they had cut little figure in the dramatic -history of the reign, and the last of them had died in 1580. Dr. Greg -thinks that the players were not appointed as grooms of the Chamber, on -the ground that their names do not appear in a list of these officers -appended to a warrant of 8 November 1586.[302] But Tarlton is described -as ‘ordenary grome off her majestes chamber’ in the record of his -graduation as a master of fence in 1587, and both he and his ‘fellow’, -William Johnson, are described as ‘grooms of her majesties chamber’ -in his will of 1588. Their absence from Dr. Greg’s list is probably -due to their treatment as a special class of grooms of the chamber in -ordinary without fee, who were not called upon to perform the ordinary -duties of the office, such as helping to watch the palace.[303] -That they had liveries, which were red coats, is borne out by the -particular mention of the fact that they were not wearing them, in the -depositions concerning a very untoward event which took place in the -first few months of their service. On the afternoon of 15 June 1583 -they were playing at the Red Lion in Norwich. A dispute as to payment -arose between a servant of one Mr. Wynsdon and Singer, who, in a black -doublet and with a player’s beard on, was acting as gatekeeper. Tarlton -and Bentley, who was playing the duke, came off the stage, and Bentley -broke the offender’s head with the hilt of his sword. The man fled, -pursued by Singer with an arming-sword which he took off the stage, -and by Henry Browne, a servant of Sir William Paston. Both of them -struck him, and one of the blows, but it was not certain whose, proved -mortal.[304] - -Several other places, besides Norwich, received a visit from the -Queen’s men during the first summer of their existence. In April they -were at Bristol, on 9 July at Cambridge, and between 24 July and 29 -September at Leicester. Their travels also extended to Gloucester, -Aldeburgh, Nottingham, and Shrewsbury.[305] In the winter they returned -to London, and on 26 November the Privy Council wrote to the Lord Mayor -to bespeak for them permission to play in the City and the liberties -upon week-days until Shrovetide. The City accordingly licensed them to -play at the Bull and the Bell, but with unwelcome limitations, for on -1 December it was necessary for Walsingham to write a personal letter, -explaining that it was not the intention of the Council that the -licence to play should be confined to holidays. The City record gives -the names of the twelve members of the company as Robert Wilson, John -Dutton, Richard Tarlton, John Laneham, John Bentley, Thobye Mylles, -John Towne, John Synger, Leonall Cooke, John Garland, John Adams, and -William Johnson. The company made its initial appearance at Court on 26 -December, and played again on 29 December, and on 3 March 1584. Their -public performances probably continued through the spring, but in June -there were disturbances in and around the Middlesex theatres, and the -City obtained leave from the Council to suppress plays. The Queen’s -submitted to an injunction from William Fleetwood, the Recorder; and -their leader advised him to send for the owner of the Theatre, who -was Lord Hunsdon’s man, and bind him. They travelled again, and are -found in 1583–4 at Bath and Marlborough, and in October or November at -Dover. When the winter came on, they once more approached the Council -and requested a renewal of the previous year’s privilege, submitting -articles in which they pointed out that the time of their service was -drawing near, and that the season of the year was past to play at -any of the houses outside the City. They also asked for favourable -letters to the Middlesex justices. The City opposed the concession, -and begged that, if it were granted, the number and names of the -Queen’s men might be set out in the warrant, complaining that in the -previous year, when toleration was granted to this company alone, all -the playing-places were filled with men calling themselves the Queen’s -players. The records do not show whether the Council assented.[306] The -company appeared four times at Court, giving _Phillyda and Corin_ on 26 -December, _Felix and Philiomena_ on 3 January 1585, _Five Plays in One_ -on 6 January, and an antic play and a comedy on 23 February. They had -prepared a fifth performance, of _Three Plays in One_, for 21 February, -but it was not called for. Mr. Fleay has conjectured that the _Five -Plays in One_ and the _Three Plays in One_ may have been the two parts -of Tarlton’s _Seven Deadly Sins_.[307] The payment for this winter’s -plays was made to Robert Wilson. - -There is no evidence that the company were travelling in 1585. They -were at Court again on 26 December and on 1 January and 13 February -1586. During 1586 they were at Maidstone, in July at Bristol, on 22 -August and later at Faversham, and before 29 September at Leicester. -In 1585–6 they were also at Coventry. On 26 December 1586 and on 1 -and 6 January and 28 February 1587 they were at Court, and in the -same January a correspondent of Walsingham’s names them amongst -other companies then playing regularly in the City (App. D, No. -lxxviii). During 1586–7 they were at Bath, Worcester, Canterbury, -and Stratford-on-Avon, whence Malone thought that they might have -enlisted Shakespeare.[308] They were at Bath again on 13 July 1587, -and at Aldeburgh on 20 May and 19 July. Before 29 September they were -at Leicester, on 9 September at York, where it is recorded that they -‘cam in her Majesties lyvereys’, twice in September at Coventry, and at -Aldeburgh on 16 December. They were at Court on 26 December 1587 and on -6 January and 18 February 1588. - -A subsidy list of 30 June 1588 shows that Tarlton, Laneham, Johnson, -Towne, Adams, Garland, John Dutton, Singer, and Cooke were then still -household players.[309] It can, perhaps, hardly be assumed that the -whole of the company is here represented. Mills, Wilson, and Bentley -may have dropped out since 1583. But one would have expected to find -the name of Laurence Dutton beside that of John, as he was certainly -a Queen’s man by 1589. Knell also acted with Tarlton in _The Famous -Victories of Henry the Fifth_, and must have belonged to the company. -He also may have been dead by 1588. And this must certainly be the case -if he is the William Knell whose widow Rebecca John Heminges married on -10 March 1588. There is some reason to suppose that Heminges himself -joined the Queen’s men, perhaps in right of his wife. The composition -of the list of 1583 generally bears out the statement of Howes, that -the Queen’s men were selected as the best out of the companies of -divers great lords, for Wilson, Laneham, and Johnson belonged to -Leicester’s in 1572, Adams to Sussex’s in 1576, and Dutton, after a -chameleon past, to Oxford’s in 1580. Mr. Fleay, who did not know either -the list of 1583 or that of 1588, declares that the original members -of the company included James Burbadge and William Slaughter, and -probably John Perkyn.[310] Of these William Slaughter is merely what -the philologists would call a ‘ghost’-name, for there is no evidence -that any such actor ever existed.[311] Evidently James Burbadge did not -join the Queen’s men. Probably Mr. Fleay was biased by his knowledge -that these men acted at the Theatre, which was Burbadge’s property. -But this could prove nothing, as the relations between particular -companies and particular theatres were much less permanent than Mr. -Fleay is apt to suppose. The Queen’s seem to have been acting at the -Theatre when Fleetwood suppressed them in June 1584, but the owner -of the house, who can hardly be any other than James Burbadge, is -specifically described as Lord Hunsdon’s man, which of course does -not necessarily signify that he was a player at all. Moreover, it is -clear from the official correspondence of the following autumn, not -only that, as we know from other sources, the companies regularly moved -in from the suburban houses to the City inn-yards at the approach of -winter, but also that the Queen’s in particular had in the winter of -1583 dispersed themselves for their public performances over various -play-places. The view that they did not exclusively attach themselves -to Burbadge’s, or to any other one theatre, is further borne out by -the indications in the _Jests_ of Tarlton, which there is no reason -to reject, however apocryphal they may be in detail, as evidence of -the theatrical conditions under which the famous mime appeared. The -_Jests_ frequently speak of Tarlton as a Queen’s man and never mention -any other company in connexion with him.[312] And, as it happens, -they record performances at the Curtain,[313] the Bell,[314] and the -Bull,[315] but none at the Theatre. Nashe, however, tells us that -Tarlton made jests of Richard Harvey and his _Astrological Discourse_ -of 1583 there;[316] and an entry in the Stationers’ Register makes it -possible to add that shortly before his death he appeared at the Bel -Savage.[317] The stage-keeper in _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), Ind. 37, -gives us a reminiscence of a scene between Tarlton and John Adams, ‘I -am an Asse! I! and yet I kept the _Stage_ in Master _Tarletons_ time, -I thanke my starres. Ho! and that man had liu’d to haue play’d in -_Bartholmew Fayre_, you should ha’ seene him ha’ come in, and ha’ beene -coozened i’ the Cloath-quarter, so finely! And _Adams_, the Rogue, ha’ -leap’d and caper’d vpon him, and ha’ dealt his vermine about, as though -they had cost him nothing. And then a substantiall watch to ha’ stolne -in vpon ’hem, and taken ’hem away, with mistaking words, as the fashion -is, in the _Stage_-practice.’ - -Tarlton’s own talent probably ran more to ‘jigs’ and ‘themes’ than to -the legitimate drama. But the palmy days of the Queen’s company were -those that intervened between its foundation in 1583 and his death on -3 September 1588. To it belonged the men whom such an actor of the -next generation as Thomas Heywood could remember as the giants of the -past,[318] and whose reputation Edward Alleyn’s friends were ready to -back him to excel.[319] From 1588 the future of the stage lay with -Alleyn and the Admiral’s men and Marlowe, and it may reasonably be -supposed that the Queen’s men were hard put to it to hold their own -against their younger rivals. Adams probably survived Tarlton, and -his name appears to be traceable as that of the clowns in _A Looking -Glass for London and England_ (_c._ 1590) and _James IV_ (_c._ 1591). -In 1587–8 the Queen’s visited Coventry and Exeter, and in 1588 Dover, -and on two occasions Faversham. On 19 July and 14 August they were -at Bath. The Bath accounts for this year also show a payment ‘to the -quenes men that were tumblers’. Owing to Tarlton’s death or to some -other reason, the Queen’s men prolonged their travels far into the -winter. On 31 October they were at the Earl of Derby’s house at New -Park, Lancashire; on 6 November ‘certen of’ them were at Leicester; on -10 December they were at Norwich and on 17 December at Ipswich. But -they reached the Court in time for the performance on 26 December, with -which they seem to have had the prerogative of opening the Christmas -season, and appeared again on 9 February. They must have had some -share in the Martin Marprelate controversy, which raged during 1589. -In the previous year, indeed, Martin was able to claim Tarlton as an -ally who had ‘taken’ Simony ‘in Don John of London’s cellar’, and was -himself accused of borrowing his ‘foolery’ from Laneham. But when the -bishops determined to meet the Puritans with literary weapons like -their own, they naturally turned to the Queen’s men amongst others. -About April 1589 _A Whip for an Ape_ bids Martin’s grave opponents to -‘let old Lanam lash him with his rimes’, and although it cannot be -assumed that, if the _Maygame of Martinism_ was in fact played at the -Theatre, it was the Queen’s men who played it, _Martin’s Month’s Minde_ -records in August the chafing of the Puritans at players ‘whom, saving -their liveries (for indeed they are hir Majesty’s men ...) they call -rogues’. Influence was brought to bear to suppress the anti-Martinist -plays. A pamphlet of October notes that _Vetus Comoedia_ has been ‘long -in the country’; and this accords with the fact that the provincial -performances of the Queen’s men began at an unusually early date in -1589. They are found at Gloucester on 19 April, at Leicester on 20 -May, at Ipswich on 27 May, at Aldeburgh on 30 May, and at Norwich on -3 June. On 5 July they were at the Earl of Derby’s at Lathom, and -on 6 and 7 September at another house of the Earl’s at Knowsley. On -22 September Lord Scrope wrote from Carlisle to William Asheby, the -English ambassador in Scotland, that they had been for ten days in that -town. He had heard from Roger Asheton of the King’s desire that they -should visit Scotland, and had sought them out from ‘the furthest parte -of Langkeshire’.[320] One would be glad to know whether they did in -fact visit Scotland. In any case they were back in England and at Bath -by November. During 1588–9 they were also at Reading, at Nottingham, -and twice at Coventry. Both the Nottingham records and those of -Leicester furnish evidence that for travelling purposes they divided -themselves into two companies. At Leicester the town account for 1588–9 -shows ‘certen of her Maiests playars’ as coming on 6 November, and -‘others moe of her Mayestyes playars’ as coming on 20 May; that of -Nottingham for the same year has an entry of ‘Symons and his companie, -being the Quenes players’ and another of ‘the Quenes players, the two -Duttons and others’. The arrangement was of course natural enough, -seeing that even in London the Queen’s men were sufficiently numerous -to occupy more than one inn-yard. Laurence Dutton was evidently by now -a member of the company with his brother John. It is to be presumed -that Symons is the John Symons who on not less than five occasions -presented ‘activities’ at Court, in 1582–3 with Strange’s (q.v.), in -1585 with Oxford’s, in 1586 with ‘Mr. Standleyes boyes’, in 1587–8 with -a company under his own name, and in 1588–9 either with the Admiral’s -or possibly with the Queen’s itself. - -Doubtless the incorporation of Symons into the Queen’s service explains -the appearance of the Queen’s tumblers at Bath in 1589. Performances at -Court, for which John Dutton and John Laneham received payment, took -place on 26 December 1589 and 1 March 1590. During 1589–90 the company -were at Coventry, Ludlow, Nottingham, Bridgnorth, and Faversham, on 22 -April 1590 at Norwich, on 24 June under the leadership of ‘Mr. Dutton’ -at Knowsley, and on 30 October at Leicester. Acrobatic feats still -formed a part of their repertory, and in these they had the assistance -of a Turkish rope-dancer.[321] There were further Court performances -on 26 December and on 1, 3, and 6 January, and 14 February 1591. It is -to be noted that payment was made for the play of 1 January to ‘John -Laneham and his companye her maiesties players’ and for the rest by a -separate warrant to ‘Lawrence Dutton and John Dutton her maiesties -players and there companye’; and that this distinction indicates some -further development of the tendency to bifurcation already observed may -be gathered from a study of the provincial records for 1590–1. On the -very day of the performance of 14 February Queen’s men were also at -Southampton, and the form of the entry indicates that they were there -playing in conjunction with the Earl of Sussex’s men. This was the case -also at Coventry on 24 March and at Gloucester during 1590–1.[322] At -Ipswich during the same year there are two entries, of ‘the Quenes -players’ on 15 May 1591 and of ‘another company of the Quenes players’ -on 18 May. Obviously two groups were travelling this year and one -had strengthened itself by a temporary amalgamation with Sussex’s. -Perhaps the normal combination was restored when the two groups found -themselves on the same road at the end of May, for Queen’s men are -recorded alone at Faversham on 2 June 1591, at Wirkburn on 18 August, -and at Coventry on 24 August and 20 October. - -It was probably during this summer that Greene, having sold _Orlando -Furioso_ to the Queen’s men for twenty nobles, resold it ‘when they -were in the country’ to the Admiral’s for as much more. The winter -of 1591–2 marks a clear falling-off in the position of the company -at Court, since they were only called upon to give one performance, -on 26 December, as against six assigned to Lord Strange’s men, with -whom at this date Alleyn and the Admiral’s men appear to have been -in combination. Yet it was still possible for the City, writing to -Archbishop Whitgift on 25 February 1592, to suggest that Elizabeth’s -accustomed recreation might be sufficiently served, without the need -for public plays, ‘by the privat exercise of hir Ma^{ts} own players in -convenient place’.[323] That they were again making use of the Theatre -may perhaps be inferred from a passage in Nashe’s _Summer’s Last Will -and Testament_ of the following autumn, in which a Welshman is said -to ‘goe ae Theater, and heare a Queenes Fice, and he make hur laugh, -and laugh hur belly-full’.[324] During 1591–2 they were at Nottingham, -Coventry, Stratfordon-Avon, twice at Aldeburgh, and twice at Bath. In -1592 they were at Rochester, on 27 May at Norwich, before 29 September -at Leicester, and early in September at Chesterton close to Cambridge. -Here they came into conflict with the authorities of Cambridge -University, who were apprehensive of infection from the crowds -assembled at Sturbridge fair, and forbade them to play. Encouraged by -Lord North and by the constables of Chesterton, they disobeyed, set -up their bills upon the college gates, and gave their performance. It -is interesting to note that ‘one Dutton’ was ‘a principale’, and to -remember that, twelve years before, the Duttons had gone to Cambridge -as Lord Oxford’s men and had been refused permission to play by the -University authorities.[325] The outcome of the present encounter was -a formal protest by the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses to the -Privy Council for which they requested Burghley’s support as Chancellor -of the University. After a further appeal about a year later, they -succeeded in obtaining a confirmation of their privileges.[326] Another -letter from the University to their Chancellor, written on 4 December -1592, is of a different character. Its object is to excuse themselves -from accepting an invitation conveyed through the Vice-Chamberlain to -present an English comedy before Elizabeth at Christmas. Sir Thomas -Heneage appears to have given it as a reason for his request ‘that her -Maiesties owne servantes, in this time of infection, may not disport -her Highnes w^{th} theire wonted and ordinary pastimes’.[327] - -On 11 October 1592 the Queen’s men were at Aldeburgh, on the same day -as, and conceivably in association with, Lord Morley’s men, although -the payments are distinct. They did not in fact appear at Court during -the Christmas of 1592–3, although both Lord Pembroke’s and Lord -Strange’s did. They were at Coventry and Stratford-on-Avon in the -course of 1592–3, at Leicester in June 1593 and again after Michaelmas, -at Bath on 22 August, and at York in September. On 6 January 1594 they -returned to Court and gave what proved to be their last performance -there. On 1 April they began to play at one of Henslowe’s theatres ‘to -geather’--that is to say, either alternately or in combination--with -Sussex’s men, who had already performed there for the six weeks -between Christmas and Lent. Possibly this was a renewal of an earlier -alliance of 1591. Only eight performances are recorded, and of the five -plays given only _King Leire_ can very reasonably be assigned to the -repertory of the Queen’s men. The others were _The Jew of Malta_ and -_The Fair Maid of Italy_, which Sussex’s men had been playing in the -winter, Greene’s _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, which was played for -Henslowe by other companies both before and after, and was probably -his property, and _The Ranger’s Comedy_, the performances of which -were being continued by the Admiral’s men in the following autumn, -but which it is possible that they or Henslowe may have acquired from -the Queen’s. For there can be no doubt that the Queen’s men, whether -because they had ceased to be modish, or because their finances had -proved unable to stand the strain of the plague years, were now at the -end of their London career. On 8 May 1594 the significant entry occurs -in Henslowe’s diary of a loan of £15 to his nephew Francis Henslowe ‘to -lay downe for his share to the Quenes players when they broke & went -into the contrey to playe’.[328] This by itself would not perhaps be -conclusive, as there are other years in which the company began its -provincial wanderings as early as May. But from the present journey -there is nothing to show that they ever returned, and it may fairly be -reckoned as another sign of defeat that while _The Troublesome Reign of -King John_ (1591) was the only play certainly theirs which was printed -before 1594, no less than nine found their way into the publishers’ -hands during that and the following year. These were, besides _Friar -Bacon and Friar Bungay_ (1594, S. R. 14 May 1594), with which they -probably had only a recent connexion, _A Looking Glass for London and, -England_ (1594, S. R. 5 March 1594), _King Leire_ (1594, S. R. 14 May -1594), _James IV_ and _The Famous Victories of Henry V_ (1598, S. R. -14 May 1594), _The True Tragedy of Richard III_ (1594, S. R. 19 June -1594), _Selimus_ (1594), Peele’s _Old Wive’s Tale_ (1595, S. R. 16 -April 1595), and _Valentine and Orson_ (S. R. 23 May 1595), of which -no copy is known to be extant. Somewhat later came _Sir Clyomon and -Clamydes_ (1599). - -The Queen’s men were at Coventry on 4 July 1594, at Bristol in August, -and at Bath and Barnstaple, where they were unlucky enough to break -down the ceiling in the Guildhall, during 1593–4, and thereafter they -are traceable right up to the end of the reign, at Coventry, Oxford, -and Bath in 1594–5, at Leicester both before and after Michaelmas -1595, twice at Coventry and at Ludlow in 1595–6, at Stratford-on-Avon -on 16 and 17 July 1596, at Bristol in August, at Leicester between -October and December 1596, and at Faversham and Bridgnorth in the -same year, at Coventry, at Dunwich, and twice at Bath in 1596–7, at -Bristol again about Christmas 1597, at Nottingham on 8 July 1597, at -Bristol about 25 July, at Bath in 1597–8, at Leicester on 9 January -1598, at Maldon in 1598, at Ipswich and Reading in 1598–9, at Maldon -in 1599, at Dunwich in 1599–1600, at Ipswich on 2 June 1600, and at -Leicester before 29 September in the same year, at Coventry and Bath -in 1600–1, at York in July 1602, at Leicester on 30 September 1602, at -Belvoir in August or September of the same year, and at Coventry in -1602–3. But little, naturally enough, is known of the _personnel_ of -the company during this period of its decay. On 1 June 1595 Francis -Henslowe borrowed another £9 from his uncle ‘to laye downe for his -hallfe share w^{th} the company w^{ch} he dothe playe w^{th} all’,[329] -and I see no particular reason to suppose that this was another company -than the Queen’s. The loan is witnessed by William Smyght, George -Attewell, and Robert Nycowlles, each of whom is described as ‘player’. -It is likely enough that these were now fellows of Francis Henslowe. -Attewell had been payee for Lord Strange’s men in 1591. The earlier -loan was witnessed by John Towne, Hugh Davis, and Richard Alleyn. Davis -and Alleyn appear elsewhere in connexion with Henslowe, but Towne was -certainly a Queen’s man. He is in the 1588 list and is described as -‘one of her Majesties plears’ when on 8 July 1597 he obtained a release -of debts due to Roger Clarke of Nottingham.[330] The other men of 1588 -had nearly all vanished. John Singer had joined the Admiral’s by the -autumn of 1594. I should not be surprised, however, to find that John -Garland was still with the Queen’s. He was an associate of Francis -Henslowe in the Duke of Lennox’s men in 1604, and was then ‘owld’ -Garland. Indeed, it seems probable that, when the Queen’s men lost -their last shred of claim to a livery on Elizabeth’s death, they made -an attempt still to hold together under the patronage of Lennox. John -Shank was once a Queen’s man. - - - xiv. THE EARL OF ARUNDEL’S MEN - - Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel; _nat. c._ 1511; m. (1) - Katherine, d. of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, before 1532, - (2) Mary, Countess of Sussex, d. of Sir John Arundel, after - 1542; succ. Jan. 1544; Lord Chamberlain, 1544; Lord Steward, - 1553, and again 1558–64; _ob._ 24 Feb. 1580. - - Philip Howard, 13th Earl of Arundel, s. of Thomas Howard, 4th - Duke of Norfolk, attainted 1572, and Mary, d. and h. of 12th - Earl; _nat._ 28 June 1557; m. Anne, d. of Thomas, Lord Dacre, - 1571; succ. Feb. 1580; sent to Tower, 25 Apr. 1585, and _ob._ - there, 19 Oct. 1595. - -The Earls of Arundel had players as far back as the fifteenth -century.[331] The 12th Earl entertained Elizabeth with a mask at -Nonsuch on 5 August 1559. He had players, who were rewarded by the -Duchess of Suffolk, apparently during a London visit, in December -1561. The 13th Earl had a company in 1584. It was in London when plays -were suppressed in June, and obediently submitted. It seems to have -been located at the Curtain. It can be traced at Ipswich on 1 July, at -Leicester before 29 September, at Aldeburgh in 1583–4, at Norwich in -1585–6, and thereafter no more. - - - xv. THE EARL OF HERTFORD’S MEN - - Edward Seymour, s. of Edward, Protector and 1st and attainted - Duke of Somerset; _nat._ 25 May 1539; cr. Earl of Hertford, 13 - Jan. 1559; m. (1) Lady Catherine Grey, d. of Henry, Duke of - Suffolk, _c._ Nov. 1560, (2) Frances, d. of William, 1st Lord - Howard of Effingham, before 1582, (3) Frances, d. of Thomas, - Lord Howard of Bindon and widow of Henry Pranell, Dec. 1600; - _ob._ 6 Apr. 1621. - -These are among the most obscure of the companies. They appeared at -Canterbury in 1582, Faversham in 1586, Newcastle in October 1590, -Leicester on 22 November 1590, and Bath, Marlborough, and Southampton -in 1591–2. During the progress of 1591 Elizabeth was entertained from -20 to 24 September by the Earl at Elvetham in Hampshire ‘beeing none -of the Earles chiefe mansion houses’ (cf. ch. xxiv). This was really -a visit of reconciliation, for much of Hertford’s life had been spent -in disgrace, owing to his first marriage with the heiress, under -Henry VIII’s will, to Elizabeth’s throne. The entertainment was very -elaborate, and at its close Elizabeth protested to the Earl that it was -so honourable ‘as hereafter he should find the rewarde thereof in her -especiall favour’. No doubt Hertford’s players took a part, and shared -the ‘largesse’ which she bestowed upon the ‘actors’ of the pastimes -before she departed. I think it must have also been their success on -this occasion which earned them their only appearance at Court, on the -following 6 January 1592. I have elsewhere tried to show that there -is a special connexion between this Elvetham entertainment and _A -Midsummer-Night’s Dream_,[332] and if any special company is satirized -in Bottom and his fellows, I feel sure that it must have been the Earl -of Hertford’s and not, as Mr. Fleay thinks, the Earl of Sussex’s.[333] - -Probably the company went under in the plague of 1592–4, and in 1595 -Hertford was again in disgrace for presuming so far upon his favour -as to claim a declaration of the validity of his first marriage. But -there were players under his name at Coventry in 1596–7, at Ipswich in -1600–1, and on 8 May 1602, at Norwich in 1601, and at Bath in 1601–2, -and this company appeared at Court on 6 January 1603. Their payee was -Martin Slater, formerly of the Admiral’s, and since then, possibly, an -associate of Laurence Fletcher in his Scottish tours. In 1604–5 they -were at Norwich. In 1606 they visited Leicester, on 9 July Oxford, -and on 2 December the Earl of Derby wrote to the Mayor of Chester to -bespeak for them the use of the town-hall. In 1606–7 they were at -Coventry. - - - xvi. MR. EVELYN’S MEN (1588) - - George Evelyn, of Wotton, Surrey; _nat._ 1530; _ob._ 1603. - -Collier gives no authority for the following rather puzzling -statement:[334] - - ‘In Feb. 1587, the Earl of Warwick obtained a warrant for the - payment of the claim of George Evelyn of Wotton, for provisions - supplied to the Tower, and for the reward of actors on Shrove - Tuesday for a Play, the title of which is not given nor the name - of the company by which it was performed: the whole sum amounted - to only 12_s._’ - -The date intended must be 1588, as in 1587 Shrovetide fell in March. -But there is probably some misunderstanding, as no such payment occurs -in the Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts, and the sum named is too -small for a reward. Moreover, private gentlemen do not seem to have -entertained Court companies at so late a date. The Revels Account for -1587–8 only records seven plays. Of these the Treasurer of the Chamber -paid for six, and the seventh was presented by Gray’s Inn. - - - xvii. THE EARL OF DERBY’S (LORD STRANGE’S) MEN - - Henry Stanley, s. of Edward, 3rd Earl of Derby; _nat._ 1531; - known as Lord Strange; m. Margaret, d. of Henry, 2nd Earl of - Cumberland, 7 Feb. 1555; succ. as 4th Earl, 24 Oct. 1572; Lord - Steward, 1588; _ob._ 25 Sept. 1593. - - Ferdinando Stanley, 2nd s. of Henry, 4th Earl of Derby; _nat. - c._ 1559; m. Alice, d. of Sir John Spencer of Althorp, 1579; - summoned to Parliament as Lord Strange, 28 Jan. 1589; succ. as - 5th Earl of Derby, 25 Sept. 1593; _ob._ 16 Apr. 1594. - - William Stanley, s. of Henry, 4th Earl of Derby; _nat._ 1561; - succ. as 6th Earl of Derby, 16 Apr. 1594; m. Elizabeth, d. of - Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford, 26 Jan. 1595; _ob._ 29 Sept. 1642. - -The companies connected with the great northern house of Stanley -present a history perhaps more complicated than that of any other -group, partly because it seems to have been not unusual for the heir -of the house to entertain players during his father’s lifetime. The -3rd Earl had a company in Henry the Eighth’s reign. His successor -had one as Lord Strange, which is only recorded in the provinces, in -1563–70.[335] Four years later he had again a company as Earl of Derby. -The earliest mention of it is at Coventry in 1573–4. It was at Dover -and Coventry in 1577–8, at Ipswich on 28 May 1578, at Nottingham on 31 -August 1578, at Bristol in the same year, and at Bath in 1578–9. In the -last three months of 1579 it was at Leicester; and during the following -Christmas it made its first appearance at Court with a performance of -_The Soldan and the Duke of ---- _ on 14 February 1580. In 1579–80 -it was at Stratford-on-Avon, Exeter, and Coventry, on 1 January 1581 -at Court, in 1580–1 at Bath, Leicester, Nottingham, Exeter, and -Winchester, in 1581–2 at Nottingham, Winchester, and Abingdon, in -October to December 1582 at Leicester, and in 1582–3 at Bath, Norwich, -and Southampton. Its last appearance at Court was in _Love and Fortune_ -on 30 December 1582. - -I think that the Earl of Derby’s players must be taken to be distinct -from another company, which was performing during much the same period -of years under the name of Lord Strange. These men are found in 1576–7 -at Exeter, in 1578–9 at Bath, Ipswich, Rochester, Nottingham, Coventry, -and Stratford-on-Avon. They also made their first appearance at Court -in the winter of 1579–80. Their performance was on 15 January 1580, -and they are spoken of, not as players, but as tumblers. On the other -hand they appear as players at Bath, side by side with Derby’s men, -in 1580–1 and 1582–3, and as players also at Bristol, Canterbury, and -Gloucester in 1580–1, Plymouth in 1581–2, and Barnstaple in 1582–3 and -1583–4. With the tumbling at Court in 1580 begins a rather puzzling -series of records. There are further Court entries of feats of activity -by Lord Strange’s men on 28 December 1581, and of feats of activity and -tumbling on 1 January 1583. For this last occasion the payee of the -company was John Symons. Two years later Symons and his ‘fellows’ were -again at Court with feats of activity and vaulting, but they were then -under the patronage, not of Lord Strange, but of the Earl of Oxford. -There would be nothing extraordinary about such a transference of -service, were it not that during the following Christmas, on 9 January -1586, tumbling and feats of activity are ascribed to John Symons and -‘Mr. Standleyes boyes’, and that by ‘Mr. Standley’ one can hardly help -assuming either Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, or some other member -of his family to be intended. This inference is confirmed by a mention -of Lord Strange’s men at Faversham in 1585–6, and it becomes necessary -to assume that, after attaching himself for a year to the Earl of -Oxford, Symons thought better of it, and returned to his original -master. Symons and his company again showed feats of activity on 28 -December 1587. No patron is named on this occasion, but as Strange’s -men are traceable at Coventry during 1587–8, it is natural to assume -that they were still holding together. Now a new complication comes -in. There were activities again at Court in the winter of 1588–9, and -Symons certainly took part in them.[336] But the only men companies -to whom payments were made were the Queen’s and the Admiral’s, who -now reappear at Court after absence during two winters, and it is -only in the case of the Admiral’s that the payment is specified to be -for activities. If the restless Symons had joined the Admiral’s men, -it cannot have been for long, since in the course of 1588–9 he was -leading one section of the Queen’s men to Nottingham. Nor had Strange’s -yet entirely broken up, for on 5 November 1589, both they and the -Admiral’s, evidently playing as distinct companies, were suppressed by -the Lord Mayor in the City.[337] Strange’s, who were then at the Cross -Keys, played contemptuously, and some of them were imprisoned. A year -later, the Admiral’s were with Burbadge at the Theatre, and there I -conceive that the residue of Strange’s, deserted by Symons, had joined -them. If they were too many for the house, we know that the Curtain -was available as an ‘easer’. After the quarrel with Burbadge in May -1591, the two companies probably went together to the Rose. The main -evidence for such a theory is that, while the Privy Council record of -play-warrants include two for the Admiral’s men in respect of plays -and feats of activity on 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591, the -corresponding Chamber payments are to George Ottewell on behalf of -Strange’s men. - -This amalgamation of Strange’s and the Admiral’s, tentative perhaps -in 1588–9, and conclusive, if not in 1589–90, at any rate in 1590–1, -lasted until 1594. So far as Court records are concerned, the company -seems to have been regarded as Strange’s. But the leading actor, Edward -Alleyn, kept his personal status as the Lord Admiral’s servant, and -it is to be observed that, for whatever reason, both the Admiral’s -and Strange’s continue to appear, not only in combination, but also -separately in provincial documents.[338] Of this various explanations -are conceivable. One is that the municipal officials were not very -precise in their methods, and when an amalgamated company came before -them, sometimes entered the name of one lord, sometimes of the other, -sometimes of both. Another is that a few of the Admiral’s men may have -been left out of the amalgamation and have travelled separately under -that name. We know, of course, that Richard Jones and others went -abroad in 1592, but they may have spent some time in the provinces -first. And thirdly, it is possible that, while the combined company -performed as a whole in London, they found it more economical to -take their authorities from both lords with them, when they went to -the country in the summer, and to unite or divide their forces as -convenience prompted. I am the more inclined to this third conjecture, -in that the ‘intollerable’ charge of travelling with a great company -and the danger of ‘division and separacion’ involved were explicitly -put forward by Lord Strange’s men in a petition to the Privy Council -for leave to quit Newington Butts, where they had been commanded to -play during a long vacation, and return to their normal quarters, -doubtless at the Rose, on the Bankside. They particularly wanted to -avoid going to the country, but Newington Butts did not pay, and they -were backed by the Thames watermen, who lost custom when the Rose -was not open. It is not clear whether this petition belongs to 1591 -or 1592.[339] The provincial records show that the company probably -travelled during 1592, but not 1591. If the petition belongs to 1592, -it is obvious that the plague intervened, and I strongly suspect that -the company’s fears proved justified, and that the reorganization for -provincial work did in fact lead to a ‘division and separacion’, by the -splitting off of some members of the combine as Pembroke’s men (q.v.). - -This, however, anticipates a little. To Alleyn’s talent must be -attributed the remarkable success of the company in the winter of -1591–2, during which they were called upon to give six performances at -Court, on 27 and 28 December, 1 and 9 January, and 6 and 8 February, -as against one each allotted to the Queen’s, Sussex’s, and Hertford’s -men. On 19 February 1592 the company began a season with Philip -Henslowe, probably at the Rose, and played six days a week for a period -of eighteen weeks, during which they only missed Good Friday and two -other days. Henslowe records in his diary the name of the play staged -at each of the hundred and five performances, together with a sum of -money which probably represents his share of the takings.[340] If so, -his average receipts were £1 14_s._ 0_d._; but the daily amounts -fluctuated considerably, sometimes falling to a few shillings and again -rising to twice the average on the production of a new or popular -play or during the Easter or Whitsun holiday. Twenty-three plays in -all were given, for any number of days from one to fifteen; the same -play was rarely repeated in any one week. Five of the plays are marked -in the diary with the letters _ne_, which are reasonably taken to -indicate the production of a new piece. These were ‘Harey the vj’, -probably Shakespeare’s _1 Henry VI_, _Titus and Vespasian_, probably -the play on which was based Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_, the -_Second Part_ of _Tamar Cham_, _The Tanner of Denmark_, and _A Knack -to Know a Knave_. The eighteen old plays included Marlowe’s _Jew of -Malta_, Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_ and _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, -Greene and Lodge’s _A Looking Glass for London_; also _Muly Mollocco_ -which might be Peele’s _Battle of Alcazar_, _Four Plays in One_, which -is conjectured to be a part of Tarlton’s _Seven Deadly Sins_, and -_Jeronimo_, which is almost certainly Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. There -was also a play, sometimes given on the day before this last, under -the varying titles of _Don Horatio_, the _Comedy of Jeronimo_, or _The -Spanish Comedy_, which does not appear to have been preserved.[341] The -same fate has befallen the other ten plays, of which the names were -_Sir John Mandeville_, _Henry of Cornwall_, _Clorys and Orgasto_, _Pope -Joan_, _Machiavel_, _Bindo and Richardo_, _Zenobia_, _Constantine_, -_Jerusalem_, and _Brandimer_. From the financial point of view, the -greatest successes were _Titus and Vespasian_, _The Jew of Malta_, _2 -Tamar Cham_, _1 Henry VI_, and _The Spanish Tragedy_. These averaged -respectively for Henslowe £2 8_s._ 6_d._ for seven days, £2 3_s._ 6_d._ -for ten days, £2 1_s._ 6_d._ for five days, £2 0_s._ 6_d._ for fifteen -days, and £1 17_s._ 0_d._ for thirteen days. The _Seven Deadly Sins_ -and perhaps also the _Looking Glass_ must have passed in some way into -the hands of Strange’s or the Admiral’s, or into Henslowe’s, from the -Queen’s. - -The performances came to an end on 23 June, for on that day the Privy -Council inhibited all plays until Michaelmas. Whether the Newington -Butts episode and the watermen’s petition followed or not, at any rate -plague intervened in the course of the summer, and the company had to -face the disadvantages of travelling. They were afoot by 13 July and -still on 19 December. Ten days later, Henslowe resumed his account, -and the resemblance of the list of plays to that of the previous spring -renders it reasonable to suppose that the actors were the same.[342] -The season lasted to the end of January 1593, and a play was given -on each of the twenty-six week-days of this period. _Muly Mollocco_, -_The Spanish Tragedy_, _A Knack to Know a Knave_, _The Jew of Malta_, -_Sir John Mandeville_, _Titus and Vespasian_, _Friar Bacon and Friar -Bungay_, _1 Henry VI_, and _2 Tamar Cham_ all made their appearance -again. In addition, there were a comedy called _Cosmo_, and two new -plays, _The Jealous Comedy_, which may, I think, be _The Comedy of -Errors_, and _The Tragedy of the Guise_, which is usually accepted as -Marlowe’s _Massacre of Paris_. The first representation of the former -yielded Henslowe £2 4_s._ 0_d._, that of the latter £3 14_s._ 0_d._; as -in the spring, his daily takings averaged £1 14_s._ 0_d._ Besides their -public performances, Strange’s men were called upon for three plays at -Court, on the evenings of 27 and 31 December 1592 and 1 January 1593. - -The plague made a new inhibition of plays necessary on 28 January, but -it does not seem to have been for some months that Strange’s men made -up their minds to travel. A special licence issued in their favour by -the Privy Council on 6 May is registered in the following terms: - - ‘Whereas it was thought meet that during the time of the - infection and continewaunce of the sicknes in the citie of - London there shold no plaies or enterludes be usd, for th’ - avoiding of th’ assemblies and concourse of people in anie usual - place apointed nere the said cittie, and though the bearers - hereof, Edward Allen, servaunt to the right honorable the - Lord Highe Admiral, William Kemp, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, - Augustine Phillipes and Georg Brian, being al one companie, - servauntes to our verie good the Lord the Lord Strainge, ar - restrained their exercize of playing within the said citie and - liberties thereof, yet it is not therby ment but that they - shal and maie in regard of the service by them don and to be - don at the Court exercize their quallitie of playing comodies, - tragedies and such like in anie other cities, townes and - corporacions where the infection is not, so it be not within - seaven miles of London or of the Coort, that they maie be in the - better readines hereafter for her Majesty’s service whensoever - they shalbe therunto called. Theis therfore shalbe to wil and - require you that they maie without their lett or contradiccion - use their said exercize at their most convenient times and - places (the accustomed times of Devine praiers excepted).’[343] - -The importance of this document is in the information which it gives -as to the composition of the company. Presumably only the leaders -are named, and of these Alleyn alone is specially designated as an -Admiral’s man. Kempe, at any rate, and probably also Pope and Bryan, -were in Leicester’s service in the Low Countries during 1586, and all -three were together during the same year in Denmark. Whether they had -belonged, as has sometimes been supposed, to Leicester’s long-enduring -company of Court players is less certain. Pope and Bryan passed from -Denmark to Germany, and may have joined the Admiral’s or Strange’s on -their return. They also were acrobats as well as players.[344] Kempe, -however, seems to have parted company from the others in Denmark, and -may have joined Strange’s independently, presumably before 10 June -1592, when _A Knack to Know a Knave_, in which he played ‘merrimentes’, -was produced. Heminges may possibly have been a Queen’s man. - -Some details of the 1593 tour and the names of two or three more -members of the company are found in the familiar correspondence of -Alleyn with his wife, whom he had married on 22 October 1592, and with -Philip Henslowe, who was her step-father.[345] On 2 May he writes from -Chelmsford, and on 1 August from Bristol. Here he had received a letter -by Richard Cowley and he sends his reply by a kinsman of Thomas Pope. -At the moment of writing he is ready to play _Harry of Cornwall_. -He asks that further letters may be sent to him by the carriers to -Shrewsbury, West Chester, or York, ‘to be keptt till my Lord Stranges -players com’. He does not expect to be home until All Saints’ Day. A -reply from Henslowe and Mrs. Alleyn on 14 August is in fact addressed -to ‘Mr. Edwarde Allen on of my lorde Stranges players’. This mentions -an illness of Alleyn at Bath during which one of his fellows had had -to play his part. With these letters is one written to Mrs. Allen on -behalf of a ‘servant’ of Alleyn’s, whose name was Pige or Pyk, by the -hand of Mr. Doutone, possibly Edward Dutton, but perhaps more probably -Thomas Dowten or Downton, who was later a sharer among the Admiral’s -men. The provincial records, subject to the confusion of company -nomenclature already noted, appear to confirm the visits to Bath, -Shrewsbury, and York, to indicate others to Southampton, Leicester, -Coventry, Ipswich, and Newcastle, and to show that some temporary -alliance had been entered into with the purely provincial company of -Lord Morley.[346] After 25 September 1593 Strange’s men of course -became Derby’s men. - -I now come to a difficult point. There exists amongst the Dulwich -papers a ‘plott’ or prompter’s abstract of a play called _The Second -Part of the Seven Deadly Sins_, which an ingenious conjecture of Mr. -Fleay has identified on internal evidence with the _Four Plays in One_ -included in the Strange’s repertory of 1592.[347] In this leading parts -were taken, not only by ‘Mr. Pope’, ‘Mr. Phillipps’, and ‘Mr. Brian’, -but also by ‘Richard Burbadge’; lesser ones by Richard Cowley, John -Duke, Robert Pallant, John Sincler, Thomas Goodale, William Sly, J. -Holland, and three others described only as Harry, Kitt, and Vincent; -and female parts by Saunder, Nick, Robert, Ned, Will, and T. Belt, who -may be presumed to have been boys.[348] Alleyn, Kempe, and Heminges are -not named, but there are several parts to which no actors are assigned. -What, however, is the date of the ‘plott’? Not necessarily 1592, for -the performance of _Four Plays in One_ in that year was only a revival. -The authorship of the _Seven Deadly Sins_ is ascribed to Tarlton, and -therefore the original owners were probably the Queen’s men. They are -not very likely to have parted with it before Tarlton’s death in 1588 -brought the first shock to their fortunes, but clearly it may have -come into the possession of Strange’s or the Admiral’s or the combined -company before ever they reached the Rose. And surely the appearance -of Richard Burbadge suggests that the ‘plott’ was brought from the -Theatre, and represents a performance there. He is very unlikely to -have joined at the Rose the company which had just been driven there -by a quarrel with his father. It is true that in the ‘plott’ of _Dead -Man’s Fortune_, which also probably dates from the sojourn of the -Admiral’s (q.v.) at the Theatre, he was apparently not playing leading -parts but only a messenger. But the wording is obscure, and after all -the absence of the prefix ‘Mr.’ from his name in the ‘plott’ of the -_Sins_ may indicate, in accordance with the ordinary usage of the -Dulwich documents, that he was not yet a sharer when it was drawn up. -Apparently, then, at least four of Strange’s men, as we find them in -1593, besides Alleyn, had been playing at the Theatre about 1590–1. -These were Pope, Phillips, Bryan, and Cowley. Obviously we cannot say -whether it was to the original Admiral’s or the original Strange’s that -they belonged. One other point of _personnel_ must not be overlooked. -Shakespeare contributed to the repertory of Strange’s in 1592 and -perhaps also in 1593. Greene calls him a Shake-scene, but neither the -‘plott’ of 1590, nor the licence of 1593, nor the Alleyn correspondence -of the same year, yields his name.[349] - -Derby’s men did not appear at Court during the winter of 1593–4. On 16 -April 1594 Lord Derby died. On 16 May the company used the Countess’s -name at Winchester. It seems clear that during the summer there was -some reshuffling of the companies, that Alleyn took the leadership of -a new body of Admiral’s men, that several other members of the old -combination, including Pope, Heminges, Kempe, and Phillips, joined -with Burbadge, Shakespeare, and Sly, under the patronage of the Lord -Chamberlain, Henry Lord Hunsdon, and that, after a short period of -co-operation with each other and Henslowe, the two companies definitely -parted. In the course of 1594 the name of Derby’s men appeared upon -the title-page of _Titus Andronicus_, probably because they had -played it in its earlier form of _Titus and Vespasian_ in 1592–3, -before it passed to Pembroke’s and from them to Sussex’s. In the same -year was published _A Knack to Know a Knave_ (S. R. 7 January 1594) -as played ‘by Ed. Allen and his companie’ and with ‘merrimentes’ by -Kemp. This also belongs to the 1592–3 repertory, of the other plays -in which _1 Henry VI_, like _Titus Andronicus_, passed ultimately to -the Chamberlain’s men, and a considerable number, either as their own -property or that of Henslowe, to the Admiral’s. These included _Tamar -Cham_, _The Battle of Alcazar_, _The Spanish Tragedy_, _The Jew of -Malta_, _The Massacre of Paris_, _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, and -probably _Orlando Furioso_, of Orlando’s part in which a transcript, -with alterations in Alleyn’s hand, is preserved at Dulwich.[350] The -only play not named in Henslowe’s diary which can be traced to the -company is _Fair Em_, which bears the name of Lord Strange’s men on its -title-page, but of which the first edition is undated. - -It is possible that those of the fifth Earl of Derby’s men who did not -take service with the Lord Chamberlain, passed into a provincial period -of existence under his successor, the sixth Earl. A company bearing -his name was at Norwich on 15 September 1594, at Dunwich in 1594–5 -and 1595–6, at Coventry, Bath, and Stratford in 1595–6, at Leicester -between October and December 1596, at Bath in 1596–7, at Maldon in -1597, at Coventry twice in 1597–8, at Leicester in 1597–8, and between -October and December 1598, at Wollaton (Percival Willoughby’s) on 7 -October 1599, and at Leicester again on 16 October 1599. Letters of 30 -June 1599 relate that the Earl of Derby was then ‘busy penning comedies -for the common players’, and it is perhaps natural to suppose that his -own company were chosen as the exponents of his art.[351] This perhaps -explains its appearance at Court during the winters of 1599–1600 and -1600–1. Four performances were given, on 3 and 5 February 1600 and 1 -and 6 January 1601, and for these Robert Browne, who had been both -with Worcester’s men and the Admiral’s, but much of whose dramatic -career had been spent in Germany, was the payee. In an undated letter -to Sir Robert Cecil, Lady Derby writes, ‘Being importuned by my Lord -to intreat your favor that his man Browne, with his companye, may not -be bared from ther accoustomed plaing, in maintenance wherof they have -consumde the better part of ther substance, if so vaine a matter shall -not seame troublesum to you, I could desier that your furderance might -be a meane to uphold them, for that my Lord taking delite in them, it -will kepe him from moer prodigall courses’.[352] To this company are -doubtless to be assigned _Edward IV_, perhaps by Heywood (1600, S. R. -28 August 1599), and the anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ (1605, S. R. -4 December 1604), both of which are credited to Derby’s men on their -title-pages. It again becomes provincial and is traceable at Norwich on -27 February and 9 June 1602, at Ipswich on 4 June 1602, and thereafter -up to 1618, chiefly at Coventry and at Gawthorpe Hall, the house of -Derby’s neighbours, the Shuttleworths.[353] - -John Taylor, the water-poet, returned from his journey to Scotland in -1618 at the Maidenhead Inn, Islington, and here after supper on 14 -October ‘we had a play of the Life and Death of Guy of Warwick, played -by the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby his men’. Presumably this -was Day and Dekker’s play entered on the Stationers’ Register in 1619, -which Mr. Bullen declines to identify with the _Guy of Warwick_ -published as ‘by B. J.’ in 1661.[354] - - - xviii. THE EARL OF PEMBROKE’S MEN - - Henry Herbert, s. of William, 1st Earl of Pembroke; _nat. c._ - 1534; succ. as 2nd Earl, 17 Mar. 1570; m. (1) Catherine, d. of - Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, 21 May 1553, (2) Catherine, d. of - George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, 17 Feb. 1563, (3) Mary, d. - of Sir Henry Sidney, _c._ Apr. 1577; President of Wales, 1586; - residences, Baynard’s Castle, London, Wilton House, Wilts., - Ludlow Castle, &c.; _ob._ 9 Jan. 1601. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Halliwell-Phillipps collected - provincial records and other notes on Pembroke’s men in _A - Budget of Notes and Memoranda_ (1880). The Bill, Answer, and - Replication in Shaw _et al._ v. Langley (1597–8, Court of - Requests) are in C. W. Wallace, _The Swan Theatre and the Earl - of Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _E. S._ xliii. 340).] - -There is an isolated record of a Pembroke’s company at Canterbury -in 1575–6, hardly to be regarded as continuous with that which -makes its appearance in the last decade of the century. Fleay, 87, -puts the origin of the latter in 1589, and supposes it to be a -continuation of Worcester’s men after the death of their original -patron in 1589, and to be the company ridiculed by Nashe (iii. 324) -for playing _Delphrigus_ and _The King of the Fairies_, in his preface -to Greene’s _Menaphon_ (1589). But this Worcester’s company is not -in fact traceable during 1585–9, and Fleay’s theory is only based -on the allusion to _Hamlet_ in the same preface (iii. 315), and the -assumption that the _Ur-Hamlet_, like some other plays, passed to -the Chamberlain’s from Pembroke’s, whereas it may just as well have -passed to them from Strange’s. As a matter of fact, there is no mention -of Pembroke’s before 1592 and no reason to suppose that it had an -earlier existence. It will be well to detail the few facts of its -history before attempting anything in the nature of conjecture. It -was at Leicester in the last three months of 1592 and made its only -appearances at Court on 26 December 1592 and 6 January 1593. In the -following summer it travelled, and is found at York in June, at Rye in -July, and in 1592–3 at Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Coventry, Bath, and Ipswich. -But it had little success. Henslowe wrote to Alleyn on 28 September, -‘As for my lorde a Penbrockes w^{ch} you desier to knowe wheare they be -they ar all at home and hausse ben this v or sixe weackes for they cane -not saue ther carges w^{th} trauell as I heare & weare fayne to pane -ther parell for ther carge’.[355] About the same time three of their -plays came to the booksellers’ hands. These were Marlowe’s _Edward the -Second_ (1594, S. R. 6 July 1593), _The Taming of A Shrew_ (1594, -S. R. 2 May 1594), and _The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York_ -(1595). Probably the play to which this last is a sequel, _1 Contention -of York and Lancaster_ (1594, S. R. 12 March 1594) was also theirs, -although the name of the company is not on the title-page. It is on the -title-page of _Titus Andronicus_ (1594), and its position suggests that -the play passed to them from Strange’s and from them before publication -to Sussex’s. All these plays, with the exception of _Edward II_, seem -to have been worked upon by Shakespeare, and probably they ultimately -became part of the stock of the Chamberlain’s men. These men were -playing _Titus Andronicus_ and _The Taming of The Shrew_ in June 1594, -and that they also owned _The Contention_ in its revised form of _2, -3 Henry VI_ is suggested both by its inclusion in the First Folio and -by the reference in the Epilogue to _Henry V_ not only to the loss of -France but also to the bleeding of England ‘which oft our stage hath -shown’. - -I now enter a region of conjecture. It seems to me, on the whole, -likely that the origin of Pembroke’s men is to be explained by the -special conditions of the plague-years 1592–3, and was due to a -division for travelling purposes of the large London company formed -by the amalgamation of Strange’s and the Admiral’s. Such a division -had been foreshadowed as likely to be necessary in the petition sent -by Strange’s men to the Privy Council during the summer of 1592 or -earlier, and may actually have become necessary when, after all, the -plague rendered travelling imperative. If this suggestion is well -founded, it becomes not difficult to explain some of the transferences -of acting rights in certain plays which seem to have taken place. Thus -Strange’s may have handed over _Titus Andronicus_ in its earlier form -of _Titus and Vespasian_ to Pembroke’s for the travels of 1593, and may -also have handed over _The Contention of York and Lancaster_, if that -was originally theirs, as is suggested by their production of _1 Henry -VI_, which belongs to the same closely related series. This opens up a -more important line of speculation. It is usual to assume that one of -the members of Strange’s from 1592 or earlier until its reconstitution -as the Chamberlain’s in 1594 was William Shakespeare, and there is no -reason to doubt his authorship at any rate of the Talbot scenes, which -we know from Nashe to have been staged as part of _1 Henry VI_ in 1592. -At the same time, the names of at least seventeen of Strange’s and -the Admiral’s men in 1590–3 are otherwise known, and his is not one -of them, and in particular his prominence amongst the Chamberlain’s -men from the very beginning renders it extremely unlikely that, if -he had been a member of the company in 1593, he would not have been -mentioned in the Privy Council warrant of 6 May. Further, it seems -to me impossible to resist the inference that the attribution to him -of _Titus Andronicus_ both by Francis Meres in 1598 and in the First -Folio of 1623 can only be explained by his revision under that name of -_Titus and Vespasian_, and that this was for the second production of -the play as ‘ne’ for Henslowe by Sussex’s men on 24 January 1594. There -is, therefore, really some basis for the suggestion made long ago by -Halliwell-Phillipps that he is to be looked for during these years in -Pembroke’s company until its collapse and then in Sussex’s, and that -it was from this rather than directly from Strange’s that he went to -the Chamberlain’s.[356] On the other hand, it may be that for a time he -was not attached as an actor to any company at all. It is possible that -he took advantage of the plague-interval to travel in Italy and only -resumed the regular exercise of his profession when the Chamberlain’s -company was formed. In any event, it must have been he who revised -_The Contention_ as _2, 3 Henry VI_, and the close stylistic relation -of these plays to _1 Henry VI_ makes it probable that the work on all -three belongs to about the same date. The limitations of conjecture on -so intricate a question are obvious, but I can conceive the order of -events as being somewhat as follows. Shakespeare’s first dramatic job, -which earned him the ill will of Greene, was the writing or re-writing -of _1 Henry VI_ for Strange’s, in the early spring of 1592. During -the winter of 1592–3 he revised _The Contention_ for Pembroke’s and -completed the series of his early histories with _Richard III_, and, as -I am inclined to suspect, also an _Ur-Henry VIII_. He also wrote _The -Jealous Comedy_ or _Comedy of Errors_ for Strange’s. In the summer of -1593 Sussex’s took over the plays of the bankrupt Pembroke’s, including -the Shakespearian histories _Titus and Vespasian_ and _The Taming of -A Shrew_. Some at least of these Pembroke’s had themselves derived -in 1592 or 1593 from Strange’s. During the winter of 1593–4 Sussex’s -played either _Richard III_ or _Henry VIII_ as _Buckingham_, and -also _Titus and Vespasian_ revised for them by Shakespeare as _Titus -Andronicus_. Alarmed at the further inhibition of plays in February, -they allowed the revised _Titus_ and unrevised texts of _The Taming of -A Shrew_ and _The Contention_ to get into the hands of the booksellers. -Whether Shakespeare had already revised _A Shrew_ or did so later for -the Chamberlain’s (q.v.) I am uncertain. Finally, by the transfer of -their plays to the Chamberlain’s men, who at once revived _A Shrew_ -and _Titus Andronicus_, and by the incorporation of Strange’s men in -the same company, the original stock of Strange’s plays, as distinct -from the Admiral’s, came together in the same hands once more. On the -assumption that Shakespeare never left Strange’s, it is difficult to -explain either the fortunes of _Titus Andronicus_, or the absence from -the lists of Strange’s plays in Henslowe’s diary of _Richard III_, -which must have been written about 1592–4. The silence as regards -Strange’s both of the Court records and of Henslowe’s diary during the -winter of 1593–4 makes it unlikely that they were in London, and they -would surely not produce a new play in the country. - -Nothing further is heard of a Pembroke’s company for three or four -years.[357] But in 1597 one appeared in London about which we have -rather full information, recently increased by Mr. Wallace’s discovery -of a Court of Requests suit in which they were concerned. Towards -the end of February in that year Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriel -Spencer, William Bird _alias_ Borne, and Thomas Downton, who describe -themselves in a suit of the following November as Pembroke’s servants, -together with others their ‘accomplices and associates’, entered into -an agreement with Francis Langley to play for twelve months ending on -20 February 1598 at the Swan. Each man gave a bond of £100, which was -apparently to safeguard Langley against any failure by the company as -a whole or of Robert Shaw or a sufficient substitute in particular -to perform during this period, or against any performance elsewhere, -otherwise than ‘in private places’, within five miles of London. -Langley found £300 for apparel and, as he claimed, making ready of -the play-house, and was to receive a moiety of the takings of the -galleries and to be repaid for the apparel out of the other moiety. -Of the men concerned, Jones and Downton had been Admiral’s men during -1594–7, and their transference coincides with a three weeks’ break in -the performances of the Admiral’s at the Rose from 12 February onwards. -Mr. Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 357) says that Shaw, Spencer, and Bird were -also of the Admiral’s, but of this there is no evidence. If Pembroke’s -had any continued life during 1594–7, they may have shared it. But this -seems improbable, and on the whole I am inclined to think that they -came from the Chamberlain’s (q.v.). Plays were given at the Swan for -some months, and Langley took £100 from the galleries, and £100 more -for apparel. Then came an inhibition of plays near London on 28 July -1597, caused by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_, as a result of -which one of the authors, Nashe, fled, and the other, Jonson, together -with Shaw and Spencer, was committed to the Marshalsea. The definite -evidence that Shaw and Spencer were Pembroke’s men at the Swan, now -produced by Mr. Wallace, confirms my conjecture (_M. L. R._ iv. 411, -511) that _The Isle of Dogs_ was an adventure of that house and not, -as has sometimes been thought, of the Rose. Either in anticipation of -a prolonged closing of the house or for some other reason, the company -now desired to shake off their relations with Langley. Early in August -Jones returned to Henslowe and made a new covenant with him. His -example was followed by Shaw, Spencer, and Bird, and early in October -by Downton. Their prescience was justified, for when in the course of -October the chief offenders were released, and the inhibition, which -was nominally terminable on 1 November, was in practice relaxed, it -proved that, while Henslowe was able to get a new licence for the -Rose, Langley could get none for the Swan. He urged them to try their -fortunes without a licence, as others of their company were willing to -do, but they not unnaturally refused, and Henslowe (i. 54) records, -‘The xj of October begane my lord Admerals and my lord of Penbrockes -men to playe at my howsse 1597’. He describes the company under the -double name again on 21 and 23 October and 5 November, but on 1 -December and thereafter as the Lord Admiral’s (i. 68–70). A study -of the Admiral’s repertory for 1597–8 suggests that some or all of -the plays _Black Joan_, _Hardicanute_, _Bourbon_, _Sturgflattery_, -_Branholt_, _Friar Spendleton_, _Alice Pierce_, and _Dido and Aeneas_ -may have been brought in by Pembroke’s men. - -The five seceders had not heard the last of Langley. He sued them -at common law on the bonds given not to play in a rival house. They -successfully applied to have the case transferred to the Court of -Requests, and in the course of the pleadings maintained, firstly, that -they were prevented from playing at the Swan by the restraint and -Langley’s failure to get a licence; secondly, that Langley had orally -assented to their transfer to Henslowe; thirdly, that they could not -appear at the Swan as a company, since Langley had ‘procured from -them’ two (or, as they afterwards said, three) of their associates, -to whom he had returned their obligations; and fourthly, that Langley -had suffered no damage, since other men were occupying his house. -They also complained that Langley had never handed over the apparel -for which they had recouped him out of their gallery takings. The -negotiations with Langley which they describe seem to have taken place -during October. About the covenants entered into with Henslowe as far -back as the beginning of August they said nothing, and whether either -Langley or the court ever found out about these, and what the ultimate -decision of the court on the main issue was, must remain uncertain. But -certain loans entered in Henslowe’s diary suggest that in March 1598 -Langley was in a position to arrest Bird, and that in September of the -same year some kind of agreement was arrived at, under which Langley -received £35, as well as £19 or more for a rich cloak (i. 63, 72, 73, -95, 96). It is possible that a ‘sewt agenste Thomas Poope’ of the -Chamberlain’s, for which Henslowe (i. 72) made a personal advance of -10_s._ to William Bird on 30 August 1598, may also have been connected -with the shiftings of companies in 1597. - -The names of the two or three members of the company to whom Langley -gave back their bonds are not stated in the pleadings. Perhaps one -was Jonson, and the other two might conceivably have been Humphrey -and Anthony Jeffes, since the name of ‘Humfrey’ stands with that of -‘Gabriel’ in stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_, and Henslowe’s list of -the reconstituted Admiral’s company as it stood in October 1597–January -1598 contains ‘the ij Geffes’, who are not traceable in the 1594–7 -company and may well have come in with the five Pembroke’s men. Langley -tells us that certain ‘fellows’ of his opponents had taken a more -reasonable line than theirs and returned to the Swan. How long these -men remained there we do not know, but probably they secured Pembroke’s -patronage after the five had been definitely merged in the Admiral’s, -for by the end of 1597 there was clearly a distinct Pembroke’s company -again. Provincial records yield the name, not only at Bath in 1596–7 -and at Bristol in September 1597, which may point to a tour of the -undivided Swan company during the period of restraint, but also at Bath -in 1598–9, at Bristol in July 1598, at Leicester between October and -December, at Dover on 7 October, at Coventry on 12 December, and at -Bewdley on 22 December. They were at Norwich in April 1599, at Coventry -on 4 July, and at Bristol in July. They were at York on 21 January -1600, Bristol in April, Marlborough in May, and Leicester before -Michaelmas. In October they were in relationship with Henslowe, who -notes ‘my Lordes of Penbrockes men begane to playe at the Rosse’, and -records performances of _Like Unto Like_ and _Roderick_ on 28 and 29 -October respectively.[358] The former brought him 11_s._ 6_d._ and the -latter 5_s._, and there apparently the experiment ended, and with it, -so far as is known, the career of Pembroke’s men. It is just possible -that they were merged in Worcester’s company, which arose shortly -afterwards. Mr. Fleay expands this possibility into a definite theory -that Kempe, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant left the Chamberlain’s men for -Pembroke’s in 1599, and ultimately passed from these to Worcester’s. -This is improbable as regards Kempe, and unproved as regards the -rest.[359] - - - xix. THE LORD ADMIRAL’S (LORD HOWARD’S, EARL OF NOTTINGHAM’S), - PRINCE HENRY’S, AND ELECTOR PALATINE’S MEN - - Charles Howard, s. of William, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham, - g.s. of Thomas, 2nd Duke of Norfolk; _nat._ 1536; m. (1) - Catherine Carey, d. of Henry Lord Hunsdon, Lady of the Privy - Chamber, (2) Margaret Stuart, d. of James Earl of Murray, _c._ - 1604; succ. as 2nd Baron, 29 Jan. 1573; Deputy Lord Chamberlain, - 1574–5; Vice-Admiral, Feb. 1582; Lord Chamberlain, _c._ Dec. - 1583; Lord High Admiral, 8 July 1585–1619; Earl of Nottingham, - 22 Oct. 1596; Lord Steward, 1597; _ob._ 14 Dec. 1624. - - Henry Frederick, s. of James VI of Scotland and I of England; - _nat._ 19 Feb. 1594; cr. Duke of Rothesay, 30 Aug. 1594; succ. - as Duke of Cornwall, 24 Mar. 1603; cr. Earl of Chester and - Prince of Wales, 4 June 1610; _ob._ 6 Nov. 1612. - - Frederick, s. of Frederick IV, Count Palatine of the Rhine; - _nat._ 19 Aug. 1596; succ. as Frederick V, 1610; m. Princess - Elizabeth of England, 14 Feb. 1613; elected King of Bohemia, - 1619; _ob._ 1632. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The material preserved amongst the - papers of Philip Henslowe and Edward Alleyn at Dulwich has - been fully collected and studied by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe’s - Diary_ (1904–8) and _Henslowe Papers_ (1907), which replace the - earlier publications of Malone, Collier, and others from the - same source. I have added a little from Professor Wallace’s - researches and elsewhere, and have attempted to give my own - reading of the evidence, which differs in a few minor points - from Dr. Greg’s.] - -It was perhaps his employment as deputy to the Earl of Sussex in the -office of Lord Chamberlain which led Lord Howard to encourage players. -A company, under the name of Lord Howard’s men, appeared at Court for -the first time at the Christmas of 1576–7. On 27 December they played -_Tooley_, and on 17 February _The Solitary Knight_.[360] They came -again for the last time in the following winter, and performed on 5 -January 1578. They were also at Kirtling on 3 December 1577, Saffron -Walden in 1577–8, Ipswich on 24 October 1577, in 1578–9, and perhaps -on 8 October 1581, Bristol, where they gave _The Queen of Ethiopia_, -between 31 August and 6 September 1578, Nottingham on 19 December 1578, -and Bath and Coventry in 1578–9. - -Howard again had players at Court, after he became Admiral in 1585. -The first record of them is at Dover in June 1585. Later in the year -they were playing in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain’s (Lord -Hunsdon’s). ‘The Lorde Chamberlens and the Lord Admirall’s players’ -were rewarded at Leicester in October-December 1585, and ‘the servants -of the lo: admirall and the lo: Chamberlaine’ for a play at Court on 6 -January 1586.[361] During the same Christmas, however, the Admiral’s -played alone on 27 December 1585, and as Hunsdon’s survived in the -provinces, the two organizations may have been amalgamated for one -performance only. The Admiral’s were at Coventry, Faversham, Ipswich, -and Leicester in 1585–6. They were reported to Walsingham amongst other -London companies on 25 January 1587 (App. D, No. lxxviii), although -they did not appear at Court during this winter. In 1586–7 they were at -Cambridge, Coventry, Bath, York, Norwich, Ipswich, Exeter, Southampton, -and Leicester. By November they were back in London, and on the 16th -an accident at their theatre is thus related by Philip Gawdy to his -father:[362] - - ‘Yow shall vnderstande of some accydentall newes heare in this - towne thoughe my self no wyttnesse thereof, yet I may be bold - to veryfye it for an assured troth. My L. Admyrall his men - and players having a devyse in ther playe to tye one of their - fellowes to a poste and so to shoote him to deathe, having - borrowed their callyvers one of the players handes swerved his - peece being charged with bullett missed the fellowe he aymed - at and killed a chyld, and a woman great with chyld forthwith, - and hurt an other man in the head very soore. How they will - answere it I do not study vnlesse their profession were better, - but in chrystyanity I am very sorry for the chaunce but God his - iudgementes ar not to be searched nor enquired of at mannes - handes. And yet I fynde by this an old proverbe veryfyed ther - never comes more hurte than commes of fooling.’ - -Possibly the company went into retirement as a result of this disaster; -at any rate nothing more is heard of them until the Christmas of -1588–9. They then came to Court, and were rewarded for two interludes -and ‘for showinge other feates of activitye and tumblinge’ on 29 -December 1588 and 11 February 1589.[363] On 6 November 1589 they were -playing in the City, and were suppressed by the Lord Mayor, because -Tilney, the Master of the Revels, misliked their plays. Probably -they had been concerning themselves with the Marprelate controversy. -Strange’s men, who were evidently performing as a separate company, -shared their fate. It may have been this misadventure which led the -Admiral’s to seek house-room with James Burbadge at the Theatre (q.v.), -where some evidence by John Alleyn, who, with James Tunstall, was of -their number, locates them in November 1590 and May 1591. A relic of -this period may be presumed to exist in the ‘plot’ of _Dead Man’s -Fortune_, preserved with other plots belonging to the company at -Dulwich, in which Burbadge, doubtless Richard Burbadge, then still a -boy, appeared. Certainly there is nothing to connect Burbadge with the -company at any other date. Other actors in the piece were one Darlowe, -‘b[oy?] Samme’, and Robert Lee, later of Anne’s men. The Admiral’s -again showed ‘feats of activitie’ at Court on 28 December 1589, and -a play on 3 March 1590. In 1589–90 they were at Coventry, Ipswich, -Maidstone, Marlborough, Winchester, and Gloucester, and in 1590–1 at -Winchester and Gloucester. Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ was published in -1590 as ‘shewed upon stages in the City of London’ by the Admiral’s -men. The Court records for the following winter present what looks at -first sight like a curious discrepancy. The accounts of the Treasurer -of the Chamber include payments for plays and activities on 27 December -1590 and 16 February 1591 to Lord Strange’s men. The corresponding -warrants, however, were made out, according to the Privy Council -Register, for the Admiral’s. Probably there is no error here, and the -entries are evidence of an amalgamation between the two companies, -which possibly dated from as far back as the winter of 1589, and -which seems to have endured until the summer of 1594. Technically, -it would seem that it was the Admiral’s who were merged in Strange’s -men. It is the latter and not the former who generally appear in -official documents during this period. I have therefore dealt with -its details for both companies, with the question of the precise date -of the amalgamation, and with the possibility that the plot of _The -Seven Deadly Sins_ and its list of actors also belong to a Theatre -performance of about 1590, in my account of Strange’s men, and need -only remark here that the name of the Admiral’s does not altogether -fall into disuse, especially in provincial records, and that the -leading actor, Edward Alleyn, in particular, is shown by an official -document to have retained his personal status as an Admiral’s servant. - -It is a question of some interest how early Alleyn’s connexion with -the Admiral’s may be supposed to have begun. Was he, for example, -the original Tamburlaine of 1587, and was it as an Admiral’s man -that Nashe referred to him, if it was he to whom Nashe referred, as -the Roscius of the contemporary players in his _Menaphon_ epistle of -1589? He is known to have been a member of Worcester’s company in -1583. Dr. Greg is disposed to think that he remained with them until -the death of the third Earl of Worcester on 22 February 1589, and -then joined the Admiral’s.[364] It is, however, to be observed that -there is no trace of Worcester’s men between 1584 and 1590, and that -it is in 1585 that the Admiral’s men begin to appear at Court. On the -whole, it commends itself to me as the more probable conjecture that -the first Earl of Worcester’s company passed into Howard’s service, -when he became Admiral in 1585, and that the players of the fourth -Earl of Worcester between 1590 and 1596 were distinct from those of -his father. The issue concerns others besides Edward Alleyn himself. -Amongst the members of Worcester’s company in 1583 were Robert Browne, -James Tunstall, and Richard Jones; and all three of these are found -concerned with Alleyn in matters of theatrical business during 1589–91. -The most important document is a deed of sale by ‘Richarde Jones of -London yoman’ to ‘Edwarde Allen of London gent’ for £37 10s. of ‘all -and singuler suche share parte and porcion of playinge apparrelles, -playe bookes, instrumentes, and other comodities whatsoeuer belonginge -to the same, as I the said Richarde Jones nowe haue or of right ought -to haue joyntlye with the same Edwarde Allen, John Allen citizen and -inholder of London and Roberte Browne yoman’.[365] This is dated 3 -January 1589. There are also three deeds of sale to Edward and John -Alleyn of theatrical apparel between 1589 and 1591, and to two of these -James Tunstall was a witness.[366] On Dr. Greg’s theory as to the date -at which Alleyn took service with the Lord Admiral, the organization -in whose properties Richard Jones had an interest would naturally be -Worcester’s men; on mine it would be the Admiral’s, and it would follow -that Jones and Browne, as well as Alleyn, had joined that company. -We have seen that James Tunstall had done so by 1590–1. John Alleyn -was an elder brother of Edward. There is nothing to connect him with -Worcester’s men. He was a servant of Lord Sheffield in November 1580 -and of the Lord Admiral in 1589.[367] A letter of one Elizabeth Socklen -to Edward Alleyn refers to a time ‘when your brother, my lovinge cozen -John Allen, dwelt with my very good lord, Charles Heawarde’, and this -rather suggests that his service was in some household capacity, and -not merely as player.[368] If so, it may have been through him that -Edward Alleyn and his fellows became Admiral’s men. The first period of -their activity seems to have lasted from 1585 to 1589, and it was no -doubt Edward Alleyn’s genius, and perhaps also his business capacity, -which enabled them to offer a serious rivalry to the Queen’s company. -I suspect that in 1589 or 1590 they were practically dissolved, and -this view is confirmed by the fact that their most important play was -allowed to get to the hands of the printers. Alleyn, with the help of -his brother, bought up the properties, and allied himself with Lord -Strange’s men, and so far as the Admiral’s continued to exist at all -for the next few years, it was almost entirely in and through him -that it did so. After a financial quarrel with James Burbadge in May -1591, the combined companies moved to the Rose. There is nothing to -show whether the Alleyns bought up Robert Browne’s interest as well as -that of Richard Jones. At any rate Browne began in 1590 that series -of continental tours which occupied most of the rest of his career -(cf. ch. xiv). Jones joined him in one of these adventures in 1592, -and it is possible that John Bradstreet and Thomas Sackville, who went -with them, were also old Admiral’s men. But I do not think that it is -accurate to regard this company, as Dr. Greg seems to be inclined to -do, as being itself under the Admiral’s patronage. It is true that they -obtained a passport from him, but this was probably given rather in his -capacity as warden of the seas than in that of their lord. His name is -not mentioned in any of the foreign records of their peregrinations. -It is not possible to say which, other than Alleyn, of the members -of the 1592–3 Strange’s and Admiral’s company, whose names have been -preserved, came from each of the two contributing sources. They do -not include either John Alleyn or James Tunstall, or Edward Browne, -a Worcester’s man of 1583, who reappears with Tunstall among the -Admiral’s after 1594. Nor is it possible to say how far the repertory -of Strange’s men, as disclosed by the 1592–3 entries in Henslowe’s -diary, included plays drawn from the Admiral’s stock. This may have -been the case with _The Battle of Alcazar_, which was printed as an -Admiral’s play in 1594, and with _Orlando Furioso_, which contemporary -gossip represents Greene as selling first to the Queen’s and then to -the Admiral’s. And it may have been the case with _1 Tamar Cham_, which -passed to the later Admiral’s. Neither _Tamburlaine_ nor _The Wounds of -Civil War_, printed like _The Battle of Alcazar_ as an Admiral’s play -in 1594, is recorded to have been played by Strange’s. - -When the companies settled down again to a London life after the -conclusion of the long plague in 1594, the Admiral’s men reconstituted -themselves as an independent company with Alleyn at its head, leaving -the greater number of their recent comrades of the road to pass, as -the Lord Chamberlain’s men, under the patronage of Lord Hunsdon. The -personal alliance between Alleyn and Henslowe, whose step-daughter, -Joan Woodward, he had married on 22 October 1592, led to the -institution of close business relations between the company and the -pawnbroker, and the record of these in the famous diary enables us to -follow with a singular minuteness the almost daily fortunes of the -Admiral’s men during the course of some nine or ten years, broken into -two periods by a reconstruction of the company in 1597 and finally -closing about the time of their conversion into Prince Henry’s men in -1604. The precise nature of the position occupied by Henslowe has been -carefully investigated by Dr. Greg,[369] and has already been briefly -considered in these pages (ch. xi). He was not a member of the company, -but its landlord, and, probably to an increasing extent, its financier. -In the former capacity he received, after every day’s performance, -a fluctuating sum, which seems to have represented half the amount -received for admission to the galleries of the house; the other half, -with the payments for entrance to the standing room in the yard, being -divided amongst such of the players as had a share in the profits. -Out of this, of course, they had to meet all expenditure other than -by way of rent, such as the wages of hired men, payments for apparel -and play-books, fees to the Master of the Revels for the licensing of -plays, and the like. In practice it became convenient for Henslowe, who -was a capitalist, while many of the players lived from hand to mouth, -to advance sums to meet such expenditure as it fell due, and to recoup -himself from time to time out of the company’s profits. It seems likely -that, when the system was in full working, the moiety of the gallery -money, which remained after the deduction of the rent, was assigned for -the purpose of these repayments. During the period 1597–1604 Henslowe’s -entries in his diary are mainly in the nature of a running account of -these advances and of the receipts set off against them; for 1594–7 -similar entries occur irregularly, but the principal record is a daily -list, such as Henslowe had already kept during his shorter associations -with Strange’s, the Queen’s, and Sussex’s companies in the course of -1592–4, of each performance given, with the name of the play and of -the amount accruing to Henslowe himself in the form of rent. This list -renders possible a very interesting analysis, both of the repertory of -the company and of some at least of the financial conditions of their -enterprise. - -The entries start with the heading, ‘In the name of God Amen begininge -the 14 of Maye 1594 by my lord Admeralls men’. After three days, during -which _The Jew of Malta_, _Cutlack_, and _The Ranger’s Comedy_, all -of which are found in the later repertory of the company, were given, -they stop abruptly.[370] To about the same date may be assigned a -fragmentary account, headed ‘Layd owt for my Lorde Admeralle seruantes -as ffoloweth 1594’, and recording expenditure for coming and going to -Court and to Somerset House, the residence of the Lord Chamberlain, -‘for mackinge of our leater twise’, and ‘for drinckinge with the -jentellmen’, all evidently concerned with the initial business of -forming and licensing the company.[371] On 5 June the account of -performances is resumed with a fresh heading, ‘In the name of God Amen -begininge at Newington my Lord Admeralle men and my Lorde Chamberlen -men as ffolowethe 1594’.[372] Henslowe’s takings only averaged 9_s._ -for the first ten days, probably on account of the distance of -Newington Butts from London.[373] The takings for the three days in -May averaged 41_s._, and it may perhaps be inferred that these May -performances were at the Rose, and that some fear of renewed plague -on the part of the authorities led to their being relegated to a -safer quarter. The tentative character of these early performances -is shown by the fact that the Admiral’s were still sharing a theatre -with the Chamberlain’s. To the repertory of the latter it seems safe -to assign three of the seven plays produced, _Titus Andronicus_, -_Hamlet_, and _The Taming of A Shrew_, and probably also a fourth, -_Hester and Ahasuerus_, as there is no later sign of this amongst -the Admiral’s plays. This leaves three others to be regarded as the -Admiral’s contribution, _The Jew of Malta_ and _Cutlack_, which they -had played in May and were often to play again, and _Belin Dun_, to -which are attached the letters ‘ne’, Henslowe’s normal indication of a -new play.[374] There is nothing in the order in which the plays were -taken to indicate an alternation of the two companies, and it is likely -enough that neither was yet fully constituted, and that they actually -joined forces in the same performances. - -After the tenth play on 15 June, Henslowe drew a line across the -page, and although the entries continue without any indication of a -change in the conditions under which the performances were given, I -can only concur in the conjecture of Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg that at -this point the Admiral’s plays were transferred to the Rose, and the -combination with the Chamberlain’s ceased.[375] A sudden rise in the -amount of Henslowe’s takings, and the absence from the rest of the -list of the four plays named above and of any other attributable to -the Chamberlain’s repertory, are alike strongly in favour of this -view, which may be treated as a practical certainty. Henceforward the -fortunes of the company seem to have followed a smooth course for the -space of three years. Their proceedings may be briefly summed up as -follows. They played for thirty-nine consecutive weeks from 15 June -1594 to 14 March 1595, appearing at Court during this season on 28 -December, 1 January, and 6 January. After a break of thirty-seven days -during Lent, opportunity of which was taken to repair the Rose, they -played again for ten weeks from Easter Monday, 21 April, to 26 June -1595. Then came a vacation of fifty-nine days, with visits to Bath and -Maidstone. They began again in London on 25 August 1595 and played for -twenty-seven weeks to 28 February 1596, giving Court performances on -1 January, 4 January, and 22 and 24 February. This took them to the -end of the first week in Lent. After forty-three days’ interval, they -played for fifteen weeks, from Easter Monday, 12 April, to 23 July -1596. Their summer vacation lasted for ninety-five days, and they are -noted during 1595–6 at Coventry, Bath, Gloucester, and Dunwich. In the -autumn they started playing on 27 October, but the receipts were low, -and if the record is complete, they suspended performances between -15 and 25 November, and then went on to 12 February 1597, making up -a season of about fourteen weeks in all. They do not seem to have -played at Court at all this winter. This year they rather disregarded -Lent, stopping for eighteen days only, during a reconstruction of the -company, and then playing three days a week until Easter, and then -regularly until the end of July, in all twenty-one weeks. To certain -irregularities at the close of this season it will be necessary to -refer later. During the three years, then, there were three winter -and three summer seasons of London playing, covering about a hundred -and twenty-six weeks. Except in Lent or at the beginning or end of -a season, or occasionally, probably for climatic reasons, at other -times, especially in December, plays were given upon every week-day. -It emerges from Dr. Greg’s re-ordering of Henslowe’s very inaccurate -dates that there were no plays on Sundays.[376] On the other hand, a -summons to play at Court in the evening did not necessarily entail a -blank day in the afternoon. The total number of performances during -the three years was seven hundred and twenty-eight. It is reasonable -to assume that Henslowe’s takings varied roughly with those of the -company, although the reserve must be made that different plays -might prove the most attractive to the galleries and to the yard -respectively. The amounts entered range from a minimum of 3_s._ to a -maximum of 73_s._ Dr. Greg calculates the average over ‘certain typical -periods of 1595’ as 30_s._;[377] during the first half of 1597 it was -24_s._ The fluctuations are determined, partly by the popularity or -novelty of the plays presented, partly by the season of the year, and -doubtless the weather and the competition of other amusements. There -were generally some high receipts during Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun -weeks. Unfortunately there is no means of estimating the proportion -which Henslowe’s share bore to that which fell for division among the -players. Some light is thrown upon the expenses by the subsidiary -accounts of advances, which Henslowe began to keep from time to time -in 1596. In May of that year he lent Alleyn ‘for the company’ a total -amount of £39 in several instalments, and recovered it by small sums of -£1 to £3 at a time during the next three months.[378] A longer account -extending from October 1596 to March 1597 reaches, with the aid of a -miscalculation, a total of £52. Of this £22 was repaid during the same -period, chiefly by deductions from the profits of first nights, and an -acknowledgement given for the balance of £30.[379] The advances were -made through various members of the company, and the purposes specified -include apparel for three new plays, travelling expenses, and fees to -playwrights. A third account, if I am right in the interpretation of -some very disputable figures, shows an expenditure at the average rate -of 31_s._ a day during the six months from 24 January to 28 July 1597, -of which, however, nearly half was in fact incurred during the first -twenty-four days of the period. In this case only the sums and not the -purposes for which they were advanced are entered.[380] - -During the three years the Admiral’s men produced new plays to the -total number of fifty-five, and at the average rate of one a fortnight. -The productions were not at regular intervals, and often followed each -other in successive weeks. There is, however, no example of two new -productions in the same week.[381] These are the names and dates of the -new plays: - - _Belin Dun_ (10 June 1594). - _Galiaso_ (28 June 1594). - _Philipo and Hippolito_ (9 July 1594). - _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_ (19 July 1594). - _The Merchant of Emden_ (30 July 1594). - _Tasso’s Melancholy_ (13 Aug. 1594). - _The Venetian Comedy_ (27 Aug. 1594). - _Palamon and Arcite_ (18 Sept. 1594). - _The Love of an English Lady_ (26 Sept. 1594). - _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_ (23 Oct. 1594). - _1 Caesar and Pompey_ (8 Nov. 1594). - _Diocletian_ (16 Nov. 1594). - _The Wise Man of West Chester_ (3 Dec. 1594). - _The Set at Maw_ (15 Dec. 1594). - _The French Comedy_ (11 Feb. 1595). - _The Mack_ (21 Feb. 1595). - _Olympo_ (5 Mar. 1595).[382] - _1 Hercules_ (7 May 1595). - _2 Hercules_ (23 May 1595). - _1 The Seven Days of the Week_ (3 June 1595). - _2 Caesar and Pompey_ (18 June 1595). - _Longshanks_ (29 Aug. 1595). - _Crack me this Nut_ (5 Sept. 1595). - _The New World’s Tragedy_ (17 Sept. 1595). - _The Disguises_ (2 Oct. 1595). - _The Wonder of a Woman_ (16 Oct. 1595). - _Barnardo and Fiammetta_ (30 Oct. 1595). - _A Toy to Please Chaste Ladies_ (14 Nov. 1595). - _Henry V_ (28 Nov. 1595). - _Chinon of England_ (3 Jan. 1596). - _Pythagoras_ (16 Jan. 1596). - _2 The Seven Days of the Week_ (23 Jan. 1596). - _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (12 Feb. 1596). - _Julian the Apostate_ (29 Apr. 1596). - _1 Tamar Cham_ (7 May 1596). - _Phocas_ (20 May 1596). - _2 Tamar Cham_ (11 June 1596). - _Troy_ (25 June 1596). - _The Paradox_ (1 July 1596). - _The Tinker of Totnes_ (23 July 1596). - _Vortigern_, _Valteger_, or _Hengist_ (4 Dec. 1596). - _Stukeley_ (10 Dec. 1596). - _Nebuchadnezzar_ (18 Dec. 1596). - _That Will Be Shall Be_ (30 Dec. 1596). - _Jeronimo_ (7 Jan. 1597). - _Alexander and Lodowick_ (14 Jan. 1597).[383] - _Woman Hard to Please_ (27 Jan. 1597). - _Guido_ (21 Mar. 1597). - _Five Plays in One_ (7 Apr. 1597). - _A French Comedy_ (18 Apr. 1597). - _Uther Pendragon_ (29 Apr. 1597). - _The Comedy of Humours_ (11 May 1597). - _The Life and Death of Henry I_ (26 May 1597). - _Frederick and Basilea_ (3 June 1597). - _The Life and Death of Martin Swart_ (30 June 1597). - -Oblivion has overtaken the great majority of these plays. _Longshanks_ -is possibly Peele’s _Edward I_, and _Jeronimo_ certainly Kyd’s _Spanish -Tragedy_. The title of _The Wise Man of West Chester_ agrees with the -subject of Munday’s _John a Kent_ and _John a Cumber_, the manuscript -of which is dated December 1595. One would be more willing to identify -_Henry V_ with _The Famous Victories_, if the latter had not been -printed in 1598 with the name of the Queen’s men on its title-page. _A -Knack to Know an Honest Man_ was printed, as acted ‘about the Citie -of London’, but without any company name, in 1596 (S. R. 26 November -1595). _Stukeley_ was also printed without a name, as _The Famous -History of the Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley_, in 1605 (S. -R. 11 August 1600). _1 Tamar Cham_ and _Frederick and Basilea_ are -extant in ‘plots’ alone, and _Belin Dun_, or _Bellendon_, as Henslowe -writes it, was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 24 November 1595 -as _The true tragicall historie of Kinge Rufus the first with the -life and deathe of Belyn Dun the first thief that ever was hanged in -England_, but is not known to be extant. The list also contains two of -the early works of George Chapman, _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ -(1598, Admiral’s, S. R. 15 August 1598), and _The Comedy of Humours_, -which can be safely identified with _A Humorous Day’s Mirth_ (1599, -Admiral’s). Ingenious attempts have been made to trace in some of the -remaining titles other plays by Chapman, or by Heywood, Dekker, and -the like, or presumed early drafts of these, or the English originals -of plays or titles preserved in German versions; but in most cases -the material available is so scanty as to render the game a hazardous -one.[384] It appears, however, from Henslowe’s notes of advances during -1596–7 that payment was made to Heywood for a book, from which it -may be inferred that his activity as a dramatist for the company had -already began. Payments to ‘marcum’ and ‘Mr. porter’ perhaps indicate -the same of Gervase Markham and Henry Porter.[385] - -It is evident that some of the plays marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe cannot -have been new in the fullest sense. This applies to _Jeronimo_, which -had been played by Strange’s men as an old play during 1592–3, and -to _2 Tamar Cham_, which had been produced by the same company on 28 -April 1592, and on that occasion also marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe. It -applies also to _Longshanks_ and _Henry V_, if these are really the -same as _Edward I_ and _The Famous Victories_. And it may, of course, -apply also in other cases, which cannot now be distinguished. Two -explanations are possible. One is that plays were treated as new, for -the purpose of Henslowe’s entries, which were only new to the repertory -of the particular company concerned, having been purchased by them or -by Henslowe from the stock of some other company. There is, however, -no indication that Henslowe received any special financial advantage -from the production of a new play, such as would give point to such an -arrangement. The other, and perhaps the most plausible, is that an old -play was marked ‘ne’ if it had undergone any substantial process of -revision before revival. But it must be admitted that the problem set -is one that we have hardly the means to solve. - -In addition to their new and revised plays, the Admiral’s had a -considerable stock of old ones. Some of these they were playing, when -they began their first season in June 1594. Several others were revived -in the course of that season, and a few at later dates. The only new -play of the repertory which reached the stage of revival during the -three years was _Belin Dun_, which was originally produced on 10 June -1594, played to the end of the year, then dropped, and afterwards -revived for a single performance on 11 July 1596, and for a series -in the spring of 1597. But it is not likely that many new plays were -written during the plague years, and probably most of the revived plays -of 1594–5 were a good deal more than two or three years old. A list of -the plays not marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe, nineteen in number, follows. -It is, however, possible that some of them are only plays in the list -already given, masquerading under different names. - - _Cutlack._ - _The Ranger’s Comedy._ - _The Guise_, or, _The Massacre of Paris._ - _The Jew of Malta._ - _Mahomet._ - _1 Tamburlaine._ - _Dr. Faustus._ - _The Love of a Grecian Lady_, or, _The Grecian Comedy_.[386] - _The French Doctor._ - _Warlamchester._ - _2 Tamburlaine._ - _The Siege of London._ - _Antony and Valia._[387] - _1 Long Meg of Westminster._[388] - _The Welshman._[389] - _1 Fortunatus._ - _Osric._ - _Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s._ - _The Witch of Islington._ - -Five plays of Marlowe’s are conspicuous in the list. _Mahomet_ might -be either Greene’s _Alphonsus_, _King of Arragon_ or Peele’s lost -_Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek_. _Fortunatus_, as revised -by Dekker in 1599, is extant, but it is doubtful whether Dekker was -writing early enough to have been the author of the original play. -Conjectural identifications of some of the other titles have been -attempted.[390] There is, perhaps, a natural inclination to eke out -our meagre knowledge of the repertory of the earlier Admiral’s men, -as it was constituted before 1590, by the assumption that the old and -the revised new plays of 1594–7 belong to that stock. But this can -only be proved to be so in the case of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, where -the title-page of the 1590 edition comes to our assistance. There is -no trace between 1594 and 1597 of any of the other three plays, _The -Battle of Alcazar_, _The Wounds of Civil War_, and _Orlando Furioso_, -which there is independent evidence for connecting with the Admiral’s. -And it must be borne in mind that there were several other sources from -which a supply of old plays might be drawn. Alleyn seems to have bought -up the books and properties of the pre-1590 men, and we do not know -how far he also retained rights in some or all of the plays produced -during his alliance with Strange’s. Moreover, there were plenty of -opportunities for either Alleyn, Henslowe, or the Admiral’s men as a -whole, to acquire copies from one or more of the companies, Pembroke’s, -the Queen’s, Sussex’s, which went under in the plague years. _Henry -V_, if identical with _The Famous Victories_, had certainly been a -Queen’s play; _The Ranger’s Comedy_ had been played for Henslowe by the -Queen’s and Sussex’s in April 1594; _Jeronimo_ and _The Guise_ had been -similarly played by Strange’s in 1592–3; and the fact that Strange’s, -the Queen’s, Sussex’s, and the Admiral’s, all in turn played _The Jew -of Malta_ leads to a strong suspicion that it was Henslowe’s property -and placed by him at the disposal of any company that might from time -to time be occupying his theatre. - -The Rose was what is now known as a ‘repertory’ house. A very -successful play might be repeated on the night after its first -production or revival, or in the course of the same week. But as a -rule one performance a week was the limit, and after a play had been -on the boards a few weeks, the intervals between its appearances -rapidly became greater. _The Wise Man of West Chester_, which was -presented thirty-two times between December 1594 and July 1597, had a -longer life than any other new play during the three years. Next came -_A Knack to Know an Honest Man_, with twenty-one performances in two -years, _1 Seven Days of the Week_, with twenty-one performances in -fifteen months, and _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, with twenty-two -performances in fourteen months. _Belin Dun_, although not continuously -upon the stage for long together, achieved with the aid of its revival -a total of twenty-four performances. The only other new plays, that -outlived a year, were _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_ and _A Toy to Please -Chaste Ladies_. Even such highly successful plays as _1 and 2 Hercules_ -ceased to be heard of after six months. The usual run of a play was -anything from six to seventeen nights, but sixteen plays failed to -obtain even such a run, and several plays, which apparently did well -enough on the first night, were not repeated at all. As a rule the -first night of a play brought Henslowe the highest returns; but this -was by no means invariably the case, and the success of any play, which -held the boards for as many as six nights, can perhaps best be measured -by its average returns. By far the most fortunate was _The Comedy of -Humours_ which averaged 53_s._ for the eleven nights available before -the summer season of 1597 closed. Next came _1 and 2 Hercules_ with -42_s._ and 43_s._ respectively, _1 Seven Days of the Week_ with 35_s._, -and _The Wise Man of West Chester_ with 34_s._ On the other hand the -average of _Henry I_ was no more than 19_s._ and that of the second -_French Comedy_ no more than 16_s._ The highest individual returns -were those from the first nights of _1 and 2 Hercules_, _2 Godfrey -of Bulloigne_, and _1 Seven Days of the Week_, which yielded 73_s._, -70_s._, 71_s._, and 70_s._ respectively, and that from the sixth night -of the _Comedy of Humours_, which was also 70_s._ The booking for this -play shows a curious progress, being 43_s._, 55_s._, 58_s._, 64_s._, -66_s._, 70_s._, for the first six nights. Similarly _The Wise Man of -West Chester_, which began with a bad first night of 33_s._, rose to -a good average, while _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_, for all its start of -70_s._, ended with an average of only 28_s._ The worst first night -taking was the 22_s._ of _Nebuchadnezzar_, and this affords another -curious example of box-office fluctuations, for, though it achieved -no higher average than 22_s._, it rose on its third night to 68_s._ -The worst takings, on other than first nights, were 3_s._ for _Chinon -of England_,[391] 4_s._ for _Vortigern_, and for _Olympo_, and 5_s._ -twice over for _A Woman Hard to Please_. Probably these were due to -weather or other accidents, as each play averaged enough to justify a -reasonable run. The success of the old plays followed much the same -lines as that of the new ones. They ran for anything from one night -to twenty-four, this total being reached by _Dr. Faustus_. The best -average returns were the 32_s._ and 38_s._ of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, -the 30_s._ of _Mahomet_, the 29_s._ of _1 Long Meg of Westminster_, -the 27_s._ of _The Guise_, and the 26_s._ of _The Jew of Malta_; -the best individual returns the 72_s._ and 71_s._ yielded by the -respective first nights of _Dr. Faustus_ and _1 Tamburlaine_. The -persistent popularity of Marlowe’s work comes out quite clearly from -the statistics; and the success of Chapman’s first attempts is also not -to be overlooked. - -The _personnel_ of the Admiral’s men during 1594–7 can be determined -with some approach to certainty. They were Edward Alleyn, John Singer, -Richard Jones, Thomas Towne, Martin Slater, Edward Juby, Thomas -Downton, and James Donstone. Their names are found in a list written in -the diary, without any explanation of its object, amongst memoranda of -1594–6.[392] There can be little doubt that it represents the principal -members of the company, and in most cases corroborative evidence is -available. The books of the Treasurer of the Chamber indicate Alleyn, -Jones, and Singer as payees for the Court money of 1594–5, and Alleyn -and Slater for that of 1595–6. Alleyn, Slater, Donstone, and Juby are -noted in Henslowe’s subsidiary accounts for 1596 as responsible for -advances made by him on behalf of the company.[393] Another advance was -made to Stephen the tireman, and he is doubtless the Stephen Magett -who also appears in personal financial relations with Henslowe during -1596.[394] Transactions by way of loan, sale, or pawn are also noted by -Henslowe during 1594–7 with Slater, Jones, Donstone, Singer, and Towne, -and also with Edward Dutton and Richard Alleyn.[395] These latter were -probably not sharers in the company, but can be traced with others -amongst its subordinate members by means of the ‘plot’ of _Frederick -and Basilea_, which it is reasonable to connect with the performances -of the play in June and July 1597, since it was a new play on 3 June, -and it is recorded in the diary that Martin Slater, who figures in the -‘plot’, left the company on 18 July. It is to be inferred from the -plot that the principal parts in _Frederick and Basilea_ were taken -by Mr. Alleyn, Mr. Thomas Towne, Mr. Martin [Slater], Mr. Juby, Mr. -Donstone, and R. Alleyn; that minor male parts were taken by Edward -Dutton, Thomas Hunt, Robert Ledbetter, Black Dick, Pigge, Sam, Charles, -and the ‘gatherers’ or money-takers and other ‘attendants’; and that -female parts were taken by Edward Dutton’s boy Dick and two other boys -known as Will and Griffen. Apparently the play, although not employing -all the principal actors, made considerable demands on the minor staff. -Dr. Greg may be right in identifying Sam and Charles with the Samuel -Rowley and Charles Massey who became members of the company at a later -date.[396] It will be seen that the only name in Henslowe’s undated -list which cannot be verified as that of a member of the company during -1594–7 is that of Thomas Downton; but it may safely be accepted. -Downton had accompanied Alleyn on the provincial tour with Strange’s -men in 1593. So had Pigge or Pyk. Jones and Donstone, who is the same -as Tunstall, had belonged to Worcester’s men in 1583, and probably to -the Admiral’s men before 1590; Jones had been abroad, as we have seen, -during the plague years. John Singer had been a member of the Queen’s -men in 1588. The other names now come into the story for the first -time. Henslowe’s advances for 1596 included sums ‘to feache Fletcher’ -and ‘to feache Browne’.[397] It can only be matter of conjecture -whether there is evidence here of negotiations for the incorporation in -the company of Robert Browne and of Laurence Fletcher, at a later date -a colleague of Slater’s, and if so, whether they led to any fruitful -result. - -The departure of Martin Slater on 18 July 1597 was only one of several -changes which profoundly modified the composition of the company in -the course of that year.[398] In February Richard Jones and Thomas -Downton went to the Swan as Pembroke’s men, and the disturbance thereby -caused probably accounts for the three weeks’ cessation of playing -during Lent. The Swan enterprise was brought to a disastrous conclusion -after five months by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_, which not -only brought personal trouble on the chief offenders, but also led to -a restraint of plays at all the theatres. This event synchronizes with -the first appearance in the diary of Nashe’s collaborator in _The Isle -of Dogs_, Ben Jonson. On 28 July Henslowe lent him no less a sum than -£4, and took Alleyn and Singer as witnesses. On the same day he opened -an account headed ‘℞ of Bengemenes Johnsones share as ffoloweth’ with -a first instalment of 3_s._ 9_d._[399] On this very day of 28 July -the Privy Council’s inhibition fell, and Jonson went to prison and -paid no more instalments. It is impossible to say whether his ‘share’ -was in the Admiral’s company or in Pembroke’s. In any event, although -he continued to write for the Admiral’s men after 1597, there is no -further sign that he was either a ‘sharer’, or indeed an actor in any -capacity. - -One result of the restraint was that Jones and Downton not merely -returned to the Rose, but brought at least three other of Pembroke’s -men, Robert Shaw, Gabriel Spencer, and William Bird, known also by -the _alias_ of Borne, with them. Henslowe was thus enabled, almost -immediately after playing stopped, to set about the reconstitution of -his company, and the memoranda of agreement which he noted in his diary -during the next fourteen months are so interesting for the light which -they throw upon his relations with the actors, that I think it well, -before discussing them, to transcribe them in full. There are in all -eleven of them, as follows:[400] - - - i. (_Thomas Hearne_) - - Memorandom that the 27 of Jeuley 1597 I heayred Thomas Hearne - with ij pence for to searve me ij yeares in the qualetie of - playenge for fyve shellynges a weacke for one yeare & vj^s - viij^d for the other yeare which he hath covenanted hime seallfe - to searue me & not to departe frome my companey tyll this ij - yeares be eanded wittnes to this - - John Synger. - Jeames Donston. - Thomas Towne. - - - ii. (_John Helle_) - - Lent John Helle the clowne the 3 of Aguste 1597 in redy money - the some of x^s. At that tyme I bownd hime by ane a sumsett of - ij^d to contenew with me at my howsse in playinge tylle Srafte - tid next after the date a boue written yf not to forfytte vnto - me fortipowndes wittneses to the same - - E Alleyn - John Synger - Jeames Donstall. - Edward Jubey - Samewell Rowley. - - - iii. (_Richard Jones_) - - Memorandom that the 6 of Aguste 1597 I bownd Richard Jones by & - a sumsett of ij^d to contenew & playe with the companye of my - lord Admeralles players frome Mihelmase next after the daye a - bowe written vntell the eand & tearme of iij yeares emediatly - followinge & to playe in my howsse only known by the name of the - Rosse & in no other howse a bowt London publicke & yf restraynte - be granted then to go for the tyme into the contrey & after to - retorne agayne to London yf he breacke this a sumsett then to - forfett vnto me for the same a hundreth markes of lafull money - of Ingland wittnes to this E Alleyn & John Midelton. - - - iv. (_Robert Shaw_) - - More over Richard Jones at that tyme [6 Aug. 1597] hath tacken - one other ij^d of me vpon & asumset to forfet vnto me one - hundrethe markes yf one Robart Shaee do not playe with my lordes - Admeralles men as he hath covenanted be fore in euery thinge & - time to the oter moste wittnes E Alleyn John Midellton. - - - v. (_William Borne_) - - Memorandom that the 10 of Aguste 1597 William Borne came & - ofered hime sealfe to come and playe with my lord Admeralles - mean at my howsse called by the name of the Rosse setewate - one the back after this order folowinge he hath receued of me - iij^d vpon & a sumsette to forfette vnto me a hundrethe marckes - of lafull money of Ingland yf he do not performe thes thinges - folowinge that is presentley after libertie being granted for - playinge to come & to playe with my lordes Admeralles men at - my howsse aforsayd & not in any other howsse publicke a bowt - London for the space of iij yeares beginynge imediatly after - this restraynt is recaled by the lordes of the cownsell which - restraynt is by the meanes of playinge the Jeylle of Dooges - yf he do not then he forfettes this asumset afore or ells not - wittnes to this E Alleyn & Robsone. - - - vi. (_Thomas Downton_) - - Memorandom that the 6 of October 1597 Thomas Dowton came & bownd - him seallfe vnto me in xxxx^{ll} in & a somesett by the receuing - of iij^d of me before wittnes the covenant is this that he - shold frome the daye a bove written vntell Sraftid next come - ij yeares to playe in my howsse & in no other a bowte London - publickely yf he do with owt my consent to forfet vnto me this - some of money a bove written wittnes to this - - E Alleyn - W^m Borne - Dicke Jonnes - Robarte Shawe - John Synger - - - vii. (_William Kendall_) - - Memorandum that this 8^{th} of December 1597 my father Philyp - Hinshlow hierd as a covenauant servant Willyam Kendall for ij - years after the statute of Winchester with ij single penc a to - geue hym for his sayd servis everi week of his playng in London - x^s & in the cuntrie v^s for the which he covenaunteth for the - space of those ij years to be redye att all tymes to play in the - howse of the sayd Philyp & in no other during the said terme. - - Wittnes my self the writer of this E Alleyn. - - - viii. (_James Bristow_) - - Bought my boye Jeames Brystow of William Agusten player the 18 - of Desember 1597 for viij^{li}. - - - ix. (_Richard Alleyn_) - - Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Richard Alleyne came & - bownde hime seallfe vnto me for ij yeares in & asumsette as a - hiered servante with ij syngell pence & to contenew frome the - daye aboue written vnto the eand & tearme of ij yeares yf he do - not performe this covenant then he to forfette for the breache - of yt fortye powndes & wittnes to this - - W^m Borne. - Thomas Dowton. - Gabrell Spencer. - Robart Shawe. - Richard Jonnes. - - - x. (_Thomas Heywood_) - - Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Thomas Hawoode came and - hiered hime seallfe with me as a covenante searvante for ij - yeares by the receuenge of ij syngell pence acordinge to the - statute of Winshester & to begine at the daye a boue written & - not to playe any wher publicke a bowt London not whille these ij - yeares be expired but in my howsse yf he do then he doth forfett - vnto me by the receuinge of these ij^d fortie powndes & wittnes - to this - - Antony Monday - Gabrell Spencer - Robart Shawe - Richard Alleyn. - W^m Borne - Thomas Dowton - Richard Jonnes. - - - xi. (_Charles Massey and Samuel Rowley_) - - Memorandom that this 16 of November 1598 I hired as my covenant - servantes Charles Massey & Samewell Rowley for a yeare & as - mvche as to Sraftide begenynge at the daye a bove written after - the statute of Winchester with ij syngell pence & for them they - haue covenanted with me to playe in my howes & in no other - howsse dewringe the thime publeck but in mine yf they dooe with - owt my consent yf they dooe to forfett vnto me xxxx^{li} a pece - wittnes - Thomas Dowton - Robart Shawe - W^m Borne - Jubey - Richard Jonnes. - -Evidently the position of James Bristow is distinct from that of the -other players. He was a ‘boy’ or apprentice, whose indentures had been -transferred to Henslowe for a consideration by his former master. In -the rest of the cases, the essence of the agreement appears to be the -undertaking by the player under bond to play only with the Admiral’s -men at Henslowe’s house. It is interesting to notice that in the -agreement with Hearne Henslowe calls the company ‘my company’; and the -fact that its members were constituted Henslowe’s covenant servants -seems to argue a closer personal relation between the organization -and its financier, than might on other grounds have been inferred. -Dr. Greg, indeed, draws a distinction between the agreements with -Jones, Shaw, Borne, and Downton, whom he regards as merely ‘binding -themselves to play at Henslowe’s house like other sharers’, and those -with the rest, whom he regards as ‘placing themselves in the position -of covenant servants to him, which would seem to imply that they -were merely hired men’.[401] But I do not think that there is any -justification for this theory in the terms of the documents, and it -immediately gets Dr. Greg into difficulties about Massey and Rowley, -who, as we shall see, were in fact on the footing of full members of -the company even before the date of their agreement. I do not mean -that I deny the distinction between sharers and hired men, which is of -course important, but that I do not think that it is relevant to the -contractual relations set up by the agreements. I am not quite clear -whether Henslowe’s memoranda, which are written throughout, including -the names of the witnesses, in his own hand or Alleyn’s, constitute -the formal instruments under which the agreements were effected, or -are merely notes for his own information. But in either event their -terminology is loose. They are not always expressed as being agreements -of hiring, or for service, even in the cases of those men whom Dr. -Greg does not suppose to have been sharers, and they are not careful -to specify the considerations, other than the formal 2_d._ or 3_d._, -which the actors were to receive. Wages are, in fact, provided for only -in the agreements with Hearne and Kendall, and it is quite possible -that, if we had the full terms before us, we should find that, while -some of the others were also to receive wages, some were to find their -recompense in a share of such profits as the company might make. It is -probable that, even where Henslowe undertook to pay wages, the general -agreement between him and the company provided for the shifting of that -liability to them. They certainly had to pay him, at the rate of 3_s._ -a week, for the services of his boy Bristow.[402] To a slightly later -date belongs an agreement with an unnamed actor, in which the hirer is -not Henslowe but Thomas Downton, and this I add in order to complete -the series.[403] - - - xii. - - Thomas Downton the 25 of Janewary 1599 ded hire as his couenante - servante ---- for ij yers to begyne at Shrofe Tewesday next & he - to geue hime viij^s a wecke as longe as they playe & after they - lye stylle one fortnyght then to geue hime hallfe wages [ extra - spaces ]wittnes P H & Edward Browne & Charlles Masey. - -The appearance of Jones as guarantee for Shaw is due to the fact -that, as a result of _The Isle of Dogs_, the latter was languishing -with Gabriel Spencer and Ben Jonson in the Marshalsea. Meanwhile some -at least of the company travelled. Henslowe lent Alleyn 40_s._ for -John Singer and Thomas Towne ‘when they went into the contrey’ and -noted that this was ‘at ther last cominge’. There is another entry -of a small loan to Singer on 9 August, so they cannot have started -before that; and they must have been back by 6 October, when Singer -witnessed the agreement with Thomas Downton. Possibly Edward Dutton -and Richard Alleyn, who also borrowed money from Henslowe, went with -them.[404] The Privy Council warrants for the release of the prisoners -in the Marshalsea were signed on 3 October,[405] and a few days later -Henslowe, more successful than Langley of the Swan in getting the -licence for his house renewed, even before the formal expiration of -the restraint on 1 November, was in a position to resume his play list -with the heading, ‘The xj of Octobe begane my lord Admerals & my lorde -of Penbrockes men to play at my howsse 1597’.[406] The entries of -plays are few and irregular up to 5 November, and then stop. A note -is appended that on 26 November the Master of the Revels was paid for -four weeks. The performances included one new play, _Friar Spendleton_, -and five old ones, _Jeronimo_, _The Comedy of Humours_, _Dr. Faustus_, -_Hardicanute_, and _Bourbon_, of which the last two do not belong to -the 1594–7 repertory, and may have been contributed by Pembroke’s men. -The diary also contains an account of weekly receipts running from 21 -October 1597 to 4 March 1598, under the heading, ‘A juste a cownte of -all suche monye as I haue receyed of my lord Admeralles & my lord of -Penbrocke men as foloweth be gynynge the 21 of October 1597’, and some -notes of individual advances and repayments, mainly through Robert Shaw -and Thomas Downton, on behalf of the company, from 23 October to 12 -December.[407] In the course of these the company is again described -on 23 October and 5 November as ‘the company of my lord Admeralles -men & my lord Penbrockes’, but on 1 December as ‘the companey of my -lord Admeralles men’; and the substance of the whole of these advances -is set out again, without any reference to Pembroke’s men, at the -beginning of a continuous account from 21 October onwards, which is -headed, ‘A juste a cownt of all suche money as I haue layd owt for my -lord Admeralles players begynyng the xj of October whose names ar as -foloweth Borne Gabrell Shaw Jonnes Dowten Jube Towne Synger & the ij -Geffes’.[408] Nothing very certain is known of the previous career of -Humphrey and Anthony Jeffes, but if the former is the ‘Humfrey’ who -appears with ‘Gabriel’ [Spencer] in the stage-directions to _3 Henry -VI_ it is most likely that these men also came from Pembroke’s.[409] - -The responsible members of the Admiral’s company at the beginning -of the third period of their existence were, then, so far as their -relations to Henslowe were concerned, Thomas Downton, Richard Jones, -Edward Juby, Thomas Towne, John Singer, Robert Shaw, William Borne, who -seems to have had the regular _alias_ of William Bird, Gabriel Spencer, -Humphrey Jeffes, and Anthony Jeffes. To these must probably be added -a number of hired men, including Thomas Hearne, John Helle, William -Kendall, Richard Alleyn, Thomas Heywood, and probably Charles Massey, -Samuel Rowley, Thomas Hunt, and Stephen Maget the tireman, and of -apprentices, including James Bristow and Pigge. Of the sharers Downton, -Jones, Juby, Towne, and Singer had alone belonged to the earlier -Admiral’s men. Slater’s departure involved the company in a lawsuit, -the nature of which is not stated in the diary. Professor Wallace, -however, has found an independent record of a Queen’s Bench action by -Thomas Downton to recover £13 6_s._ 8_d._, the value of a playbook -which Downton had lost in the parish of St. Mary le Bow on 1 December -1597, and Slater had ‘found’, refused to surrender, and was alleged to -have disposed of for his own profit. Damages of £10 10_s._ were awarded -on 3 November 1598.[410] Donstone also seems to have dropped out or -may have been dead; he witnessed Helle’s agreement on 3 August 1597, -and thereafter no more is heard of him. But incomparably the greatest -loss was that of Edward Alleyn, who now retired from the stage and did -not return to it for a period of three years.[411] From 29 December -1597 to 8 November 1598 Henslowe made notes of playing goods bought -‘sence my sonne Edward Allen leafte [p]laynge’, and it would appear -that the company acknowledged a debt of £50 in respect of his interest -on retirement.[412] In place of Alleyn, it would seem that the lead was -taken by Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton, perhaps as representing the -two elements of which the company was made up. These two were joint -payees for the Court money of both 1597–8 and 1598–9. For 1599–1600 -Shaw was sole payee. It was, moreover, most often, although by no means -always, to one or other of these men that Henslowe’s advances on behalf -of the company were made. It must be added that some of the new-comers -appear to have sought private assistance from Henslowe in order to -enable them to take up their shares. On 14 January 1598, he opened an -account of sums received ‘of Humfreye Jeaffes hallfe share’, entered -seven instalments up to 4 March, amounting to a total of 60_s._ 6_d._, -and then noted, ‘This some was payd backe agayne vnto the companey -of my lord Admeralles players the 8 of Marche 1598, & they shared yt -amonste them’. There is a later account, running from 29 April to 21 -July 1598, and amounting by small instalments to 35_s._, of ‘all such -money as I dooe receue for Umfrey Jeaffes and Antoney Jeaffes ... of -the companey’.[413] Possibly the brothers only held a single share -between them. A similar transaction took place with Gabriel Spencer. On -20 April 1598 this actor gave an acknowledgement for £4 and between 6 -April and 24 June Henslowe carried to an account headed ‘℞ of Gabrell -Spencer at severall tymes of his share in the gallereyes’ a total of -25_s._ 6_d._, of which 5_s._ 6_d._ was paid over to Downton.[414] In -addition, personal loans were negotiated from time to time by various -members of the company, and the reasons given for these indicate that -in the course of 1598, besides the dispute of the ex-Pembroke’s men -with Langley, Bird and perhaps the company as a whole were engaged in -litigation with Thomas Pope, presumably the actor in the Chamberlain’s -company.[415] - -There does not seem to have been much further change in the composition -of the Admiral’s men during 1597–1600. An acknowledgement of the state -of their account with Henslowe between 8 and 13 March 1598 bears the -signatures of ‘J. Singer, Thomas Downton, William Birde, Robt Shaa, -Richard Jones, Gabriell Spenser, Thomas Towne, Humfry Jeffes, Charles -Massye, and Samuell Rowlye’.[416] The last two had evidently become -sharers in the course of the year. Juby and Anthony Jeffes do not sign, -but this is probably due to an accident, as they were certainly sharers -both in 1597 and in 1600.[417] Gabriel Spencer was killed by Ben Jonson -(cf. ch. xxiii) on 22 September 1598. On 26 September Henslowe wrote -to Alleyn at the Brill in Sussex, ‘Now to leat you vnderstand newes I -will teall you some but yt is for me harde & heavey. Sence you weare -with me I haue loste one of my company which hurteth me greatley; -that is Gabrell, for he is slayen in Hogesden fylldes by the handes -of Bengemen Jonson bricklayer’.[418] No doubt Henslowe wrote from the -heart. Probably Spencer’s share was not yet paid for, and in addition -small personal loans to the amount of 66_s._ stand undischarged against -him in the diary, of which the last was on 19 May ‘to bye a plume of -feathers which his mane Bradshawe feched of me’. Richard Bradshaw -was an actor and may have played as a hired man with the company. A -fragmentary ‘plot’ of _Troilus and Cressida_, probably to be dated -in April 1599, yields the names of ‘Mr. Jones’ and his ‘boy’, Thomas -Hunt, Stephen, Proctor, and Pigge. Mr. Jones’s boy is shown by a note -of 17 November 1599 in the diary to have been called James.[419] Of -Proctor no more is known. Stephen is probably Stephen Magett, the -tireman, and Pigge was with Alleyn on the tour of Strange’s men in -1593. He is also mentioned, with Dobe, Whittcombe, and Anderson, who -may have been actors, in some inventories of properties belonging to -Alleyn or to the company in March 1598.[420] Thomas Downton also had -in June 1600 a ‘boye’ who played in _Cupid and Psyche_.[421] Another -acknowledgement of account, dated on 10 July 1600, only differs from -the former one by the omission of Spencer’s name and the inclusion of -those of Juby and Anthony Jeffes.[422] The alleged manuscript notes to -a copy of Dekker’s _Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (q.v.), produced in January -1600, which are discredited by Dr. Greg, give the cast as composed of -‘Jones, H. Jeffes, Rowley, Shawe, Massy, Dowton, Singer, Jewby, Towne, -A. Jeffes, Birde, Wilson, Flower, Price, Day, Dowton’s boy Ned and -Alleine’; the last for a female part. Certainly nothing is known of Day -or Wilson as actors for the Admiral’s, or of Price at any such early -date, or of Flower at all. But if the document is a forgery, it is a -very pointless, and at the same time a very cautious one. And how did -the forger, unless he were Collier or Cunningham, know that Day was an -actor at all? - -The records kept by Henslowe for the period 1597–1600 differ -considerably in character from those for 1594–7. The diurnal list of -plays performed and of rent-takings disappears altogether. On the -other hand, the records of advances made, for the books and licensing -of plays, for costumes and properties, and for certain miscellaneous -items of expenditure, become full and systematic. A _per contra_ -account is also kept of weekly sums received by Henslowe in repayment -of such advances, and from time to time a balance is struck, and the -hands of the company taken to a settlement or acknowledgement of debt. -Henslowe’s book-keeping, however, if not exactly faulty, is not always -sufficiently lucid to make the whole of the financial transactions -perfectly clear. In the absence of the daily entries of performances, -the weekly records of repayments make it possible to determine roughly -the periods covered by the theatrical seasons.[423] The company played -for twenty continuous weeks from 11 October 1597 to about 4 March 1598, -apparently with some irregularity at the beginning and again about -Christmas time. Their Court plays were on 27 December and 28 February. -In Lent they had a three weeks’ interval, during the course of which -they met to read a book in New Fish Street, and ‘played in Fleatstreet -pryuat’.[424] Playing was resumed about 25 March and lasted for some -fifteen weeks, until about 8 July, making thirty-five weeks in all -for the year 1597–8. The company only took two weeks’ vacation in the -summer and are not likely to have travelled, although on 27 September, -after the new season had begun, Borne is found riding to the Lord -Admiral at Croydon at the time of the Queen’s visit there.[425] They -played for thirty-one weeks from about 22 July to 24 February 1599, -with performances at Court on 27 December, 6 January and 18 February, -and stopped for three weeks in Lent. The summer season lasted for -eleven weeks from about 19 March to 3 June, making forty-four weeks -playing for 1598–9. On Easter Eve Towne and Richard Alleyn went to -Court for some unspecified purpose. About the same time Anthony Jeffes -was making purchases against St. George’s Day.[426] The interval -of this summer was seventeen weeks, but I have no evidence of any -travelling. The next season was one of nineteen weeks from about 29 -September 1599 to 10 February 1600, with Court performances on 27 -December and 1 January, and was followed by a Lenten interval of -about four weeks. At the beginning of February they bought a drum and -trumpets ‘when to go into the contry’.[427] Whether these were for -use during the short break in Lent or not until the following summer -must remain uncertain; at any rate the purchase confirms the view that -there had been no provincial tour since 1596.[428] Finally they played -for nineteen weeks from about 2 March to 13 July, thus completing -thirty-six weeks for 1599–1600. Apparently the summer season was -diversified by a visit to Windsor for the Garter installation of Henri -IV of France on 27 April.[429] In all they seem to have played for -about 115 weeks or something under 690 days in 1597–1600, as compared -with 728 days in 1594–7. - -The entries of sums paid for plays usually give the names of the -authors as well as those of the plays, and therefore furnish a good -deal of material for reconstituting the literary side of the company’s -activity. Henslowe’s terminology is neither precise nor uniform, but -it is clear that, while the payments were always entered as loans to -the company, they were often made direct by him to the playwrights, on -the ‘appointment’ of one or more of its members. Sometimes they are -expressed as being ‘to bye a boocke of’ a play; that is to say, for -the purchase outright of an old or even a new manuscript. But a new -play was generally commissioned, upon the strength of a sample or of an -outline of the plot, and in such cases payment was made by instalments, -of which the earlier ones were ‘lent upon’ or ‘in earneste of’ or -‘in parte paymente of’, and the last ‘in full paymente of’ the book. -Portions of the manuscript were handed over as security for the earlier -payments. Production was very rapid, and a play put together in two or -three weeks often represented the collaboration of as many as four or -even five or six authors. The procedure, which prevailed during the -whole of the period covered by the diary, is illustrated by a small -group of letters preserved amongst the miscellaneous papers found at -Dulwich. Thus on 8 November 1599 Shaw writes with regard to _2 Henry -Richmond_, ‘Mr. Henshlowe, we haue heard their booke and lyke yt. Their -pryce is eight poundes, which I pray pay now to Mr. Wilson, according -to our promysse’; and accordingly Henslowe includes in his account, by -an entry written and signed by Wilson, a sum of £8 ‘by a note vnder the -hand of Mr. Rob: Shaw’.[430] On 14 June 1600 Shaw writes again, ‘I pray -you, Mr. Henshlowe, deliuer vnto the bringer hereof the some of fyue & -fifty shillinges to make the 3^{ll} fyue shillinges which they receaued -before full six poundes in full payment of their booke called the fayre -Constance of Roome, whereof I pray you reserue for me Mr. Willsons -whole share which is xj^s. which I to supply his neede deliuered him -yesternight.’ The diary duly records the payment to Drayton, Hathway, -Munday, and Dekker ‘at the a poyntment of Roberte Shawe’ of 44_s._[431] -Similarly Samuel Rowley writes on 4 April 1601, ‘Mr. Hinchloe, I haue -harde fyue shetes of a playe of the Conqueste of the Indes & I dow -not doute but it wyll be a verye good playe; tharefore I praye ye -delyuer them fortye shyllynges in earneste of it & take the papers into -your one hands & on Easter eue thaye promyse to make an ende of all -the reste’. The earnest and several supplementary earnests were paid -to Day, Haughton, and Smith, but the completion of the play lagged -until the following September.[432] An undated letter of Rowley’s -relates to the withdrawal of a play, ‘Mr. Hynchlo, I praye ye let Mr. -Hathwaye haue his papars agayne of the playe of John a Gante & for the -repayement of the monye back agayne he is contente to gyue ye a byll -of his hande to be payde at some cartayne tyme as in your dyscressyon -yow shall thinke good; which done ye may crose it oute of your boouke -& keepe the byll; or else wele stande so much indetted to you & kepe -the byll our selues’. Henslowe appears to have thought it safer to -adopt the second alternative, as incomplete payments to the amount of -£1 19_s._ 0_d._ for _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt_ still -stand in his ‘boouke’.[433] Other letters of the same kind concern _Six -Yeomen of the West_, and _Too Good to be True_.[434] The normal price -for a new play during 1597–1601 seems to have been £6, but sometimes it -fell to £5 or possibly even £4, and sometimes the playwrights succeeded -in squeezing out a few shillings more. One or two of them, notably -Chapman, were able to secure a higher rate from the beginning; and -about 1599 a general tendency towards a higher scale of prices becomes -discernible. The ‘book’ of an old play could generally be purchased for -about £2. - -In attempting to estimate the actual ‘output’ of the company, one -is faced by the difficulty that some of the plays commissioned are -not shown by the diary to have reached the stage of payment in full, -and that it must, therefore, remain doubtful whether they were ever -completed. It is possible that, as Dr. Greg thinks,[435] some of the -payments were made direct by the company, instead of through Henslowe. -But the correspondence just quoted rather suggests that any such -arrangement would be exceptional; and it would not be inconsistent with -human nature, if the extremely out-at-elbows men of letters who hung -about the Rose occasionally found it profitable to take their ‘earnest’ -for a play, and then to find plausible reasons for indefinitely -delaying its completion. Probably in the long run they had to account -for the advance, but the example of _The Conquest of Spain_ shows that -such a repayment would not necessarily find its way into Henslowe’s -account. This view is borne out by an examination of the affairs of -one of the most impecunious of them all, Henry Chettle, during 1598–9. -During the first six months of the year, he had a hand in half a dozen -plays, all of which were completed and paid for in full. But on one of -these, _1 Black Bateman of the North_, Henslowe appears, perhaps by -an oversight, to have paid him £1 too much. At the beginning of May -£1 was lent to Chettle upon this play, and the loan does not appear -to have been considered when, on 22 May, a further sum of £6 was laid -out upon ‘a boocke called Blacke Battmane of the North ... which coste -sixe powndes’. On 24 June Chettle borrowed 10_s._, not apparently on -any particular play, and Henslowe seems then to have recalled the -overpayment, and noted against Chettle’s name in the diary, ‘All his -parte of boockes to this place are payde which weare dew unto hime & he -reastes be syddes in my deatte the some of xxx^s.’ Chettle collaborated -in several other plays, which got completed during the year, but no -deduction seems to have been made from his share of the fees in respect -of this debt. In addition he had £5 upon _A Woman’s Tragedy_, upon -condition ‘eather to deliver the playe or els to paye the mony with in -one forthnyght’; he had 5_s._ in earnest upon _Catiline’s Conspiracy_; -and he had £1 14_s._ 0_d._ in earnest upon _Brute_, probably a -continuation of an older _1 Brute_ bought by the company. When the -last payment on _Brute_ was made on 16 September Henslowe noted, ‘Hary -Cheattell vntell this place owes vs viij^{li} ix^s dew al his boockes -& recknynges payd’. This amount is precisely made up of the 30_s._ due -on 24 June and the sums paid on account of these three plays. By 22 -October Chettle had completed _2 Brute_ and managed somehow to get £6 -for it in full. On the same day he gave Henslowe an acknowledgement of -a debt, not of £8 9_s._ 0_d._, but of £9 9_s._ 0_d._ In November he -got an earnest of £1 for _Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver_, and -£1 for ‘mending’ _Robin Hood_, and in January 1599 30_s._ ‘to paye his -charges in the Marshallsey’. Small loans of a shilling or two are also -noted in the margin of the book, and appear to be quite distinct from -the company’s account with him, and to indicate private generosities of -Henslowe. In February 1599 Chettle had finished _Polyphemus_, and it is -recorded that in full payment of £6 he got £2 10_s._ down, ‘& strocken -of his deatte which he owes vnto the companey fyftye shelenges more’. -A separate entry in the diary indicates that he paid off yet another -10_s._ out of his fee for _The Spencers_ in March.[436] Material is -not available for the further tracing of this particular chain of -transactions, but the inference that credit obtained for an unfinished -play had sometimes to be redeemed out of the profits of a finished one -is irresistible. Chettle, at least, does not seem to have been hardly -treated, but obviously the unbusinesslike methods of the playwrights -kept down the price of plays, and a familiar device of the modern -Barabbas was anticipated when Henry Porter was obliged, on the receipt -of an earnest, to give Henslowe ‘his faythfulle promysse that I shold -haue alle the boockes which he writte ether him sellfe or with any -other’.[437] Whatever Henslowe’s precise financial relations with the -company may have been, by the way, he seems to have been in a position -to pose as paymaster, so far as the poets were concerned. - -On the whole, I think it must be concluded that, if the diary fails -to record payments to the amount of at least £5 for a new play, there -is _prima facie_ evidence that that play never got itself finished. -Occasionally, of course, apparently incomplete payments may be -explained by the fact that the same play is entered under more than -one name. Occasionally, also, a particular play may have been tacitly -debited with payments not specifically expressed in the diary to have -been made in respect of that play. Thus a sum of £2 paid on 4 February -1598 ‘to dise charge Mr. Dicker owt of the cownter in the Powltrey’ -was probably treated as an instalment of the price of _Phaethon_ on -which Dekker was then working, and for which otherwise only £4 is -entered. Another sum of £3 10_s._ paid on 30 January 1599 ‘to descarge -Thomas Dickers frome the a reaste of my lord Chamberlens men’ seems -similarly to have gone towards _The First Introduction of the Civil -Wars of France_. And Haughton probably got 10_s._ less than he would -otherwise have done for _Ferrex and Porrex_, because he had required -a loan of that amount on 10 March 1600, ‘to releace him owt of the -Clyncke’.[438] The record, again, for a few plays is most likely -rendered imperfect by the loss of a leaf or two from the manuscript, -which once contained entries for the end of April and beginning of May -1599.[439] When these factors have been taken into consideration, the -resultant total of possibly unfinished plays is not a very large one, -amounting for 1597–1600 on my calculation to not more than twenty as -against fifty-six new plays duly completed and paid for in full. Of -these twenty it is very likely that some were in fact finished, either -for other companies, or for the Admiral’s men themselves, later than -the period covered by the diary. It is, however, consonant with the -literary temperament to suppose that some at least remained within the -category of unrealized projects. The most puzzling problem is that of -Haughton’s _A Woman will have her Will_. For this it is impossible to -trace payments beyond £2 10_s._, and these are not stated to be in -full. Yet the play is not only now extant but was certainly extant in -1598. In this case I see no alternative to Dr. Greg’s theory of direct -payments by the company. - -Henslowe’s notes of advances to authors are not the sole material -which is available for drawing up an account of the repertory of the -Admiral’s men. There are also entries of the purchase of costumes -and properties for certain plays, and of fees for the licensing of -plays by the Master of the Revels. And there is a valuable series of -inventories, formerly preserved at Dulwich, and dating from 1598, which -record respectively the stock of apparel and properties in the hands of -the Admiral’s men during the second week of March, their play-books at -the same date, and the additions made out of Henslowe’s purchases up -to about the following August.[440] The theory that some of the plays -recorded in the diary were never finished receives confirmation from -the absence of any corroborative proof of their existence in these -subsidiary entries and documents, whereas such evidence exists in -the case of a very large proportion of the plays for which the diary -records payment in full. It must not, however, be assumed, either that -every play completed necessarily got produced, although it is not -likely that many were withheld, or that a play was necessarily not -produced, because no special apparel or properties were bought for it, -since it may have been quite possible to mount some plays out of the -company’s existing stock. The number of fees paid for licensing is so -small in proportion to the number of plays certainly produced, that -these fees cannot all be supposed to have passed through Henslowe’s -hands. - -Subject to the difficulties discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I -think that the following is a fairly accurate account of the repertory -of the company for the three years now in question.[441] During 1597–8 -they purchased seventeen new plays. These, with the names of their -authors, were: - - _Mother Redcap_ (Drayton and Munday). - _Phaethon_ (Dekker). - _1 Robin Hood_ (Munday). - _2 Robin Hood_ (Chettle and Munday). - _The Triangle of Cuckolds_ (Dekker).[442] - _The Welshman’s Prize_, or, _The Famous Wars of Henry I and the - Prince of Wales_ (Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton).[443] - _1 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, - and Wilson). - _2 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, - and Wilson). - _King Arthur_ (Hathway). - _Love Prevented_ (Porter).[444] - _A Woman will have her Will_ (Haughton). - _1 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and - Wilson). - _2 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle and Wilson). - _The Madman’s Morris_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). - _The Funeral of Richard Cœur de Lion_ (Chettle, Drayton, Munday, - and Wilson). - _Hannibal and Hermes_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson).[445] - _Valentine and Orson_ (Hathway and Munday). - -There is evidence of the actual performance of _Mother Redcap_, -_Phaethon_ (January), _1 and 2 Robin Hood_ (March), _1 Earl Godwin_ -(April), _King Arthur_ (May), _2 Earl Godwin_ (June), _1 Black Bateman_ -(June). Properties were bought for _The Madman’s Morris_ in July, and -the next season probably opened with it. To the new plays must be added -_Friar Spendleton_, produced as ‘ne’ on 31 October, and _Dido and -Aeneas_. A loan of 30_s._ on 8 January ‘when they fyrst played Dido at -nyght’ suggests a supper, not a night performance. Either play may have -been purchased at the end of 1596–7, or may have come from Pembroke’s -stock. The same applies to _Branholt_ and _Alice Pierce_, which were -probably new when properties were purchased for them in November and -December. The company also bought on 12 December two jigs from two -young men, for which they paid 6_s._ 8_d._ Hardly any of the 1597–8 -new plays are extant. The two parts of _Robin Hood_ are _The Downfall -of Robert Earl of Huntingdon_, and _The Death of Robert Earl of -Huntingdon_, printed without Munday’s name as Admiral’s plays in 1601. -Haughton’s _A Woman will have her Will_ was entered on the Stationers’ -Register on 3 August 1601, and printed with the alternative title of -_Englishmen for my Money_ in 1616. _Phaethon_ probably underlies Dekker -and Ford’s _The Sun’s Darling_, and it is a plausible conjecture of -Mr. Fleay’s that _Love Prevented_ may be _1 The Two Angry Women of -Abingdon_, printed as an Admiral’s play in 1599, and not to be traced -elsewhere in the diary. The payments for four plays during the year, -besides the puzzling _A Woman will have her Will_, were incomplete. I -take it that the £2 paid to Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson for -_Pierce of Exton_ was transferred to the account for _2 Earl Godwin_, -which otherwise lacks just that amount of the full £6; that Chettle -failed to deliver _A Woman’s Tragedy_; that Chapman’s _Isle of a -Woman_ was held over until 1598–9; and that a projected tragedy of Ben -Jonson’s was similarly held over, and then indefinitely postponed owing -to the tragedy in real life of Spencer’s death. There are two entries -with regard to this. On 3 December 1597, Henslowe lent Jonson 20_s._ -‘vpon a boocke which he showed the plotte vnto the company which he -promysed to deliver vnto the company at Cryssmas next’. On 23 October -1598, a month after the duel, not Jonson, but Chapman, received £3 -‘one his playe boocke & ij ectes of a tragedie of Bengemenes plotte’. -I think that Chapman’s own play was _The Four Kings_ and that he -finished it in 1599; but I see no sign that he ever did anything with -‘Bengemenes plotte’. - -Of older plays the Admiral’s revived at the beginning of the year -Chapman’s success of the previous spring, _The Comedy of Humours_; also -the perennial _Dr. Faustus_, and two pieces which, as they formed no -part of the 1594–7 repertory, may have been brought in by Pembroke’s -men, _Hardicanute_ and _Bourbon_. They bought for £8 from Martin -Slater _1 and 2 Hercules_, _Phocas_, _Pythagoras_, and _Alexander and -Lodowick_, all of which had been produced between May 1595 and January -1597, and had evidently been retained by Slater when he left the -company. These books presumably do not include that which became the -subject of the lawsuit between Slater and the Admiral’s men, and as -they had afterwards to buy back some of their old books in a precisely -similar way from Alleyn, it is probable that a retiring member of -the company had a right to claim a partition of the repertory. They -also bought _The Cobler of Queenhithe_,[446] and from Robert Lee, -formerly of the Admiral’s men and afterwards of Queen Anne’s, _The -Miller_. But of these seven purchased plays, the only one that they -can be proved to have revived is one of the _Hercules_ plays, for -which they bought properties in July. The book-inventory shows that -they had plays called _Black Joan_ and _Sturgflattery_,[447] also -possibly from Pembroke’s stock; and the property-inventories that -they had properties and clothes, if not in all cases books,[448] for -_The Battle of Alcazar_[449] and for a number of pieces staged during -1594–7, including _Mahomet_,[450] _Tamburlaine_,[451] _The Jew of -Malta_,[452] _1 Fortunatus_,[453] _The Siege of London_,[454] _Belin -Dun_,[455] _Tasso’s Melancholy_,[456] _1 Caesar and Pompey_,[457] _The -Wise Man of West Chester_,[458] _The Set at Maw_,[459] _Olympo_,[460] -_Henry V_,[461] _Longshanks_,[462] _Troy_,[463] _Vortigern_,[464] -_Guido_,[465] _Uther Pendragon_.[466] To these must be added _Pontius -Pilate_,[467] revived in 1601 and perhaps from the Pembroke’s stock, -and others now unidentifiable.[468] As the company revived _The Blind -Beggar of Alexandria_ in 1601 they probably had this also.[469] - -The new plays purchased in 1598–9 were twenty-one in number: - - _Pierce of Winchester_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). - _Hot Anger Soon Cold_ (Chettle, Jonson, and Porter). - _Chance Medley_ (Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, Munday, and - Wilson).[470] - _Worse Afeared than Hurt_ (Dekker and Drayton).[471] - _1 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). - _The Fount of New Fashions_ (Chapman).[472] - _2 The Conquest of Brute_, or, _Brute Greenshield_ - (Chettle).[473] - _Connan, Prince of Cornwall_ (Dekker and Drayton). - _2 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). - _3 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). - _The Four Kings_ (Chapman).[474] - _War without Blows and Love without Suit_ (Heywood).[475] - _First Introduction of the Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker). - _2 Two Angry Women of Abingdon_ (Porter). - _Joan as Good as my Lady_ (Heywood) - _Friar Fox and Gillian of Brentford_ (Anon.). - _The Spencers_ (Chettle and Porter). - _Troy’s Revenge and the Tragedy of Polyphemus_ (Chettle). - _Troilus and Cressida_ (Chettle and Dekker). - _Agamemnon_, or, _Orestes Furious_ (Chettle and Dekker).[476] - _The World Runs on Wheels_, or, _All Fools but the Fool_ - (Chapman).[477] - -The property and licence entries only make it possible to trace -the actual performance during the year of _Pierce of Winchester_ -(October), _1 and 2 Civil Wars of France_ (October and November), -_The Fount of New Fashions_ (November), _2 Angry Women of Abingdon_ -(February), _2 Conquest of Brute_ (March), _The Four Kings_ (March), -_The Spencers_ (April), and _Agamemnon_ (June). Probably, in view of -the extant fragment of a ‘plot’ _Troilus and Cressida_ should be added. -The production of _Troy’s Revenge_ was deferred until the following -October. No one of this year’s new plays is extant, unless, as is -possible, _All Fools but the Fool_ was an early form of Chapman’s _All -Fools_.[478] Earnests were paid in the course of 1598–9 for _Catiline’s -Conspiracy_ (Chettle), _Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver_ -(Chettle), _William Longsword_[479] (Drayton), _Two Merry Women of -Abingdon_ (Porter), and an unnamed pastoral tragedy by Chapman, but -there is no reason to suppose that any one of these was ever finished. -On 9 August 1598 Munday had 10s. in earnest of an unnamed comedy ‘for -the corte’ and Drayton gave his word for the book to be done in a -fortnight, but the project must have been dropped, as the entry was -cancelled. Of old plays the company revived in August _Vayvode_, in -November _The Massacre at Paris_, in which Bird played the Guise,[480] -in December _1 The Conquest of Brute_, bought from John Day, and in -March _Alexander and Lodowick_, bought from Martin Slater in the -preceding year. As to _Vayvode_, the entries are rather puzzling. In -August Chettle received £1 ‘for his playe of Vayvode’, and the purchase -of properties show that the production took place. But in the following -January there was a payment of £2 to Alleyn ‘for the playe of Vayvod -for the company’. Possibly Alleyn had some rights in the manuscript, -which were at first overlooked. On 25 November Chettle had 10_s._ -‘for mendinge of Roben Hood for the corte’. Either _1_ or _2_ _Robin -Hood_ was therefore probably the play given on 6 January 1599. At the -beginning of the year the company bought _Mulmutius Dunwallow_ from -William Rankins and another old play called _Tristram of Lyons_, but it -must be uncertain whether they played them. A reference in Guilpin’s -_Skialetheia_ suggests that _The Spanish Tragedy_ may have been on the -boards of the Rose not long before September 1598.[481] - -The new plays completed during 1599–1600, twenty in all, were: - - _The Gentle Craft_ (Dekker).[482] - _Bear a Brain_ (Dekker).[483] - _Page of Plymouth_ (Dekker and Jonson). - _Robert II_, or, _The Scot’s Tragedy_ (Chettle, Dekker, Jonson, - and Marston).[484] - _The Stepmother’s Tragedy_ (Chettle and Dekker). - _1 Sir John Oldcastle_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson). - _Cox of Collumpton_ (Day and Haughton). - _2 Henry Richmond_ (Wilson). - _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson). - _Patient Grissell_ (Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton). - _The Whole History of Fortunatus_ (Dekker). - _Thomas Merry_, or, _Beech’s Tragedy_ (Day and Haughton). - _Jugurtha_ (Boyle).[485] - _The Seven Wise Masters_ (Chettle, Day, Dekker, and Haughton). - _Ferrex and Porrex_ (Haughton). - _Cupid and Psyche_, or, _The Golden Ass_ (Chettle, Day, and - Dekker). - _Damon and Pythias_ (Chettle). - _Strange News out of Poland_ (Haughton and Pett). - _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Chettle and Day). - _1 Fair Constance of Rome_ (Dekker, Drayton, Hathway, Munday, - and Wilson). - -It is possible to verify the actual performance of _Page of Plymouth_ -(September), _1 Sir John Oldcastle_ (November),[486] Fortunatus -(December), _The Gentle Craft_ (January), _Thomas Merry_ (January), -_Patient Grissell_ (January), _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ (March), _The -Seven Wise Masters_ (March), _Ferrex and Porrex_ (May), _Damon and -Pythias_ (May), _Strange News out of Poland_ (May), _Cupid and -Psyche_ (June). _Sir John Oldcastle_ must of course be regarded as -a counterblast to the _Henry IV_ plays of the Chamberlain’s men, -in which the character of Falstaff originally bore the name of the -Lollard hero. One infers that it had a considerable success, for the -company gave 10s. for ‘Mr. Mundaye and the reste of the poets at the -playnge of Sr John Oldcastell the ferste tyme’, and Henslowe notes -in the margin that this was ‘as a gefte’. It is with some hesitation -that I have included _Fortunatus_ in the list of new plays, because -it is impossible to suppose that it was not based upon the earlier -_Fortunatus_, already an old play in 1596, of the properties of which -the Admiral’s men certainly retained possession. But Dekker was paid on -the scale of a new play, for he got a full £6 in the course of November -for the book, together with an additional £1 ‘for the altrenge of the -boocke’ and £2 a fortnight later ‘for the eande of Fortewnatus for the -corte’. I take it that this was the Court play of 27 December. That of -1 January was another of Dekker’s, _The Gentle Craft_, also called _The -Shoemaker’s Holiday_, which was published in the year ‘1600’ as played -before the Queen ‘on New Year’s Day at night last’ by the Admiral’s -men. _Fortunatus_, _1 Sir John Oldcastle_,[486] _Patient Grissell_, -and _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ have also been preserved, while -the publication, also in the course of the twelve months ending on 24 -March 1601, of _Look About You_ as an Admiral’s play must surely render -plausible the hypothesis, rejected by Dr. Greg, of its identity with -_Bear a Brain_. It would seem that _Thomas Merry_ furnishes one of the -two parallel plots of Robert Yarington’s _Two Lamentable Tragedies_, -and a notice by Simon Forman suggests that _Cox of Collumpton_ was -ultimately finished.[487] An outline of the opening scenes of _2 Henry -Richmond_ is among the Dulwich papers.[488] Publication was a form of -popularity which the actors were apt to resent. The Admiral’s men spent -£2 on 18 March 1600 ‘to geue vnto the printer to staye the printing -of Patient Gresell’. This did not prevent the play being entered on -the Stationers’ Register on 28 March, but does perhaps explain why the -earliest known edition is dated 1603. The unfinished plays of 1599–1600 -were _The Poor Man’s Paradise_ (Haughton), _The Orphans’ Tragedy_ -(Chettle),[489] an unnamed Italian tragedy by Day, _The Arcadian -Virgin_ (Chettle and Haughton), _Owen Tudor_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, -and Wilson), _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight_ (Dekker),[490] _The -Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_ (Day, Dekker, and Haughton),[491] _The English -Fugitives_ (Haughton), _The Devil and his Dame_ (Haughton),[492] _The -Wooing of Death_ (Chettle), _Judas_ (Haughton),[493] _2 Fair Constance -of Rome_ (Hathway), and an unnamed play by Chettle and Day.[494] Except -in so far as _Fortunatus_ was an old play, I find no trace of a revival -during 1599–1600, but it may be assumed that some of the productions of -the last two years still held the boards. - -The year 1600 was another turning-point in the history of the company. -Probably at some date between 14 August, when the first entry in a -fresh account was made, and 28 October, when Pembroke’s men were in -occupation of the Rose, they crossed the river, and took up their -quarters at Alleyn’s recently built Fortune, on the north-west boundary -of the City. A more important event still was the return of Alleyn -himself to the stage, from which he had been absent for three years. -It is suggested in the Privy Council letter of 8 April 1600 to the -Middlesex justices in favour of the Fortune project, that this step -was determined by the personal wish of the Queen to see the great -actor at Court with his fellows again.[495] It is not quite clear on -what terms he rejoined the company. There was a ‘composicion’ or -agreement, in connexion with which a payment of £4 was made to him -on 11 November. The next entry, which is undated, runs, ‘P^d vnto my -sonne Alleyn for the firste weckes playe the xj parte of xvij^{ll} ix^s -which came to therti & ij shellinges’. There are no further entries -of the same kind until the date of a reckoning in February 1602, when -Henslowe paid Alleyn 27_s._ 6_d._ ‘dew to my sone out of the gallery -money’. Probably this was a share of some small residue, the origin of -which cannot now be traced. The earlier payment suggests that Alleyn -received one full share of the actors’ takings, for, if I am right in -supposing that the brothers Jeffes only held half a share each, there -would have been just ten sharers besides himself. Or possibly his share -may have been limited to the actors’ moiety of the gallery takings, -and the outgoings may all have been charged to the receipts from the -yard. Certainly Alleyn does not seem to have had any responsibility for -these outgoings. His name is never put with those of other sharers to -Henslowe’s periodical reckonings, and if his play-books were used, they -were bought from him. On the other hand, he sometimes, although not so -often as some of his fellows, ‘appointed’ payments, and he received the -Court money for the company, alike in 1601, 1602, and 1603. That his -share did not pass through Henslowe’s hands after the date of the first -instalment is perhaps explained by the assumption that, as the owner -and joint occupier with Henslowe of the Fortune, the appointment of a -‘gatherer’ for the gallery money may naturally have fallen to him. - -Some such change in the financial arrangements may also account for the -fact that, while Henslowe’s record of advances continues on the same -lines as that for 1597–1600, the notes of weekly repayments are now -discontinued. As a result it is no longer possible to determine with -any exactness the length of the theatrical seasons, since, naturally -enough, the outgoings did not altogether stop while the house was -closed. Their course, however, suggests intervals in February and March -1601, February to April 1602, August 1602 and January and February -1603. It is possible, although not very likely, that there was no -cessation of playing during the summer of 1601. I find no evidence of -further provincial travels before the end of the reign. These were, I -think, years of prosperity. The players still required small personal -advances from time to time, and Thomas Towne was reduced to pawning -a pair of stockings on 13 March 1602.[496] But it is noticeable that -about the previous June Henslowe opened an account under the heading, -‘Begininge to receue of thes meane ther privet deates which they owe -vnto me’, and was able to enter in it a series of repayments by Jones, -Downton, Bird, and Shaw.[497] Bird, however, still owed £10 10_s._ -on 12 March 1602, and Henslowe noted, ‘He is cleere of all debtes & -demaundes except theis debtes and such stocke & covenentes as I maie -clayme & challendge of him by reason of his coniunction with the -companie’.[498] Whether the playwrights reaped any benefit may be -doubted. The tendency to a rise of prices which showed itself in 1599 -was hardly maintained. Some of them were still impecunious enough. -The company had, on more than one occasion to redeem a play which the -unfortunate Chettle had pawned with one Bromfield, a mercer; and in -March 1602 he seems to have followed Porter’s example and put his hand, -for a consideration of £3, to an instrument binding him to write for -them alone.[499] There were some legal troubles in the course of 1601. -A sum of £21 10_s._ had to be paid on a bond to a Mr. Treheren during -March, and in August there were fees to a jury and a clerk of assizes. -The company had also to find 10_s._ in May ‘to geatte the boye into -the ospetalle which was hurt at the Fortewne’.[500] Information as to -the composition of the company at some time between Alleyn’s return -and February 1602 is given by the ‘plot’ of _The Battle of Alcazar_, -although, as this is mutilated, it must not be treated as negative -evidence, and in particular the names of W. Borne and John Singer are -missing.[501] All the other sharers, however, are found in it--‘Mr. Ed. -Allen, Mr. Doughton, Mr. Juby, Mr. Shaa, Mr. Jones, Mr. Towne, Antony -Jeffes, H. Jeffes, Mr. Charles [Massey], and Mr. Sam [Rowley]’. There -are also Mr. Rich. Allen and Mr. Hunt, who were not sharers, but whose -long service had apparently earned them the dignity of the ‘Mr.’, W. -Kendall, Jeames, who was possibly Henslowe’s apprentice James Bristow -and possibly Jones’s boy of the same name, and Dob, who was probably -the Dobe of the 1598 inventory. The remaining names, all of which -are new, are those of W. Cartwright, who, however, had witnessed a -loan for Henslowe as far back as 21 April 1598,[502] Dick Jubie, Ro. -Tailor, George Somerset, Tho. Drum, [Thomas] Parsons, Harry, and the -‘boys’ of Mr. Allen and Mr. Towne. The only important woman’s part, -that of Callipolis, is assigned by the ‘plot’ to Pisano, which does -not look like an actor’s name and may be a mistake. The services of -Bristow were evidently leased out by Henslowe to the company or some -one of its members, at a rate of 3_s._ a week. Antony Jeffes paid two -weeks’ arrears ‘for my boyes Jeames wages’ in August 1600, and Henslowe -charged the company £6 10_s._ on the same account in the following -February.[503] Another boy attached to the company about the same time -must have been ‘Nick’, for whom hose ‘to tumbell in be fore the quen’ -were bought on 25 December 1601. Hugh Davis, for the mending of whose -tawny coat ‘which was eatten with the rattes’ 6_s._ 7_d._ was paid -in November 1601, was perhaps a hired man. A list of the responsible -members of the company is attached by Henslowe to a reckoning cast -between 7 and 23 February 1602. They were then ‘John Singer, Thomas -Downton, William Byrd, Edward Juby, Thomas Towne, Humphrey Jeffs, -Anthony Jeffs, Samuel Rowley, and Charles Massy’.[504] A note is added -that £50 had been advanced ‘to geve vnto Mr. Jonnes & Mr. Shaw at -ther goinge a waye’. This departure must have been quite recent. Shaw -had been agent for the company on the previous 21 January, and the -list of continuing members is in fact in his handwriting. The last -instalment of Jones’s private debt had been paid off on 1 November. -His three years’ agreement with Henslowe had expired at Michaelmas -1600. Richard Alleyn must have died in September 1602, for on the -19th of that month his widow borrowed £5 10_s._ to take her mantle -and sheet and face-cloth out of pawn.[505] Neither Shaw nor Jones nor -Richard Alleyn is in the plot of _1 Tamar Cham_, which may reasonably -be assigned to a date in the vicinity of the purchase of the book from -Alleyn on 2 October 1602. This is of interest, partly because it is -complete, and partly because there was a procession in the play, and -the number of supernumeraries required must have tried the resources -of the establishment to their utmost. All the principal members of the -company appeared--‘Mr. Allen, Mr. Denygten, Mr. Boorne, Mr. Towne, Mr. -Singer, Mr. Jubie, H. Jeffs, A. Jeffs, Mr. Charles [Massey], and Mr. -Sam [Rowley]’; and in addition Dick Jubie, W. Cart[wright], George -[Somerset], Tho. Parsons, and Jeames [Bristow], who were in _The Battle -of Alcazar_, and W. Parr, Tho. Marbeck, Jack Grigorie, Gedion, Gibbs, -Tho. Rowley, Rester, ‘old Browne’, Ned Browne, ‘the red fast fellow’ -and several boys, described, perhaps in some cases twice over, as -Jack Jones, ‘little Will’, ‘little Will Barne’, who do not seem to be -identical, ‘Gils his boy’, ‘Mr. Denyghtens little boy’, perhaps the -same already recorded in 1600, and ‘the other little boy’. ‘Old Browne’ -can hardly be Robert Browne, who seems to have been in Germany; but -Ned Browne may be the Edward Browne who, like Robert, was a member of -Worcester’s company in 1583. Little is added by the only other extant -‘plot’, the fragmentary one of _2 Fortune’s Tennis_. This is difficult -to date, but it must be later than Dekker’s _1 Fortune’s Tennis_ of -September 1600, and may not improbably be Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ -of December 1602. The few names which it contains--Mr. Singer, Sam, -Charles, Geo[rge Somerset], R. Tailor, W. Cartwright, Pavy--suggest -proximity to _The Battle of Alcazar_ and _1 Tamar Cham_. The only -fresh one is that of Pavy, who may or may not be connected with the -Salathiel Pavy of Ben Jonson’s epitaph. Both _1 Tamar Cham_ and _2 -Fortune’s Tennis_ must be earlier than January 1603, a month which -saw the retirement of the old Queen’s man, John Singer. So at least -may be inferred from the fact that he makes no further appearance in -the diary after 13 January, when he received £5 ‘for his play called -Syngers Vallentarey’. I take ‘vallentarey’ to mean ‘valediction’. His -name is absent from the next list of the company, which belongs to -1604. He probably left to become an ordinary Groom of the Chamber in -the royal household, a post which he is found occupying at the time of -Elizabeth’s funeral.[506] - -The succession of new plays was not quite so rapid during 1600–3 as -in previous periods. I can only trace thirty-one in all, as against -fifty-five in 1594–7 and sixty-two in 1599–1600. It may well have -been the case that Alleyn, who had ‘created’ parts in the ’eighties -and early ’nineties, had a tendency towards revivals. For 1600–1 the -company bought only seven new books. These were: - - _1 Fortune’s Tennis_ (Dekker). - _Hannibal and Scipio_ (Hathway and Rankins). - _Scogan and Skelton_ (Hathway and Rankins). - _All is not Gold that Glisters_ (Chettle). - _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Day and Haughton). - _The Six Yeomen of the West_ (Day and Haughton). - _King Sebastian of Portugal_ (Chettle and Dekker). - -None of these plays is extant, but the purchase of properties testifies -to the performance of _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ in April -and _The Six Yeomen of the West_ in July. Moreover, Day received a -bonus of 10_s._ between 27 April and 2 May ‘after the playinge of’ -the former piece. Only £1 was paid for _1 Fortune’s Tennis_, but the -existence of a ‘plot’ for _2 Fortune’s Tennis_ suggests that it must -have been completed. Probably it was a short topical overture designed -to celebrate the opening of the Fortune.[507] Unfinished plays were -_Robin Hood’s Pennyworths_ (Haughton)[508] and _The Conquest of -Spain by John of Gaunt_ (Hathway and Rankins). The revivals included -_Phaethon_ (January), _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (May), and _The -Jew of Malta_ (May). Dekker had £2 for ‘alterynge of’ _Phaethon_ for -the Court, and this was therefore the Admiral’s play of 6 January 1601. -They also appeared on 28 December and 2 February. _Dr. Faustus_ was -entered on 7 January; the earliest print (1604) bears their name. The -new books of 1601–2 were fourteen in number, as follows:[509] - - _The Conquest of the West Indies_ (Day, Haughton, and Smith). - _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Day and Haughton). - _The Life of Cardinal Wolsey_ (Chettle).[510] - _1 The Six Clothiers_ (Hathway, Haughton, and Smith). - _The Rising of Cardinal Wolsey_ (Chettle, Drayton, Munday, and - Smith). - _Friar Rush and the Proud Woman of Antwerp_ (Chettle, Day, and - Haughton). - _Judas_ (Bird and Rowley).[511] - _Too Good to be True_ (Chettle, Hathway, and Smith). - _Malcolm King of Scots_ (Massey). - _Love Parts Friendship_ (Chettle and Smith). - _Jephthah_ (Dekker and Munday). - _Tobias_ (Chettle). - _The Bristol Tragedy_ (Day). - _Caesar’s Fall_, or, _The Two Shapes_ (Dekker, Drayton, - Middleton, Munday, and Webster). - -At least ten of these appear to have been played: _2 Cardinal Wolsey_ -(August), _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (September), _Judas_ -(January), _The Conquest of the West Indies_ (January), _Malcolm -King of Scots_ (April), _Love Parts Friendship_ (May), _1 Cardinal -Wolsey_ (June), _Jephthah_ (July), and at uncertain dates, _Tobias_ -and probably _The Bristol Tragedy_.[512] None is now extant. The -unfinished plays were _The Humorous Earl of Gloucester with his -Conquest of Portugal_ (Wadeson), _2 Tom Dough_[513] (Day and Haughton), -_The Orphan’s Tragedy_ (Chettle),[514] _2 The Six Clothiers_ (Hathway, -Haughton, and Smith),[515] _The Spanish Fig_ (Anon.),[516] _Richard -Crookback_ (Jonson),[517] _A Danish Tragedy_ (Chettle),[518] and _A -Medicine for a Curst Wife_ (Dekker).[519] There was considerable -activity of revival during the year. Six old plays belonging to the -1594–7 repertory, for some of which the company already held the -properties,[520] were bought from Alleyn at £2 each, _Mahomet_ in -August, _The Wise Man of West Chester_ in September, _Vortigern_ -in November, and _The French Doctor_, _The Massacre at Paris_, and -_Crack Me this Nut_ in January. The first and the last three of these -certainly were played, and the revival of _The Massacre at Paris_ -appears to have caused annoyance to Henri IV.[521] In addition, -properties were bought for one of the _Hercules_ plays in December, -Dekker got 10_s._ for a prologue and epilogue to _Pontius Pilate_[522] -in January, and Jonson wrote additions to _The Spanish Tragedy_, -possibly those now extant, in September, although it may be doubted -whether the further additions contemplated in the following June were -ever made. There is nothing to show what was selected, other than -Nick’s tumbling, for the Admiral’s only Court play of 1601–2, which -took place on 27 December. - -The season of 1602–3 was, of course, shortened by the death of -Elizabeth and the outbreak of plague. The new plays numbered nine. They -were: - - _Samson_ (Anon.). - _Felmelanco_ (Chettle and Robinson). - _Joshua_ (Rowley). - _Randal Earl of Chester_ (Middleton). - _Merry as May Be_ (Day, Hathway, and Smith). - _The Set at Tennis_ (Munday). - _1 The London Florentine_ (Chettle and Heywood). - _Singer’s Voluntary_ (Singer). - _The Boss of Billingsgate_ (Day, Hathway, and another).[523] - -It must be added that in September properties were bought for a ‘new -playe’ called _The Earl of Hertford_, which it seems impossible to -identify with any of the pieces bought. This looks like one of the rare -cases in which payment did not pass through Henslowe’s hands. This and -_Samson_ are the only new plays of the year, the actual performance -of which can be verified; and none of these plays is extant.[524] I -suspect, however, that Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ is the _2 Fortune’s -Tennis_ of which a ‘plot’ survives. The payment, of only £3, was ‘in -full’, and it may, like _1 Fortune’s Tennis_, have been a short piece -of some exceptional character, motived by the name of the theatre in -which it was presented. Unfinished plays at the end of the season were -_The Widow’s Charm_ (Munday or Wadeson),[525] _William Cartwright_ -(Haughton), _Hoffman_ (Chettle),[526] _2 London Florentine_ (Chettle -and Heywood), _The Siege of Dunkirk and Alleyn the Pirate_ (Massey). -The revival of old plays continued. Costumes for _Vortigern_, one of -those bought from Alleyn in the previous year, were in preparation -during September, and Alleyn’s stock yielded three more, _Philip of -Spain_ and _Longshanks_ in August and _Tamar Cham_, probably the second -part, as the extant ‘plot’ testifies, in October. The last two of -these belonged to the Admiral’s repertory of 1594–7, but the origin of -_Philip of Spain_ is unknown. A book of _The Four Sons of Aymon_, for -which £2 was paid to Robert Shaw, was probably also old, and was bought -on condition that Shaw should repay the £2, unless the play was used by -the Admiral’s or some other company with his consent by Christmas 1604. -Bird and Rowley had £4 in September for additions to _Dr. Faustus_. -Dekker completed some alterations of _Tasso’s Melancholy_, another -1594–7 play, in December, and in the same month Middleton wrote ‘for -the corte’ a prologue and epilogue to Greene’s _Friar Bacon and Friar -Bungay_, which I should suppose to have been Henslowe’s property, as -it was played by Strange’s men in 1592–3 and the Queen’s and Sussex’s -in 1594. This probably served for the first of the three appearances -made by the Admiral’s at Court, on 27 December. The other two were on -6 March and on a date unspecified. For one of these occasions Chettle -was writing a prologue and epilogue at the end of December, but the -play is not named.[527] One of the new plays, _Merry as May Be_, was -intended for Court, when the first payment on account of it was made on -9 November. - -On 12 March 1603 Henslowe practically closes the detailed record -which he had kept continuously in his diary since October 1597 of -his financial transactions, otherwise than by way of rent, with the -Admiral’s men. A brief review of these is not without interest.[528] -His advances from 21 October 1597 to 8 March 1598 amounted to £46 -7_s._ 3_d._, and to this he took the signatures of the company, with -the note, ‘Thes men dothe aknowlege this deat to be dewe by them by -seatynge of ther handes to yette’. By 28 July a further amount of £120 -15_s._ 4_d._ had been incurred, making a total of £166 17_s._ 7_d._ for -1597–8.[529] During the same period he entered weekly receipts from the -company to a total of £125. These must have gone to an old debt, for -he did not balance them with the payments for the year, but carried on -the whole debit of £166 17_s._ 7_d._ to 1598–9. Apparently, however, he -was not satisfied with the way in which expenditure was outstripping -income, for he headed a new receipts account, ‘Here I begyne to receue -the wholle gallereys frome this daye beinge the 29 of July 1598’, and -the weekly entries become about double what they were during 1597–8. -On the other hand, there is also a considerable increase in the rate -of expenditure. It is an ingenious and, I think, sound conjecture of -Dr. Greg’s, that throughout 1594–1603 Henslowe was taking half the -gallery money for rent, and that, at different times, he also took -either the other half, or another quarter only, to recoup himself for -his advances.[530] The outgoings entered during 1598–9 reach £435 7_s._ -4_d._, but some items for March and April 1599 are probably missing, -owing to a mutilation of the manuscript.[531] The receipts for the same -period were £358 3_s._ On 13 October 1599, about a fortnight after -the beginning of the 1599–1600 season, a balance was struck. Henslowe -credited the company with the £358 received from the gallery money, and -debited them with £632 advanced by him. This includes £166 17_s._ 7_d._ -for 1597–8, £435 7_s._ 4_d._ for 1598–9, and £29 15_s._ 1_d._, which -may reasonably be taken as the sum of the missing entries for March and -April 1599. The balance of £274 remained as a debt from the company. -They did not, however, set their hands to a reckoning until the end of -the next year, on 10 July 1600. During 1599–1600 a fresh account had -been running, on which Henslowe’s receipts were £202 10_s._ and his -payments £222 5_s._ 6_d._ At the reckoning the company’s indebtedness -is calculated at £300, and is admitted by the formula, ‘which some -of three hundred powndes we whose names are here vnder written doe -acknowledge our dewe debt & doe promyse payment’. To this their -signatures are appended. There is, however, an unexplained discrepancy -of £6 4_s._ 6_d._, as the old debt of £274 and the 1599–1600 debit -balance of £19 15_s._ 6_d._ only make up £293 15_s._ 6_d._ - -From 1600 onwards there are no records of receipts. A continuous -account of payments is kept up to 7 February 1602. The total amounts to -£304 10_s._ 4_d._, but Henslowe sums it in error as £308 6_s._ 4_d._, -and notes, ‘Frome ther handes to this place is 308^{ll}-06^s-04^d dewe -vnto me & with the three hundred of owld is £608-06-04^d’. He then -adds the £50 paid to Jones and Shaw on retirement, ‘which is not in -this recknynge’. Above this summary comes a list of names, said by Dr. -Greg to be in Shaw’s hand, of those sharers who were continuing in the -company, headed by the figures ‘211. 9. 0.’ I think the interpretation -is that £386 17_s._ 4_d._ of the £608 6_s._ 4_d._ was paid out of -gallery money or other sources, leaving £211 9_s._, together with the -£50 for Jones and Shaw, chargeable on the company. This is borne out -by the remnant of the accounts, which is headed, ‘Begininge with a new -recknyng with my lord of Notingames men the 23 daye of Febreary 1601 -as foloweth’. The expenditure on this new reckoning up to 12 March -1603 was, as calculated by Henslowe, £188 11_s._ 6_d._, and he adds -to this total a sum of £211 9_s._ ‘vpon band’, being evidently the -residue of the debt as it stood at the close of the old reckoning, and -makes a total of £400 0_s._ 6_d._ This, with the £50 for Jones and -Shaw, was no doubt what the company owed when the detailed account in -the diary closed. There was, however, an unstated amount of gallery -receipts during 1602–3 to set against it; and in fact a retrospect -of the whole series of figures shows that there would have been a -pretty fair equivalence of gallery money and advances throughout, but -for the exceptionally heavy expenditure of 1598–9, £465 2_s._ 5_d._ -in all, which left the company saddled with an obligation which they -never quite overtook. This expenditure was more than half the total -expenditure of £854 5_s._ 6_d._ for the _triennium_ 1597–1600, and -nearly as much as the whole expenditure of £493 1_s._ 10_d._ for the -_triennium_ 1600–3, during which it may be suspected that the business -capacities of Alleyn brought about considerable economies. - -The accounts may be looked at from another point of view. If the -unanalysable sum of £29 15_s._ 1_d._ for the missing items of March -and April 1599 be neglected, there was a total expenditure for the six -years of £1,317 11_s._ 3_d._ Of this £652 13_s._ 8_d._, being about -half, went in payments in respect of play-books; £561 1_s._ 1_d._ -for properties and apparel; and £103 16_s._ 6_d._ in miscellaneous -outgoings, such as licensing fees, legal charges, musical instruments, -travelling expenses, merry-makings and the like. Thus, if the company -supped together at Mr. Mason’s of the Queen’s Head, or met to read a -‘book’ at the Sun in New Fish Street, Henslowe would put his hand into -his pocket to pay the score, and would not forget afterwards to debit -the company with the amount in his diary.[532] It must, of course, be -borne in mind that only part of this miscellaneous expenditure was -incurred through Henslowe. He certainly did not, for example, pay all -the fees for the licensing of new plays by the Master of the Revels. -And of course there were many matters, in particular the wages of hired -actors and servitors, for which the company had regularly to find funds -in other ways. It is probable that only play-books, properties, and -apparel were normally charged to his account, although the convenience -of an occasional extension of his functions can readily be understood. -Dr. Greg may be right in thinking that his position as agent for the -company in its purchases was a natural development of his pawnbroking -business.[533] But during the period under review he did not, as a -rule, supply them with goods himself. A sale of ‘A shorte velluett -clocke wraght with bugell & a gearcken of velluet layd with brade coper -sylver lace’ for £4 on 28 November 1598 was exceptional. Usually the -payments are to tradesmen, to the mercers Stone, Richard Heath, and -Robert Bromfield, to ‘him at the Eagell and Chylld’ for armour, to -Mrs. Gosson for head-tires, and for wigs to one Father Ogle, who is -mentioned also in the Revels Accounts and in the play of _Sir Thomas -More_. Sometimes ready-made garments, new or second-hand, were bought. -A doublet and hose of sea-water green satin cost £3 and a doublet and -‘venesyons’ of cloth of silver wrought with red silk £4 10_s._ But -often stuffs were obtained in piece and made up by tailors, of whom the -company employed two, Dover and Radford, the latter known, for the sake -of distinction, as ‘the little tailor’. These and William White, who -made the crowns, probably worked at the theatre, in the tiring-house. -The company gave 6_s._ a yard for russet broadcloth and the same for -murrey satin, 12_s._ for other satins, 12_s._ 6_d._ for taffeties, -and no less than £1 for ‘ij pylle velluet of carnardyn’. Laces cost -1_d._ each; copper lace anything from 4_s._ a pound to 1_s._ 2_d._ an -ounce. Of this they used quantities, and in the summer of 1601 they -had run up a considerable ‘old debt’ to the copper lace-man, as well -as another to Heath the mercer, which had to be paid off by degrees. -The more expensive garments, such as a rich cloak bought of Langley -for £19, were, of course, an investment on the part of the company, -and were worn in their time by many sharers and hired men in different -parts. But the principal actors had also, as Alleyn’s inventory shows, -their private wardrobes. Henslowe was prepared to furnish these on the -instalment system. Thus Richard Jones bought in 1594 ‘a manes gowne -of pechecoler in grayne’ for £3 payable in weekly sums of 5_s._, and -Thomas Towne in 1598 ‘a blacke clothe clocke layd with sylke lace’ for -26_s._ 8_d._ at 1_s._ weekly. It was as hard to keep these glories -as to procure them. On one occasion the company came to the rescue -and lent Thomas Downton £12 10_s._, to fetch out of pawn two cloaks, -‘which they exsepted into the stock’. The one was ‘ashecolerd velluet -embradered with gowld’, the other ‘a longe black velluet clocke layd -with sylke lace’.[534] - -The termination of the record of advances after 12 March 1603 indicates -an interruption of performances, probably due to the increasing illness -of Elizabeth, who died on the following 24 March. Thereafter there -are only a few winding-up entries in the diary. The company must have -immediately begun to travel under the leadership of Thomas Downton, who -in the course of 1602–3 received a gift for them from the Corporation -of Canterbury, ‘because it was thought fitt they should not play at -all, in regard that our late Queene was then very sicke or dead as -they supposed’. London playing, if resumed at all, must have very -soon been stopped again by the plague. There was some further small -expenditure, of which the details are not given, before Henslowe noted -that, in addition to the bond for £211 9_s._, ‘Ther reasteth dew vnto -me to this daye beinge the v daye of Maye 1603 when we leafte of playe -now at the Kynges cominge all recknynges abated the some of a hundred -fowerscore & sevntenepowndes & thirteneshellynges & fowerpence I saye -dew--£197 13_s._ 4_d._ the fyftye powndes which Jonnes & Shawe had at -ther goinge a way not reconed’. The company travelled again during the -plague, being traceable as the Admiral’s men in 1602–3 at Bath and York -and on 18 August 1603 at Leicester, and as the Earl of Nottingham’s in -1602–3 at Coventry. The tour was over by 21 October, on which date Joan -Alleyn wrote to her husband at the house of Mr. Chaloner in Sussex, -telling him amongst other things that ‘all of your owne company ar -well at theyr owne houses’, that all the other companies had returned, -that ‘Nicke and Jeames be well’, and that ‘Browne of the Boares head’ -had not gone into the country at all, and was now dead, ‘& dyed very -pore’. This might be either Edward Browne, or the ‘old Browne’ who -appeared with him in _1 Tamar Cham_ in the previous autumn. In any -case, it is clear from the reference to him that he was not a regular -member of Alleyn’s company. ‘Jeames’ is no doubt James Bristow, who, as -Henslowe’s apprentice, would be likely to form part of his household; -and ‘Nicke’, who seems to have been in the same position, may be -supposed to be the Nick who tumbled before the Queen at Christmas 1601. - -The Jacobean records of the company seem meagre in the absence of -Henslowe’s detailed register of proceedings. About Christmas 1603 they -were taken into the service of Prince Henry, and are hereafter known -as the Prince’s players.[535] They are entered amongst other ‘Officers -to the Prince’ as receiving four and a half yards of red cloth apiece -as liveries for the coronation procession on 15 March 1604, and -their names are given as ‘Edward Allen, William Bird, Thomas Towne, -Thomas Dowton, Samuell Rowley, Edward Jubie, Humfry Jeffes, Charles -Massey, and Anthony Jeffes’.[536] Alleyn, even if not a ‘sharer’, -was therefore a member of the company in its official capacity. He -is also named as the Prince’s servant, both in the printed account -of the entertainment at which, dressed as a Genius, he delivered a -speech, and in Stowe’s description of a bear-baiting which formed part -of the festivities.[537] It may, however, be inferred that he took an -early opportunity of leaving a profession to which he had only been -recalled by the personal whim of the late Queen.[538] He was joint -payee with Juby in the warrant of 19 February, but Juby’s name stands -alone in another of 17 April and in those of all subsequent years up -to 1615. And when the company received a formal licence by patent on -30 April 1606, Alleyn’s name was omitted, and does not appear in any -further list of its members. It is true that as late as 11 May 1611 he -is still described in a formal document as the Prince’s servant, but -he may have held some other appointment, actual or honorific, in the -household.[539] A note of his resources about 1605, however, includes -‘my share of aparell, £100’.[540] And he certainly remained interested -in the company. They were his tenants at the Fortune, although an -unexecuted draft of a lease to Thomas Downton dated in 1608 suggests -that he may have taken steps to transfer the whole or a share of his -direct interest to them. Under this lease Downton was to receive during -thirteen years a thirty-second part of the daily profits accruing to -Henslowe and Alleyn, and in return to pay £27 10_s._, a rent of 10_s._ -annually and his proportionate share of repairs, and to bind himself -to play in the house and not elsewhere without consent.[541] On 11 -April 1612 Robert Browne is found writing to Alleyn on behalf of one -Mr. Rose, lately ‘entertayned amongst the princes men’, to request -his interest as one ‘who he knowes can strike a greter stroke amongst -them then this’ to procure him a ‘gathering place’ for his wife.[542] -Another letter from Bird to Alleyn, also about a gatherer, is amusing -enough to quote in full. It is undated. - - ‘Sir there is one Jhon Russell, that by yowr apoyntment was made - a gatherer w^{th} vs, but my fellowes finding often falce to vs, - haue many tymes warnd him ffrom taking the box. And he as often, - with moste damnable othes, hath vowde neuer to touch, yet not - with standing his execrable othes, he hath taken the box, & many - tymes moste vnconsionablye gathered, for which we haue resolued - he shall neuer more come to the doore; yet for your sake, he - shall haue his wages, to be a nessessary atendaunt on the stage, - and if he will pleasure himself and vs, to mend our garmentes, - when he hath leysure, weele pay him for that to. I pray send vs - word if this motion will satisfie you; for him his dishonestye - is such we knowe it will not, Thus yealding our selues in that - & a farr greater matter to be comaunded by you I committ you to - god. Your loving ffrend to comaunde. W Birde.’[543] - -With the exception of Alleyn, all the players of the 1604 list and no -others appear in the patent of 1606, the text of which follows:[544] - -[Sidenote: De concessione licenciae pro Thoma Downton et aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, - Sheriffes, bailiffes, Constables, headboroughes and other our - officers and loving subiectes greeting. Knowe ye that wee of - our especiall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere mocion haue - licenced and auctorized, and by theis presentes doe licence - and auctorize Thomas Downton, Thomas Towne, William Byrde, - Edwarde Iuby, Samuell Rowle, Humfrey Ieffes, Charles Massey, and - Anthonie Ieffes, Servauntes to our dearest sonne the Prince, and - the rest of theire Associates to vse and exercise the arte and - facultie of playing Commedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, - Moralls, Pastoralls, Stageplayes, and such other like as they - haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall vse or studie, aswell - for the recreacion of our loving subiectes, as for our solace - and pleasure when wee shall thincke good to see them, during - our pleasure, And the said Commedies, Tragedies, histories, - Enterludes, Moralls, pastoralls, stageplaies, and suche like - to shewe and exercise publiquelie to their best Commoditie, - aswell within theire nowe vsuall house called the Fortune within - our Countie of Middlesex, as alsoe within anie Towne halls or - Moutehalls or other convenient places within the libertie and - ffredome of anie other Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, or Boroughe - whatsoever, within our Realmes and Domynions, willing and - Commaunding you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, - not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without anie your - lettes, hindraunces, or molestacions during our saide pleasure, - but alsoe to be aiding and assisting vnto them yf anie wrong be - to them offered, And to allowe them such former curtesies as - hath been given to men of theire place and quallitie, And alsoe - what further favour you shall shewe vnto them for our sake wee - shall take kindelie at your handes. Prouided alwaies, and our - will and pleasure ys, that all auctoritie, power, priuiledges, - and profittes whatsoever belonging and properlie appertaining - to the Maister of our Revells in respecte of his office, and - everie Clause, article, or graunte conteined within the letteres - patentes or Commission, which haue heretofore been graunted - or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere Sister, or - by our selves, to our welbeloued servantes Edmonde Tilney, - Maister of the office of our said Revells, or to Sir George - Bucke knighte, or to either of them in possession or reversion, - shall be remayne and abide entire, and in full force estate and - vertue, and in as ample sorte as yf this our Commission had - never been made. In witnesse whereof etc. Witnesse our selfe at - Westminster the Thirtith daie of Aprill. - per breve de priuato sigillo. - -Between 1606 and 1610 it seems to have been thought desirable to -strengthen the composition of the company by the introduction of -new blood. A list of ‘Comedyanes and Playores’, included in the -establishment book drawn up when Henry formed his own Household as -Prince of Wales in 1610, contains six names in addition to the eight of -the patent.[545] They are ‘Edward Colbrande, Wm. Parre, Rychard Pryore, -William Stratford, Frauncys Grace, and John Shanke’. Of these William -Parr, who is in the plot of _1 Tamar Cham_ in 1602, is alone traceable -in the earlier records of the company. Shank had been of Pembroke’s and -Queen Elizabeth’s men. - -Henslowe entered two more advances in his diary, one for ‘facynge -of a blacke grogren clocke with taffytye’, the other to Dekker and -Middleton in earnest of _The Patient Man and the Honest Whore_. This -was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 9 November 1604, and printed -as _The Honest Whore_ during the year. The name of Towne is in a -stage-direction. On 14 March ‘1604’, which may have been either 1604 -or 1605, Henslowe had a final reckoning with the company and noted -‘Caste vp all the acowntes frome the begininge of the world vntell this -daye beinge the 14 daye of Marche 1604 by Thomas Dowghton & Edward -Jube for the company of the prynces men & I Phillipe Henslow so ther -reasteth dew vnto me P Henslow the some of xxiiij^{li} all reconynges -consernynge the company in stocke generall descarged & my sealfe -descarged to them of al deates’.[546] With this, so far as the extant -book goes, the record of his transactions with the company practically -ceases. The only exception is a note of receipts at the Fortune during -the three days next after Christmas in 1608, which amounted to 25_s._, -45_s._, and 44_s._ 9_d._ respectively.[547] Something of the career -of the Prince’s men may be gleaned from other sources. They played at -Court before James on 21 January and 20 February 1604, and before Henry -on 4, 15, and 22 January; and during the following Christmas before -Anne on 23 November 1604 and before Henry on 24 November, 14 and 19 -December, and on 15 and 22 January and 5 and 19 February 1605. On 8 -February 1605 their play of _Richard Whittington_, of which nothing -further is known, was entered on the Stationers’ Register.[548] In the -same year Samuel Rowley’s _When You See Me, You Know Me_, was printed -as played by them. During the Christmas of 1605–6 they gave three -plays before James and three before Henry.[549] In 1604–5 they were at -Maidstone and Winchester, in 1605–6 at Bath, on 17 July 1606 at Oxford, -and on 17 October at Ipswich. During the Christmas of 1606–7 they -gave six plays before James. Dekker’s _Whore of Babylon_ was entered -on the Stationers’ Register on 20 April 1607 and printed as theirs in -the same year. In 1606–7 they were at Bath. During the Christmas of -1607–8 they gave four plays before James and Henry. In 1607–8 they -were at Maidstone and Saffron Walden, and on 1 October 1608 they were -at Leicester; but a visit of the same year from ‘the Princes players -of the White Chapple, London’ is rather to be assigned to the Duke of -York’s men (q.v.). They gave three plays before James and Henry during -the Christmas of 1608–9, four before James during that of 1609–10, -and four before James during that of 1610–11. Middleton and Dekker’s -_The Roaring Girl_ was printed in 1611 as lately played by them at the -Fortune, and Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (_c._ 1610–11) names ‘Long -Meg and the Ship’ as in their repertory. Presumably their _Long Meg of -Westminster_ of 1595 still held the boards.[550] In 1608–9 they were at -Shrewsbury and Saffron Walden, in 1609–10 at Shrewsbury and Hereford, -in 1610–11 at Shrewsbury and Winchester. - -They played at Court before James on 28 and 29 December 1611, giving -on the second night _The Almanac_, and before Henry in February and -Elizabeth in April 1612. On 1 October 1612 the lewd jigs, songs, and -dances at the Fortune are recited in an order of the Middlesex justices -as tending to promote breaches of the peace. One of these may have -been the occasion on which an obscure actor, Garlick by name, made -himself offensive to the more refined part of his audience.[551] On the -following 7 November Henry died and on 7 December his players figured -in his funeral procession.[552] - -They found a new patron in the Elector Palatine, then in England, -and on entering his service got a new patent, which bears date 11 -January 1613 and closely follows in its terms that of 1606.[553] The -house specified for them was again the Fortune, which they had no -doubt continuously occupied since its opening in 1600. The players -named were ‘Thomas Downton, William Bird, Edward Juby, Samuell Rowle, -Charles Massey, Humfrey Jeffs, Frank Grace, William Cartwright, Edward -Colbrand, William Parr, William Stratford, Richard Gunnell, John -Shanck, and Richard Price’. Possibly Price may be the Pryor of the 1610 -list. Cartwright and Gunnell are new since that list, but Cartwright -had been in _The Battle of Alcazar_ and _1 Tamar Cham_ plots of 1601 -and 1602. These two must be supposed to have taken the places of Thomas -Towne and Antony Jeffes. Thomas Towne had enjoyed an annuity of £12 out -of Alleyn’s manor of Dulwich from 28 October 1608 to 15 January 1612, -but on 5 November 1612 ‘widow Towne’ is mentioned,[554] and further -evidence of his death is supplied by a letter from Charles Massey to -Alleyn, not dated, but from internal evidence written not very long -after the prince’s death, to which reference is made. Massey is in debt -and wants £50. He offers two things as security. One is ‘that lyttell -moete I have in the play hovsses’; from which it may be inferred that, -like Downton, he had obtained an interest in the Fortune, although what -the second house may have been can hardly be conjectured. The other -is his interest under ‘the composisions betwene ovre compenye that if -any one give over with consent of his fellowes, he is to receve three -score and ten poundes (Antony Jefes hath had so much) if any on dye his -widow or frendes whome he appoyntes it tow reseve fyfte poundes (M^res -Pavie and M^res Tovne hath had the lyke)’. In order to be in a position -to repay the loan at the end of the year he undertakes to get Mr. Jube -to reserve ‘my gallery mony and my quarter of the hovse mony’ for the -purpose, and should it prove at the end of six months that this will be -insufficient, he will be prepared to surrender his whole share, with -the exception of 13_s._ 4_d._ a week for household expenses.[555] From -this letter it may also be gathered that Antony Jeffes had retired, and -apparently that Pavy, whose name is found in the plot of _2 Fortune’s -Tennis_, which I assign to 1602–3, had at some time become a sharer -in the company. One other player, originally in 1597 a hired man, had -evidently reached some prominence between that date and 1614. William -Fennor, in the course of a rhyming controversy with John Taylor, makes -the following boast of his histrionic talent: - - And let me tell thee this to calme thy rage, - I chaleng’d Kendall on the Fortune stage; - And he did promise ‘fore an audience, - For to oppose me. Note the accidence: - I set up bills, the people throngd apace, - With full intention to disgrace, or grace; - The house was full, the trumpets twice had sounded, - And though he came not, I was not confounded, - But stept upon the stage, and told them this, - My aduerse would not come: not one did hisse, - But flung me theames: I then _extempore_ - Did blot his name from out their memorie, - And pleasd them all, in spight of one to braue me, - Witnesse the ringing plaudits that they gaue me.[556] - -As the Elector Palatine’s men the company played at Court during the -winter of 1613–14, twice before James and once before Charles. They -were amongst the companies which performed irregularly in the Lent -of 1615, and Humphrey Jeffes and Thomas Downton were summoned before -the Privy Council to account for their misdoing. One of the irregular -licences condemned by the Lord Chamberlain on 16 July 1616 was an -exemplification of the patent of 1613, taken out by Charles Marshall, -Humphrey Jeffes, and William Parr for provincial purposes. - - - xx. THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN’S (LORD HUNSDON’S) AND KING’S MEN - - Henry Carey, s. of William Carey and Mary, sister of Anne - Boleyn; _nat. c._ 1524; cr. 1st Lord Hunsdon, 13 Jan. 1559; - m. Anne, d. of Sir Thomas Morgan; Warden of East Marches and - Governor of Berwick, Aug. 1568; Lord Chamberlain, 4 July 1585; - lived at Hunsdon House, Herts., and Somerset House, London; - _ob._ 22 July 1596. - - George Carey, s. of Henry, 1st Lord Hunsdon; _nat._ 1547; - Kt. 18 May 1570; m. Elizabeth, d. of Sir John Spencer of - Althorp; Captain-General of Isle of Wight, 1582; succ. as 2nd - Baron, 22 July 1596; Lord Chamberlain, 17 Mar. 1597; lived at - Carisbrooke Castle, Hunsdon House, Drayton, and Blackfriars; - _ob._ 9 Sept. 1603. - -A company of Lord Hunsdon’s men was at Leicester in the last three -months of 1564, at Norwich and Maldon in 1564–5, at Plymouth before -Michaelmas in 1565, at Canterbury in the autumn of 1565, at Gloucester -and Maldon in 1565–6, at Bristol in July 1566, and at Canterbury in the -spring of 1567. Another makes its appearance at Ludlow on 13 July 1581, -and at Doncaster in 1582. In the winter Lord Hunsdon was apparently -deputy for the Earl of Sussex as Lord Chamberlain, and took occasion -to bring his men to Court, where they acted _Beauty and Housewifery_ -on 27 December 1582. They did not again appear at Court, but when -plays were temporarily suppressed on 14 June 1584 the owner of the -Theatre, presumably James Burbadge, made a claim to be Lord Hunsdon’s -man. Meanwhile ‘my L. Hunsdouns and my Lords Morleis players being -bothe of one companye’ are recorded at Bristol in March 1583, and Lord -Hunsdon’s alone at Norwich in 1582–3, Bath in June 1583, and Exeter -in July 1583. Hunsdon became Lord Chamberlain on 4 July 1585. Between -October and December of that year, a visit was paid to Leicester by -‘the Lord Chamberlens and the Lord Admiralls players’, and on 6 January -1586 ‘the servants of the lo: Admirall and the lo: Chamberlaine’ gave -a play at Court. These entries suggest an amalgamation of Hunsdon’s -men with those of Lord Admiral Howard, both of whom had perhaps been -weakened by the formation of the Queen’s men in 1583. But if so, it -was only a partial or temporary one, for while the Admiral’s men -established themselves in London, the Chamberlain’s are traceable in -the provinces, at Coventry in 1585–6, at Saffron Walden in 1587–8, and -at Maidstone in 1589–90. - -An interval of four or five years renders improbable any continuity -between this company and the famous Lord Chamberlain’s company, which -first emerged on the resorting of the plague-stricken mimes in 1594, -passed under royal patronage in 1603, and prolonged an existence -illumined by the genius of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and -Fletcher, Massinger and Shirley, until the closing of the theatres in -1642. The first notice of the new organization is in June 1594, when -‘my Lord Admeralle men and my Lorde Chamberlen men’ played from the -3rd to the 13th of the month, either in combination or separately on -allotted days, for Henslowe at Newington Butts.[557] Some of the plays -given during this period can be traced to the subsequent repertory -of the Admiral’s men; others, which cannot, may be assigned to the -Chamberlain’s. They are _Hester and Ahasuerus_, _Titus Andronicus_, -_Hamlet_, and _Taming of A Shrew_, which, although so described, may -of course have been really the _Taming of The Shrew_, Shakespeare’s -adaptation of the older play entered in the Stationers’ Register on the -previous 2 May. It is ingeniously, and I think rightly, inferred from -a line drawn in Henslowe’s account after 13 June, that from that date -all the performances recorded are by the Admiral’s men, probably at the -Rose, and that his relations with the Chamberlain’s men had ceased. -The company is found at Marlborough about September, and on 8 October -Lord Hunsdon wrote to the Lord Mayor, asking permission for ‘my nowe -companie’ to continue an occupation of the Cross Keys,[558] on which it -seems to have already entered. Henceforward the company was regularly -established in London, took the lead annually at Court, and except for -brief periods of inhibition in 1596, 1597, and possibly 1601, does not -appear to have travelled during the remainder of Elizabeth’s reign. -Whether Hunsdon’s men got the Cross Keys for the winter or not, they -probably had from the beginning the use of the Theatre for the summer -seasons, for Richard Burbage, the son of the owner, was one of their -leading members, and on 15 March 1595 appears as joint payee with -William Kempe and William Shakespeare for two plays given at Court -on 26 and 28 December 1594. These plays cannot be identified, but -Shakespeare’s _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ and _Romeo and Juliet_ may well -have been produced this winter.[559] Most likely the date 28 December -was entered in the payment warrant by mistake for 27 December, for the -Admiral’s men are also recorded as playing at Court on 28 December, and -on the same night ‘a company of base and common fellows’, with whom -one is bound to identify the Chamberlain’s men, played ‘a Comedy of -Errors’ as part of the Christmas revels of the Prince of Purpoole at -Gray’s Inn.[560] There seems to be some echo of _Romeo and Juliet_ in -the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude of _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, which -may very well have been given at Greenwich or Burghley House for the -wedding of William Stanley, Earl of Derby, and Elizabeth Vere, daughter -of the Earl of Oxford, on 26 January 1595. Another possible occasion -for the production, however, is the wedding of Elizabeth, daughter -of Sir George Carey and grand-daughter of Lord Hunsdon, to Thomas, -son of Henry Lord Berkeley on 19 February 1596. This took place at -Blackfriars, presumably in Sir George Carey’s house there.[561] - -To 1595 or thereabouts I also assign Shakespeare’s _Two Gentlemen of -Verona_ and _King John_ and _Richard II_.[562] The company played at -Court on 26, 27, and 28 December 1595 and 6 January and 22 February -1596. In the warrant for their fees, dated on 21 December 1596, and -made payable to John Heminges and George Bryan, they are described as -‘servauntes to the late Lord Chamberlayne and now servauntes to the -Lorde Hunsdon’. It is clear that, when the first Lord Hunsdon died on -22 July 1596, the players had been retained by his son and heir, Sir -George Carey. The Lord Chamberlainship passed to Lord Cobham; but he -died on 5 March 1597, and on 17 March the post was given to the second -Lord Hunsdon. The company, then, was properly known as Lord Hunsdon’s -men from 22 July 1596 to 17 March 1597; before and after that period it -was the Lord Chamberlain’s men. - -To 1596 I assign Shakespeare’s _Merchant of Venice_. Evidence of the -occupation of the Theatre about this time by the company is to be -found in Lodge’s allusion to a revival of _Hamlet_ there, for this -play is not likely to have been in other hands.[563] It is not an -unreasonable conjecture that James Burbadge destined to their use the -play-house in the Blackfriars, which he purchased in February, and had -converted for ‘publique’ use by November of this year. If so, he and -they were disappointed, for a petition of the inhabitants, amongst -the signatories to an alleged copy of which Lord Hunsdon himself is -somewhat oddly found, led to an intervention of the Privy Council, -who forbade plays to be given within the liberty.[564] At this time -also the Corporation seem to have succeeded in finally and permanently -expelling the players from the City inns which had long been their -head-quarters, and Nashe connects this persecution with the loss of -‘their old Lord’, by whom he doubtless means Henry Lord Hunsdon. It -is possible that plays were inhibited altogether during the summer -of 1596, although no formal order to that effect is preserved, for -Hunsdon’s went to Faversham, and Nashe himself was disappointed of -‘an after harvest I expected by writing for the stage and for the -presse’.[565] - -In the following winter the company played at Court on 26 and 27 -December 1596 and on 1 and 6 January and 6 and 8 February 1597. -Their payees, for this and for the next two years, were Thomas Pope -and John Heminge. In 1597 began the printing of plays written by -Shakespeare for this company, with a ‘bad’ quarto of _Romeo and -Juliet_, bearing on its title-page the name of Lord Hunsdon’s men and -‘good’ quartos of _Richard II_ and _Richard III_, bearing that of the -Lord Chamberlain’s.[566] From the text of _Richard II_ was omitted -the deposition scene, which did not appear in print until after the -death of Elizabeth. The only Shakespearian productions that can be -plausibly ascribed to this year are those of the two parts of _Henry -IV_. The presentation of Sir John Oldcastle in the original versions -of these seems to have led to a protest, and the character was renamed -Sir John Falstaff. It is not improbable that the offence taken was by -Lord Chamberlain Cobham, whose ancestress, Joan Lady Cobham, Oldcastle -had married.[567] It is impossible to say whether either this scandal -or any possible interpretation of disloyalty put upon _Richard II_ -contributed to the inhibition of plays on 28 July, of which the main -exciting cause was certainly the performance of _The Isle of Dogs_ -at the Swan on the Bankside.[568] For the second time since their -formation in 1594 the company had to travel. They are traceable at -Rye in August, at Dover between 3 and 20 September, at Marlborough, -Faversham, and Bath during 1596–7, and at Bristol about 29 September. -This inhibition was removed early in October. There is some reason to -believe that, when the Chamberlain’s men resumed playing, it was not -at the Theatre, as to the renewal of the lease of which the Burbadges -were disputing with their ground landlord, but at the Curtain. Marston, -in one and the same passage of his _Scourge of Villainy_, entered in -the Stationers’ Register on 8 September 1598, alludes to the acting -of _Romeo and Juliet_ and to ‘Curtaine plaudeties’, while almost -simultaneously Edward Guilpin in his _Skialetheia_, entered on 15 -September, speaks of ‘the unfrequented Theater’. The transfer may, -however, not have taken place until 1598.[569] - -The company played at Court on 26 December 1597 and on 1 and 6 January -and 26 February 1598. It is conceivable that one of these plays may -have been a revised version of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, which was -printed as ‘newly corrected and augmented’ and ‘as it was presented -before her Highnes this last Christmas’ in 1598. On the other hand, -it is also possible that this print may have been intended to replace -an earlier ‘bad’ quarto, not now preserved, and if so, the reference -to the representation may have been carried on from the earlier -title-page. In 1598 were also printed _1 Henry IV_, and the anonymous -_Mucedorus_, which may have already belonged to the Chamberlain’s -repertory, as it was certainly revised for them about 1610. _The -Merchant of Venice_ was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 22 July, -but with a proviso that it must not be printed ‘without lycence first -had from the Right honorable the lord chamberlen’. On 7 September 1598 -was entered in the Stationers’ Register the _Palladis Tamia_ of Francis -Meres, with its list of Shakespeare’s plays up to date, including the -mysterious _Love’s Labours Won_, which I incline to identify with the -_Taming of the Shrew_.[570] The earliest play not mentioned by Meres -is probably _Much Ado about Nothing_, which may belong to 1598 itself. -Another production of this year was Jonson’s _Every Man In his Humour_, -which was still a new play about 20 September, when an Almain in the -audience lost 300 crowns. Possibly John Aubrey has this period in mind -when he says that Jonson ‘acted and wrote, but both ill, at the Green -Curtaine, a kind of nursery or obscure play-house, somewhere in the -suburbes, I thinke towardes Shoreditch or Clarkenwell’.[571] Jonson, -however, was in prison soon after the production of the play for the -manslaughter of Gabriel Spencer on 22 September in Hoxton Fields, and -there is no other evidence that he ever acted with the Chamberlain’s -men. His own name is not in the list of the original ‘principall -Comoedians’ affixed to the text of _Every Man In his Humour_ in the -folio of 1616. This is of great value, as being the earliest extant -list of the company. The ten names given are: - - Will. Shakespeare. - Aug. Philips. - Hen. Condel. - Will. Slye. - Will. Kempe. - Ric. Burbage. - Joh. Flemings. - Tho. Pope. - Chr. Beeston. - Joh. Duke. - -It must not, of course, be assumed, either that the list is in -itself quite complete, or that there had been no changes amongst the -Chamberlain’s men between 1594 and 1598; but as those named include -five out of the six payees for that period, they may perhaps be taken, -with the sixth payee, George Bryan, who does not reappear after -1596, and was by 1603 an ordinary groom of the Chamber of the royal -Household, as fairly representing the original constitution of the -company.[572] And an inference to its origin at once becomes possible, -for of these eleven men five (Kempe, Pope, Heminges, Phillips, and -Bryan) formed, with Edward Alleyn, the company of Lord Strange’s men to -whom Privy Council letters of assistance were granted in 1593, and at -least six (Pope, Phillips, Bryan, Burbadge, Duke, and Sly) are to be -found in the cast of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ as performed by Strange’s or -the Admiral’s or the two together about 1590–1. It will be remembered -that the Strange’s company of 1593, known as the Earl of Derby’s after -25 September 1593, was apparently formed by a combination of the -earlier Strange’s and Admiral’s men somewhere near the time of this -performance, if not earlier, and that its composite character never -wholly disappeared, Alleyn in particular, who was its leading member, -retaining his personal status as an Admiral’s man. It seems clear that -in 1594 the combination broke up, that Alleyn became the nucleus of -a new Admiral’s company at the Rose, and that the group with whom he -had been travelling took fresh service with the Lord Chamberlain. It -is not, I think, quite accurate to treat this transaction as a mere -continuance of Lord Derby’s men under the style of Lord Chamberlain’s, -entailing no reconstruction other than a change of patron following -upon Lord Derby’s death on 16 April 1594. On the one hand a Derby’s -company continued in existence, and is traceable under the sixth -earl from 1594 to 1617. On the other hand, while we do not know what -business reconstruction there may have been, a very fundamental change -is involved in the replacement of Alleyn as principal actor by Richard -Burbadge, who is not at all likely to have played with Strange’s men -after the break between the Admiral’s and his father at the Theatre in -1591. Except for Alleyn, all the more important members of the company, -as it existed in 1593, seem to have been included in the transfer to -Lord Hunsdon. It is, however, little more than conjecture that finds -Henry Condell and Christopher Beeston in the ‘Harry’ and ‘Kitt’, or -Alexander Cooke, Nicholas Tooley, and Robert Gough, who were numbered -amongst the King’s men at a later date, in the ‘Saunder’, ‘Nick’, and -‘R. Go.’ of the _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ plot. Alleyn’s correspondence of -1593 adds Richard Cowley to the list of Lord Strange’s men, and, as we -shall find him acting as a payee for the Chamberlain’s men in 1601, he -may have been one of them from the beginning. In any case he had joined -them by 1598, as the stage-directions of _Much Ado about Nothing_ show -that he played Verges to Kempe’s Dogberry.[573] - -There is, of course, one conspicuous Chamberlain’s man who is not -discoverable either in the Privy Council letter of 1593 or in the _2 -Seven Deadly Sins_ of 1590–1. Even the audacity of Mr. Fleay has not -attempted to identify the ‘Will’ of the plot with Will Shakespeare. -Some relations, if only as author, Shakespeare must have had with -Lord Strange’s men, when they produced _1 Henry VI_ on 3 March 1592, -and Greene’s satire of him as a ‘Shake-scene’ in the same year must -indicate that he was an actor as well as an author.[574] He may have -stood aside altogether during the period of the provincial tours, -and devoted himself to poetry, and perhaps, although this is very -conjectural, to travel abroad. Or he may, as I have already suggested, -have joined Lord Pembroke’s men (q.v.), whom I suspect to have been -an offshoot for provincial purposes of the Strange’s combination, and -have passed from them to Lord Sussex’s, ultimately rejoining his old -fellows in 1594. The possibility of identifying certain minor members -of the Chamberlain’s company is also affected by this somewhat obscure -problem of Pembroke’s men. The most obvious of these is John Sincler or -Sincklo, who was in the cast of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ as played by the -Admiral’s or Strange’s about 1590–1, and must have ultimately joined -the Chamberlain’s, as his name occurs in a stage-direction to Q_{1} of -_2 Henry IV_ (1600), and in the induction to _The Malcontent_ (1604). -It also occurs in stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ and the _Taming of -The Shrew_ in the Folio of 1623.[575] These both happen to be plays -which passed through the hands of Pembroke’s, and the inference may be -that Sincler had also passed through this company. But this is far -from being conclusive. It is the revised and not the unrevised texts -that yield the name, and although I think it likely, on stylistic -grounds, that the revision of _3 Henry VI_ was done for Pembroke’s -(q.v.), it is probable from the reference in _Henry V_, epil. 12, -to the loss of France and the civil wars, ‘which oft our stage hath -shown’, that the play was revived by the Chamberlain’s, and it may have -been in such a revival that Sincler took part. As to the _Shrew_, it -is impossible to say whether Shakespeare’s work upon it was before or -after its transfer to the Chamberlain’s. In any case the Chamberlain’s -were playing it in some form on 13 June 1594, so that here again the -appearance of Sincler’s name cannot ear-mark him as Pembroke’s. We can -now go a step farther. The stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ contain not -only Sincler’s name, but those of a certain ‘Gabriel’ and a certain -‘Humfrey’, not common Elizabethan names even separately, and certainly -suggesting, when found in combination, the Gabriel Spencer and Humphrey -Jeffes, who were fellows of the Admiral’s in 1597. Now Spencer, and -very likely also Jeffes, had come from Pembroke’s, the short-lived -Pembroke’s of 1597 at the Swan. Had they been Pembroke’s men ever since -1593? If so, it would be difficult to resist the conclusion that the -performance which brought their names into the text of _3 Henry VI_, -and with theirs John Sincler’s, was one by Pembroke’s about that date. -The obstacle is that there is no known evidence, in provincial records -or elsewhere, for any continuous existence of Pembroke’s between 1593 -and 1597. Pending the discovery of any such evidence, it seems better -to assume that Sincler, Spencer, and Jeffes were all Chamberlain’s -men before 1597, and that it was from a combination of discontented -elements in that company and in the Admiral’s that the Pembroke’s of -the Swan arose. If so, the rest of the Pembroke’s men not traceable as -coming from the Admiral’s, namely Robert Shaw, William Bird _alias_ -Borne, and probably Anthony Jeffes, may also have come from the -Chamberlain’s; and such an origin might explain the suit with Thomas -Pope in which Bird was entangled in 1598.[576] Two other minor actors -in the company about 1597 were probably Harvey and Rossill, whose names -appear to have got into the text of _1 Henry IV_ in place of those of -Bardolph and Peto, whom they represented.[577] The list of actors in -Shakespeare’s plays given by the editors of the First Folio includes -Samuel Crosse, of whom nothing more is known except that he was of -an early generation. As the list in the Folio appears to be limited -to Chamberlain’s and King’s men, excluding for example Alleyn, who -certainly acted in Shakespearian plays, e.g. _1 Henry VI_, it may be -that Crosse was for a short time a member of the company soon after -1594. - -It is hardly possible to carry the analysis of origins any further with -profit, or to assume that the groups which segregated themselves from -the Strange-Admiral’s combination in 1594 bore any close correspondence -to the respective contributions of Strange’s and the Admiral’s to that -combination in 1589 or 1590. The only name that can be connected with -Strange’s men before 1588 is John Symons and neither he nor George -Attewell, their payee in 1591, became a Chamberlain’s man. Hypotheses -have been framed, mainly in the hope of affiliating Shakespeare to -Lord Leicester’s men, who are supposed to have carried him away from -Stratford-on-Avon when they visited it in 1586–7, and ultimately -to have become Lord Strange’s men.[578] So far as Shakespeare is -concerned, the first record of him on the boards is in 1592, and -the interval since his hegira from Stratford may have been quite -otherwise spent. The proof of continuity between Leicester’s men and -Strange’s altogether fails, since the latter made their appearance a -decade before the former came to an end. The only member of the Lord -Chamberlain’s company of 1594 who can be traced to Leicester’s service -was Kempe, and he had left Leicester’s men by the summer of 1586 and -was in Denmark. With him were Bryan and Pope, who afterwards spent a -year in Germany, and may have joined either Strange’s or the Admiral’s -on their return. The only other Chamberlain’s man, who can be assigned -to an earlier company than Strange’s, is Heminges, who was probably at -some time a Queen’s man. - -The Chamberlain’s men evidently started business in 1594 with something -of a repertory derived by inheritance or purchase from antecedent -companies. Our knowledge of this is mainly confined to plays with which -Shakespeare was concerned as author or reviser. They certainly did not -get all the plays produced by Strange’s men at the Rose during 1592 -and 1593. Some of these were Henslowe’s property; others passed with -Alleyn to the Admiral’s men. But they got _The Jealous Comedy_, if I am -right in identifying this with _The Comedy of Errors_. They probably -got _1 Henry VI_, for although the appearance of a Shakespearian play -in the 1623 Folio is not perhaps, in view of the composition of the -1647 ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’ Folio, absolute proof that the King’s -men possessed the copy, their stage had often shown both the loss -of France and the bleeding of England before _Henry V_ was produced -in 1599.[579] And they got _Titus and Vespasian_, as revised, after -passing through the hands of Pembroke’s men, for production by Sussex’s -under the title of _Titus Andronicus_. Three other of Pembroke’s men’s -plays came to them, _The Taming of A Shrew_ and _2 and 3 Henry VI_, -and probably _Hamlet_ belongs to the same group. It is of course only -a guess of mine that these also went with Shakespeare to Sussex’s men -and came thence with him. _Titus Andronicus_ and _A Shrew_, indeed, -became available in print during 1594, but not _Hamlet_, and not _Henry -VI_, except in the obsolete version called _The Contention of York and -Lancaster_. I think Shakespeare must also have brought _Richard III_ -and possibly an early version of _Henry VIII_, and that one or other -of these had already been played by Sussex’s as _Buckingham_. Of the -_provenance_ of _Hester and Ahasuerus_ nothing can be said. It is not -necessary to suppose that the Chamberlain’s acquired any plays from the -stock of the Queen’s men. It is true that Shakespeare subsequently made -some use of _The Troublesome Reign of King John_, _The Famous Victories -of Henry V_, and _King Leire_, but these were all in print before he -needed them.[580] _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_, published in 1654 as -a play the King’s men at the Blackfriars is believed by some to be an -early play, possibly by Peele, and if so, may belong to the repertory -of 1594. - -I now return to the chronicle of the Chamberlain’s men from 1598 -onwards. The restriction of the London companies by the action of -the Privy Council to two had left them in direct rivalry with the -Admiral’s at the Rose. Disputes broke out. Henslowe made a loan to -William Bird of the Admiral’s on 30 August 1598 to follow a ‘sewt -agenste Thomas Poope’, and another to Thomas Downton on 30 January -1599, ‘to descarge Thomas Dickers [Dekker] from the areaste of my lord -chamberlens men’.[581] The company played at Court on 26 December 1598 -and 1 January and 20 February 1599. During this winter they undertook -the enterprise of finding a new head-quarters on the Bankside. The -disputes between landlord and tenants as to the lease of the Theatre -had reached a crisis, and in December or January the Burbadges removed -the timber of the house across the Thames, to serve as material for -the construction of the Globe. The lease of the new site was signed -on 21 February 1599. Under it one moiety of the interest was retained -by Richard Burbadge and his brother Cuthbert, who was not himself an -actor; the other was assigned to Shakespeare, Pope, Phillips, Heminges, -and Kempe.[582] Shortly afterwards Kempe made over his share to the -other four. Presumably he now quitted the company, having first, as a -stage-direction shows, played Peter in the revised version of _Romeo -and Juliet_ printed in 1599. His place was probably taken by Robert -Armin, formerly of Lord Chandos’s men, who describes himself in two -successive issues of his _Fool upon Fool_ (1600 and 1605), first as -‘clonnico del Curtanio’, and then as ‘clonnico del Mondo’, and who -had therefore probably joined the Chamberlain’s men before their -actual transfer to the Globe. As the Theatre had to be built, this is -not likely to have taken place until the autumn of 1599, and it must -therefore remain doubtful which house was the ‘wooden O’ of _Henry V_, -produced during the absence of Essex in Ireland between 27 March and -28 September 1599. It was, however, certainly at the Globe that Thomas -Platter saw _Julius Caesar_ on 21 September.[583] ‘This fair-filled -Globe’, too, is named in the epilogue to Jonson’s _Every Man Out of his -Humour_, which is ascribed in the Folio of 1606 to 1599, although if -this be correct, an apparent allusion to Kempe’s journey to Norwich in -the spring of 1600 must, on the assumption that it is a real allusion, -be an interpolation. The ‘principall Comoedians’ in this play were -Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Condell, Sly, and Pope. Four of the 1598 -names are missing. Shakespeare evidently stood aside. Kempe had gone. -Beeston and Duke may have gone also, although it is only a conjecture -of Mr. Fleay’s that they and Kempe now seceded to Pembroke’s men at the -Rose, and they are not definitely heard of again until they are found -with Worcester’s men in August 1602.[584] Mr. Fleay thinks that another -Worcester’s man, Robert Pallant, had accompanied them; but, although -Pallant was with Strange’s or the Admiral’s about 1590, there is no -evidence that he was ever a Chamberlain’s man. Conceivably he may have -joined the King’s men about 1619, but that is another matter.[585] -About November 1599 was published _A Warning for Fair Women_, which -belonged to the company. - -The Court plays called for from the Chamberlain’s men during the -following winter were on 26 December 1599 and on 6 January and 3 -February 1600. Heminges was sole payee, and occupied the same position -in every subsequent year, up to and beyond 1616, except in 1600–1, when -Richard Cowley was associated with him, and for a special payment made -to Burbadge in 1604. On 6 March 1600 the company had an opportunity -of rendering direct service to their patron Lord Hunsdon, by playing -_Henry IV_, still oddly called _Sir John Oldcastle_, after a dinner -which he gave to the Flemish ambassador, Ludovic Verreyken, presumably -at his house in the Blackfriars.[586] To 1600 I assign Shakespeare’s -_Merry Wives of Windsor_, not improbably prepared for performance, with -the aid of the boys of Windsor Chapel, at the Garter Feast on 23 April, -and also _As You Like It_. This was a year of some activity among the -publishers and, as in 1598, the company had to take steps to protect -their interests. In May John Roberts was prevented from printing their -moral of _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_, until he could bring proper -authority, and in August a note was made in the Stationers’ Register to -stay the printing of _As You Like It_, _Henry V_, and _Much Ado about -Nothing_.[587] The last two of these, but not the first, were in fact -printed during the year, and so were _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, _The -Merchant of Venice_, _2 Henry IV_, _Every Man Out of his Humour_, and -_An Alarum for London_, all plays belonging to the company. - -The Chamberlain’s men played at Court on 26 December 1600 and on 6 -January and 24 February 1601. Shortly before this last performance, -they had been involved in one of the tragedies of history. This was the -abortive _coup d’état_ of 8 February 1601 in which the Earl of Essex, -smarting under the disgrace which his failure in Ireland had brought -upon him, attempted to secure his position and get rid of Sir Walter -Raleigh and other enemies by taking forcible possession of the person -of Elizabeth and the palace of Whitehall. Some of his followers seem -to have conceived the idea of predisposing the mind of the populace -to their cause by a dramatic representation of the dangers of evil -counsellors and the possible remedy of a deposition, as illustrated -in the case of Elizabeth’s predecessor Richard II, in whom for some -obscure reason the political thought of the time was fond of finding -an analogue to the Queen. Saturday, 7 February, the day before the -outbreak, was chosen for the performance, and the players applied to -were the Chamberlain’s. A deposition by Augustine Phillips, taken -before Chief Justice Popham and Justice Fenner during the subsequent -inquiries, records the transaction.[588] - - ‘The Examination of Augustine Phillips, servant unto the L. - Chamberlain and one of his players, taken the xviij^{th} of - February, 1600, upon his oath. - - ‘He saith that on Friday last was sennight or Thursday Sir - Charles Percy Sir Josceline Percy and the Lord Mounteagle with - some three more spoke to some of the players in the presence - of this Examinate to have the play of the deposing and killing - of King Richard the Second to be played the Saturday next, - promising to get them xl_s._ more than their ordinary to play - it. Where this Examinate and his fellows were determined to - have played some other play, holding that play of King Richard - to be so old and so long out of use that they should have small - or no company at it. But at their request this Examinate and - his fellows were content to play it the Saturday and had their - xl^{_s._} more than their ordinary for it, and so played it - accordingly.’ - -The fact that Phillips speaks of the play as old and long out of -use, which becomes in the narrative of Camden ‘exoleta tragoedia’, -hardly justifies the suggestion that it was something earlier than -Shakespeare’s _Richard II_. This, if produced in 1596, may well -have been off the boards by 1601. - -A good deal of misunderstanding has gathered round the connexion of -the Chamberlain’s men with this affair. Mr. Fleay is responsible for -the theory that they fell into disgrace, had to travel, and were -excluded from the Court festivities of the following Christmas.[589] As -a matter of fact they played four times during that winter. This Mr. -Fleay did not know, as he only had before him Cunningham’s incomplete -extracts from the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber. But he -ought to have noticed that their last performance for 1600–1 was -itself some days later than the examination of Augustine Phillips. -Nor is any evidence that the company travelled in 1601 forthcoming -from the provincial archives. Mr. Fleay’s identification of them with -Laurence Fletcher’s Scottish company of that year merely rests upon -the presence of Fletcher’s name in the patent of 1603, and this will -not bear the strain of the argument.[590] Thus remains, however, the -possibly autobiographical passage in _Hamlet_, ii. 2. 346, which -assigns an ‘inhibition by the means of the late innovation’ as a -cause of the travelling of players to Elsinore. The date of _Hamlet_ -may well be 1601, since the same passage refers to the theatrical -competition set up by the establishment of boy companies at St. Paul’s -in 1599 and at the Chapel Royal in 1600. But it must be borne in mind -that this competition is the only reason given for the travelling in -the 1603 edition of the play. In the 1604 edition the only reason -is the inhibition, while in the text of the 1623 Folio both reasons -stand somewhat inconsistently side by side.[591] No doubt the text -of 1603 is an imperfect piratical reprint. On the other hand that of -1604 almost certainly represents a revised version of the play, and -the ‘inhibition’ cited, if it had an historical existence at all, -may be that of 1603, during which certainly the company travelled. I -suppose that ‘innovation’ might mean the accession of a new sovereign, -although it does not seem a very obvious term. But then it does not -seem a very obvious term for a seditious rising either.[592] On the -whole, there is no reason to suppose that any serious blame was -attached to the Chamberlain’s men for lending themselves to Sir Gilly -Meyrick’s intrigue. It is certainly absurd to suggest, as has been -suggested, that the ‘adorned creature’, whose ingratitude instigated -the comparison between Elizabeth and Richard, was not Essex but -Shakespeare.[593] At the same time the company may, of course, have -been told to leave London for a few weeks. At some time, as the -1603 title-page tells us, they took _Hamlet_ both to Oxford and to -Cambridge, and it is at least tempting to find a reminiscence of the -Cambridge visit in the scene from _2 Return from Parnassus_ cited -below. It is possible that Phillips and his fellows, and even their -relation to the Essex crisis itself, may be glanced at in the satirical -picture of the Roman actors in Jonson’s _Poetaster_, produced by the -Chapel boys in the course of 1601.[594] Certainly the play betrays its -author’s knowledge of a counter-attack which the Chamberlain’s men -were already preparing for him in Dekker’s _Satiromastix_. This play, -in which Dekker may have had some help from Marston, was entered in -the Stationers’ Register on 11 November 1601, and had probably been on -the stage not long before. It is noteworthy that it was produced by -the Paul’s boys, as well as by the Chamberlain’s men. It was actually -published in 1602. Another play which may reasonably be assigned to -1601 is _Twelfth Night_. - -In the following winter the company played at Court on 26 and 27 -December 1601 and on 1 January and 14 February 1602. They also gave -_Twelfth Night_ at the Middle Temple feast on 2 February;[595] and I -have very little doubt that it was they who furnished the play at which -Elizabeth and her maids of honour were present in the Blackfriars after -dining with Lord Hunsdon on 31 December.[596] The alleged production -of _Othello_ before the Queen when Sir Thomas Egerton entertained -her at Harefield from 31 July to 2 August 1602 rests on a forgery by -Collier.[597] It is possible that, as Professor Wallace conjectures, -the play was on the capture of Stuhl-Weissenburg, seen by the Duke of -Stettin on 13 September 1602, may have been a Globe production.[598] -_Sir Thomas Cromwell_, a play of unknown authorship belonging to the -company, was published in the course of 1602, with an ascription on the -title-page to W. S., and to this year I assign Shakespeare’s _All’s -Well that Ends Well_ and _Troilus and Cressida_. If so, the portrait -of Ajax in the latter play cannot very well have been the ‘purge’ -administered by Shakespeare to Jonson, to which reference is made in _2 -Return from Parnassus_. This is a Cambridge Christmas piece, probably -of 1601–2, and in it Burbadge and Kempe are introduced as in search of -scholars to write for them. Perhaps the Cambridge author did not know -that Kempe had ceased to be the ‘fellow’ of Burbadge and Shakespeare in -1599, and was at the time playing with Worcester’s men at the Rose. It -is, however, just possible that after returning from his continental -tour and before throwing in his lot with Worcester’s, he may have -rejoined the Chamberlain’s for a while, and may have accompanied them -to Cambridge, if they did travel in 1601.[599] - -The last performances of the company before Elizabeth took place on 26 -December 1602 and 2 February 1603, and on the following 24 March the -Queen died. Playing immediately ceased in London. Strictly speaking, -the Chamberlain’s men must have again become Lord Hunsdon’s men for -a month or so, for the Household appointments naturally lapsed with -the death of the sovereign, and Hunsdon, being in failing health, was -relieved of his duties on 6 April. On 9 September he died.[600] The -company, however, had already passed under royal patronage. - -A contemporary panegyrist records the graciousness of James in -‘taking to him the late Lord Chamberlaines servants, now the Kings -acters’.[601] The appointment was by letters patent dated 19 May 1603, -of which the text follows.[602] - -[Sidenote: Commissio specialis pro Laurencio Fletcher & Willelmo -Shackespeare et aliis] - - Iames by the grace of god &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, - Sheriffes, Constables, hedborowes, and other our Officers and - louinge Subiectes greetinge. Knowe yee that Wee of our speciall - grace, certeine knowledge, & mere motion haue licenced and - aucthorized and by theise presentes doe licence and aucthorize - theise our Servauntes Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, - Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie - Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly, and the rest - of theire Assosiates freely to vse and exercise the Arte and - faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, histories, Enterludes, - moralls, pastoralls, Stage-plaies, and Suche others like as - theie haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall vse or studie, - aswell for the recreation of our lovinge Subjectes, as for - our Solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good to see - them, duringe our pleasure. And the said Commedies, tragedies, - histories, Enterludes, Morralles, Pastoralls, Stageplayes, and - suche like to shewe and exercise publiquely to theire best - Commoditie, when the infection of the plague shall decrease, - aswell within theire nowe vsual howse called the Globe within - our County of Surrey, as alsoe within anie towne halls or Moute - halls or other conveniente places within the liberties and - freedome of anie other Cittie, vniversitie, towne, or Boroughe - whatsoever within our said Realmes and domynions. Willinge and - Commaundinge you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, - not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without anie your - lettes hindrances or molestacions during our said pleasure, but - alsoe to be aidinge and assistinge to them, yf anie wronge be to - them offered, And to allowe them such former Curtesies as hath - bene given to men of theire place and quallitie, and alsoe what - further favour you shall shewe to theise our Servauntes for our - sake wee shall take kindlie at your handes. In wytnesse whereof - &c. witnesse our selfe at Westminster the nyntenth day of May - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -Of the nine players named, eight are recognizable as the principal -members of the Lord Chamberlain’s company as it stood at the end of -Elizabeth’s reign. Only Thomas Pope is not included. He was near his -end. He made his will on 22 July 1603, and it was proved on 13 February -1604. In it he names none of his fellows, unless Robert Gough, who has -a legacy, was already of the company; his interest in the house of -the Globe passed to legatees and was thus alienated from the company. -Laurence Fletcher, on the other hand, whose name heads the list in -the patent, is not discernible as a Chamberlain’s man. His inclusion -becomes readily intelligible, when it is recalled that he had headed -English actors on tour in Scotland, and had already been marked by the -personal favour of James.[603] Whether he ever joined the company in -the full sense, that is to say, the association of actors as distinct -from the body of royal servants, seems to me very doubtful. His name -is not in the _Sejanus_ list, or in the Folio list of Shakespearian -players, and that he was described as a ‘fellow’ by Phillips in 1605 -hardly takes the matter further. He may have held a relation to the -King’s men analogous to that of Martin Slater to Queen Anne’s men. -After 1605 nothing is heard of him.[604] - -The terms of the patent imply that it was issued during a suspension -of playing through plague. Probably this had followed hard upon the -suspension at Elizabeth’s death. The company travelled, being found at -Bath, Coventry, and Shrewsbury in the course of 1602–3. A misplaced -Ipswich entry of 30 May 1602 may belong to 1603. The visits to Oxford -and Cambridge referred to on the title-page of the 1603 edition of -_Hamlet_ must also have taken place in this year, if they did not -take place in 1601. On 2 December 1603 the company were summoned -from Mortlake to perform before the King at Lord Pembroke’s house of -Wilton.[605] - -During the winter of 1603–4 the company gave eight more plays at -Court, a larger number than Elizabeth had ever called for. They took -place on 26, 27, 28, and 30 December 1603 and on 1 January and 2 and -19 February 1604. On New Year’s Day there were two performances, one -before James, the other before Prince Henry. The plague had not yet -subsided by 8 February, and James gave his men £30 as a ‘free gifte’ -for their ‘mayntenaunce and releife’ till it should ‘please God to -settle the cittie in a more perfecte health’. One of the plays of -this winter was _The Fair Maid of Bristow_. Another, produced before -the end of 1603, was probably Ben Jonson’s _Sejanus_. For alleged -popery and treason in this play Jonson was haled before the Privy -Council by the Earl of Northampton, but there is nothing to show that -the players were implicated. The principal actors in _Sejanus_ were -Burbadge, Shakespeare, Phillips, Heminges, Sly, Condell, John Lowin, -and Alexander Cooke. This is Shakespeare’s last appearance in the -cast of any play. He may have ceased to act, while remaining a member -of the company and its poet. The names of Lowin and Cooke are new. -Lowin had been with Worcester’s men in 1602–3. Cooke had probably -begun his connexion with the company as an apprentice to Heminges. The -identification of him with the ‘Sander’ of Strange’s men in 1590 is -more than hazardous. The Induction to Marston’s _Malcontent_, published -in 1604, records the names of Burbadge, who played Malevole, Condell, -Sly, Lowin, Sincler, and a Tire-man. Sincler was probably still only -a hired man. Nothing further is heard of him. This Induction seems to -have been written by John Webster to introduce the presentation by the -King’s men of _The Malcontent_, which was really a Chapel play. The -transaction is thus explained:[606] - - _Sly._ I wonder you would play it, another company having - interest in it? - - _Condell._ Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo - in decimo-sexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; - we call it _One for Another_. - -The play of _Jeronimo_, which the Chapel are here accused of taking, -cannot be _The Spanish Tragedy_, which was an Admiral’s play, and is -not very likely to have been the ‘comedy of Jeronimo’ which Strange’s -men had in 1592, and which was evidently related to _The Spanish -Tragedy_ and may be expected to have remained with it. It might be the -extant _First Part of Jeronimo_, written perhaps for the Chamberlain’s -men about 1601–2, when Jonson was revising _The Spanish Tragedy_ for -the Admiral’s. A reference in T. M.’s _Black Book_ shows that _The -Merry Devil of Edmonton_, which belonged to the company, was already on -the stage by 1604.[607] - -The coronation procession of James, deferred on account of the plague, -went through London on 15 March 1604, and the Great Wardrobe furnished -each of the King’s players with four and a half yards of red cloth. The -same nine men are specified in the warrant as in the patent of 1603, -and their names stand next those of various officers of the Chamber. -They did not, however, actually walk in the procession.[608] From 9 to -27 August 1604, they were called upon in their official capacity as -Grooms of the Chamber to form part of the retinue assigned to attend -at Somerset House upon Juan Fernandez de Velasco, Duke of Frias and -Constable of Castile, who was in England as Ambassador Extraordinary -for the negotiation of a peace with Spain. The descriptions of his -visit, which have been preserved, do not show that any plays were given -before him.[609] - -The company were at Oxford between 7 May and 16 June 1604. About 18 -December they had got into trouble through the production of a tragedy -on _Gowry_, always a delicate subject with James.[610] But this did -not interfere with a long series of no less than eleven performances -which they gave at Court between 1 November 1604 and 12 February 1605, -and of which the Revels Accounts fortunately preserve the names.[611] -The series included one play, _The Spanish Maze_, of which nothing is -known; two by Ben Jonson, _Every Man In his Humour_ and _Every Man Out -of his Humour_; and seven by Shakespeare, _Othello_, _The Merry Wives -of Windsor_, _Measure for Measure_, _The Comedy of Errors_, _Henry V_, -_Love’s Labour’s Lost_, and _The Merchant of Venice_, which was given -twice. _Othello_ and _Measure for Measure_ had probably been produced -for the first time during 1604, but the rest of the list suggests -that opportunity was being taken to revive a number of Elizabethan -plays unknown to the new sovereigns. This is borne out by the terms of -a letter from Sir Walter Cope to Lord Southampton with regard to the -performance of _Love’s Labour ’s Lost_.[612] - -Between 4 May 1605, when he made his will, and 13 May, when it was -proved, died Augustine Phillips. Unlike Pope, he was full of kindly -remembrances towards the King’s men. He appointed Heminges, Burbadge, -and Sly overseers of the will. He left legacies to his ‘fellows’ -Shakespeare, Condell, Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Cooke, and Nicholas -Tooley; to the hired men of the company; to his ‘servant’ Christopher -Beeston; to his apprentice James Sands, and to his late apprentice -Samuel Gilburne. We have here practically a full list of the company. -The name of Nicholas Tooley is new, unless indeed he was the ‘Nick’ of -Strange’s men in 1592. He speaks of Richard Burbadge in his will as his -‘master’ and may have been his apprentice. The use of the term ‘fellow’ -suggests that Tooley and Cooke were now sharers in the company. On -the other hand Lowin, who is not named among the ‘fellows’, may still -have been only a hired man. Beeston’s legacy is doubtless in memory -of former service as hired man or apprentice; he was in 1605 and for -long after with the Queen’s men. Samuel Gilburne is recorded as a -Shakespearian actor in the 1623 Folio, but practically nothing is known -of him or of James Sands. The exact legal disposal of the interest held -by Phillips in the Globe subsequently became matter of controversy, but -in effect it remained from 1605 to 1613 with his widow and her second -husband, and was thus alienated from the company. - -On some date before Michaelmas in 1605 the King’s men visited -Barnstaple, and on 9 October they were at Oxford. This year saw the -publication of _The Fair Maid of Bristow_ and of _The London Prodigal_, -which was assigned on its title-page to Shakespeare. To it I also -assign Shakespeare’s _Macbeth_ and _King Lear_. - -Ten Court plays were given in the winter of 1605–6, but the dates are -not recorded. Three more were given in the summer of 1606 during the -visit of the King of Denmark to James, which lasted from 7 July to 11 -August, and then the company seem to have gone on tour. They were at -Oxford between 28 and 31 July, at Leicester in August, at Dover between -6 and 24 September, at Saffron Walden and Maidstone during 1605–6, and -at Marlborough in 1606. To this year I assign Shakespeare’s _Antony -and Cleopatra_ and _Coriolanus_, and to the earlier part of it Ben -Jonson’s _Volpone_, in which the principal actors were Burbadge, -Condell, Sly, Heminges, Lowin, and Cooke. - -Nine Court plays were given during the winter of 1606–7, on 26 and 29 -December 1606, and on 4, 6, and 8 January and 2, 5, 15, and 27 February -1607. The entry in the Stationers’ Register for _King Lear_ and the -title-page of Barnes’ _The Devil’s Charter_, both dated in 1607, show -these to have been the plays selected for 26 December and 2 February -respectively. In the same year were also published Tourneur’s _The -Revenger’s Tragedy_ and Wilkins’ _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, -and to it I assign the production of _Timon of Athens_. On 16 July 1607 -Heminges lent his boy John Rice to appear as an angel of gladness with -a taper of frankincense, and deliver an eighteen-verse speech by Ben -Jonson as part of the entertainment of James by the Merchant Taylors at -their hall.[613] During the summer the company travelled to Barnstaple, -to Dunwich, to Oxford, where they were on 7 September, and possibly -to Cambridge. _Volpone_ had probably been given in both Universities -before its publication about February 1607 or 1608. - -During the winter of 1607–8 the company gave thirteen Court plays, on -26, 27, and 28 December 1606, and on 2, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 26 January, -and 2 and 7 February 1607. On each of the nights of 6 and 17 January -there were two plays. In 1608 was published _A Yorkshire Tragedy_, -with Shakespeare’s name on the title-page, and to it I assign the -production of _Pericles_, in which Shakespeare probably had Wilkins for -a collaborator. About May the company had to find their share of the -heavy fine necessary to buy off the inhibition due to the performance -of Chapman’s _Duke of Byron_ by the Queen’s Revels.[614] The year was -in many ways an eventful one for the King’s men. They had, I suspect, -to face a growing detachment of Shakespeare from London and the -theatre; and the loss was perhaps partly supplied by the establishment -of relations with Beaumont and Fletcher, whose earliest play for the -company, _Philaster_, may be of any date from 1608 to 1610. About 16 -August died William Sly, leaving his interest in the Globe to his -son Robert and legacies to Cuthbert Burbadge and James Sands. Both -he and Henry Condell had been admitted to an interest at some date -subsequent to November 1606, the moiety of the lease not retained by -the Burbadges having been redistributed into sixths to allow of this. -The deserts of Pope, Phillips, and Sly are all commemorated in the -_Apology_ of Thomas Heywood, which, though not published until 1612, -was probably written in 1608.[615] Sly’s death complicated an important -transaction in which the King’s men were engaged. This was the -acquisition of the Blackfriars, of which the freehold already belonged -to the Burbadges, but which had been leased since 1600 to Henry Evans -and occupied by the Children of the Revels. About July 1608 Evans was -prepared to surrender his lease, and the Burbadges decided to take the -opportunity of providing the King’s men with a second house on the -north side of the Thames, suitable for a winter head-quarters. As in -the case of the Globe, they shared their interest as housekeepers with -some of the leading members of the company. New leases were executed -on 9 August 1608, by which the house was divided between a syndicate -of seven, of whom five were Richard Burbadge, Shakespeare, Heminges, -Condell, and Sly, while the other two, Cuthbert Burbadge and Thomas -Evans, were not King’s men. When Sly’s death intervened, his executrix -surrendered his interest and the number of the syndicate was reduced -to six. Probably, however, the King’s men did not enter upon the -actual occupation of the Blackfriars until the autumn of the following -year.[616] In fact the plague kept the London theatres closed from July -1608 to December 1609. The King’s men were at Coventry on 29 October -1608 and at Marlborough in the course of 1607–8. The plague did not -prevent them from appearing at Court during the winter of 1608–9, and -they gave twelve plays on unspecified dates. But their difficulties are -testified to by a special reward ‘for their private practise in the -time of infeccion’, which had rendered their Christmas service possible. - -The plague led to an early provincial tour. The company were at Ipswich -on 9 May, at Hythe on 16 May, and at New Romney on 17 May 1609. Their -winter season was again interfered with, and a further grant was made -in respect of six weeks of private practice. Amongst the plays so -practised may, I think, have been _Cymbeline_. They gave thirteen plays -at Court on unspecified dates during the holidays of 1609–10.[617] -One of these may have been _Mucedorus_, the edition of which with -the imprint 1610 represents a revised version performed at Court on -the previous Shrove Sunday. This might be either 18 February 1610 or -3 February 1611. The epilogue contains an apology for some recent -indiscretion of the company in a play of which no more is known, but -which might conceivably be Daborne’s _A Christian Turned Turk_, since -this certainly brought its players into some disgrace. By April the -company were at the Globe, playing _Macbeth_ on 20 April, _Cymbeline_ -probably shortly before, and _Othello_ on 30 April.[618] To this year -I assign _The Winter’s Tale_ and Beaumont and Fletcher’s _The Maid’s -Tragedy_. It also saw the production of Jonson’s _Alchemist_, with -a cast including Burbadge, Lowin, Condell, Cooke, Armin, Heminges, -William Ostler, John Underwood, Tooley, and William Ecclestone. This is -the last mention of Armin in connexion with the King’s men, but it is -sufficient to show that the production of his _Two Maids of Moreclack_ -by the King’s Revels about 1608 did not involve any breach with his -old company. Of Ecclestone’s origin nothing is known.[619] Ostler and -Underwood came from the Queen’s Revels, probably when the Blackfriars -was taken over in 1609. In fact an account of the transaction given by -the Burbadges in 1635 suggests that the desire to acquire these boys -was its fundamental motive. They say: - - ‘In processe of time, the boyes growing up to bee men, which - were Underwood, Field, Ostler, and were taken to strengthen the - King’s service; and the more to strengthen the service, the - boyes dayly wearing out, it was considered that house would bee - as fitt for ourselves, and soe purchased the lease remaining - from Evans with our money, and placed men players, which were - Heminges, Condall, Shakspeare, &c.’ - -This narrative seems, however, to have antedated matters as regards -Field. Or, if he did come to the King’s men in 1609, he almost -immediately returned to the Queen’s Revels at Whitefriars, joining the -King’s again about 1616.[620] - -About 8 May 1610 some superfluous apparel of the company was sold -by Heminges on their behalf to the Duke of York’s men (q.v.). On -31 May Burbadge and Rice were employed by the City to make speeches -on fish-back at the civic pageant of welcome to Prince Henry.[621] -The autumn travelling took the company to Dover between 6 July and 4 -August 1610, to Oxford in August, and to Shrewsbury and Stafford in -1609–10. During the following winter they gave fifteen Court plays on -unspecified days. They were playing a piece on the story of Richard II, -not now extant, at the Globe on 30 April 1611, and _A Winter’s Tale_ on -15 May.[622] During 1611 Jonson’s _Catiline_ was produced, with a cast -similar to that of _The Alchemist_, except that Armin was replaced by -Richard Robinson, whose earlier history is unknown. Robinson, playing -a female part, and Robert Gough also appear in the stage directions of -_The Second Maiden’s Tragedy_, licensed for the stage by Sir George -Buck on 31 October 1611. Gough was probably one of Strange’s men in -1592. He appears in the wills of Pope in 1603 and of Phillips, who was -his brother-in-law, in 1605, but with no indication that he belonged -to the King’s men. Beaumont and Fletcher’s _A King and No King_ was -also licensed by Buck in 1611, and to this year I assign Shakespeare’s -_Tempest_. On 25 August 1611 the interest in the Blackfriars originally -intended for Sly was assigned to Ostler. Ecclestone, on the other hand, -later in the year than the production of _Catiline_, but before 29 -August, left the company for the Lady Elizabeth’s men. - -The only provincial visit by the King’s men recorded in 1610–11 was -to Shrewsbury. They gave twenty-two plays at Court during a rather -prolonged winter season extending from 31 October 1611 to 26 April -1612. Two of these, on 12 and 13 January, were joint performances with -the Queen’s men, and the plays used, Heywood’s _Silver Age_ and _Rape -of Lucrece_, were from the repertory of the latter.[623] The King’s men -also gave _The Tempest_ and _A Winter’s Tale_, _A King and No King_, -Tourneur’s _The Nobleman_, and _The Twins’ Tragedy_. On 20 February -1612 the actors’ moiety of the Globe was again redistributed, into -sevenths, so as to allow of the admission as a housekeeper of Ostler, -who had married a daughter of Heminges. From the statement of the -interests held by the parties to this transaction, it is to be inferred -that Heminges and Condell had between them bought out since 1608 the -representatives of Sly. On 21 April 1612 the company was at New Romney -and at some date during 1611–12 at Winchester. Heminges received a -payment for services to the Lord Mayor’s pageant of this year, which -was Dekker’s _Troja Nova Triumphans_.[624] - -The actor-list attached to _The Captain_ in the Beaumont and Fletcher -Folio of 1679 probably belongs to the original production of the -play between 1609 and 1612. It names Burbadge, Condell, Cooke, and -Ostler. It was one of the plays selected for the Court season of -1612–13, during which, on 14 February, took place the wedding of the -Elector Palatine Frederick and the Princess Elizabeth, and which was -therefore singularly rich in plays, notwithstanding the interruption -of the festivities due to the death of Prince Henry on 7 November -1612. Heminges lent a boy for Chapman’s mask on 15 February. The -twenty plays given this winter by the King’s men, the exact dates of -which are not upon record, were Shakespeare’s _Much Ado about Nothing_ -(performed twice), _The Tempest_, _A Winter’s Tale_, _Julius Caesar_, -_Othello_, and _1 and 2 Henry IV_, Jonson’s _Alchemist_, Beaumont and -Fletcher’s _Philaster_ (also performed twice), _The Maid’s Tragedy_, -_A King and No King_, _The Captain_ and the lost play of _Cardenio_, -Tourneur’s _Nobleman_, and four plays of unknown authorship, _The Merry -Devil of Edmonton_, _The Knot of Fools_, _The Twins’ Tragedy_, and -_A Bad Beginning Makes a Good Ending_. On 8 June there was a special -performance of _Cardenio_ for the Savoyan ambassador. Some unknown -cause seems to have brought Shakespeare back in 1613 to the assistance -of his fellows, and he collaborated with Fletcher in _The Two Noble -Kinsmen_ and in _Henry VIII_ or _All is True_, possibly a revision of -the _Buckingham_ which formed part of the repertory of Sussex’s men in -1594. During a performance of _Henry VIII_, on 29 June 1613, the Globe -was burnt to the ground. Some contemporary verses mention Burbadge, -Heminges, and Condell as present on this occasion. A levy was called -for from the housekeepers to meet the cost of rebuilding, and owing to -the inability of the representatives of Augustine Phillips to meet the -call upon them, Heminges was enabled to recover one of the alienated -interests, which he divided with Condell. - -The company was at Oxford before November in 1613, and also visited -Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Folkestone during 1612–13. They played -sixteen times at Court in the winter of 1613–14, on 1, 4, 5, 15, and -16 November and 27 December 1613, and on 1, 4, and 10 January, 2, 4, -8, 10, and 18 February and 6 and 8 March 1614. The rebuilding of the -Globe was complete by 30 June 1614, and in the course of 1613–14 the -company visited Coventry. Cooke died in February 1614, being then a -sharer. Ostler died on 16 December, and his interests in the Globe -and Blackfriars became matter of dispute between his widow and her -father, John Heminges. The ascertained dates of Ostler’s career render -it possible to assign to 1609–14, the period of his connexion with the -King’s men, three plays in which he took part. These are Webster’s -_Duchess of Malfi_, at the first production of which, if the actor-list -of the 1623 edition is rightly interpreted, the parts of Ferdinand, the -Cardinal, and Antonio were played respectively by Burbadge, Condell, -and Ostler, Fletcher’s _Valentinian_, played by Burbadge, Condell, -Lowin, Ostler, and Underwood, and his _Bonduca_, played by Burbadge, -Condell, Lowin, Ostler, Underwood, Tooley, Ecclestone, and Robinson. -_Bonduca_ must be either earlier than Ecclestone’s departure for the -Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1611, or after he quitted that company and -presumably rejoined the King’s in 1613. - -The King’s men gave eight plays at Court on unspecified days during the -winter of 1614–15. On 29 March 1615 they were in trouble with other -companies for playing in Lent, and Heminges and Burbadge appeared on -their behalf before the Privy Council. In April 1615 they were at -Nottingham. They gave fourteen plays at Court between 1 November 1615 -and 1 April 1616, and again the precise dates are not specified. They -also appeared before Anne at Somerset House on 21 December 1615. - -Shakespeare died on 23 April 1616, and with this event I must close my -detailed chronicle of the fortunes of the company. A new patent was -issued to them on 27 March 1619, probably to secure their right to -perform in the Blackfriars, which was being challenged by the action -of the City.[625] Since 1603 Shakespeare, Phillips, Sly, Cowley, -Armin, and Fletcher have dropped out of the list, and are replaced by -Lowin, Underwood, Tooley, Ecclestone, Gough, and Robinson, together -with Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, and John Shank, who now appear -for the first time as members of the company.[626] Benfield and Field -are last traceable with the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1613 and 1615 -respectively, Shank with the Palsgrave’s men in 1613. The only names -common to both patents are those of Burbadge, Heminges, and Condell. -But in fact Burbadge died on 13 March 1619, while the patent was going -through its stages, and his place was almost immediately taken by -Joseph Taylor, from Prince Charles’s men. About the same time Field -left the company.[627] Heminges, described as ‘stuttering’ in 1613, -cannot be shown to have acted since the _Catiline_ of 1611. He had -probably devoted himself to the business management of the company, in -which he always appears prominent. Condell also seems to have given up -acting about 1619, and during the rest of the history of the company -up to its extinction in 1642, its mainstays were Lowin and Taylor, who -became depositaries of the tradition of the great Shakespearian parts. -John Downes, who was prompter to the Duke of York’s men after the -Restoration, relates how, when Betterton played Hamlet, ‘Sir _William_ -[Davenant] (having seen _Mr. Taylor_ of the _Black-Fryers_ Company Act -it, who being instructed by the Author _Mr. Shakespear_) taught _Mr. -Betterton_ in every Particle of it’; and how Davenant was similarly -able to act as Betterton’s tutor for Henry the Eighth, for he ‘had it -from Old _Mr. Lowen_, that had his Instructions from _Mr. Shakespear_ -himself’.[628] When Heminges and Condell came to print Shakespeare’s -plays in 1623, they prefixed ‘the names of the principall Actors in -all these playes’ as follows: ‘William Shakespeare, Richard Burbadge, -John Hemmings, Augustine Phillips, William Kempt, Thomas Poope, George -Bryan, Henry Condell, William Slye, Richard Cowly, John Lowine, Samuell -Crosse, Alexander Cooke, Samuel Gilburne, Robert Armin, William Ostler, -Nathan Field, John Underwood, Nicholas Tooley, William Ecclestone, -Joseph Taylor, Robert Benfield, Robert Goughe, Richard Robinson, John -Shancke, John Rice.’ The order is a little puzzling. The first ten -entries may be those of the original members of the Chamberlain’s -company in 1594; and if so, their order does not matter. But it is -difficult to believe that the other sixteen can represent either the -order in which the men began to play for the company, or the order in -which they became sharers. Of course, there may have been comings and -goings known to Heminges and Condell, but not now traceable. Thus Field -and even Taylor may have come for a short while and gone again before -1611. But it seems impossible that Tooley, who was ‘fellow’ to Phillips -in 1605, could really have been junior to the recruits from the Queen’s -Revels in 1609. On the whole, one must suppose that, if Heminges and -Condell aimed at an exact chronology, their memory occasionally failed -them. The omission from the Folio of Duke, Beeston, Sincler, and Sands -may indicate that the list is confined to sharers. It is probable that -Fletcher, who is also omitted, was not a sharer and did not act in any -Shakespearian play. - - - xxi. THE EARL OF WORCESTER’S AND QUEEN ANNE’S MEN - - William Somerset, _nat._ 1526; succ. as 3rd Earl of Worcester, - 1548; m. Christian, d. of Edward, 1st Lord North; _ob._ 22 Feb. - 1589. - - Edward Somerset, s. of William; _nat._ 1553; Lord Herbert of - Chepstow; succ. as 4th Earl, 1589; m. Elizabeth, d. of Francis, - 2nd Earl of Huntingdon; Deputy Master of the Horse, Dec. 1597; - Master of the Horse, 21 Apr. 1601; Earl Marshal, 1603; Lord - Privy Seal, 2 Jan. 1616; _ob._ 3 Mar. 1628. - - Henry Somerset, s. of Edward; _nat._ 1577; Lord Herbert of - Chepstow from 1589; m. 16 June 1600, Anne, d. of John, Lord - Russell; succ. as 5th Earl, 1628; cr. 1st Marquis of Worcester, - 1642. - - Anne, d. of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Norway; _nat._ 12 - Dec. 1574; m. James VI, King of Scotland, 20 Aug. 1589; Queen - Consort of England, 24 Mar. 1603; _ob._ 2 Mar. 1619. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The records of Worcester’s men in - 1602–3 are printed and discussed by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe’s - Diary_ (1904–8). The will of Thomas Greene (1612) was printed - by J. Greenstreet in the _Athenaeum_ (29 August 1895), and the - Bill, Answer, and Orders in the Chancery suit of _Worth et al. - v. Baskerville et al._ (1623–6) by the same in the _Athenaeum_ - (11 July and 29 August 1885) and _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1880–6_), - 489. Both are reprinted in Fleay, 192, 271. The Court of - Requests suit of _Smith v. Beeston et al._ (1619–20) is printed - by C. W. Wallace in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix. 315.] - -The first company under the patronage of this house had a long and -wholly provincial career.[629] The earliest record of it is at -Barnstaple in 1555. On 10 October 1563 it was at Leicester. On 13 and -14 January 1565 it was at Sir George Vernon’s, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire, -under the leadership of one Hamond.[630] It is further traceable in -December 1565 at Newcastle, before Michaelmas 1566 at Leicester, -in 1567–8 at Gloucester, in 1568–9 at Ipswich, Stratford-on-Avon, -and Bath, on 11 August 1569 at Nottingham, in 1569–70 and 1570–1 at -Gloucester and Barnstaple, in 1571 at Leicester and Beverley, on 9 -January 1572 at Nottingham, before Michaelmas at Leicester, on 31 -December 1572 at Wollaton, Notts. (Francis Willoughby’s), on 6 January -1573 at Nottingham, in 1572–3 at Bath, in 1573–4 at Abingdon, and in -January 1574 at Wollaton again. As the Earl of Worcester’s eldest -son bore the courtesy title of Lord Herbert, it is probably the same -company which appeared at Leicester, after Michaelmas in 1574, as -‘Lorde Harbards’. But it is named as Worcester’s again in 1574–5 at -Stratford-on-Avon, on 28 April 1575 at Nottingham, and after Michaelmas -in the same year at Leicester, in 1575–6 at Coventry, in 1576–7 at -Stratford-on-Avon and Bath, and on 14 June 1577 at Southampton, where -it consisted of ten men. On 19 January 1578 it was at Nottingham, in -1577–8 at Coventry, in 1580–1 and 1581–2 at Stratford-on-Avon, in -1581–2 at Abingdon, on 15 June 1582 at Ipswich, in the same year at -Doncaster. - -Two incidents in successive years suggest that Worcester’s men were not -always quite so amenable, as vagrants should have been, to municipal -discipline. The first was at Norwich on 7 June 1583. Here there was a -fear of plague, and the company were given 26_s._ 8_d._, on a promise -not to play. In spite of this they played in their host’s house. The -Corporation ordered ‘that their lord shall be certified of their -contempt’, and that they should never again receive reward in Norwich, -and should presently depart the town on pain of imprisonment. It was -afterwards agreed, however, on submission and earnest entreaty, not to -report the misdemeanour to the Earl of Worcester. The second occasion -was in the following March in Leicester, and the entries in the -Corporation archives are so interesting as to deserve reproduction in -full.[631] - -[Sidenote: M^r Mayor - M^r J. Tatam - M^r Morton.] - - Tuesdaie the third daie of Marche, 1583, certen playors whoe - said they were the seruants of the Quenes Maiesties Master - of the Revells, who required lycence to play & for there - aucthorytye showed forth an Indenture of Lycense from one M^r - Edmonde Tylneye esquier M^r of her Maiesties Revells of the one - parte, and George Haysell of Wisbiche in the Ile of Elye in the - Countie of Cambridge, gentleman on the other parte. - - The which indenture is dated the vj^{th} daie of Februarye in - the xxv^{th} yere of her Maiesties raign &c. - - In which Indenture there ys one article that all Justices, - Maiores, Sherifs, Bayllyfs, Constables, and all other her - officers, ministers & subiects whatsoeuer to be aydinge & - assistinge vnto the said Edmund Tilneye, his Deputies & - Assignes, attendinge & havinge due regard vnto suche parsons - as shall disorderly intrude themselves into any the doings and - actions before mencioned, not beinge reformed, qualifyed & bound - to the orders prescribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye. These - shalbee therefore not only to signifye & geve notice vnto all - & euery her said Justices &c. that none of there owne pretensed - aucthoritye intrude themselves & presume to showe forth any - suche playes, enterludes, tragedies, comodies, or shewes in - any places within this Realm, withoute the orderlye allowance - thereof vnder the hand of the sayd Edmund. - - NOTA. No play is to bee played, but suche as is allowed by the - sayd Edmund, & his hand at the latter end of the said booke they - doe play. - - The forsed Haysell is nowe the chefe playor &c. - - - Fridaye the 6 of Marche. - - Certen players came before M^r Mayor at the Hall there beinge - present M^r John Tatam, M^r George Tatam, M^r Morton & M^r - Worship: who sayed they were the Earle of Wosters men: who sayd - the forsyd playors were not lawfully aucthorysed, & that they - had taken from them there commyssion, but it is untrue, for they - forgat there box at the Inne in Leicester, & so these men gat yt - & they sed the syd Haysell was not here hymself and they sent - the same to Grantom to the syd Haysell who dwellith there. - - William Earle of Worcester &c. hath by his wrytinge dated the 14 - of Januarye Anno 25^o Eliz. Reginae licensed his Seruants viz. - Robert Browne, James Tunstall, Edward Allen, William Harryson, - Thomas Cooke, Rychard Johnes, Edward Browne, Rychard Andrewes - to playe & goe abrode, vsinge themselves orderly &c. (in theise - words &c.) These are therefore to require all suche her Highnes - offycers to whom these presents shall come, quietly & frendly - within your severall presincts & corporacions to permytt & - suffer them to passe with your furtherance vsinge & demeanynge - themselves honestly & to geve them (the rather for my sake) - suche intertaynement as other noble mens players haue (In Wytnes - &c.) - - M^r Mayor - M^r Jo. Heyrycke - M^r Noryce - M^r Ja. Clarke - M^r George Tatam - M^r Morton - M^r Rob^t Heyrycke - M^r Ellys - M^r Newcome. - - Memorandum that M^r Mayor did geve the aforesaid playors an - angell towards there dinner & wild them not to playe at this - present: being Fryday the vj^{th} of Marche, for that the tyme - was not conveynyent. - - The foresaid playors mett M^r Mayor in the strete nere M^r - Newcomes housse, after the angell was geven abowte a ij howers, - who then craived lycense ageyne to play at there inn, & he told - them they shold not, then they went away & seyd they wold play, - whether he wold or not, & in dispite of hym, with dyvers other - evyll & contemptyous words: Witness here of M^r Newcome, M^r - Wycam, & William Dethicke. - - More, these men, contrary to M^r Mayors comandment, went with - their drum & trumppytts thorowe the Towne, in contempt of M^r - Mayor, neyther wold come at his comandment, by his offycer, viz. - Worship. - - William Pateson my lord Harbards man } - Thomas Powlton my lord of Worcesters man } these ij - - were they which dyd so much abuse M^r Mayor in the aforesayd - words. - - NOTA. These sayd playors have submytted them selves, & are sorye - for there words past, & craved pardon, desyeringe his worship - not to write to there Master agayne them, & so vpon there - submyssyn, they are lycensed to play this night at there inn, & - also they have promysed that vppon the stage, in the begynyng of - there play, to shoe vnto the hearers that they are licensed to - playe by M^r Mayor & with his good will & that they are sory for - the words past. - -The latter part of this record is intelligible enough; evidently there -was a repetition of the misrule at Norwich. But the earlier part, which -refers to a different matter altogether, is distinctly puzzling. The -‘theys’ in the first sentence of the Corporation minute of 6 March are -complicated, and it has sometimes been supposed that there was really a -company of Master of the Revels’ men, and that it was Worcester’s men -who questioned the licence of these.[632] On the whole, I think that -a different interpretation of the documents is the more natural one. -No doubt Worcester’s men had found it necessary, as a result of the -powers granted to Tilney as Master of the Revels by the patent of 24 -December 1581, to renew the authority under which they travelled. In -addition to a fresh warrant from their lord licensing them to travel -as his household servants, and dated 14 January 1583, they obtained -on the following 6 February a further licence from Tilney, issued -under the clause of his commission which appointed him to ‘order and -reforme, auctorise and put downe’ all players in any part of England, -whether they were ‘belonginge to any noble man’ or otherwise.[633] -This licence, but not the other, they left at their inn in Leicester, -while passing through on some previous occasion; and here it was found -by some unlicensed players, who appropriated it, and either through -misunderstanding or through fraud, imposed it upon the Corporation as -an instrument constituting a Master of the Revels’ company. There are -two difficulties in this theory. One is that George Haysell, to whom -Tilney’s licence was issued, is not one of the actors named in the -Earl of Worcester’s warrant. But there are other cases in which the -constitution of a company in the eyes of its lord was not quite the -same as its constitution from the point of view of business relations, -and I should suppose that Haysell, who was evidently not himself -acting at the time, was the financier of the enterprise, and gave the -bonds which Tilney would probably require for the satisfaction of the -covenants of his indenture of licence. The other difficulty is that -Leicester is not the only place in which the presence of a Master of -the Revels’ company is recorded. Such a company was at Ludlow on 7 -December 1583 and at Bath in 1583–4.[634] But, after all, this need -mean no more than that the bogus company kept up their fraud for two or -three months before they were exposed. If Tilney had really started a -company of his own, it might have been expected to have a longer life. -The establishment in 1583 of the Queen’s men makes it the less probable -that he did so. - -The list of this provincial company, as it stood in January 1583, is -interesting, because at least four of its members, Robert Browne, -Richard Jones, James Tunstall, and above all Edward Alleyn, then only -a lad of sixteen, were destined to take a considerable share in the -stage history of the future. Edward Browne, too, was afterwards one of -the Admiral’s men. Of the rest, William Harrison, Thomas Cooke, Richard -Andrewes, as well as of George Haysell (cf. ch. xv) and of the two -players who were not named in the warrant, Thomas Powlton and William -Pateson, Lord Herbert’s man, nothing or practically nothing further is -known.[635] It is possible that the escapades of the company at Norwich -and Leicester came, after all, to Worcester’s ears and aroused his -displeasure. Visits are recorded to Coventry and Stratford in 1583–4, -to Maidstone in 1584–5, to York in March 1585, and thereafter no more. -It is also possible that the company passed from Worcester’s service -into that of Lord Howard, when the latter became Lord Admiral in 1585. -If so, a conveyance by Richard Jones to Edward Alleyn on 3 January 1589 -of his share in a stock of apparel, play-books, and so forth, held -jointly with Edward and John Alleyn and Robert Browne, must relate, not -to a break up of Worcester’s men shortly before the death of the third -earl, but to some internal change in the organization of the Admiral’s -men.[636] In any case Mr. Fleay’s theory that Worcester’s men, other -than Alleyn, became Pembroke’s in 1589 and only joined the Admiral’s -in 1594 is quite gratuitous, as there is no evidence of the existence -of Pembroke’s men before 1592.[637] Whether there was a Worcester’s -company or not from 1585 to 1589, there was certainly one after the -accession of the fourth earl. It is traceable at Coventry in 1589–90, -at Newcastle in October 1590, at Leicester during the last three months -of the same year, at Coventry and Faversham in 1590–1, at Leicester -on 26 June 1591 and again in the last three months of the year, at -Coventry and Shrewsbury in 1591–2, at Ipswich in 1592–3, twice at -Leicester in 1593, both before and after Michaelmas, twice at Bath in -1593–4, at Leicester before Michaelmas in 1595, at Ludlow on 3 December -1595, at Bath in 1595–6, at Leicester on 1 August 1596, at Bristol in -August 1598, at York in April 1599, and at Coventry on 3 January 1600 -and in 1600–1 and 1601–2.[638] - -By the end of 1601 the Earl of Worcester was holding the Mastership of -the Horse and other important offices at Court, and may have thought it -consonant with his dignity to have London players under his patronage. -On 3 January 1602 his company was at Court. On 31 March the Privy -Council, after attempting for some years to limit the number of London -companies to two, made an order that Oxford’s and Worcester’s men, -‘beinge ioyned by agrement togeather in on companie’, should be allowed -to play at the Boar’s Head and nowhere else.[639] In the course of 1602 -_How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ was published as played -by Worcester’s men. By 17 August the company were in relations, under -the style of ‘my lorde of Worsters players’, with Henslowe, who opened -an account of advances made for their play-books and apparel, on the -same lines as that which he kept during 1597–1603 with the Admiral’s -men.[640] An early entry is of 9_s._ for a supper ‘at the Mermayd when -we weare at owre a grement’. The account was continued until the spring -of 1603, when Henslowe’s famous diary was disused. No theatre is named, -but it is probable that, with or without leave from the Privy Council, -the company moved to the Rose, which had been vacated by the Admiral’s -men on the opening of the Fortune in 1600. Certainly this was so by -May 1603, when an acquittance for an advance entered in the account -refers to a play to be written for ‘the Earle of Worcesters players at -the Rose’.[641] There is no complete list of the company in the diary. -The names of those members incidentally mentioned, as authorizing -payments or otherwise, are John Duke, Thomas Blackwood, William Kempe, -John Thare, John Lowin, Thomas Heywood, Christopher Beeston, Robert -Pallant, and a Cattanes whose first name is not preserved. The payees -for the performance of 1601–2 were Kempe and Heywood. One Underell was -in receipt of wages from the company, together with a tireman, who -made purchases of stuffs for them. It is impossible to say which of -these men had been with Worcester’s and which with Oxford’s before the -amalgamation. Heywood, who was playwright as well as actor, had written -for the Admiral’s from 1596 to 1599, and had bound himself to play in -Henslowe’s house for two years from 25 March 1598. Pallant had been -with Strange’s or the Admiral’s in 1590–1, and Duke, Kempe, and Beeston -with the Chamberlain’s in 1598. Since then Kempe had travelled abroad, -returning in September 1601. It is little more than a guess that some -of these men may have played with Henslowe as Pembroke’s.[642] Several -members of the company borrowed money from Henslowe, in some cases -before their connexion with the Rose began. Duke had a loan as early as -21 September 1600, and Kempe on 10 March 1602.[643] Blackwood and Lowin -borrowed on 12 March 1603 to go into the country with the company.[644] -This was, no doubt, when playing in London was suspended owing to the -illness of Elizabeth. A loan for a similar purpose was made on the same -day to Richard Perkins, and suggests that he too was already one of -Worcester’s men. There is, indeed, an earlier note of 4 September 1602 -connecting him with one Dick Syferweste, whose fellows were then in -the country, while Worcester’s were, of course, at the Rose. But this -itself makes it clear that he was interested in a play of Heywood’s, -which can hardly be other than that then in preparation at the Rose, -and perhaps Syferwest was an unfortunate comrade in Oxford’s or -Worcester’s, who had been left out at the reconstruction.[645] - -During the seven months of the account Worcester’s men bought twelve -new plays. These were: - - _A Medicine for a Curst Wife_ (Dekker). - _Albere Galles_ (Heywood and Smith). - _Marshal Osric_ (Heywood and Smith). - _The Three Brothers_ (Smith).[646] - _1 Lady Jane_, or, _The Overthrow of Rebels_[647] (Chettle, - Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster). - _Christmas Comes but Once a Year_ (Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, and - Webster). - _1 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another). - _The Blind Eats Many a Fly_ (Heywood). - _The Unfortunate General_ (Day, Hathaway, and Smith). - _2 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another). - _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (Heywood). - _The Italian Tragedy_ (Smith). - -As a rule the price was £6 a play; occasionally £1 or £2 more. Dekker -had 10_s._ ‘over & above his price of’ _A Medicine for a Curst Wife_. -This had originally been begun for the Admiral’s and was evidently -transferred to Worcester’s by arrangement. After buying _2 Black Dog -of Newgate_ for £7, the company apparently did not like it, and paid -£2 more for ‘adycyones’. It is possible to verify from the purchase -of properties the performance of nine of the twelve plays. These are -_Albere Galles_ (September), _The Three Brothers_ (October), _Marshal -Osric_ (November), _1 Lady Jane_ (November), _Christmas Comes but -Once a Year_ (December), _1 Black Dog of Newgate_ (January), _The -Unfortunate General_ (January), _2 Black Dog of Newgate_ (February), -and _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (March). The production of this last -may, however, have been interfered with by Elizabeth’s death. Two plays -of the series are extant, _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, printed in -1607 and described in 1617 as a Queen’s play, and _1 Lady Jane_, which -may be reasonably identified with _Sir Thomas Wyatt_, also printed in -1607 as a Queen’s play, and by Dekker and Webster. Dr. Greg regards Mr. -Fleay’s identification of _Albere Galles_ with _Nobody and Somebody_ as -‘reasonable’; but it appears to rest on little, except the fact that -the latter was also printed as a Queen’s play (S. R. 12 March 1606) -and the conjecture that the title of the former might be a corruption -of _Archigallo_. Payments were made in respect of a few contemplated -plays, which apparently remained incomplete at the end of the season. -These were _2 Lady Jane_ (Dekker), an unnamed tragedy by Chettle, an -unnamed play by Middleton, and another unnamed play by Chettle and -Heywood. The company also produced some plays of earlier date. _Sir -John Oldcastle_ was presumably transferred to them from the Admiral’s -men, for Dekker had £2 10_s._ in respect of new additions to it in -August and September. Heywood also had £1 in September for additions -to a play called _Cutting Dick_, as to the origin of which nothing is -known; and properties were bought in October for _Byron_[648] and for -_Absalom_. Possibly the latter is identical with _The Three Brothers_. -Worcester’s men did not perform at Court in 1602–3, but they must have -expected a summons, as on 1 January they bought head-tires of one -Mrs. Calle ‘for the corte’. Amongst their tradesmen were also Goodman -Freshwater, who supplied ‘a canvas sewt and skenes’, apparently for a -stage dog, and John Willett, mercer, on whose arrest John Duke found -himself in the Clink at the end of the season. Their expenditure was -at a fairly high rate, amounting to a total of £234 11_s._ 6_d._ for -the seven months. Unlike the Admiral’s men, they spent more on apparel -and properties than on play-books. Some of their purchases were costly -enough, ‘a grogren clocke, ij veluet gerkens, ij dubletes and ij hed -tyres’ from Edward Alleyn for £20, ‘a manes gowne of branshed velluet -& a dublett’ from Christopher Beeston for £6, and ‘iiij clothe clockes -layd with coper lace’ from Robert Shaw, formerly of the Admiral’s, for -£16. On this last transaction they had to allow Henslowe £1 as interest -on his money. A ‘flage of sylke’, no doubt for the theatre roof, cost -them £1 6_s._ 8_d._[649] In summing his account, Henslowe made various -errors, whereby he robbed himself of £1 1_s._ 3_d._, and presented a -claim to the company for £140 1_s._ It may be inferred that they had -already repaid him £93 12_s._ 3_d._, but of this there is no record -in the diary. He prepared an acknowledgement to be signed by all the -members of the company, but the only signature actually attached is -Blackwode’s. - -On 9 May 1603 Henslowe notes ‘Begininge to playe agayne by the Kynges -licence & layd out sense for my lord of Worsters men as folowethe’; -but the only entry is one of £2 paid in earnest to Chettle and Day for -a play of _Shore’s Wife_. If playing was actually resumed, it was -not long before the plague drove the companies out of London again, -and there is nothing more of Worcester’s men in the diary. Two visits -from them are recorded at Leicester in the course of 1603, and two at -Coventry and one at Barnstaple, whence they departed without playing, -during 1602–3. Early in the new reign the company was taken into the -patronage of Queen Anne.[650] This change was probably effected by -Christmas, and certainly by 19 February 1604, when John Duke obtained -a warrant on account of plays performed before Prince Henry by ‘the -Queenes Majesties players’ on the previous 2 and 13 January. The -Queen’s men are named in the Privy Council letter permitting the -resumption of playing on 9 April 1604, which indicates their house as -the Curtain. A list of players is found amongst other ‘officers to -the Queene’ receiving four and a half yards of red cloth apiece for -the coronation procession of 15 March 1604.[651] The names given are -‘Christopher Beeston, Robert Lee, John Duke, Robert Palante, Richard -Purkins, Thomas Haward, James Houlte, Thomas Swetherton, Thomas Grene, -and Robert Beeston’. Evidently several leading members had left the -company. Kempe was probably dead.[652] Thare and Blackwood were on tour -in Germany; Lowin seems to have joined the King’s men. Of Cattanes and -Underell no more is known. The same ten names are found in a draft -patent for a royal licence to the Queen’s men, of which the text -follows:[653] - - Iames, by the grace of God kynge of England, Scotland, Fraunce - and Irelande, defender of the faith &c: To all Iustices _of - peace_, Maiors, Sherryfes, vicechancellours _of any our - vniversities_, _Bailiffes_ [Constables], headboroughes, [and - other our officers] _Constables_, _and to all other our - Officers_, _mynisters_ and lov[e]inge subiectes _to whome it - may appertaine_ Greeting. Knowe yee that wee of our speciall - grace, certaine knowledge, and mere motion haue lycensed and - awthorised, and by these presentes doe lycence and awthorise - Thomas Greene, Christopher Beeston, Thomas Hawood, Richard - Pyrkins, Robert Pallant, Iohn Duke, Thomas Swynerton, I[e]ames - Ho[u]lt, Robert Beeston, & Robert Lee, servauntes vnto our - deare_st_ [and welbeloved] wyfe _the_ Queene Anna, with the - rest of there Associates, freely to vse and exercise the - art and faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, - Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such other - lyke as they haue already studied, or hereafter shall vse or - stud[d]y, as well for the recreacion of our lovinge subiectes - as for our solace and pleasure, when wee shall thinke good to - see them, during our pleasure; And the said Comedies, Tragedies, - Histories, Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and - such like, to shew and exercise publikly, when the infeccion - of the plague shall decrease to the nomber of thirty weekly - within _our Citie_ of London and the liberties _therof_, aswell - within there now vsuall Howsen, called the Curtayne, and the - Bores head, within our County of Middlesex, [or] _as in_ any - other play howse not vsed by others, by the said _Thomas_ Greene - elected, or by him hereafter to be builte, and also within any - Towne Halls, or Mouthalls, or other convenyent places, within - the liberties and freedomes of any Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, - or Boroughe whatsoeuer, within our said Realmes and domynyons: - Willing and Commaundinge yowe and euerie of yowe, as you tender - our pleasure, not only to permytt and suffer them [herein] _to - vse and exercise the said art of playinge_ without any your - Lettes hinderaunces or molestacions, duringe our said pleasure, - but also to be aydinge and assistinge vnto them, yf any wronge - be to them offered, and to allow them such [former] curtesies, - as hath _heretofore_ bene given vnto any men of theire qualitie: - [And also what further favour, any of our subiectes shall shew - to theise our deare and loveinge wyfes servauntes, for our sake, - wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Yeouen at[ extra spaces - ]the[ extra spaces ]daye of In the[ extra spaces ]yere of our - Raygne of England: &c:] - - _Gyuen &c._ - - [Endorsed] The Quenes Plaiers. - -This draft is undated. But it was prepared during a plague, and located -the Queen’s men at the Boar’s Head; and as they may reasonably be -supposed to have exchanged the Boar’s Head for the Red Bull (q.v.) -before the plague of 1606 began, it may be conjecturally assigned to -that of 1603–4. Probably it never passed the Great Seal, for if it had -there would have been no necessity, so far as one can judge, for a -later patent of 15 April 1609, which is on the rolls, and which closely -follows the earlier draft in its terms, except that it omits the -reference to the plague, names the Red Bull instead of the Boar’s Head -as one of the company’s regular houses, and adds a saving clause for -the rights of the Master of the Revels. Here is the text:[654] - -[Sidenote: De concessione licentie Thome Greene et aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors, - Sheriffes, Baylieffes, Constables, head-borrowes and other our - Officers and lovinge Subiectes Greetinge. Knowe yee that wee of - our especiall grace certayne knowledge and meere mocion have - lycenced and aucthorised and by these presentes doe lycence and - aucthorize Thomas Greene, Christofer Beeston, Thomas Haywood, - Richard Pirkyns, Richard Pallant, Thomas Swinnerton, Iohn Duke, - Robert Lee, Iames Haulte, and Roberte Beeston, Servantes to - our moste deerely beloved wiefe Queene Anne, and the reste of - theire Associates, to vse and exercise the arte and faculty of - playinge Comedies, Tragedies, historyes, Enterludes, Moralles, - Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche other like, as they have - already studied or heareafter shall vse or studye, aswell - for the recreacion of our loving Subiectes as for our solace - and pleasure when wee shall thinke good to see them, during - our pleasure. And the said Comedies, Tragedies, histories, - Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche like - to shewe and exercise publiquely and openly to theire beste - commoditye, aswell within theire nowe vsuall houses called the - Redd Bull in Clarkenwell and the Curtayne in Hallowell, as - alsoe within anye Towne halles, Mouthalles and other convenient - places within the libertye and freedome of any other Citty, - vniuersitye, Towne or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and - Domynions. Willing and Commaundinge you and every of you, as you - tender our pleasure, not only to permitt and suffer them herein - without any your lettes hinderances or molestacions during our - said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge [and] assistinge vnto - them, yf anye wronge be to them offered, and to allowe them - suche former curtesies as hath byn given to men of theire place - and qualitye, and alsoe what favoure you shall shewe to them - for our sake wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Prouided - alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all aucthoritye, - power, priuiledges, and profyttes whatsoeuer belonginge and - properly appertayninge to Master of Revelles in respecte of his - Office and everye Cause, Article or graunte contayned within - the lettres Patentes or Commission, which have byn heretofore - graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere - Sister or by our selues to our welbeloued Servant Edmond Tylney - Master of the Office of our said Revelles or to Sir George Bucke - knighte or to eyther of them in possession or revercion, shalbe - remayne and abyde entyer and full in effecte, force, estate and - vertue as ample sorte as if this our Commission had never byn - made. In witnes wherof &c. Witnes our selfe at Westminster the - fifteenth daye of Aprill. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -It will be observed that the documents quoted disclose no change in the -composition of the Queen’s official servants between 1604 and 1609. -But the question of _personnel_ is not really quite so simple as this, -since the members of a company under a trade agreement were not always -the same as those named in the authority under which it performed. -Before discussing this complication, it will be simplest first to -set out separately the notices of the Queen’s men, which have been -preserved in London and in provincial records respectively. - -Queen’s men played at Court on 30 December 1605, in Heywood’s _How to -Learn of a Woman to Woo_, which is not extant. They played also on 27 -December 1606. For both years their payee was, as in 1604, John Duke. -During 1607 Dekker and Webster’s _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ and Day, Wilkins, -and Rowley’s _Travels of Three English Brothers_ were printed with -their name on the title-pages. The latter play, according to the entry -of 29 June 1607 in the Stationers’ Register, was acted at the Curtain. -But it is shown by a passage in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ -to have been also on the stage of the Red Bull. In this house Thomas -Swinnerton, one of the men named in the patents, acquired an interest -between 24 March 1605 and 23 March 1606, and all the evidence is in -favour of a continuous sojourn of Queen’s men there until 1617. The -first quarto of Heywood’s _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, also printed -in 1607, does not bear their name, but it is on that of the ‘third -edition’ of 1617. They are not named as playing at Court during the -winter of 1607–8, but in the course of 1608 Heywood’s _Rape of Lucrece_ -was printed, as played by them at the Red Bull. They gave five plays at -Court in the winter of 1608–9, one on 27 December 1609, three on 10 and -one on 27 December 1610. Heywood’s _Golden Age_ was printed, as played -by them at the Red Bull, in 1611. The Court records of 1611–12 are a -little confused.[655] But they appear to have played Cooke’s _City -Gallant_ on 27 December, his _Tu Quoque_, which is in fact the same -play, on 2 February, to have joined with the King’s men in performances -of Heywood’s _Silver Age_ and _Rape of Lucrece_ on 12 and 13 January, -and to have played unnamed pieces on 21 and 23 January. From 1609 -to 1612 their payee was Thomas Greene. Webster’s _White Devil_ and -Dekker’s _If It be not Good, the Devil is in It_, were printed as -theirs in 1612, the former with a laudation of the acting of ‘my freind -Maister Perkins’, the latter as played at the Red Bull. They did not -play at Court during the winter of 1612–13, but did on 24 December -1613 and 5 January 1614. _Tu Quoque_ was printed as theirs in 1614. -In the winter of 1614–15 they gave three plays at Court. Heywood’s -_Four Prentices of London_ was printed in 1615 as played by them at the -Red Bull, and their name is also on _The Honest Lawyer_, registered -on 14 August 1615 and printed in 1616. They gave four plays at Court -during the winter of 1615–16. For all their Court plays from 1613–16 -Robert Lee was payee, but Ellis Worth replaces him for a Somerset -House performance before Queen Anne on 17 December 1615. When they -were called with other companies before the Privy Council on 29 March -1615 to answer for playing in Lent, they were represented by Lee and -Christopher Beeston. The records of the Middlesex justices contain a -note of 4 October 1616 that Beeston and the rest of the players at the -Red Bull were in arrears to the extent of £5 on an annual rate of £2 -agreed to by them for the repair of the highways. - -Provincial visits of Queen’s men are recorded in November 1605 at -Dover; in 1605 at Leicester; in 1605–6 at Bath, Coventry, Saffron -Walden, and Weymouth; on 25 July 1606 at Ipswich; on 4 September 1606 -at Ludlow; in 1606 at York; in 1606–7 at Bath (twice), Coventry, -Exeter, and Ipswich; on 14 August 1607 at Oxford; on 12 September 1607 -at Belvoir (Earl of Rutland’s);[656] in 1607 at Barnstaple, Leicester, -and Reading; in 1607–8 at Coventry, Oxford, Reading, and Shrewsbury; -on 6 June and 26 September 1608 at Leicester;[657] in 1608–9 at -Coventry,[658] Marlborough, and Shrewsbury; between 8 July and 9 August -1609 at Dover; on 15 October 1609 at Norwich; in 1609 at Canterbury; in -1609–10 at Shrewsbury and Stafford; about 23 March 1610 at Maidstone; -on 2 November 1610 at Ipswich; on 31 December 1610 at Leicester; in -1610–11 at Shrewsbury and Southampton; on 27 February 1611 (for a week) -at Norwich; between 11 April and 9 May and between 29 August and 29 -September 1612 at Dover; on 14 June and 26 October 1612 at Leicester; -in 1611–12 at Saffron Walden; in 1612–13 at Barnstaple, Coventry -(perhaps twice), and Ipswich; on 18 February 1613 at Marlborough; on -16 March 1613 at Leicester; between 13 April and 15 May 1613 at Dover; -on 2 November 1613 at Marlborough; on 22 December 1613 at Leicester; -in 1613–14 at Saffron Walden, Marlborough, Oxford, and Shrewsbury; -on 27 April 1614 (for three days) at Norwich;[659] between 3 and -29 September 1614 at Dover; in 1614–15 at Barnstaple and Doncaster -(perhaps twice); on 15 April 1615 at Coventry; in April or May 1615 at -Leicester; on 6 May 1615 at Norwich;[660] on 16 October 1615 and again -later in 1615 and on 22 February 1616 at Leicester;[661] on 7 November -1615 at Marlborough; in 1615–16 at Barnstaple, Dunwich (thrice), -Southampton, and Weymouth; in January 1616 at Nottingham; between 20 -January and 17 February 1616 and between 11 May and 8 June at Dover; on -17 February 1616 at Coventry; on 22 February 1616 at Leicester; between -1 and 6 April (four days) and on 29 May 1616 at Norwich;[662] on 26 -October 1616 at Marlborough; and on 6 February 1617 and again later in -1617 at Leicester.[663] - -There were thus tours in each year, which sometimes extended over -periods during which the London theatres must have been open. The -Leicester notices of 1608, 1615, and 1617 suggest that more than -one company was at work, and the explanation certainly is that some -of the players named in the patent, instead of joining the London -organization, had recourse to making up companies of their own for -provincial purposes. Of this there is further evidence. The Southampton -archives contain a copy of the following warrant from Queen Anne -herself, dated on 7 March 1606:[664] - - ‘Warrant from the Queenes Majestie of her Players. Anna Regina. - Anne by the grace of God Queene of England, Scottland, Fraunce, - and Ireland. To all Justices of the Peace, Maiors, Sheriffs, - Bayliffes, and all other his Majestes Officers and loving - subiectes to whom yt shall or may appertaine greetinge, Know - yee that of our speciall grace and favour, Wee are well pleased - to authorize under our hand and signett the bearers hereof our - sworne servauntes Robert Lee, Martin Statier and Roger Barfield - with theyr fellowes and associates being our Commedians vppon - theyr humble Suite unto us for theyr better mainetenaunce, Yf - att annie time they should have occasion to travell into anie - parte of his Majestes Dominions to playe Tragedyes, historyes, - commedies and pastoralls as well in anie about the Cittye of - London, and in all other cittyes vniversities and townes at all - time anie times (the time of divine seruice onlye excepted) - Theise are therefore to will and requier you uppon the sight - hereofe quiettlye and favourably with your best favours, to - permitt and suffer them, to use theyr sayd qualitye within your - Jurisdiccions without anie of your molestacions or troubles, and - also to affourd them your Townehalls and all other such places - as att anie time have been used by men of theyr qualitye, That - they maye be in the better readiness for our seruise when they - shalbe thereunto commaunded, Nott doubtinge butt that our sayd - servauntes shall find the more favour for our sake in your best - assistaunce, Wherein you shall doe unto us acceptable pleasure. - Given att the Court of Whitehall, the seaventh daye of Marche - 1605.’ - -Of these three men, Lee, and Lee alone, appears in the London lists -of 1603, 1604, and 1609. Of Barfield’s career nothing more is known. -Martin Slater, whose name can be divined under that of Statier, had -left the Admiral’s in 1597. He was probably in Scotland during 1599, -and if so his patronage by Anne may be analogous to the patronage by -James, which brought Laurence Fletcher’s name into the King’s men’s -patent. In 1603 he was payee for Hertford’s men. Presumably the -enterprise of 1606 did not last long, for in the spring of 1608 Slater -became manager for the King’s Revels. His place in the provinces may -have been taken by Thomas Swinnerton, who was leading a company of -Queen’s men at Coventry in 1608–9, and whose departure from the London -company is perhaps indicated by the fact that at about the same time -he sold a share, which he had held in the house of the Red Bull. -Swinnerton was travelling again in 1614–16 and using an exemplification -of the patent of 1609. In 1616 he was accompanied by Robert Lee, who -for two years before had been acting as payee for the London company. -Lee came again with the exemplification to Norwich on 31 May 1617, and -it was then noted to have been taken out on 7 January 1612. A few days -later, on 4 June 1617, a copy was entered in the Norwich court books -of a warrant by the Lord Chamberlain of 16 July 1616, condemning the -use of such exemplifications, and specifying amongst others two taken -out by Thomas Swinnerton and Martin Slater, ‘beinge two of the Queens -Maiesties company of Playors hauing separated themselves from their -said Company’.[665] Slater had, therefore, returned to the provincial -field, and there were now two travelling companies of Queen’s men. I -take it that in 1617 the Lord Chamberlain succeeded in suppressing -them, and that the Queen’s men who continued to appear in the provinces -up to Anne’s death on 2 March 1619 were the London company.[666] Lee -joined the Queen’s Revels as reorganized under a licence of 31 October -1617. Slater, about the same time, joined the Children of Bristol, -for whom, with John Edmonds and Nathaniel Clay, he got letters of -assistance in April 1618. In these all three are described as her -Majesty’s servants. Swinnerton apparently succeeded in keeping on foot -a company of his own, which visited Leicester in 1619.[667] The Bristol -company was in fact under Anne’s patronage, but Lee and Swinnerton, -no less than Slater and Edmonds, remained technically the Queen’s -servants, and are included with the London men in a list of the players -who received mourning at her funeral on 13 May 1619.[668] These were -Robert Lee, Richard Perkins, Christopher Beeston, Robert Pallant, -Thomas Heywood, James Holt, Thomas Swinnerton, Martin Slater, Ellis -Wroth, John Comber, Thomas Basse, John Blaney, William Robinson, John -Edmonds, Thomas Drewe, Gregory Sanderson, and John Garret. - -The list of seventeen names includes seven of the ten patentees of -1609. I do not know what had become of John Duke and Robert Beeston. -Thomas Greene had died in August 1612, having made on 25 July a will, -amongst the witnesses to which were Christopher Beeston, Heywood, and -Perkins. The disposal of his property led many years afterwards to a -lawsuit, which gives valuable information as to both the _personnel_ -and the organization of the London company. After providing for his -family and making some small legacies, including one to John Cumber, -and 40_s._ to ‘my fellowes of the house of the Redd Bull, to buy gloves -for them’, he left the residue to his widow and executrix, Susanna -Greene, formerly wife of one Browne.[669] In June 1613 she took a -third husband, James Baskervile. The following is her account in 1623 -of certain transactions with the company. Shortly before Greene’s -death had died George Pulham, a ‘half sharer’ in the company, which -is described as being in 1612 ‘the companie of the actors or players -of the late queenes majestie Queene Anne, then vsuallie frequentinge -and playinge att the signe of the Redd Bull in St. Johns Street, in -Clerkenwell parishe, in the county of Middlesex’. His representatives -received £40 from the company in respect of his half-share. This was -under an agreement formerly made amongst the company ‘concerninge the -part and share of euerie one of the sharers and half sharers of the -said companie according to the rate and proporcion of their shares -or half shares in that behalfe’. Under the same agreement Susanna -Greene, whose husband was ‘one of the principall and cheif persons of -the said companie, and a full adventurer, storer and sharer of in and -amongst them’, claimed £80, together with £37 laid out by him before -his death in ‘diuers necessarie prouisions’ for the company. In order -to get satisfaction she had to appeal to Viscount Lisle, Chamberlain -of the Queen’s Household, ‘who hadd a kind of gouernment and suruey -ouer the said players’. It was arranged that Mrs. Greene should receive -a half-share in the profits until the debt was paid. By the time, -however, of her marriage with Baskervile, she had only received £6. -In June 1615 negotiations took place between the Baskerviles and the -company, who then included Worth, Perkins, and Christopher Hutchinson, -_alias_ Beeston, by which the Baskerviles agreed to invest £57 10_s._ -in the enterprise and to accept in discharge of their claims a pension -for their joint lives of 1_s._ 8_d._ a day ‘for euerye of sixe daies -in the weeke wherin they should play’. The company defaulted, and -in June 1616 a second settlement was made, whereby the Baskerviles -invested another £38, a further pension of 2_s._ a day was established, -and the life of Susan’s son, Francis Browne (or Baskervile), was -substituted for her husband’s. The players were Christopher Beeston, -Thomas Heywood, Ellis Worth, John Cumber, John Blaney, Francis Walpole, -Robert Reynolds, William Robins, Thomas Drewe, and Emanuel Read.[670] -Again they defaulted, and moreover fell into arrear for the wages of -another of Susan Baskervile’s sons, William Browne, who played with -them as a hired man. A third settlement, reassuring the pensions, -and substituting William Browne for Francis, who was now dead, was -made on 3 June 1617, when the company were ‘now comme, or shortlie to -comme from the said Playhowse called the Redd Bull to the Playhowse -in Drurie Lane called the Cockpitt’; and to this the parties, so -far as the company were concerned, were Beeston, Heywood, Worth, -Cumber, Walpole, Blaney, Robins, and Drewe. Apparently Reynolds and -Read, and also Perkins and Thomas Basse, although their names were -recited in the deed, refused to seal. Some further light is thrown -on this by allegations of Worth, Cumber, and Blaney, in opposition -to those of Mrs. Baskervile in 1623. The company of 1617 contained -some members ‘new come into’ it, ‘which were of other companyes at -the tyme of graunting the first annuity’. The terms of the agreement -were carefully looked into, and were found to bind the company to -procure the subscription of any future new members to its terms. This -was inconsistent with a proviso of 1616 that the pensions should only -last so long as four of those then signing should play together; and -therefore, while some of the company signed and gave bonds by way of -security on an oral promise by Mrs. Baskervile that this proviso should -in fact hold good, others refused to do so. These were the wiser, for -in 1623, when Worth, Cumber, and Blaney were the only three of the 1617 -signatories who still held together, Mrs. Baskervile sued them on their -bonds, and although they applied to Chancery for equitable enforcement -of the alleged oral promise, Chancery held that the agreement, being -made between players, was ‘vnfitt to be releeued or countenaunced in a -courte of equitie’. In some other respects the players’ account of the -transactions differs from Mrs. Baskervile’s, and in particular they -alleged that the Baskerviles had secured their interest by bribing -Beeston, to whom ‘your oratours and the rest of thier fellowes at -that tyme and long before and since did put the managing of thier -whole businesses and affaires belonging vnto them ioyntly as they were -players in trust’, so that she knew well that whatever he promised -the rest ‘would allowe of the same’. This Mrs. Baskervile repudiates -as regards the bribe, and does not wholly accept as regards Beeston’s -position in the company, although she admits that both before and -after her husband’s death they ‘did putt much affiance in the said -Huttchinson alias Beeston, concerninge the managing of their affaires’. - -I am afraid that Beeston’s character does not come altogether -unstained out of another suit brought by one John Smith in the Court -of Requests during 1619 for a sum of £46 5_s._ 8_d._ in respect of -‘tinsell stuffes and other stuffe’ delivered on Beeston’s order to -Worth, Perkins, Cumber, and others at the Red Bull between 27 June -1612 and 23 February 1617, since when they had ‘fallen at variance and -strife amongst themselves and separated and devided themselves into -other companies.’ He accuses these four men of conspiring to keep him -out of payment. Worth, Perkins, and Cumber asserted that the liability -was Beeston’s. The company had ‘required divers officers and that -every of the said actors should take vpon them some place & charge’. -Beeston was charged with the provision of furniture and apparel, which -needed ‘a thriueing man & one that was of abilitie & meanes’. He was -to ‘defaulke outt of the colleccions and gatheringes which were made -continually when-soeuer any playe was acted a certen some of money as a -comon stock.’ to pay for purchases out of this, and to account to the -company for the balance. No one else was privy to his transactions. The -arrangement lasted for seven or eight years, and they believe that he -‘much enritched himself and rendered a false account for expenditure -of £400. He is now conspiring with Smith and hoping for a chance to -‘exclayme on’ them. If he incurred debt, he had certainly taken funds -to meet it. From the beginning he had ‘a greater care for his owne -privatt gaine’. Now he has ‘of late given over his coate & condicion & -separated and devided himself’ from the company, carrying away all the -furniture and apparel. Beeston says that he has long been ill. On Queen -Anne’s death he left the company and joined Prince Charles’s men. The -Queen’s had ten sharers, and sometimes one, sometimes another, provided -the clothes. He denies liability. Several witnesses, including William -Freshwater, merchant tailor and ‘a workman to the said company’, spoke -to Beeston’s liability.[671] One John King says that the company -allowed Beeston ‘one half of the profitt that came of the gallyryes’, -and that they began to break up about three years ago. At a hearing on -16 June 1620 Beeston got the case deferred on the ground that Emanuel -Read, a material witness, was in Ireland until Michaelmas. Elizabeth, -the wife of Richard Perkins, said that Read had been there for two or -three years, was over at Easter, and was not expected again. Smith -got in a blow at Beeston’s credit with an affidavit that he had said -‘it was nothing for him to put in a false answere into the Court of -Requestes, for that it was not punishable’. The result of the suit is -unknown. - -We may perhaps reach the following conclusions as to the composition -of the London company after the deaths in 1612 of Pulham, presumably -a recent comer since 1609, and Greene. Their nucleus consisted of two -of the patented men, Christopher Beeston and Heywood, who probably -remained with them throughout. Of the other patentees, Swinnerton kept -to the provinces. Lee had rejoined them from the provinces by 1613 -or 1614, and went back to the provinces about May 1616. Perkins was -apparently not of their number in June 1616, but was in June 1617. -Holt is not traceable; perhaps he also went to the provinces. Pallant -joined the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1614 and had passed to Prince Charles’s -by 1616. All these five men, however, appear with Beeston and Heywood -as Anne’s servants at her funeral. Here too are Slater and Edmonds, -then of the Bristol, and apparently never of the London company; also -Worth, Cumber, Blaney, Drewe, and Robinson, presumably identical with -Robins, all of whom had joined the London company by June 1616, Basse, -formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s, who joined it between June 1616 -and June 1617, and Gregory Sanderson and John Garret, who, if they -belonged to the London company at all, must have joined it after June -1617.[672] The list does not contain the names of two men who belonged -to the company in 1616 and 1617. One was Emanuel Read, who joined it -from the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613 or later; the other, Robert Reynolds, -whose attachment to the company must have been rather loose, as he was -travelling in Germany in July 1616 and again in 1618. Evidently, as the -lawsuits suggest, the organization of the Queen’s men during its later -years was rather unstable. Into its attempts to hold together after -Anne’s death and the after-careers of its members, it is not necessary -to go. - -In June 1617 the Queen’s were come, or shortly to come, from the Red -Bull to the Cockpit. In fact they were at the Cockpit, then a new -house, on 4 March 1617, when it was sacked by prentices in a Shrovetide -riot.[673] But they may have returned to the Red Bull for a time, while -the Cockpit was being repaired, as they did again after they lost it -on the separation from Christopher Beeston, who seems to have been its -owner, in 1619. - - - xxii. THE DUKE OF LENNOX’S MEN - - Ludovic Stuart, s. of Esmé, 1st Duke of Lennox; cousin and - until 1594 heir presumptive of James; _nat._ 29 Sept. 1574; - succ. as 2nd Duke, 26 May 1583; Gentleman of Bedchamber, 1603; - Earl of Richmond, 6 Oct. 1613; Lord Steward, Nov. 1615; Duke of - Richmond, 17 Aug. 1623; o.s.p. 16 Feb. 1624. - -The first notice of Lennox’s men is on 13 October 1604, when he gave -an open warrant of assistance in their behalf addressed to mayors, -justices, and other local officers, some of whom had apparently refused -the company permission to play (App. D, no. cxxxvii). On 16 March -1605 Francis Henslowe gave his uncle Philip a bond of £60 to observe -articles of an agreement he had entered into with John Garland and -Abraham Savere ‘his ffellowes, servantes to the most noble Prince the -duke of Lennox’; and on 1 March 1605 Savere had given Francis Henslowe -a power of attorney to recover £40 on a forfeited bond from John -Garland of ‘the ould forde’, securing delivery of a warrant made to -Savere by Lennox (_Henslowe Papers_, 62). Some other traces point to -a connexion between Savere and Francis Henslowe, which was ended by -the latter’s death in the middle of 1606 (Henslowe, ii. 277), and an -undated loan of £7 by Philip Henslowe to his nephew ‘to goyne with owld -Garlland and Symcockes and Saverey when they played in the duckes nam -at ther laste goinge owt’ (Henslowe, i. 160) makes it possible to add -one more to the list of the company. It does not seem to have played in -London, but is traceable at Canterbury in 1603–4, Barnstaple, Coventry, -and Norwich in 1604–5, and Coventry again in 1607–8. Both Garland and -Henslowe had been Queen Elizabeth’s men, and it is possible that, -when these men were left stranded by her death in 1603, they found a -new patron in Lennox. John Garland had joined the Duke of York’s men -by 1610, and it has been suggested that this company may have been a -continuation of Lennox’s. - - - xxiii. THE DUKE OF YORK’S (PRINCE CHARLES’S) MEN - - _The Duke of York’s Men (1608–12); The Prince’s Men (1612–16)_ - - Charles, 2nd s. of James I; _nat._ 19 Nov. 1600; Duke of Albany, - 23 Dec. 1600; Duke of York, 16 Jan. 1605; Prince of Wales, 3 - Nov. 1616; afterwards (27 Mar. 1625) Charles I. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The documents bearing on the relations - of the Duke of York’s men with Alleyn are printed by W. W. Greg - in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907); the Bill and Answers in the equity - suit of _Taylor v. Hemynges_ (1612) by C. W. Wallace in _Globe - Theatre Apparel_ (p.p., 1909).] - -A company under the patronage of Prince Charles, then Duke of York, -first makes its appearance during 1608, and in the provinces. A visit -of ‘the younger princes’ men to Ipswich is recorded on 20 October. -During 1608–9 the company was also at Bath, and it is at least possible -that it was ‘the Princes players of the White Chapple London’ rewarded -at Leicester in 1608. The Boar’s Head (q.v.) may have been roughly -spoken of as in Whitechapel, and although there is no proof that the -Duke of York’s men occupied it after the Queen’s moved to the Red Bull, -there is nothing to connect them during the earlier years of their -career with any of the better-known London houses. On 30 March 1610 -they received, like other London companies, a patent, of which the -following are the terms:[674] - -[Sidenote: De licentia agendi Tragedias &c. pro Johanne Garland & aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors, - Sheriffes, Baylies, Constables, hedboroughes and other our - loveing subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of - our especyall grace, certen knowledge, and meere mocion haue - lycensed and aucthorized, and by theis presentes doe lycence - and authorise Iohn Garland, Willyam Rowley, Thomas Hobbes, - Robert Dawes, Ioseph Taylor, Iohn Newton, and Gilbert Reason, - alreadye sworne servauntes to our deere sonne the Duke of - York and Rothesay, with the rest of their company, to vse and - exercise the arte and quality of playing Comedyes, Tragedies, - histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stagplayes, and - such other like as they haue already studdied or hereafter - shall studye or vse, aswell for the recreacion of our loveing - subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thinke - good to see them, and the said Enterludes or other to shewe - and execise publiquely to their best aduantage and commoditie, - aswell in and about our Cittye of London in such vsuall howses - as themselues shall provide, as alsoe within anye Townehalles, - Mootehalles, Guildhalles, Schoolehowses, or other convenient - places within the lybertye and freedome of any other Cittye, - vniversity, Towne, or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and - Domynions, willing and comaundinge you and everie of you, as - you tender our pleasure, not onlye to permitt and suffer them - herein without any your lettes, hindraunces, molestacions or - disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be ayding - and assisting vnto them, if any wronge be vnto them offered, and - to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne given to men - of their place and quality, And alsoe what further favor you - shall shewe them for our sake wee shall take yt kyndlye at your - handes. Prouided alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all - authority, power, priviledg, and proffitt whatsoever belonging - and properly apperteyninge to the Master of our Revelles in - respect of his Office and everie article and graunt contayned - within the lettres patentes or Commission, which haue byne - heretofore graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our - deere sister or by our selfe to our welbeloved servantes Edmond - Tillney Master of the said Office of the said Revelles, or to - Sir George Bucke knight, or to eyther of them, in possession or - Revercion, shall remayne and abyde entire and in full force, - estate and vertue and in as ample sort as if this our commission - had never bene made. Witnes our selfe att Westminster the - thirtith daye March. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -The only member of the Duke of York’s men, of whose previous history -anything is known, is John Garland. He was of the Duke of Lennox’s men -in 1605. Perhaps the whole company was taken over from the Duke of -Lennox. Mr. Fleay says that the Duke of York’s men arose ‘immediately -after the disappearance of the King’s Revels Children’,[675] and -appears to suggest a continuity between the two companies; but he -must have overlooked the fact that the Duke of York’s were already -performing in the provinces, while the King’s Revels were in all -probability still at Whitefriars.[676] - -Some reconstruction doubtless took place about the date of the issue -of the patent, for the pleadings in the equity suit of _Taylor v. -Hemynges_ in 1612 recites an agreement of 15 March 1610, which -provided for the continuance of fellowship during three years and the -forfeiture of the interest in a common stock of ‘apparrell goodes -money and other thinges’ of any member, who left without the consent -of the rest. It was made between Garland on the one side and Taylor, -Rowley, Dawes, and Hobbes on the other, and these four gave Garland a -bond of £200 as security. On 8 May the five bought some ‘olde clothes -or apparrell which formerly weare players clothes or apparrell’ from -John Heminges of the King’s men for £11, and gave a bond of £20 for -payment. Apparently payment had not been made by Easter 1611, when -Taylor ‘by the licence and leave of his said Master the Duke vpon some -speciall reason ... did give over and leave to play in the company’. -Under the agreement the apparel passed to his fellows, and according -to Taylor they paid Heminges the £11 or otherwise satisfied him, and -then ‘havinge conceaued some vndeserued displeasure’ against Taylor -for leaving them, conspired with Heminges to defraud him of £20 on the -bond. According to Heminges no payment was made, and he sued Taylor -as ‘the best able to paye and discharge the same’. Taylor was arrested -and in February 1612 brought his suit in equity to stay the common law -proceedings. The result is unknown. - -The company frequently played at Court, but, as it would seem, only -before the younger members of the royal family. Their first appearance -was before Charles and Elizabeth on 9 February 1610. In 1610–11 they -were at Saffron Walden. They came before Charles and Elizabeth on 12 -and 20 December 1610 and 15 January 1611, and before Henry, Charles, -and Elizabeth on 12 and 28 January and 13 and 24 February 1612. On -this last occasion they played William Rowley’s _Hymen’s Holiday, -or Cupid’s Vagaries_. After Henry’s death, on 7 November 1612, they -became entitled to the designation of the Prince’s players. In 1612–13 -they were at Barnstaple and Ipswich. On 2 and 10 March 1613 they gave -the two parts of _The Knaves_, perhaps by Rowley, before Charles, -Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave. In 1613–14 they were at Barnstaple, -Dover, Saffron Walden, and Coventry. They were not at Court for the -winter of 1613–14. In November 1614 they were at Oxford, Leicester, -and Nottingham. At the Christmas of 1614–15 they gave six plays before -Charles, and on 11 February they were at Youghal in Ireland. Ten days -later R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_ was entered and in the course of -the year published as theirs. Their leader seems to have been Rowley. -He both wrote plays for them and acted as payee for all their court -rewards from 1610 to 1614. In 1611 they lost Taylor and in 1614 Dawes -to the Lady Elizabeth’s men; and these transferences seem to have led -to a temporary amalgamation of the two companies, which Mr. Fleay -and Dr. Greg place in 1614, but for which their distinct appearances -at Court in the following winter suggest 1615 as the more likely -date.[677] On 29 March 1615 William Rowley and John Newton were called -with representatives of other companies before the Privy Council to -answer for playing in Lent. No separate representation of the Lady -Elizabeth’s is indicated by the list. In 1614–15 the Prince’s were -at Norwich, Coventry, Winchester, and Barnstaple. In the winter of -1615–16 they gave four plays before Prince Charles, and the payee was -not Rowley, but Alexander Foster, formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s. -Rosseter’s patent of 3 June 1615 for a second Blackfriars theatre -contemplates its use by the Prince’s men and the Lady Elizabeth’s, as -well as by the Queen’s Revels, and Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ was -actually played in the Blackfriars, probably in this house before it -was suppressed, by the two first-named companies. After Henslowe’s -death on 6 January 1616, the combination, whatever its nature, was -probably broken up, and separate companies of Prince’s men and Lady -Elizabeth’s men were again formed. But both of the original companies -continued to be represented in one which remained at the Hope. This -is shown by an agreement entered into with Alleyn and Meade on 20 -March 1616, and signed in the presence of Robert Daborne and others -by William Rowley, Robert Pallant, Joseph Taylor, Robert Hamlen, John -Newton, William Barksted, Thomas Hobbes, Antony Smith, William Penn, -and Hugh Attwell.[678] This recites that the signatories and others had -given bonds to Henslowe and Meade for the repayment of sums lent them -by Henslowe, for a stock of apparel worth £400, and for the fulfilment -of certain Articles of Agreement; and that at their entreaty Alleyn -had agreed to accept £200 in discharge of their full liabilities. They -covenant to pay the £200 by making over to Alleyn one-fourth of the -daily takings of the whole galleries at the Hope or any house in which -they may play, and to carry out the Articles with Alleyn and Meade by -so playing. Alleyn and Meade agree to cancel the bonds when the £200 -is paid, except any which may relate to private debts of any of the -men to Henslowe, and also to make over to them any apparel which they -had received from Henslowe, Alleyn, or Meade. The rights of Alleyn and -Meade against any bondsmen not taking part in the new agreement are -to remain unaffected. That the signatories to this document used the -name of Prince Charles’s men seems pretty clear from the reappearance -of several of their names in two later lists of the Prince’s men, one -in Rowley and Middleton’s _Mask of Heroes_ (1619), the other in the -records of King James’s funeral on 20 May 1625.[679] This last contains -also the name of Gilbert Reason, who is not one of the signatories of -1616, but was in that year travelling the provinces with an irregularly -obtained exemplification of the 1610 patent.[680] An undated letter -from Pallant, Rowley, Taylor, Newton, Hamlen, Attwell, and Smith to -Alleyn, which may belong to some time in 1616 or 1617, shows that, in -spite of the easy terms which the company seem to have received by the -agreement, the subsequent relations were not altogether smooth. They -write to excuse their removal from the Bankside, where they had stood -the intemperate weather, until ‘more intemperate Mr. Meade thrust vs -over, taking the day from vs w^{ch} by course was ours’. They ask -Alleyn to find them a house and in the meantime to lend them £40, on -the security that ‘we haue to receiue from the court (w^{ch} after -Shrouetide wee meane to pursue w^{th} best speede) a great summe of -monie’, amounting to more than twice the loan desired.[681] It is to be -presumed that the ‘course’ to which they refer was some distribution of -days between playing and bear-baiting. In 1619 the company was joined -by Christopher Beeston, formerly of the Queen’s, and his house of the -Cockpit became available for their use. - - - xxiv. THE LADY ELIZABETH’S MEN - - Elizabeth, e. d. of James I; _nat. c._ 19 Aug. 1596; m. - Frederick V, Elector Palatine (Palsgrave), 14 Feb. 1613; Queen - of Bohemia, 7 Nov. 1619; known as Queen of Hearts; _ob._ 13 Feb. - 1662. - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Nearly all the material is to be found - among the extracts from the Dulwich MSS. printed by W. W. Greg - in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907) and summarized in Henslowe, ii. 137.] - -This company seems to have come into existence in 1611 under the -following patent of 27 March:[682] - -[Sidenote: De licencia speciali pro Iohanne Townsend & Iosepho Moore & -aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of god &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, - Sheriffes, Bailiffes, Constables hedborroughes, and other our - lovinge Subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of - our especiall grace, certayne knowledge, and meere mocon have - licenced and authorised, and by these presente do licence and - authorize Iohn Townsend and Joseph Moore, sworne servantes to - our deere daughter the ladie Elizabeth, with the rest of theire - Companie, to vse and exercise the Arte and qualitie of playinge - Comedies, histories, Enterludes, Morralls, pastoralls, stage - playes, and such other like as they haue alreadie studied or - hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell for the recreacion of - our lovinge Subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee - shall thinke good to see them, And the said enterludes or other - to shewe and exercise publiquelie to their best commoditie - in and about our Cittie of London in such vsuall howses as - themselues shall prouide, And alsoe within anie Towne halles, - mootehalles, Guyld-halles, Schoolehowses or other convenient - places within the libertye and freedome of anie other Cittie, - vniuersitie, Towne or Burroughe whatsoeuer within our Realmes - and Domynions, willinge and comaundinge you and everie of you, - as you tender our pleasure, not onelie to permitt and suffer - them herein without any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions - or disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be - ayding and assistinge vnto them, if anie wronge be vnto them - offred, And to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne - given to men of their place and qualitie, And alsoe what - further fauour you shall shewe them for our sake wee shall - take yt kindelie at your handes. Prouided alwayes and our will - and pleasure is that all authoritie, power, priveledge, and - profitt whatsoever belonginge or properlie apperteyning to the - maister of the Revelles in respecte of his office and euerie - Article and graunte conteyned within the letters Pattentes or - Comission, which haue byne heretofore graunted or directed by - the late queene Elizabeth our deere sister or by our selfe to - our welbeloued Servantes Edwarde Tylney Maister of the saide - Revells, or to Sir George Bucke knighte, or to eyther of them, - in possession or reuercon, shall remayne and abide entire and - in full force, effecte and vertue, and in as ample sorte as if - this our Comission had neuer byne made In witnesse wherof &c. - Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the seaven and Twentith daye - of Aprill. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -The company is first traceable in the country, at Bath during 1610–11 -and at Ipswich on 28 May 1611. The names of Moore and Townsend render -possible its identification with an unnamed company, which on 29 August -1611 gave duplicate bonds of £500 to Henslowe for the observance of -certain articles of agreement of the same date. Unfortunately the -articles themselves are not preserved, but it is likely that they -contained an arrangement for the housing and financing of the company -by Henslowe.[683] The signatories to both bonds include John Townsend, -Joseph Taylor, William Ecclestone, Thomas Hunt, John Rice, Robert -Hamlen, Joseph Moore, William Carpenter, Thomas Basse, and Alexander -Foster. To these one adds Giles Gary and William Barksted and the -other Francis Waymus. The names recited in the bodies of the documents -agree with the signatures, except that Gary appears in both. Several -of these men now come into London theatrical history for the first -time, but Gary is probably the Giles Cary who with Barksted played in -_Epicoene_ for the Queen’s Revels in 1609, Taylor came from the Duke -of York’s, and Rice from the King’s. One Hunt, whose Christian name is -unknown, was with the Admiral’s in 1601. Alexander Foster received -payment on behalf of the Lady Elizabeth’s men for three plays given -at Court during the Christmas of 1611–12. The first was on 19 January -1612 before Elizabeth and Henry; the second was _The Proud Maid’s -Tragedy_, on 25 February before James; and the third was on 11 March, -again before Elizabeth and Henry. In 1611–12 the company were at Dover -and Coventry, and on 30 July 1612 at Leicester. On 20 October they -played before Elizabeth and the Palsgrave, shortly after the latter’s -arrival in England, in the Cockpit. This was perhaps the play paid for -out of the private funds of Elizabeth, as the result of a wager with -Mr. Edward Sackville.[684] During Christmas they played twice before -Charles, Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave, showing Marston’s _The Dutch -Courtesan_ on 25 February and _Raymond Duke of Lyons_ on 1 March. For -1612–13 Joseph Taylor was payee. - -The names of Taylor and Ecclestone are found in another document in -the Dulwich collection, which pretty clearly belongs to the Lady -Elizabeth’s men, and which shows that about the spring of 1613 their -business relations with Henslowe entered upon a somewhat troubled -phase. This is shown by internal evidence to have been written in the -course of 1615. It is here reproduced:[685] - - Articles of [ ]uaunce against - M[ ] Hinchlowe - - Imprimis in March 1612 vppon M^r. Hynchlowes Joyninge Companes - with M^r. Rosseter the Companie borrowed 80^[ll] of one M^r. - Griffin and the same was put into M^r. Hinchlowes debt which - made itt sixteene score poundes; whoe [a]fter the receipt of the - same or most parte thereof in March 1613 hee broke the saide - Comp[any a]gaine and Ceazed all the stocke, vnder Culler to - satisfie what remayned due to [him]; yet perswaded M^r. Griffyne - afterwardes to arest the Companie for his 80^{ll}, whoe are - still in daunger for the same; Soe nowe there was in equitie due - to the Companie 80^{ll}: - - Item M^r. Hinchlowe having lent one Taylor 30^{ll} and 20^{ll} - to one Baxter fellowes of the Companie Cunninglie put theire - said privat debts into the generall accompt by which meanes hee - is in Conscience to allowe them 50^{ll}: - - Item havinge the stock of Apparell in his handes to secure his - debt he sould tenn poundes worth of ould apparrell out of the - same without accomptinge or abatinge for the same; heare growes - due to the Companie 10^{ll}: - - Also vppon the departure of one Eglestone a ffellowe of the - Companie hee recovered of him 14^{ll} towardes his debt which is - in Conscience likewise to bee allowed to the Companie 14^{ll}: - - In March 1613 hee makes vpp a Companie and buies apparrell of - one Rosseter to the value of 63^{ll}, and valued the ould stocke - that remayned in his handes at 63^{ll}, likewise they vppon his - word acceptinge the same at that rate, which being prized by - M^r. Daborne iustlie, betweene his partner Meade and him, Came - but to 40^{ll}: soe heare growes due to the Companie 23^{ll}: - - Item hee agrees with the said Companie that they should enter - bond to plaie with him for three yeares att such house and - houses as hee shall appointe and to allowe him halfe galleries - for the said house and houses, and the other halfe galleries - towardes his debt of 126^{ll}, and other such moneys as hee - should laie out for playe apparrell duringe the space of the - said 3 yeares, agreeinge with them in Consideration theareof to - seale each of them a bond of 200^{ll} to find them a Convenient - house and houses, and to laie out such moneies as fower of the - sharers should think fitt for theire vse in apparrell, which att - the 3 yeares, being paid for, to be deliuered to the sharers; - whoe accordinglie entered the said bondes; but M^r. Henchlowe - and M^r. Mead deferred the same, an[d] in Conclusion vtterly - denied to seale att all. - - Item M^r. Hinchlowe havinge promised in Consideracion of the - Companies lying still one daie in forteene for his baytinge to - give them 50^s, hee havinge denied to bee bound as aforesaid - gave them onlie 40^s, and for that M^r. Feild would not Consent - therevnto hee gave him soe much as his share out of 50^{ll} - would have Come vnto; by which meanes hee is dulie indebted to - the Companie x^{ll}: - - In June followinge the said agreement, hee brought in M^r. - Pallant and short[l]ie after M^r. Dawes into the said Companie, - promisinge one 12^s a weeke out of his part of the galleries, - and the other 6^s a weeke out of his parte of the galleries; - and because M^r. Feild was thought not to bee drawne therevnto, - hee promissed him six shillinges weekelie alsoe; which in - one moneth after vnwilling to beare soe greate a Charge, he - Called the Companie together, and told them that this 24^s was - to bee Charged vppon them, threatninge those which would not - Consent therevnto to breake the Companie and make vpp a newe - without the[m]. Whearevppon knowinge hee was not bound, the - three-quarters sharers advauncinge them selves to whole shares - Consented therevnto, by which meanes they are out of purse - 30^{ll}, and his parte of the galleries bettred twise as much - 30^{ll}: - - Item havinge 9 gatherers more then his due itt Comes to this - yeare from the Companie 10^{ll}: - - Item the Companie paid for [Arra]s and other properties 40^{ll}, - which Mr. Henchlow deteyneth 40^{ll}: - - In Februarie last 1614 perceav[ing]e the Companie drewe out of - his debt and Called vppon him for his accompts hee brooke the - Companie againe, by withdrawinge the hired men from them, and - selles theire stocke (in his hands) for 400^{ll}, givinge vnder - his owne hand that hee had receaved towardes his debt 300^{ll}: - - Which with the iuste and Conscionable allowances before named - made to the Companie, which Comes to ... 267^{ll}, makes - 567^{ll}: - - Articles of oppression against - M^r. Hinchlowe. - - Hee Chargeth the stocke with ... 600^{ll}: and odd, towardes - which hee hath receaved as aforesaid ... 567^{ll} of vs; yet - selles the stocke to strangers for fower hundred poundes, and - makes vs no satisfacion. - - Hee hath taken all boundes of our hired men in his owne name, - whose wages though wee have truly paid yet att his pleasure hee - hath taken them a waye, and turned them over to others to the - breaking of our Companie. - - For lendinge of vj^{ll} to p[ay] them theire wages, hee made vs - enter bond to give him the profitt of a warraunt of tenn poundes - due to vs att Court. - - Alsoe hee hath taken right gould and silver lace of divers - garmentes to his owne vse without accompt to vs or abatement. - - Vppon everie breach of the Companie hee takes newe bondes for - his stocke and our securitie for playinge with him; Soe that - hee hath in his handes bondes of ours to the value of 5000^{ll} - and his stocke to; which hee denies to deliuer and threatens to - oppresse us with. - - Alsoe havinge apointed a man to the seeinge of his accomptes in - byinge of Clothes (hee beinge to have vi^s a weeke) hee takes - the meanes away and turnes the man out. - - The reason of his often breakinge with vs hee gave in these - wordes ‘Should these fellowes Come out of my debt, I should have - noe rule with them’. - - Alsoe wee have paid him for plaie bookes 200^{ll} or - thereaboutes and yet hee denies to give vs the Coppies of any - one of them. - - Also within 3 yeares hee hath broken and dissmembred five - Companies. - -It is not quite possible to trace all the five breakings of companies -referred to in the closing sentence; but the statement is sufficient -to give a fairly clear outline of the history of the Lady Elizabeth’s -men during the years which it covers, and, as it happens, there is a -good deal of other evidence from which to supplement it. It appears -that in March 1613 Henslowe joined companies with Rosseter; that is -to say, that an amalgamation took place between the Lady Elizabeth’s -men and the Children of the Queen’s Revels, who had been acting at the -Whitefriars under the patent to Rosseter and others of 4 January 1610. -One of these children was Robert Baxter, if he is the Baxter named -in the Articles of Grievance as a fellow of the company with Taylor -between March 1613 and March 1614.[686] During the same period it -appears that William Ecclestone left the company. He afterwards joined -the King’s men. But, before he went, he took a part in _The Honest -Man’s Fortune_, which is stated in the _Dyce MS._ to have been played -in 1613, while its ‘principal actors’ are named in the 1679 folio of -Beaumont and Fletcher as ‘Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, Emanuel Read, -Joseph Taylor, Will. Eglestone and Thomas Basse’. This particular -combination seems to point clearly to the Lady Elizabeth’s men as the -original producers of the play. A very similar cast is assigned in the -same folio to _The Coxcomb_, namely, ‘Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, -Giles Gary, Emanuel Read, Richard Allen, Hugh Atawell, Robert Benfeild, -and William Barcksted’; and I think that this also must belong to a -performance by the Lady Elizabeth’s men about 1613. _The Coxcomb_ had -certainly been played at Court by the Queen’s Revels in 1612, but -it seems impossible that Taylor can then have been a member of that -company.[687] The new blood brought in from Rosseter’s company will, -then, have included Field, Attwell, Richard Allen, Benfield, Reade, and -perhaps Robert Baxter, of whom the first three had played in Jonson’s -_Epicoene_ for the Revels in 1609. When it is remembered that Cary and -Barksted had been in the same cast, it will be realized that the Lady -Elizabeth’s men, as constituted in 1613, were very much the Queen’s -Revels over again. - -I think there can be no doubt that the Lady Elizabeth’s men was -the company principally referred to in the long series of letters -from Robert Daborne to Henslowe, which runs from 17 April 1613 to -31 July 1614.[688] Daborne had been one of the patentees for the -Queen’s Revels in 1609, and some letters apparently belonging to the -same series show Field as interested, either as writer or actor, in -some of the plays which Henslowe was purchasing from Daborne, with -a view to reselling them to this company. Further confirmation is -to be obtained for this view from the signature of Hugh Attwell as -witness to one of Henslowe’s advances to Daborne,[689] and from the -mention of Benfield,[690] of Pallant who, as will be seen, joined the -company in 1614,[691] and of _Eastward Ho!_ which their repertory -had inherited from that of the Queen’s Revels.[692] That ‘Mr. Allin’ -was hearing Daborne’s plays with Henslowe in May 1613 need cause no -difficulty.[693] It is true that Edward Alleyn is not known to have -had any relations with the Lady Elizabeth’s men, but John Alleyn, a -nephew of Edward, is amongst Henslowe’s witnesses about this time,[694] -and Richard Allen, who may not have belonged to the same family, was -himself one of the Lady Elizabeth’s men, and perhaps served as their -literary adviser. The correspondence makes it possible to recover -the names of a series of plays on which Daborne was engaged, either -alone or in collaboration with others, during the period over which it -extends, and all of which seem to have been primarily meant for the -Lady Elizabeth’s men, although he occasionally professes, as an aid to -his chaffering, to have an alternative market with the King’s men.[695] -From April to June 1613 he was writing a tragedy of _Machiavel and the -Devil_, and this is probably the ‘new play’, of which he suggests the -performance on Wednesday in August, to follow one of _Eastward Ho!_ on -the Monday.[696] For this Henslowe covenanted to pay him £20. In June -he was also completing _The Arraignment of London_, of which he had -given an act to Cyril Tourneur to write; and to this _The Bellman of -London_, for which he and a colleague, perhaps again Tourneur, asked -no more than £12 and ‘the overplus of the second day’ in August, was -probably a sequel.[697] This may be the play which he had delivered to -Henslowe about the beginning of December. About July he seems also to -have been occupied upon a play in collaboration with Field, Fletcher, -and Massinger. This is not named, and Mr. Fleay’s identification of it -with _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ is rather hazardous.[698] In December -he began _The Owl_, for which his price fell to £10; and on 11 March -1614 he had finished this, and was beginning _The She Saint_ and asking -‘but 12^l a play till they be playd.’ The correspondence has a gap -between the middle of August and the middle of October 1613. Probably -the company were on tour; they are found at Coventry, Shrewsbury, and -Marlborough in 1612–13, Canterbury on 4 July 1613, Dover between 12 -July and 7 August, and Leicester on 13 October. In the spring they had -been at Bristol and Norwich. On 12 December they repeated one of their -plays of the preceding winter, Marston’s _The Dutch Courtesan_, before -Charles, and on 25 January 1614 gave _Eastward Ho!_ which they had been -playing in public during the summer, before James. Taylor was again -their payee for this Christmas. - -The statement of grievances indicates another reconstruction of the -company in March 1614. In this transaction, which apparently involved -the buying out of Rosseter’s interest, Meade was in partnership with -Henslowe, and Field was presumably in some position of authority on -behalf of the players, as it is alleged that Henslowe bribed him, in -order to obtain his assent to the modification of a covenant under -which he was to make an allowance for a withdrawal of the theatre once -a fortnight for baiting. The terms recited agree with those of an -undated and mutilated agreement between Henslowe and Jacob Meade on one -side and Field on behalf of an unnamed company of players on the other. -The text of this follows:[699] - - Articles of agreement made, concluded, and agreed vppon, - and which are on the parte and behalfe of Phillipp Henslowe - Esquier and Jacob Meade Waterman to be perfourmed, touchinge - & concerninge the Company of players which they haue lately - raised, viz^t. - - Imprimis the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade doe for - them, their executours and administratours, Covenante, promise, - and graunt by theis presentes to and with Nathan Feilde gent., - That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one - of them shall and will duringe the space of Three yeares at - all tymes (when noe restraynte of playinge shalbe) at their - or some of their owne proper costes and charges fynde and - provide a sufficient howse or howses for the saide Company - to play in, And also shall and will at all tymes duringe the - saide tearme disburse and lay out all suche somme & sommes of - monny, as ffower or ffive Shareres of the saide Company chosen - by the saide Phillipp and Jacob shall thinck fittinge, for - the furnishinge of the said Company with playinge apparrell - towardes the settinge out of their newe playes, And further - that the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall and will - at all tymes duringe the saide tearme, when the saide Company - shall play in or neare the Cittie of London, furnish the saide - Company of players, aswell with suche stock of apparrell & other - properties as the said Phillipp Henslowe hath already bought, As - also with suche other stock of apparrell as the saide Phillipp - Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall hereafter provide and buy for - the said Company duringe the saide tearme, And further shall - and will at suche tyme and tymes duringe the saide tearme, as - the saide Company of Players shall by meanes of any restraynte - or sicknes goe into the Contrey, deliuer and furnish the saide - Company with fitting apparrell out of both the saide stockes of - apparrell. And further the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob - Meade doe for them, their executours and administratours, - convenante and graunt to and with the saide Nathan Feilde by - theis presentes in manner and fourme followinge, that is to say, - That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one of - them shall and will from tyme to tyme duringe the saide tearme - disburse and lay out suche somme or sommes of monny as shalbe - thought fittinge by ffower or ffive of the Shareres of the saide - Company, to be chosen by the saide Phillipp & Jacob or one of - them, to be paide for any play which they shall buy or condicion - or agree for; Soe alwaies as the saide Company doe and shall - truly repaye vnto the saide Phillipp and Jacob, their executores - or assignes, all suche somme & sommes of monny, as they shall - disburse for any play, vppon the second or third daie wheron the - same play shalbe plaide by the saide Company, without fraude - or longer delay; And further that the saide Phillipp Henslowe - and Jacob Meade shall and will at all tymes, vppon request made - by the Maior parte of the Sharers of the saide Company v[nder - their] handes, remove and putt out of the saide Company any of - the saide Company of playeres, if the saide Phillipp Henslowe - and Jacob Meade shall fynde [the s]aide request to be iust and - that ther be noe hope of conformety in the partie complayned - of; And further that they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob - Mea[de shall] and [will] at all tymes, vppon request made by - the saide Company or the maior parte therof, pay vnto them all - suche somes of monny as shall comme vnto their handes v[ppon [ - extra spaces ]of]any forfectures for rehearsalles or suche like - paymentes; And also shall and will, vppon the request of the - said Company or the maior parte of the[m], sue [ extra spaces ] - ar[ extra spaces ] persons by whom any forfecture shalbe made - as aforesaid, and after or vppon the recovery and receipte - th[ero]f (their charges disbursed about the recovery [[ extra - spaces ]b]einge first deducted and allowed) shall and will make - satisfaccion of the remaynder therof vnto the said Company - without fraude or guile. - -Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg think that at the time of this reconstruction -the company was further strengthened by the incorporation of the Duke -of York’s, now the Prince’s, men.[700] This I doubt, as the Prince’s -men continued to play at Court, as a company quite distinct from the -Lady Elizabeth’s, during the winter of 1614–15. It is true that Robert -Dawes, who had been one of the Duke of York’s in 1610, joined the Lady -Elizabeth’s, but it was precisely one of the grievances that this man -and Robert Pallant were introduced by Henslowe, by means of a financial -adjustment unfavourable to the sharers, in June 1614. Pallant had -passed through several companies, and is traceable with Queen Anne’s -men in 1609. He was still technically a servant of the Queen at her -death in 1619.[701] A letter from Daborne on 28 March 1614 shows that -he was then expecting an answer to some proposal made to Henslowe, -which the latter had neglected.[702] Articles between Robert Dawes and -Henslowe and Meade are on record, and bear the date 7 April 1614.[703] -The following is the text: - - Articles of Agreement,] made, concluded, and agreed uppon, and - which are to be kept & performed by Robert Dawes of London, - Gent. unto and with Phillipp Henslowe Esq^{re} and Jacob [Meade - Waterman] in manner and forme followinge, that is to say - - Imprimis. The said Robert Dawes for him, his executors, and - administrators doth covenante, promise, and graunt to and with - the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, - administrators, and assynes, in manner and formme followinge, - that is to saie, that he the said Robert Dawes shall and will - plaie with such company, as the said Phillipp Henslowe and - Jacob Meade shall appoynte, for and during the tyme and space - of three yeares from the date hereof for and at the rate of one - whole share, accordinge to the custome of players; and that he - the said Robert Dawes shall and will at all tymes during the - said terme duly attend all suche rehearsall, which shall the - night before the rehearsall be given publickly out; and if that - he the saide Robert Dawes shall at any tyme faile to come at - the hower appoynted, then he shall and will pay to the said - Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes, - Twelve pence; and if he come not before the saide rehearsall - is ended, then the said Robert Dawes is contented to pay Twoe - shillings; and further that if the said Robert Dawes shall not - every daie, whereon any play is or ought to be played, be ready - apparrelled and ---- to begyn the play at the hower of three of - the clock in the afternoone, unles by sixe of the same company - he shall be lycenced to the contrary, that then he, the saide - Robert Dawes, shall and will pay unto the said Phillipp and - Jacob or their assignes Three [shillings]; and if that he, the - saide Robert Dawes, happen to be overcome with drinck at the - tyme when he [ought to] play, by the judgment of ffower of the - said company, he shall and will pay Tenne shillings; and if he, - [the said Robert Dawes], shall [faile to come] during any plaie, - having noe lycence or just excuse of sicknes, he is contented - to pay Twenty shillings; and further the said Robert Dawes, - for him, his executors, and administrators, doth covenant and - graunt to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, - their executors, administrators, and asignes, by these presents, - that it shall and may be lawfull unto and for the said Phillipp - Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes, during - the terme aforesaid, to receave and take back to their own - proper use the part of him, the said Robert Dawes, of and in one - moyetie or halfe part of all suche moneyes, as shal be receaved - at the Galleries & tyring howse of such house or howses wherein - he the saide Robert Dawes shall play, for and in consideration - of the use of the same howse and howses; and likewis shall - and may take and receave his other moyetie ...[ extra spaces - ] the moneys receaved at the galleries and tiring howse dues, - towards the pa[ying] to them, the saide Phillip Henslowe and - Jacob Meade, of the some of one hundred twenty and fower pounds, - being the value of the stock of apparell furnished by the saide - company by the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade ...[ extra - spaces ] the one part of him the saide Robert Dawes or any other - somes ...[ extra spaces ] to them for any apparell hereafter - newly to be bought by the [said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob - Meade, until the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade] shall - therby be fully satisfied, contented, and paid. And further - the said Robert Dawes doth covenant, [promise, and graunt to - and with the said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, that if - he, the said Robert Dawes], shall at any time after the play - is ended depart or goe out of the [howse] with any [of their] - apparell on his body, or if the said Robert Dawes [shall carry - away any propertie] belonging to the said company, or shal be - consentinge [or privy to any other of the said company going - out of the howse with any of their apparell on his or their - bodies, he, the said] Robert Dawes, shall and will forfeit and - pay unto the said Phillip and Jacob, or their administrators - or assignes, the some of ffortie pounds of lawfull [money of - England] ...[ extra spaces ] and the said Robert Dawes, for - him, his executors, and administrators doth [covenant promise - and graunt to with the said] Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, - their executors, and administrators [and assigns] [ extra spaces - ] that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the said Phillip - Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, and assignes, to have - and use the playhows so appoynted [for the said company [ extra - spaces ] one day of] every fower daies, the said daie to be - chosen by the said Phillip and [Jacob] [ extra spaces ] Monday - in any week, on which day it shalbe lawful for the said Phillip - [and Jacob, their administrators], and assignes, to bait their - bears and bulls ther, and to use their accustomed sport and - [games] [ extra spaces ] and take to their owne use all suche - somes of money, as thereby shall arise and be receaved - - And the saide Robert Dawes, his executors, administrators, and - assignes, [do hereby covenant, promise, and graunt to and with - the saide Phillip and Jacob,] allowing to the saide company - daye the some of ffortie shillings money of England ... [In - testimony] for every such whereof, I the saide Robert Dawes haue - hereunto sett my hand and seal this [sev]enth daie of April 1614 - in the twelfth yeare [of the reign of our sovereign lord &c.] - Robert Dawes. - -It must be mainly matter of conjecture at what theatres the Lady -Elizabeth’s had played from 1611 to 1614. Possibly they may have begun -at the Swan. Middleton’s _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ was published as -‘often acted at the Swan on the Bankeside by the Lady Elizabeth her -Seruants’, and although this publication was not until 1630, it is -rather tempting to identify the play with _The Proud Maid_ of 1611–12. -Probably the association of the company with Henslowe led to a transfer -to the Rose; and after the joining of forces with Rosseter in March -1613, the Whitefriars must have been available for the combination. -That there were alternatives open in 1613 is shown by two passages -in Daborne’s letters.[704] On 5 June he says that the company were -expecting Henslowe to conclude ‘about thear comming over or goinge -to Oxford’, and by ‘comming over’ may most naturally be understood -crossing the Thames. On 9 December he claims that a book he is upon -will ‘make as good a play for your publique howse as ever was playd’, -and the inference is that at the time Henslowe was interested in a -‘private’ as well as in a ‘public’ house. Certainly the Watermen’s -complaint in the spring of 1614 indicates that there were then no plays -on Bankside, and both the Swan and the Rose must therefore have been -deserted. But by the autumn the Lady Elizabeth’s men were in the Clink, -occupying the newly built Hope on the site of the old Bear-garden; and -that the use of this theatre was contemplated in the agreements of the -previous spring is shown both by the presence of Meade, who is not -known to have been interested in any other house, as a party, and by -the reservation of one day in fourteen for the purpose of baiting.[705] -It was at the Hope that William Fennor failed to appear to try his -challenge with John Taylor on 7 October, and the Lady Elizabeth’s men -were presumably the players-- - - And such a company (I’ll boldly say) - That better (nor the like) ne’er played a play-- - -who came to the rescue and saved the occasion from fiasco. And it was -at the Hope and by the Lady Elizabeth’s men, as the Induction and the -title-page show, that Jonson’s _Bartholomew Fair_ was produced on 31 -October. There is a reference in the text of the play to Taylor’s -adventure,[706] and a compliment to Field, which puts him on a level -with Burbadge of the King’s men.[707] _Bartholomew Fair_ was presented -on the very next day before James at Court. This performance, for which -Field was payee on 11 June, was the only one by the company during the -winter festivities of 1614–15. In February 1615 there was a breach -between Henslowe and the company, as a result of which the Articles of -Grievance were drawn up. According to the Articles Henslowe ‘brooke -the companie’; but it is not quite clear what exactly took place. In -some form the Lady Elizabeth’s men certainly continued to exist. They -visited Nottingham in March 1615, and a letter from Lord Coke to the -Mayor of Coventry shows that they also contemplated a visit to that -town in the same month.[708] My impression is that they subsequently -patched up another reconstruction with Henslowe, and that on this -occasion the process did entail some kind of amalgamation with Prince -Charles’s men. Field, however, probably now joined the King’s men. The -Lady Elizabeth’s do not appear to have been separately represented -when the Privy Council called the London companies before them for a -breach of Lent on 29 March 1615. It is true that they may have been -alone in not offending, but it is more probable that William Rowley -and John Newton, who were summoned, answered for the amalgamation. The -Prince’s men are recorded as playing at Court during the Christmas of -1615–16 and the Lady Elizabeth’s men are not. Yet the payee for their -four plays, of which the dates are not specified, was Alexander Foster, -who had been a Lady Elizabeth’s man and not a Prince’s man. But it -is probable that both this amalgamation and the earlier one between -the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels, although effective as a -business operation from Henslowe’s point of view, did not amount to a -complete merging of identities, such as would entail a surrender of -one or other of the official patents. Certainly the Lady Elizabeth’s, -the Prince’s and the Revels were in some sense distinct, and yet in -the closest relationship in 1615. So much is clear from Rosseter’s -patent of 3 June to build in the Blackfriars, which contemplated that -all three companies would share in the use of the new house. That -the joint user extended also to plays is suggested by the title-page -of Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (1618) which declares it to have been -‘acted at the Blacke-Fryers, both by the Princes Seruants and the Lady -Elizabeths’. Perhaps this indicates alternative rather than combined -playing. Whatever the arrangement, it was probably altered again on or -before Henslowe’s death on 6 January 1616.[709] A company containing -many of the former Lady Elizabeth’s men remained at the Hope. But they -went under Prince Charles’s patronage, and it is not until 1622, when -we find them at Christopher Beeston’s house of the Cockpit or Phoenix, -that we can be sure of the presence of Lady Elizabeth’s men in London -once more.[710] But they had held together in the provinces. Possibly -the nucleus of the provincial company had been formed of men left out -by the Henslowe-Rosseter negotiations of 1613–14. They first appear -at Norwich on 2 March 1614 under Nicholas Long, who in 1612 had been -travelling with Queen’s Revels boys. They came again on 27 May 1615 -with an exemplification of the 1611 patent dated 31 May 1613, and again -on 5 June 1616 under John Townsend, and again on 7 June 1617 under -Henry Sebeck. In the same year Joseph Moore was acting as an agent of -the Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Revels in clearing the provinces -of irregularly licensed players, not improbably in the interests of -the Lady Elizabeth’s themselves, whose original patent was now set -free, through changes in London, for provincial use in place of a mere -exemplification.[711] The company is also traceable at Leicester, -Coventry, Nottingham, Marlborough, and elsewhere from 1614,[712] and on -11 July 1617 Townsend and Moore received a warrant for £30 in respect -of three plays given before James during his journey to Scotland.[713] -On 20 March 1618 Townsend and Moore, with Alexander Foster and Francis -Waymus, obtained a new licence under the royal signet.[714] This -authorized them to play in London, and their actual return there may -have been earlier than 1622. - - - - - XIV - - INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES - - - i. ITALIAN PLAYERS IN ENGLAND - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The wanderings of the Italian - companies in Italy itself and in France are recounted in A. - D’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro Italiano_ (ed. 2, 1891), and A. - Baschet, _Les Comédiens italiens à la Cour de France_ (1882), - but without much knowledge of the few English records. W. - Smith, _Italian and Elizabethan Comedy_ (_M. P._ v. 555) and - _The Commedia dell’ Arte_ (1912), deals more fully with these. - The literary influence of Italian comedy is discussed by L. L. - Schücking, _Die stofflichen Beziehungen der englischen Komödie - zur italienischen bis Lilly_ (1901), and R. W. Bond, _Early - Plays from the Italian_ (1911).] - -The England of Elizabeth and James was a lender rather than a borrower -of players. No records have been disinterred of French actors in this -country between 1495 and 1629;[715] and although there are a few of -Italian actors, their visits seem to have been confined to a single -brief period.[716] The head-quarters of Italian comedy during the -middle of the sixteenth century was at the Court of Mantua, and when -Lord Buckhurst went as ambassador to congratulate Charles IX of France -on his wedding, it was by Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers and brother -of the Duke of Mantua, that he was entertained on 4 March 1571 ‘with -a comedie of Italians that for the good mirth and handling thereof -deserved singular comendacion’.[717] In the following year the Earl of -Lincoln was at Paris from 8 to 22 June in order to conclude a treaty, -and letters relate how he saw at the Louvre ‘an Italian playe, and -dyvers vauters and leapers of dyvers sortes verie excellent’, and how -later, when he visited the King at the Chateau de Madrid, ‘he had some -pastyme showed him by Italian players, which I was at with hym’.[718] -It may perhaps have been encouragement from one or both of these -nobles, which led an Italian company not long afterwards to make its -way across the Channel. The first notice of it is at Nottingham in -September 1573, when a reward was ‘gevin to the Italyans for serteyne -pastymes that they shewed before Maister Meare and his brethren’.[719] -In 1574 the Revels Accounts include expenditure ‘for the Italyan -players that ffollowed the progresse and made pastyme fyrst at Wynsor -and afterwardes at Reading’. Elizabeth was at Windsor on 11 and 12 -July; on 15 July she removed to Reading and remained there to 22 July. -At Windsor the Italians used ‘iij devells cotes and heades & one olde -mannes fries cote’; at Reading, where they performed on 15 July, the -provisions included staves, hooks, and lambskins for shepherds, arrows -for nymphs, a scythe for Saturn, and ‘horstayles for the wylde mannes -garment’. Professor Feuillerat appears to suggest that they may have -been playing Tasso’s _Aminta_, produced at Ferrara on 31 July 1573. -But there were other pastorals.[720] The Italians are probably the -comedians commended to the Lord Mayor on 22 July, and in November -Thomas Norton calls special attention to ‘the unchaste, shamelesse and -unnaturall tomblinge of the Italian weomen’. How long this company -remained in England is unknown. There was an Italian acrobat at the -Kenilworth festivities on 14 July 1575, but the description suggests -that he was a solitary performer.[721] The Treasurer of the Chamber -paid ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle and the rest of the Italian players’ for -a play at Court on 27 February 1576, to the consideration of which -I shall return. In April 1577 there was an Italian play before the -Council at Durham Place.[722] Finally, on 13 January 1578, the Privy -Council addressed a letter to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to permit -‘one Drousiano, an Italian, a commediante and his companye’, to play -until the first week of the coming Lent. I take it that the company -was also at Court, since the Chamber Accounts for 1577–8 include an -item ‘for a mattres hoopes and boardes with tressells for the Italian -Tumblers’. The company to which the visit of 1573–4 was due cannot be -identified with any certainty. Presumably it came through France, and -ought to have left signs there. There seem to have been three Italian -companies in France during 1571. The first, in February, was that of -Giovanni Tabarin. The second, that seen by Lord Buckhurst in Paris, -was the famous Compagnia de’ Gelosi, of which one Signora Vittoria, of -Ferrara, known on the stage as Fioretta, was the prima donna. This, -however, had returned to Milan by the spring of 1572 and its subsequent -movements hardly render a visit to England in 1573 plausible. A third -company, that of Alberto Ganassa, a Zanni or clown from Bergamo, -reached Paris in the autumn of 1571.[723] It was sent away by the -Parlement on account of its high charges for admission, but returned -in 1572 and played at the wedding of Henri of Navarre and Marguerite -of Valois on 18 August. Nothing is heard of Ganassa in France after -October 1572, but during the summer of 1574 he seems to have been in -Madrid; so he also is not available for the English visit. It may -very likely have been his company which the Earl of Lincoln saw. But -it may also have been that led by Soldino of Florence and Anton Maria -of Venice, which was performing ‘commedies et saults’ before Charles -IX at Blois on 25 March 1572, and subsequently made its way to Paris. -My authorities say nothing further about Soldino and Anton Maria, so -we are at liberty to believe that Lincoln invited them to try their -fortune across the sea.[724] - -The ‘Drousiano’ of 1578 offers less difficulty. He must have been -Drusiano, son of Francisco Martinelli, of Mantua, who in after years -won a considerable reputation, although less than that of his brother -Tristano Martinelli, as Arlecchino in the _commedia dell’ arte_.[725] -There is no other notice of him before 1580, when he subscribes himself -as ‘marito di M^a Angelica’, who appears to have been one Angelica -Alberghini, and the company with which he was associated in 1578 is not -known.[726] But it may very well have been the Gelosi. This company -paid in 1577 their second visit to France, upon the invitation of Henri -III, and remained there at least until July. They seem to have been in -Florence fairly early in 1578, but some or all of them may have found -time for an English trip in the interval. Direct proof that Drusiano -Martinelli ever belonged to the Gelosi is lacking. But they are the -only Italian company known to have been in France in the summer of -1577, and players are not likely to have passed from Italy to England -without leaving some traces of their presence in France.[727] - -The professional Italian actors of the second half of the sixteenth -century played both the popular _commedia dell’ arte_ and the literary -_commedia erudita_, or _commedia sostenuta_. The former, with its more -or less improvised dialogue upon scenarii, which revolved around the -amorous and ridiculous adventures of the _zanni_, the _arlecchino_, the -_dottore_, and other standing types, was probably best adapted to the -methods of wandering mimes in an alien land.[728] The latter was common -to professionals and amateurs. And I suspect that the Court play of 27 -February 1576, although it earned its reward from the Treasurer of the -Chamber, was an amateur performance. The ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle’ of the -account-book can hardly be other than a clerical perversion of the name -of Alfonso Ferrabosco, the first of three generations of that name, -father, son, and grandson, who contributed in turn to the gaiety of -the English Court. The eldest Ferrabosco was certainly in this country -by 1562 when he was granted an annuity of 100 marks. His service -terminated after various interruptions in 1578.[729] He is doubtless -the ‘Mr. Alphonse’ who took part in the preparation of a mask in June -1572.[730] In connexion with the same mask, a reward was paid to one -‘Petrucio’, while for a later mask of 11 January 1579 ‘Patruchius -Ubaldinas’ was employed to translate speeches into Italian and write -them out fair in tables.[731] This was Petruccio Ubaldini, another of -Elizabeth’s Italian pensioners, who was both a literary man and an -illuminator, and made his residence in England from 1562 to 1586.[732] -It is quite possible that the performance of 1576 may be referred to in -the following undated letter from Ubaldini to the Queen, in which he -makes mention of Ferrabosco.[733] If so, it came off after all. - - Sacra Serenissima Maiesta, - - Perché à i giorni passati io haveva promesso à M. Claudio - Cavallerizzo, et à M. Alfonso Ferrabosco, d’esser contento di - recitare ad una piacevol Comedia Italiana; per compiacere alla - Maiesta Vostra; et non si trovando di poi altri, che tre ò - quattro, che fusser contenti d’accettar tal carico; ho voluto - che l’Altezza Vostra conosca da me stesso il pronto animo, - ch’ io ho per la mia parté di servirla, et di compiacerla in - ogni attioné, che me sia comandata ò da lei, ò in suo nomé, - non solamente comé servitore giurato, ch’io gli sono; ma comé - desiderosissimo di far conoscere, che la divotioné, ch’io - porto allé sue Reali qualità, supera ogn’ altro rispetto; - desiderandogli io contentezza, et felicità non meno, che - qualunqué altro suo servitore gli desideri: la cui bontà Dio ci - prosperi. - - Di Vostra Sacra Serenissima Maiesta. - -Of Claudio Cavallerizzo I regret to say that I know nothing. - -A statement that Venetian actors were in England in 1608 rests upon a -misreading of a record.[734] - - - ii. ENGLISH PLAYERS IN SCOTLAND - -The interlude players of Henry VII, under John English, accompanied the -Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding with James IV in 1503, -and ‘did their devoir’ before the Court at Edinburgh.[735] It is the -best part of a century before any similar adventure is recorded. In the -interval came the Scottish reformation, which was no friend to courtly -pageantry. Yet in Scotland, as elsewhere, Kirk discipline had to make -some compromise with the drama. In 1574 the General Assembly, while -utterly forbidding, not for the first time, ‘clerk playes, comedies or -tragedies maid of ye cannonicall Scriptures’, went on to ordain ‘an -article to be given in to sick as sitts upon ye policie yat for uther -playes comedies tragedies and utheris profaine playes, as are not maid -upon authentick pairtes of ye Scriptures, may be considerit before -they be exponit publictlie and yat they be not played uppon ye Sabboth -dayes’.[736] It was once more a royal wedding that led to a histrionic -courtesy between England and Scotland. In the autumn of 1589 James VI -was expecting the arrival of his bride Anne of Denmark, a sensuous -and spectacle-loving lady, who had already had experience of English -actors at her father’s Court in 1586.[737] And being then, two years -after his mother’s execution, actively engaged in promoting friendly -relations with Elizabeth, he sent a request through one Roger Ashton -to Lord Scrope, the Warden of the English West Marches, ‘for to have -her Majesties players for to repayer into Scotland to his grace’. In -reply Scrope wrote from Carlisle on 20 September to William Ashby, the -English ambassador at Edinburgh, begging him to notify the King, that -he had sent a servant to them, ‘wheir they were in the furthest parte -of Langkeshire, whervpon they made their returne heather to Carliell, -wher they are, and have stayed for the space of ten dayes’.[738] After -all, the Lapland witches and their winds delayed Anne’s crossing for -some months, and James had himself to join her in Denmark. It is, I -think, only a conjecture that the players whose ‘book’ was submitted on -3 June 1589 for the licence of the Kirk Session at Perth, in accordance -with the order of 1574, were Englishmen.[739] But certainly ‘Inglis -comedianis’ were in Scotland in 1594, probably for the baptism of Henry -Frederick on 30 August, and received from James the generous gift of -£333 6_s._ 8_d._ out of ‘the composicioun of the escheit of ye laird -of Kilcrewch and his complices’.[740] Probably Laurence Fletcher was -at the head of this expedition, for on 22 March 1595 George Nicolson, -the English agent at Edinburgh, wrote to Robert Bowes, treasurer -of Berwick, that, ‘The King heard that Fletcher, the player, was -hanged, and told him and Roger Aston so, in merry words, not believing -it, saying very pleasantly that if it were true he would hang them -also’.[741] In any case, Fletcher appears to have been the leader of -a company whose peregrinations in Scotland a few years later, much -favoured by James, were also much embarrassed by the critical relations -which then existed between the Sovereign and the Kirk. It is only a -conjecture that this was the company which was refused leave to play at -St. Andrews on 1 October 1598.[742] But of greater troubles, which took -place at Edinburgh a year later, we are very well informed. They are -detailed from the Kirk point of view in the more or less contemporary -chronicle of David Calderwood.[743] - - _The King Chargeth the Kirk of Edinburgh to Rescind an Act._ - - Some English comedians came to this countrie in the moneth of - October. After they had acted sindrie comedeis in presence of - the King, they purchassed at last a warrant or precept to the - bailliffes of Edinburgh, to gett them an hous within the toun. - Upon Moonday, the 12^{th} of November, they gave warning by - trumpets and drummes through the streets of Edinburgh, to all - that pleased, to come to the Blacke Friers’ Wynd to see the - acting of their comedeis. The ministers of Edinburgh, fearing - the profanitie that was to ensue, speciallie the profanatioun - of the Sabbath day, convocated the foure sessiouns of the Kirk. - An act was made by commoun consent, that none resort to these - profane comedeis, for eshewing offence of God, and of evill - exemple to others; and an ordinance was made, that everie - minister sould intimat this act in their owne severall pulpits. - They had indeid committed manie abusses, speciallie upon the - Sabboth, at night before. The King taketh the act in evill part, - as made purposelie to crosse his warrant, and caused summoun - the ministers and foure sessiouns, _super inquirendis_, before - the Secreit Counsell, They sent doun some in commissioun to - the King, and desired the mater might be tryed privatlie, and - offered, if they had offended, to repair the offence at his - owne sight; and alledged they had the warrant of the synod - presentlie sitting in the toun. The King would have the mater to - come in publict. When they went doun, none was called upon but - M^r. Peter Hewat and Henrie Nisbit. After that they were heard, - the sentence was givin out against all the rest unheard, and - charge givin to the ministers and foure sessiouns to conveene, - within three houres after, to rescind their former ordinance, - and to the ministers, to intimat the contrarie of that which - they intimated before. They craved to be heard. Loath was the - King, yitt the counsell moved him to heare them. M^r. Johne - Hall was appointed to be their mouth. ‘We are summouned, Sir,’ - said M^r. Johne, ‘and crave to understand to what end.’ ‘It is - true’, said the King, ‘yee are summouned, and I have decerned - alreadie.’ M^r. Johne made no reply. M^r. Robert Bruce said, ‘If - it might stand with your good pleasure, we would know wherefore - this hard sentence is past against us.’ ‘For contraveening of - my warrant,’ said the King. ‘We have fulfilled your warrant,’ - said M^r. Robert, ‘for your warrant craved no more but an hous - to them, which they have gottin.’ ‘To what end, I pray you, - sought I an hous,’ said the King, ‘but onlie that the people - might resort to their comedeis?’ ‘Your warrant beareth not that - end,’ said M^r. Robert, ‘and we have good reasoun to stay them - from their playes, even by your owne acts of parliament.’ The - King answered, ‘Yee are not the interpreters of my lawes.’ ‘And - farther, the warrant was intimated but to one or two,’ said - M^r. Robert, and, therefore, desired the King to retreate the - sentence. The King would alter nothing. ‘At the least, then,’ - said M^r. Robert, ‘lett the paine strike upon us, and exeeme - our people.’ The King bade him make away. So, in departing, - M^r. Robert turned, and said, ‘Sir, please you, nixt the regard - we ow to God, we had a reverent respect to your Maiestie’s - royall person, and person of your queene; for we heard that the - comedians, in their playes, checked your royall person with - secreit and indirect taunts and checkes; and there is not a man - of honour in England would give such fellowes so much as their - countenance’. So they departed. - - They were charged, at two houres, by sound of trumpet, the day - following, at the publict Croce, about ten houres, to conveene - themselves, and rescind the acts, or ellis to passe to the horne - immediatly after. The foure sessiouns conveene in the East Kirk. - They asked the ministers’ advice. The ministers willed them - to advise with some advocats, seing the mater tuiched their - estate so neere. M^r. William Oliphant and M^r. Johne Schairp, - advocats, came to the foure sessiouns. The charge was read. The - advocats gave their counsell to rescind the act, by reasoun the - King’s charge did not allow slanderous and undecent comedeis; - and farther, shewed unto them, that the sessiouns could doe - nothing without their ministers, seing they were charged as - weill as the sessiouns, and the mater could not passe in voting, - but the moderator and they being present. They were called in, - and after reasouning they came to voting. M^r. Robert Bruce - being first asked, answered ‘His Majestie is not minded to allow - anie slanderous or offensive comedeis; but so it is that their - comedeis are slanderous and offensive; therefore, the king, - in effect, ratifieth our act. The rest of the ministers voted - after the same maner. The elders, partlie for feare of their - estats, partlie upon informatioun of the advocats, voted to the - rescinding of the act. It was voted nixt, whether the ministers - sould intimat the rescinding of the act? The most part voted - they sould. The ministers assured them they would not. Henrie - Nisbit, Archibald Johnstoun, Alexander Lindsey, and some others, - tooke upon them to purchasse an exemptioun to the ministers. - They returned with this answere, that his Majestie was content - the mater sould be passed over lightlie, but he would have some - mentioun made of the annulling of the act. They refuse. Their - commissioners went the second tyme to the king, and returned - with this answere, ‘Lett them nather speeke good nor evill in - that mater, but leave it as dead.’ The ministers conveened apart - to consult. M^r. Robert Bruce said it behoved them ather to - justifie the thing they had done, or ellis they could not goe to - a pulpit. Some others said the like. Others said, Leave it to - God, to doe as God would direct their hearts. So they dissolved. - M^r. Robert, and others that were of his minde, justified it - the day following, in some small measure, and yitt were not - querrelled. - -Several other documents confirm this narrative. The Privy Council -register contains an order of 8 November for an officer at arms to call -upon the sessions by proclamation to rescind their resolution and a -further proclamation of 10 November reciting the submission made by the -sessions.[744] The Lord High Treasurer’s accounts contain payments to -Walter Forsyth, the officer employed, as well as gifts to ‘ye Inglis -comedianis’ of £43 6_s._ 8_d._ in October, of £40 in November ‘to by -tymber for ye preparatioun of ane house to thair pastyme’, and of a -further £333 6_s._ 8_d._ in December.[745] It is George Nicolson, in -a letter of 12 November forwarding the proclamation of 8 November to -Sir Robert Cecil, who identifies the players for us as ‘Fletcher and -Mertyn with their company’.[746] The bounty of James, although it must -be borne in mind that the sums were reckoned in pounds Scots, probably -left them disinclined to quit Edinburgh in a hurry. Another gift of -£400 reached them through Roger Ashton in 1601;[747] and on 9 October -in the same year they visited Aberdeen with a letter of recommendation -from the King, and with the style of his majesty’s servants, and the -town council gave them £22 and spent £3 on their supper ‘that nicht -thaye plaid to the towne’. Nay, more, another entry in the burgh -register tells us that the players came in the train of ‘Sir Francis -Hospital of Haulszie, Knycht, Frenschman’, and one of those ‘admittit -burgesses’ with the foreign visitor was ‘Laurence Fletcher, comediane -to his Majesty’.[748] - -Laurence Fletcher’s name stands first in the English patent of 1603 to -the King’s men, and the inferences have been drawn that the company -at Aberdeen was the Chamberlain’s men, that their visit was due to a -proscription from London on account of their participation in the Essex -‘innovation’, that Shakespeare was with them, and that he picked up -local colour, to the extent of ‘a blasted heath’ for _Macbeth_.[749] -To this it may be briefly replied that, as the Chamberlain’s men were -at Court as usual in the winter of 1602, any absence from London, -which their unlucky performance of _Richard II_ may have rendered -discreet, can only have been of short duration; that the most plausible -reading of the Scottish evidence is that Fletcher’s company were in -the service of James as Court comedians from 1599 to 1601; and that -there is nothing whatever to indicate that Fletcher ever belonged to -the Chamberlain’s company at all. In fact, very little is known of -him outside Scotland, although it is just possible that he may have -been the object of two advances made by Henslowe to the Admiral’s men -about October 1596, and described respectively as ‘lent vnto Martyne -to feache Fleatcher’ and ‘lent the company to geue Fleatcher’.[750] If -Fletcher was the King’s man in Scotland, it was not unnatural that he -should retain that status when James came to England; and it is very -doubtful whether the insertion of his name in the patent in any way -entailed his being taken into business relations with his ‘fellows’. -I strongly suspect that his companion at Edinburgh, Martin, was put -into a precisely similar position amongst Queen Anne’s men, for who can -Martin be but Martin Slater, who is often, as in the passage quoted -above, called Martin _tout court_ in Henslowe’s _Diary_, and who -certainly left the Admiral’s men in 1597? - - - iii. ENGLISH PLAYERS ON THE CONTINENT - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The earliest comprehensive study - of the foreign travels of English actors is that of A. Cohn, - _Shakespeare in Germany in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth - Centuries_ (1865). Much material has been collected, mostly - since Cohn wrote, in a number of local histories and special - studies, of which the most important are: C. M. Plümicke, - _Entwurf einer Theatergeschichte von Berlin_ (1781); D. C. von - Rommel, _Geschichte von Hessen_ (1820–38); J. E. Schlager, - _Über das alte Wiener Hoftheater_ in _Sitzungsberichte der - phil.-hist. Classe der Kaiserlichen Akad. der Wissenschaften_, - vi (1851), 147; M. Fürstenau, _Zur Geschichte der Musik und des - Theaters am Hofe der Kurfürsten von Sachsen_ (1861); E. Mentzel, - _Geschichte der Schauspielkunst in Frankfurt am Main_ (1882); O. - Teuber, _Geschichte des Prager Theaters_ (1883); J. Meissner, in - _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xix. 113 (Austria), and _Die englischen - Comoedianten zur Zeit Shakespeares in Oesterreich_ (1884); - K. Trautmann in _Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte_, xii. 319 - (Munich, Augsburg); xiii. 34 (Suabia), 315 (Ulm); xiv. 113 - (Nuremberg), 225 (Suabia); xv. 209 (Ulm, Stuttgart, Tübingen); - in _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, vii - (Rothenburg); and in _Jahrbuch für Münchener Geschichte_, iii. - 259; J. Crüger in _Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte_, xv. 113 - (Strassburg); Duncker, _Landgraf Moritz von Hessen und die - englischen Komödianten in Deutsche Rundschau_, xlviii (1886), - 260; A. Cohn in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 245 (Cologne); J. - Bolte in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 99 (Denmark and Sweden), - and _Das Danziger Theater im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert_ (1893); - J. Wolter in _Zeitschrift des Bergischen Geschichtsvereins_, - xxxii. 90 (Cologne); A. Wormstall in _Zeitschrift für - vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde Westfalens_, lvi - (1898), 75 (Münster); G. Witkowzski in _Euphorion_, xv. 441 - (Leipzig). A collection of records from the earlier of these - and from more scattered sources is in K. Goedeke, _Grundriss - der deutschen Dichtung aus den Quellen_^2 (1886), ii. 524, and - valuable summaries are given in W. Creizenach, _Schauspiele - der englischen Komödianten_ (1889), and E. Herz, _Englische - Schauspieler und englisches Schauspiel zur Zeit Shakespeares - in Deutschland_ (1903). The excursus of F. G. Fleay in _Life - and Work of Shakespeare_ (1886), 307, is misleading. Additional - material, which has become available since Herz wrote, is - recorded by C. F. Meyer in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 196 - (Wolgast), and C. Grabau in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311 - (Leipzig). Useful special studies are by C. Harris, _The English - Comedians in Germany before the Thirty Years’ War: the Financial - Side_ (_Publ. of Modern Language Association_, xxii. 446), A. - Dessoff, _Über englische, italienische und spanische Dramen - in den Spielverzeichnissen deutscher Wandertruppen_ (1901, - _Studien für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, i), and on - the problem of staging (cf. ch. xx) C. H. Kaulfuss-Diesch, _Die - Inszenierung des deutschen Dramas an der Wende des sechzehnten - und siebzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1905). A collection of plays and - jigs, in German, but belonging to the repertory of an English - company, appeared as _Engelische Comedien und Tragedien_ - (1620); some of the plays have been edited by J. Tittmann, - _Die Schauspiele der englischen Komödianten in Deutschland_ - (1880), and the jigs by J. Bolte, _Die Singspiele der englischen - Komödianten und ihrer Nachfolger in Deutschland, Holland und - Scandinavien_ (1893). German plays written under English - influences are to be found in J. Tittmann, _Die Schauspiele - des Herzogs Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig_ (1880), and - A. von Keller, _Jacob Ayrers Dramen_ (1865). Cohn prints, - with translations, Ayrer’s _Sidea_ and _Phaenicia, Julio and - Hyppolita_ and _Titus Andronicus_ from the 1620 volume, and - early German versions of _Hamlet_ (_Der bestrafte Brudermord_) - and _Romeo and Juliet_ from manuscripts. The literary records - and remains of the English players are fully discussed by - Creizenach and Herz, and their relation to Ayrer by W. Wodick, - _J. Ayrers Dramen in ihrem Verhältniss zur einheimischen - Literatur und zum Schauspiel der englischen Komödianten_ (1912). - - The material for the Netherlands, some of which was gathered by - Cohn, may be studied in J. A. Worp, _Geschiedenis van het Drama - en van het Tooneel in Nederland_ (1904–8), who also deals with - the Dutch versions of English dramas. The contemporary stage - conditions in France are best treated by E. Rigal, _Le Théâtre - français avant la période classique_ (1901), and those in Spain - by H. A. Rennert, _The Spanish Stage in the Time of Lope de - Vega_ (1909), who uses the results of recent researches by C. - Pérez Pastor, which have added much to the information furnished - by C. Pellicer, _Tratado histórico sobre el origen y progresos - de la Comedia y del Histrionismo en España_ (1804).] - -Thomas Heywood records, about 1608, that ‘the King of Denmarke, father -to him that now reigneth, entertained into his service a company of -English comedians, commended unto him by the honourable the Earl of -Leicester’.[751] This King of Denmark was Frederick II (1559–88), -father of Christian IV (1588–1648), and of Queen Anne of England. -English ‘instrumentister’, Johann Krafftt, Johann Personn, Johann -Kirck or Kirckmann, and Thomas Bull, were at the Danish Court as early -as 1579–80, and in 1585 certain unnamed English played (_lechte_) in -the courtyard of the town-hall at Elsinore, when the press of folk -was such that the wall broke down. These may be the same men who -played and vaulted at Leipzig on 19 July 1585, and are the earliest -English players yet traced in Germany.[752] But the particular -comedians referred to by Heywood were probably another company who -had accompanied Leicester to Holland, when he took the command of the -English forces in 1585, and had given a show, half dramatic, half -acrobatic, of _The Forces of Hercules_ at Utrecht on 23 April 1586. -Certainly Leicester had in his train one Will, a ‘jesting plaier’, -who is now usually identified with William Kempe, and in August and -September 1586 the Household Accounts of the Danish Court record the -presence of ‘Wilhelm Kempe instrumentist’, and of his boy Daniell -Jonns. It is not clear what were the precise relations between Kempe -and five other ‘instrumentister och springere’, Thomas Stiwens, -Jurgenn Brienn, Thomas Koning, Thomas Pape, and Robert Persj, who -were at Court from 17 June to 18 September 1586, and for whom the -same accounts record a payment to Thomas Stiuens of six thalers a -month apiece, at the end of that period. If he had, as is probable, -been their fellow up to that point, he did not accompany them in -their further peregrinations.[753] These took them to the Court of -Frederick’s nephew, Christian I, Elector of Saxony (1586–91), as a -result of correspondence, still extant, between the sovereigns, in -which the offer of salaries at the annual rate of 100 thalers overcame -the reluctance of the Englishmen to face the perils of an unknown -tongue. They started with an interpreter on 25 September, and shortly -after their arrival at Waidenhain on 16 October received instructions -from Christian to follow him with mourning clothes to Berlin, where -he was then sojourning. Christian’s own capital was Dresden, and -here they held a formal appointment in his service, under which they -were bound to follow him in his travels, and to entertain him with -performances after his banquets, and with music and ‘Springkunst’, and -were entitled, beyond their pay, to board, livery, and travelling -expenses, and a lodging allowance of forty thalers each. The Dresden -archives give their names as Tomas Konigk, Tomas Stephan or Stephans, -George Beyzandt, Tomas Papst, and Rupert Persten. Their departure from -Court is recorded on 17 July 1587.[754] In all these notices music and -acrobatic feats are to the fore, but that the men were actors there can -be no doubt, for two of them, Thomas Pope and George Bryan, reappear -amongst Strange’s men, and thereafter as fellows of Shakespeare in the -Chamberlain’s company. Of Stevens, King, and Percy no more is known. -Kempe was abroad again, in Italy and Germany, during 1601, and returned -to England on 2 September. It is not certain whether he took a company -with him, or went as a solitary morris dancer. But it is noteworthy -that on the following 26 November an English company, under one Johann -Kemp, reached Münster, after a tour which had taken them to Amsterdam, -Cologne, Redberg, and Steinfurt. They played in English, and had a -clown who pattered in German between the acts.[755] - -The man, however, who did most to acclimatize the English actors in -Germany was Robert Browne, who paid several visits to the country, -and spent considerable periods there between 1590 and 1620. With him -he took relays of actors, some of whom split off into independent -associations, and account for most, although not all, of the groups of -‘Engländer’ who became familiar figures at the Frankfort spring and -autumn fairs and even in out-of-the-way corners of northern Europe. Of -some of these groups the wanderings can be traced in outline, although -the frequent failure of the archives to record individual names is -responsible for many _lacunae_, which the conjectural ingenuity of -literary historians has done its best to fill. Many of these anonymous -performances I must pass over in silence. - -Robert Browne first appears as one of Worcester’s men, with Edward -Alleyn, in 1583, and in 1589 these two, probably as Admiral’s men, -still held a common stock of apparel with John Alleyn and Richard -Jones.[756] His career abroad begins with a visit to Leyden in October -1590.[757] This was perhaps only tentative, for in February 1592 he -was preparing to cross the seas again, and to this end obtained for -himself, John Bradstreet, Thomas Sackville, and Richard Jones, the -following passport to the States-General of the Netherlands from the -Lord Admiral: - - Messieurs, comme les présents porteurs, Robert Browne, Jehan - Bradstriet, Thomas Saxfield, Richard Jones, ont deliberé de - faire ung voyage en Allemagne, avec intention de passer par le - païs de Zelande, Hollande et Frise, et allantz en leur dict - voyage d’exercer leurs qualitez en faict de musique, agilitez et - joeux de commedies, tragedies et histoires, pour s’entretenir - et fournir à leurs despenses en leur dict voyage. Cestes - sont partant vous requerir monstrer et prester toute faveur - en voz païs et jurisdictions, et leur octroyer en ma faveur - vostre ample passeport soubz le seel des Estatz, afin que les - Bourgmestres des villes estantz soubs voz jurisdictions ne - les empeschent en passant d’exercer leurs dictes qualitez par - tout. Enquoy faisant, je vous demeureray à tous obligé, et me - treuverez très appareillé à me revencher de vostre courtoisie en - plus grand cas. De ma chambre à la court d’Angleterre ce x^{me} - jour de Febvrier 1591. - - Vostre tres affecsionné à vous fayre plaisir et sarvis, - C. Howard.[758] - -Presumably the Lord Admiral gave this passport in his official -capacity, as responsible for the high seas, and it is not necessary to -infer that the travellers were in 1592 his servants.[759] - -There are not many clear notices of Browne and his company during -this tour. They were at Arnhem, with a licence from Prince Maurice -of Orange-Nassau, in 1592.[760] Thereafter they may have gone into -residence at some Court, Wolfenbüttel or another. They can hardly have -been the English ‘comoedianten und springer’ who came to Nyköping in -Sweden for the wedding of Duke Karl of Sweden and Princess Christina -of Holstein on 28 August 1592[761]; for it was only two days later -that Browne approached the Frankfort magistrates for leave to play at -the autumn fair, where they gave _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_ and some of -Marlowe’s plays.[762] It was on this occasion that Fynes Moryson, the -traveller, visited the fair and noted the great vogue of the English -actors amongst the merchants.[763] Englishmen played at Cologne in -October and November 1592,[764] and at Nuremberg in August 1593;[765] -but in view of the Nyköping company it can hardly be assumed that these -were Browne and his fellows, and indeed the leader at Nuremberg is -called ‘Ruberto Gruen’, which may, but on the other hand may not, be a -blunder for Browne’s name. The Cologne players are anonymous. At any -rate ‘Robert Braun, Thomas Sachsweil, Johan Bradenstreit und consorten’ -were all at Frankfort in August 1593,[766] where they played scriptural -dramas, including _Abraham and Lot_ and _The Destruction of Sodom and -Gomorrha_. Thereafter the company seems to have broken up. Richard -Jones certainly went home before 2 September 1594, when he bought a -gown ‘of pechecoler in grayne’ from Henslowe.[767] He had doubtless -already joined the Admiral’s men. - -Thomas Sackville and John Bradstreet probably went to Wolfenbüttel. -This was the capital of Henry Julius, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel -(1589–1613), himself the author of plays, mostly printed during 1593 -and 1594, in which an English influence is perceptible. The Duke -married Elisabeth, daughter of Frederick II of Denmark, and his wedding -at Copenhagen in February 1590 was attended by his brother-in-law, -afterwards James I of England. It is possible that his earliest play, -_Susanna_, was written either for this occasion or for the repetition -of his wedding ceremony at Wolfenbüttel. In this piece the jester, a -conventional personage, bears the name ‘Johan Clant’, in the later -plays ‘Johan Bouset’; and in the _Ehebrecherin_ (1594) Bouset says, -quite irrelevantly to his dramatic character, ‘Ich bin ein Englisch -Mann’. Both names are in fact of English origin, from the words ‘clown’ -and ‘posset’ respectively. Evidently the Duke must in some way have -been in touch with the English stage at a date even earlier than -Browne’s second German visit in 1592. It is not, therefore, necessary -to conjecture, as has been conjectured, that Wolfenbüttel was the first -objective of this visit.[768] Unfortunately the Brunswick household -accounts for 1590–1601 are missing, and with them all direct evidence -of the first formation of his English company by the Duke has probably -gone. The company existed by 1596, when the ‘furstelige comoedianten -och springers’ of the Duke paid a month’s visit to Copenhagen for -the coronation of his brother-in-law, Christian IV of Denmark, on -29 August.[769] In the following year we find ‘Jan Bosett und seine -Gesellen’ at Nuremberg, ‘Thomas Sackfeil und Consorten’ at Augsburg in -June, ‘Johann Busset’ and Jakob Behel at Strassburg in July and August, -and ‘Thomas Sackville, John Bouset genannt’, Johann Breitenstrasse -and Jacob Biel at the Frankfort autumn fair.[770] The identity of -this company with the Wolfenbüttel court comedians may perhaps be -inferred from Sackville’s use of John Bouset as a stage name, and from -a reference, in this same year 1597, to ‘Thomas Sackefiel, princely -servant at Wolfenbüttel’. Another member of the company may have been -Edward Wakefiel, with whom Sackville, also in 1597, had a brawl in -a Brunswick tavern.[771] No more is heard of them until 1601, when -John Bouset was expected to join his old friend Robert Browne for -the Frankfort Easter fair.[772] The Brunswick household accounts are -extant for 1602 and 1608, and from 1614 onwards. Thomas Sackville -appears frequently. On 30 August 1602 he took a payment for the English -comedians. Later references to him from 1 October 1602 to 1617 are -mainly in connexion with purchases for the ducal wardrobe. It seems -clear that, while remaining a ducal servant, and possibly even an -actor, he went into business and prospered therein.[773] He is said to -have been selling silk at Frankfort in 1604, and in 1608 Thomas Coryat, -the Odcombian traveller and oddity, records: - - ‘The wealth that I sawe here was incredible. The goodliest - shew of ware that I sawe in all Franckford, saving that of the - Goldsmithes, was made by an Englishman one Thomas Sackfield a - Dorsetshire man, once a servant of my father, who went out of - England but in a meane estate, but after he had spent a few - yeares at the Duke of Brunswicks Court, hee so inriched himselfe - of late that his glittering shewe of ware in Franckford dit - farre excell all the Dutchmen, French, Italians, or whomsoever - else.’[774] - -John Bradstreet’s name appears in 1604 with that of Sackville in the -album of Johannes Cellarius of Nuremberg. He died in 1618 and Sackville -in 1628, leaving a library of theology and English literature. -Edward Wakefield reappears in the Brunswick accounts for 1602, not -specifically as a player. But certainly the playing company continued -to exist. The accounts mention it in 1608, and Thomas Heywood notes -its existence about the same date. There were English players at -Wolfenbüttel in May 1615 and at Brunswick in 1611 and 1617, but no -names are recorded, and it can hardly be assumed that these were the -original ducal company. Henry Julius himself died in 1613.[775] - -Robert Browne’s own movements are uncertain after the break-up of his -company in 1593. He is not traceable for a year or so either in Germany -or in England, where his wife and all her children and household died -of plague in Shoreditch about August 1593.[776] But sooner or later he -found his way to Cassel. This was another of the literary courts of -Germany, the capital of Maurice the Learned, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel -(1592–1627). Maurice himself wrote an ‘_Anglia_ Comoedia’ and other -plays in Terentian Latin, which were performed by the pupils of the -_Collegium Mauritianum_, but are unfortunately not preserved. He also -composed music and, like the Duke of Brunswick, gave a welcome to John -Dowland on one of his several foreign tours.[777] Possibly Dowland was -one of the two lutenists who are recorded to have spent fifteen weeks -at Cassel in 1594.[778] In the following year there were performances -by players and acrobats at Maurice’s castle of Wilhelmsburg at -Schmalkalden, and in the same year Maurice wrote to his agent at Prague -to give assistance to his comedians in the event of their visiting -that city.[779] To 1594 or 1595 may, therefore, be plausibly ascribed -undated warrants by which Robert Browne and Philip Kiningsmann receive -appointments from the Landgrave, undertaking to do him service with -their company in vocal and instrumental music and in plays to be -supplied either by Maurice or by themselves, and not to leave Cassel -without his permission.[780] Certainly Browne was the Landgrave’s man -by 16 April 1595, when a warrant was issued allowing the export of a -consignment of bows and arrows which he had been sent over to bring -from England to Cassel.[781] The ‘fürstlich hessische Diener und -Comoetianten’ were at Nuremberg on 5 July 1596, and a company under -Philip Konigsman were at Strassburg in the following August.[782] -Festivities were now in preparation at Cassel for the christening of -Maurice’s daughter, one of whose godmothers was Queen Elizabeth, on 24 -August 1596. Brown and one John Webster were on duty at Cassel during -the visit of the Earl of Lincoln, who came from England to stand proxy -for Elizabeth.[783] Payments to the English comedians and performances -by them at Melsungen, Weissenstein, and Rothenburg, in the Landgrave’s -territory, are recorded in the Cassel archives during 1597 and 1598. -A proposed loan of them in 1597 to Landgrave Louis of Marburg seems -to have fallen through, but in 1598 they left Cassel for the Court of -the Palsgrave Frederic IV at Heidelberg, with a liberal _Abfertigung_ -or vail of 300 thalers and a travelling allowance of 20 thalers, which -was entrusted to George Webster.[784] From Heidelberg they went to -Frankfort towards the end of 1599, but were refused leave to play, -owing to the prevalence of plague.[785] Robert Browne, Robert Kingman, -and Robert Ledbetter were then of the company. Ledbetter must have -recently joined them, as he is in the cast of _Frederick and Basilea_ -as played by the Admiral’s men in 1597. Frankfort having failed them, -they fell back upon Strassburg, and here they seem to have remained -until the spring of 1601.[786] Browne was their leader at their -arrival, but he then seems to have left them and returned to England, -where he came to Court as manager of the Earl of Derby’s men during -the winters of 1599–1600 and 1600–1.[787] By Easter 1601, however, he -had started on his fourth tour, and appeared once more at Frankfort, -possibly in Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. With him were Robert Kingmann and -Robert Ledbetter, and they were expecting to be joined by ‘Johannen -Buscheten und noch andere in unsere Companie gehörige Comödianten’. The -old association of 1592 between Robert Browne and Thomas Sackville was, -therefore, still in some sense alive.[788] - -Meanwhile, Maurice of Hesse had not been wholly without English -actors, since Browne and his fellows left Cassel in 1598. It would -seem that George Webster returned from Heidelberg, or perhaps from -Strassburg, to his service. The ‘fürstlich-hessischen Komödianten und -Musikanten’ were at Frankfort in March, at Nuremberg in April 1600, -and at Frankfort again at Easter 1601. The names recorded are those of -George Webster, John Hill or Hüll, Richard Machin, and at Nuremberg -Bernhardt Sandt.[789] Upon his second visit to Frankfort Webster would -have met his old leader, now become his rival, Robert Browne. The -Hessian company were for a third time at Frankfort in the autumn of -1601.[790] In the following year they left the Landgrave’s service, -not altogether to the regret of some of his subjects, who resented a -patronage of foreign arts at the cost of their pockets.[791] Webster -and Machin, with whom was then one Ralph Reeve, were still using their -former master’s name when they visited Frankfort at Easter 1603.[792] -Thereafter they dropped it. Of Webster no more is heard. Machin is -conjectured to have joined for a short time an English company in the -service of Margrave Christian William, a younger son of the Elector -Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg, which came to Frankfort for the -Easter and autumn fairs of 1604.[793] The Margrave was administrator of -the diocese of Magdeburg, and kept his Court at Halle. His company is -traceable from 1604 to 1605, but I do not find any evidence of Machin’s -connexion with it. In May 1605 he appeared at Strassburg, and there -claimed as his credentials only his four years’ service with Maurice of -Hesse.[794] Shortly before, he had been at the Frankfort Easter fair -with Reeve, and the two returned to Frankfort in the autumn, and again -at Easter 1606.[795] - -Robert Browne, for some years after the opening of his fourth tour at -Frankfort in the spring of 1601, does not appear to have attached -himself to any particular Court. He is found at Frankfort, with Robert -Jones, in September 1602, at Augsburg in the following November and -December, at Nuremberg in February 1603, and at Frankfort for the -Easter fair of the same year.[796] With him were then, but it would -seem only temporarily, Thomas Blackwood and John Thare, late of -Worcester’s men, who had doubtless just come out from England, when -Elizabeth’s illness and death closed the London theatres.[797] He is -probably the ‘alte Komödiant’, whose identity seems to have been -thought sufficiently described by that term at Frankfort in the autumn -of 1604.[798] He returned to Frankfort on 26 May 1606, and was at -Strassburg in the following June and July.[799] Here he was accompanied -by John Green. On this or some other visit to Strassburg, the company -probably lost Robert Kingman, who, like Thomas Sackville, found -business more profitable than strolling. He became a freeman of -Strassburg in 1618, and in that year was able to befriend his old -‘fellow’ Browne, and in 1626 other actors on their visits to the -city.[800] In the course of 1606 Browne seems to have entered the -service of Maurice of Hesse, who in the previous year had built a -permanent theatre, the _Ottonium_, at Cassel, and had now again an -English company for the first time since 1602. This is to be inferred -from an application for leave to play submitted to the Frankfort town -council on 26 August 1606, and signed by ‘Robert Braun’, ‘Johann Grün’, -and ‘Robert Ledbetter’ as ‘Fürstlich Hessische Comödianten’. Earlier -in August the same men had been at Ulm.[801] They visited Nuremberg -with a letter of recommendation from their lord in November, and then -settled down at Cassel for the winter.[802] But their service did not -last long. On 1 March 1607 a household officer wrote to the Landgrave -that the English found their salaries inadequate, and after performing -the comedy of _The King of England and Scotland_ had declared, either -in jest or earnest, that it was their last play in Cassel.[803] -Probably they were in earnest. Browne and Green went to Frankfort, for -the last time as the Hessian comedians, on 17 March.[804] Browne’s -name now disappears from German records for a decade. In 1610 he was a -member of the Queen’s Revels syndicate in London, and on 11 April 1612 -he wrote a letter to Edward Alleyn from Clerkenwell.[805] But whether -Browne left them or not, the company held together for a while longer. -Green was at Danzig and Elbing in the course of 1607.[806] Thereafter -it seems probable that he tried a bold flight, and penetrated to the -heart of Catholic Germany in Austria. In November 1607 an English -company was with the archducal court of Ferdinand and Maria Anna at -Gräz in Styria. A performance by them of _The King of England and the -Goldsmith’s Wife_ is recorded.[807] They followed Ferdinand to Passau, -where they gave _The Prodigal Son_ and _The Jew_, and possibly also to -the Reichstag held in January 1608 at Regensburg. By 6 February they -were back at Gräz, and a letter from Ferdinand’s sister, the -Archduchess Maria Magdalena, then just betrothed to the Grand Duke -Cosimo II of Florence, gives a lively account of their performances and -of the assistance which they rendered in the revels danced at -Court.[808] Their repertory included _The Prodigal Son_, _A Proud Woman -of Antwerp_, _Dr. Faustus_, _A Duke of Florence and a Nobleman’s -Daughter_, _Nobody and Somebody_, _Fortunatus_, _The Jew_, _King Louis -and King Frederick of Hungary_, _A King of Cyprus and a Duke of -Venice_, _Dives and Lazarus_.[809] It is not absolutely certain that -the company referred to in these notices was Green’s. No name is in -fact mentioned. But the probability suggested by the resemblance of the -above play-list to those of 1620 and 1626, with which Green was -certainly connected, is confirmed by the existence of a German -manuscript of _Nobody and Somebody_ with a dedication by Green to -Ferdinand’s brother the Archduke Maximilian, who was certainly present -at the Gräz performances, and by a letter which tells us that a company -visiting Austria in 1617 was the same as that which had played at Gräz -in the lifetime of the Archduchess Maria, who died in 1608. -Unfortunately the identification of this company of 1617 with Green’s -is itself a matter of high probability, rather than of absolute -certainty.[810] The end of the visit to Gräz was marked by a duel in -which one of the English actors, ‘the man with long red hair, who -always played a little fiddle’, killed a Frenchman.[811] Green now, -like Browne, drops for some years out of the German records. - -The Court functions at Cassel surrendered by Browne in 1607 were -resumed by his predecessors, in whose leadership Reeve had now -succeeded Machin; and the appearance of the Hessian company is recorded -at Frankfort during both the fairs of 1608 and 1609, the Easter fair of -1610, the autumn fair of 1612, and the Easter fair of 1613. A proposed -appearance for the coronation of the Emperor Mathias in June 1612 -was prohibited, because the mourning for his predecessor Rudolph II -was not yet over.[812] It is perhaps something of an assumption that -the company was the same one throughout all these years. Reeve was -in charge up to the autumn of 1609; after that no individual name is -mentioned. The intervals between the fairs were presumably spent in the -main at Cassel. In the summer of 1609 the company visited Stuttgart and -Nuremberg and possibly other places, with a letter of recommendation -from their lord.[813] In the autumn of the same year John Sigismund, -Elector of Brandenburg (1608–19), who often entertained a company of -his own, but appears to have been temporarily without one, wrote to -Maurice to borrow them for the wedding of his brother at Berlin.[814] -In April 1610 they may not improbably, though there is no evidence of -the fact, have followed Maurice to the Diet at Prague.[815] In 1611 -they are said to have been at Darmstadt.[816] They certainly played at -the wedding of the Margrave Joachim Ernest, uncle of the Elector of -Brandenburg, at Anspach in October 1612, and later in the same month -paid a visit to Nuremberg.[817] No more is heard of them, or of any -other English actors in the service of Maurice of Hesse-Cassel, after -1613.[818] Reeve was a member of Rosseter’s syndicate for the building -of the Porter’s Hall theatre at Blackfriars in 1615, and with him were -associated Philip Kingman and Robert Jones, the last notices of whom in -Germany are as ‘fellows’ of Robert Browne in 1596 and 1602 respectively. - -The appearance of Blackwood and Thare, late of Worcester’s men, in -company with Browne at the Frankfort Easter fair of 1603, has already -been noted. The only further record of either of them is of Thare -at Ulm and Augsburg in the following December.[819] But by a series -of conjectures, to which I hesitate to subscribe, they have been -identified with a company which came to Stuttgart in September 1603 -in the train of Lord Spencer and Sir William Dethick, ambassadors -from England carrying the insignia of the Garter to Frederick Duke of -Württemberg, and there gave a play of _Susanna_[820]; with a company -which visited Nördlingen and other places in January 1604 under the -leadership of one Eichelin, apparently a German, but with a repertory -which included a _Romeo and Juliet_ and a _Pyramus and Thisbe_[821]; -with a company which held letters of recommendation from the Duke of -Würtemberg at Nuremberg in February 1604;[822] and with a company which -took a repertory closely resembling the Nördlingen one to Rothenburg in -1604 and 1606.[823] This is all very ingenious guesswork.[824] - -All trace of John Green is lost for several years after 1608. An -isolated notice at Utrecht in November 1613 suggests that he may -have spent part of this interval in the Netherlands.[825] A year or -two later he returned to Germany. He was at Danzig in July 1615 and -again, with Robert Reinolds, late of Queen Anne’s men, in July 1616, -having paid an intermediate visit to Copenhagen.[826] In 1617 he was -at Prague for the coronation of the Archduke Ferdinand as King of -Bohemia, and in July of the same year at Vienna.[827] The comparative -infrequency with which English actors visited Austrian territory -perhaps justifies the assumption that his is the company mentioned in -a letter of recommendation sent by Ferdinand’s brother, the Archduke -Charles, at Neiss to the Bishop of Olmütz on 18 March 1617, as having -played at Gräz before his mother the Archduchess Maria, who died in -1608, and having recently spent some months at the Court of Poland in -Warsaw.[828] In 1618 Green’s old leader, the indefatigable veteran -Robert Browne, came out with a new company on his fifth and last visit -to the Continent. He is first noted at Nuremberg on 28 May.[829] My -impression is that the two men joined forces. Green’s name does not -appear in the records for a couple of years. But Reinolds, who had -been with him at Danzig in 1616, was with Browne at Strassburg in -June and July 1618.[830] Later in the year Browne was at the autumn -fair at Frankfort.[831] There is no definite mention of him during -the next twelve months, but it is not improbable that the combined -company was that which visited Rostock in May and Danzig in July -1619.[832] At any rate Browne appeared at Cologne in October;[833] and -then went for the winter to Prague, where the Elector Palatine and the -Lady Elizabeth of England, now King and Queen of Bohemia, had set up -their Court.[834] They were but a winter King and Queen. In 1620 the -Thirty Years’ War broke out, and Germany had other things to think -of than English mumming. Browne was at Nuremberg in February and at -Frankfort for the Easter fair.[835] That is the last we hear of him. -But Green reached Cologne and Utrecht later in April, and was probably -discreetly taking the company home.[836] In 1626 he came out again -with Robert Reinolds, who made a reputation as a clown under the name -of Pickleherring.[837] The details of this later tour lie beyond the -scope of the present inquiry. Pickleherring is the clown-name also in a -volume of _Engelische Comedien und Tragedien_, printed in 1620, which -probably represents an attempt of Browne and Green to turn to profit -with the printers their repertory of 1618–20, now rendered useless by -their return to England.[838] The plays contained in this volume, in -addition to two farces and five jigs, in most of which Pickleherring -appears, are _Esther and Haman_, _The Prodigal Son_, _Fortunatus_, -_A King’s Son of England and a King’s Daughter of Scotland_, _Nobody -and Somebody_, _Sidonia and Theagenes_, _Julio and Hyppolita_, and -_Titus Andronicus_.[839] The first five of these reappear in a list -of plays forming the repertory of Green at Dresden during the visit -of 1626 referred to above. If the titles can be trusted, two of the -plays in this list had already been played by Browne at Frankfort and -Cassel in 1601 and 1607, three by an unknown company, possibly that -of Blackwood and Thare, at Nördlingen and Rothenburg in 1604 and -1606, and eight by Green himself at Passau and Gräz in the winter of -1607–8.[840] They number thirty in all, as follows: _Christabella_, -_Romeo and Juliet_,[841] _Amphitryo_,[842] _The Duke of Florence_,[843] -_The King of Spain and the Portuguese Viceroy_,[844] _Julius -Caesar_, _Crysella_,[845] _The Duke of Ferrara_,[846] _Nobody and -Somebody_,[847] _The Kings of Denmark and Sweden_,[848] _Hamlet_,[849] -_Orlando Furioso_,[850] _The Kings of England and Scotland_,[851] -_Hieronymo the Spanish Marshal_,[852] _Haman and Esther_,[853] -_The Martyr Dorothea_,[854] _Doctor Faustus_,[855] _The King of -Arragon_,[856] _Fortunatus_,[857] _Joseph the Jew of Venice_,[858] -_The Clever Thief_,[859] _The Duke of Venice_,[860] _Barabbas Jew of -Malta_, _The Dukes of Mantua and Verona_, _Old Proculus_, _Lear King -of England_, _The Godfather_, _The Prodigal Son_,[861] _The Count of -Angiers_, _The Rich Man_.[862] - -The lists of 1620 and 1626 do not bear out Fleay’s assumption that the -repertories they represent were wholly made up of plays taken out by -Browne in 1592.[863] - -Another member of Browne’s last expedition can perhaps be identified. -With him in 1592 had been Richard Jones, who afterwards became one -of the Admiral’s men in 1594 and left that company in 1602. He was -again associated with Browne in Rosseter’s Queen’s Revels syndicate of -1610. The following undated letter to Edward Alleyn is preserved at -Dulwich:[864] - - M^r Allen, I commend my love and humble duty to you, geving you - thankes for your great bounty bestoed vpon me in my sicknes, - when I was in great want, God blese you for it, Sir, this it - is, I am to go over beyond the seeas with M^r Browne and the - company, but not by his meanes, for he is put to half a shaer, - and to stay hear, for they ar all against his goinge. Now good - Sir, as you have ever byne my worthie frend, so healp me nowe. - I have a sut of clothes and a cloke at pane for three pound, - and if it shall pleas you to lend me so much to release them I - shalbe bound to pray for you so longe as I leve, for if I go - over and have no clothes, I shall not be esteemed of, and by - godes help the first mony that I gett I will send it over vnto - you, for hear I get nothinge, some tymes I have a shillinge a - day, and some tymes nothinge, so that I leve in great poverty - hear, and so I humbly take my leave, prainge to god I and my - wiffe for your health and mistris Allenes, which god continew, - Your poor frend to command - Richard Jones. - - [_Endorsed_] Receved of master Allen the [ extra spaces ] of - February the somme of [ extra spaces ] [_and by Alleyn_] M^r - Jones his letter wher on I lent hym 3^l. - -This has generally been dated 1592. But Alleyn’s first recorded -marriage was in October of that year, and the reference to Browne as -not going with the company has always been a puzzle. I suspect that -it was written in or near 1615, and that Jones was one of the actors -who started in advance of Browne under John Green. That he did travel -about this time is shown by two other letters to Alleyn about a lease -of the Leopard’s Head in Shoreditch held by his wife.[865] The first, -from Jones himself, is not dated, but a mention of Henslowe shows that -it was written before the latter’s death on 6 January 1616, or at -least before Jones had heard of that event. The writer and his wife -were then out of England. The second, from Harris Jones, was written -from Danzig on 1 April 1620. Mrs. Jones was then expecting to join her -husband, who was with ‘the prince’, whoever this may have been. If -Jones had travelled with Browne’s men, he cut himself adrift from them -on their return, for in 1622 he entered as a musician the service of -Philip Julius, Duke of Wolgast in Pomerania (1592–1625), who had twice -visited England, and whose presence at more than one London theatre -is recorded in 1602.[866] Two petitions from Jones are in the Stettin -archives.[867] On 30 August 1623 he asked permission, with his fellows -Johan Kostrassen and Robert Dulandt (Dowland?), to return from Wolgast -to England. Behind them they appear to have left Richard Farnaby, son -of the better-known composer Giles Farnaby.[868] On 10 July 1624 Jones -wrote to the Duke that his hopes of profitable employment under the -Prince in England had been disappointed, and asked to be taken back -into his service. - -All the groups of actors hitherto dealt with seem to have had their -origin, more or less directly, in the untiring initiative of Robert -Browne. There is, however, another tradition, almost as closely -associated with the houses of Brandenburg and Saxony, as the former -with those of Hesse-Cassel and Brunswick. Some give and take between -Cassel and the Courts of some of the Brandenburg princes has from time -to time been noted.[869] But Berlin, where the successive Electors of -Brandenburg, Joachim Frederick (1598–1608) and John Sigismund (1608–9), -had their capital, was during a long period of years the head-quarters -from which an Englishman, John Spencer, undertook extensive travels, -both in Protestant and in Catholic Germany. Of Spencer’s stage-career -in London, if he ever had one, nothing is known. Possibly he betook -himself to the Brandenburg Court during the English plague-year -of 1603. At any rate, comedians holding a recommendation given by -the Elector on 10 August 1604 and confirmed by the Stadtholder of -the Netherlands, Maurice Prince of Orange Nassau, in the following -December, were at Leyden in January and The Hague in May 1605.[870] It -is reasonable to identify them with the company under John Spencer, who -received a recommendation from the Electress Eleonora of Brandenburg to -the Elector Christian II of Saxony (1591–1611) in the same year.[871] -At Dresden they possibly remained for some time, for although there are -several anonymous appearances, including the famous ones at Gräz in the -winter of 1607–8, which can be conjecturally assigned to them,[872] -they do not clearly emerge until April 1608, when a visit of the -Electoral players of Saxony is recorded at Cologne.[873] Subsequently -they waited upon Francis, Duke of Stettin and by him were recommended -to the new Elector of Brandenburg, John Sigismund, who passed them on -once more to the Elector of Saxony on 14 July 1609.[874] Being in need -of comedians for his brother’s wedding in the same year, he applied, -as has been noted, for a loan of those of Maurice of Hesse.[875] -Dresden remained the head-quarters of Spencer’s men again during -the next two years, but in 1611 they were back in John Sigismund’s -service. Christian II of Saxony died in this year. In July and August -they visited Danzig and Königsberg, and in October and November they -attended the Elector to Ortelsburg and Königsberg for the ceremonies in -connexion with the acknowledgement of him as heir to his father-in-law, -Duke Albert Frederick of Prussia. On this occasion Spencer was at -the head of not less than nineteen actors and sixteen musicians, and -produced an elaborate Turkish ‘Triumph-comedy’.[876] In April 1613 -Spencer left Berlin on a tour which was to take him to Dresden once -more.[877] The company were at Nuremberg in June, still using the -name of the Elector of Brandenburg and playing _Philole and Mariana_, -_Celinde and Sedea_, _The Fall of Troy_, _The Fall of Constantinople_, -and _The Turk_.[878] In July and August they were at Augsburg, and in -September they returned to Nuremberg, now describing themselves as -the Elector of Saxony’s company.[879] This Elector was John George I -(1611–56), the third of his house to entertain an English company. In -October they played The _Fall of Constantinople_ at the Reichstag held -by the Emperor Mathias at Regensburg. Spencer was their leader, but -they no longer claimed any courtly status.[880] After an unsuccessful -attempt to pay a third visit for the year to Nuremberg, they went -to Rothenburg, and so to Heidelberg, whither the Elector Palatine -Frederick V had just brought his English bride. Here they spent the -winter, and left to attend the Frankfort fair of Easter 1614.[881] In -May their service with the Elector of Brandenburg, although now none -of the most recent, helped them to get a footing in Strassburg, where -they stayed until July and again played _The Fall of Constantinople_, -as well as a play of _Government_.[882] In August they were at -Augsburg and possibly Ulm.[883] In October they projected a return -visit to Strassburg, but were rejected, ‘so dies Jar hie lang genug -super multorum opinionem gewessen’.[884] Possibly they fell back upon -Stuttgart.[885] In February 1615 they were in Cologne, and here a queer -thing happened. The whole company, with Spencer’s wife and children, -was converted to Catholicism by the eloquence of a Franciscan friar. -The event is recorded in the town archives and also in a manuscript -Franciscan chronicle preserved in the British Museum:[886] - - ‘Twentie fowre stage players arrive out of Ingland at Collen: - all Inglish except one Germanian and one Dutchman. All - Protestants. Betwixt those and father Francis Nugent disputation - was begunne and protracted for the space of 7 or eight dayes - consecutively; all of them meeting at one place together. The - chiefe among them was one N. Spencer, a proper sufficient - man. In fine, all and each of them beeing clearlie convinced, - they yielded to the truth; but felt themselves so drie and - roughharted that they knew not how to pass from the bewitching - Babylonian harlot to their true mother the Catholic church, that - always pure and virginal spouse of the lamb.’ - -It need hardly be said that in so Catholic a city as Cologne this -singular act of grace gave the performances of the English comedians an -extraordinary vogue. In June and July 1615 Spencer was at Strassburg, -in company with one Christopher Apileutter, who may have been the -Germanian or the Dutchman of the Cologne notice.[887] He attended the -autumn fair at Frankfort, using an imperial patent, perhaps given him -at Regensburg in 1613.[888] During the winter of 1615–16 he was again -in Cologne, still profiting by his conversion.[889] This, however, had -not made of him such a bigot, as to be unable to render acceptable -duty in the Protestant courts where his earliest successes had been -won. For a year his movements became obscure. But in August 1617 he -was playing before the Elector of Saxony and the Emperor Matthias -at Dresden.[890] And in the following year he once more entered the -Brandenburg service. During the interval which had elapsed since -1613, John Sigismund had entertained another company. Early in 1614 he -engaged William, Abraham, and Jacob Pedel, Robert Arzschar, Behrendt -Holzhew, and August Pflugbeil.[891] The names hardly sound English; but -Jacob Pedel is probably the Jacob Behel or Biel who was travelling with -Sackville in 1597, William Pedel appeared as an English pantomimist at -Leyden in November 1608, and Arzschar, whose correct name was doubtless -Archer, is also described as an Englishman at Frankfort in the autumn -of 1608.[892] He was then in company with Heinrich Greum and Rudolph -Beart. A Burchart Bierdt appeared as ‘Englischer Musicant’ at Cologne -in December 1612.[893] Archer perhaps came from Nuremberg. He was at -Frankfort again in the autumn of 1610, and at the Reichstag held by -the Emperor Matthias at Regensburg in September 1613.[894] It must -have been this new company under Archer which visited Wolfenbüttel in -September 1614 and Danzig in 1615, styling themselves the Brandenburg -comedians.[895] The only names given at Danzig are Johann Friedrich -Virnius and Bartholomeus Freyerbott, and in fact the Pedels, Holzhew, -and Pflugbeil left Berlin at Easter 1615. Archer himself remained -with the Elector until May 1616. The field, then, was clear at Berlin -for the enterprise of Spencer. On 17 March 1618 John Sigismund made -a payment ‘to one Stockfisch’ for bringing the English comedians -from Elbing. Further payments to the English are recorded in the -following November, and in June 1619 for plays at Königsberg and -Balge in Prussia, of which the Elector had become Duke on the death -of his father-in-law Albert Frederick in the preceding August.[896] -In July 1619 the Elector of Brandenburg’s comedians are heard of at -Danzig.[897] On 23 December 1619 John Sigismund himself died, and -in 1620 Hans Stockfisch addressed an appeal for certain arrears of -salary to Count Adam von Schwartzenberg, an officer at the court of -the new Elector George William (1619–40), in which he claimed to have -enjoyed the Count’s protection for more than fifteen years. In reply -George William describes the petitioner as ‘den Englischen Junkher -Hans Stockfisch, wie er sich nennet’.[898] There can be little doubt -that Hans Stockfisch was none other than John Spencer, for the period -of fifteen years precisely takes us back to his first appearance as a -Brandenburg comedian in 1605. His fish name corresponds to, and was -perhaps motived by, that of Pickleherring adopted by Robert Reinolds -of the chief rival English company about the same date. Both had their -prototype in Sackville’s John Bouset.[899] The Elector George William -was no friend to actors, and to Spencer, as to others, the Thirty -Years’ War closed many doors. In February 1623 he came to Nuremberg -with Sebastian Schadleutner, but was not allowed to play.[900] And that -is the last that is heard of him. - -A few isolated records indicate the presence from time to time in -northern Europe of players not yet mentioned, and not obviously -connected either with the Browne or with the Spencer tradition. An -English company under Peter de Prun of Brussels visited Nuremberg in -April 1594. The name of the leader does not sound very English, and a -company, not improbably the same, is described as ‘niederländische’ at -Ulm in the following August. Heywood, however, speaks of an English -company as in the pay of the Cardinal and Archduke Albert, Governor of -the Spanish Netherlands, about 1608.[901] Maurice of Orange-Nassau, -Stadtholder of the Dutch Netherlands (1584–1625), who gave a -recommendation to Spencer in 1605, had also an English company of his -own, which visited Frankfort at Easter 1611, and then claimed to be -strange in Germany.[902] To Augsburg in June 1602 came Fabian Penton -and his company;[903] to Leyden in September 1604 John Woods and his -company,[904] and to Leipzig in April 1613 Hans Leberwurst with his -boys.[905] Of none of these is anything further known, nor of William -Alexander Blank, a Scottish dancer, who performed at Cologne in April -1605.[906] - -Traces of English players in southern Europe are few and far between. -That Kempe’s travels of 1601 took him to Italy has already been -noted.[907] There were some English acrobats at Madrid in January -1583.[908] On 25 May 1598 the Confrères de la Passion leased their -theatre in Paris, the Hôtel de Bourgogne, to ‘Jehan Sehais comédien -Anglois’, and on 4 June obtained judgement in the court of the -Châtelet, ‘tant pour raison du susdit bail que pour le droit d’un écu -par jour, jouant lesdits Anglais ailleurs qu’audit Hôtel’.[909] I do -not know whether I am justified in finding under the French disguise of -‘Jehan Sehais’ the name of one John Shaa or Shaw, conceivably related -to Robert Shaw of the Admiral’s men, who witnessed an advance by -Henslowe to Dekker on 24 November 1599.[910] In 1604 another English -company was in France, and gave a performance on 18 September in the -great hall at Fontainebleau, the effect of which upon the imagination -of the future Louis XIV, then a child of four, is minutely described in -the singular diary of his tutor and physician, Jean Héroard.[911] - - ‘Mené en la grande salle neuve ouïr une tragédie représentée par - des Anglois; il les écoute avec froideur, gravité et patience - jusques à ce qu’il fallut couper la tête à un des personnages.’ - -On 28 September, Louis was playing at being an actor, and on 29 -September, says Héroard: - - ‘Il dit qu’il veut jouer la comédie; “Monsieur,” dis-je, - “comment direz-vous?” Il repond, “Tiph, toph,” en grossissant sa - voix. À six heures et demie, soupé; il va en sa chambre, se fait - habiller pour masquer, et dit: “Allons voir maman, nous sommes - des comédiens.”’ - -Finally, on 3 October: - - ‘Il dit, “Habillons-nous en comédiens,” on lui met son tablier - coiffé sur la tête; il se prend à parler, disant: “Tiph, toph, - milord” et marchant à grands pas.’ - -It has been suggested on rather inadequate grounds that the play seen -by Louis may have been _2 Henry IV_. Possibly the princely imagination -had merely been smitten by some comic rough and tumble.[912] But it is -also conceivable that the theme may have been the execution of John -Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, at the restoration of Henry VI in 1470.[913] - -It would be rash to assume that these records of 1598 and 1604 -represent all the visits of English actors to France during the -Elizabethan period; and it is not improbable that a search in the -municipal archives of Picardy and Normandy, as thorough as that which -has been carried out for Germany, might yield notable results. Some -general evidence that tours in France did take place can be cited. John -Green, dedicating his version of _Nobody and Somebody_ to the Archduke -Maximilian about 1608, says that he had been in that country.[914] His, -indeed, so far as dates go, might have been the company of 1604. And -France, no less than Germany, is referred to as scoured by the English -comedians about 1613.[915] - - - - - XV - - ACTORS - - - [_Bibliographical Note._--I include a few managers who were not - necessarily themselves actors. The earlier studies of stage - biography were mainly concerned with the Chamberlain’s and - King’s men in the list of ‘The Names of the Principall Actors - in all these Playes’, prefixed to the Shakespearian F_{1} of - 1623. The statements about them in [J. Roberts] _Answer to Mr. - Pope’s Preface to Shakespeare_ (1729) are conjectural and not, - as sometimes supposed, traditional. A good deal was collected - from wills and registers by E. Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 182), G. - Chalmers (ibid. iii. 464), and J. P. Collier, _Memoirs of the - Principal Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare_ (1846, _Sh. Soc._ - revised edition in _H. E. D. P._ iii. 255), and is summarized - by K. Elze, _William Shakespeare_ (tr. 1888), 246. New ground - was broken by F. G. Fleay, _On the Actor Lists, 1578–1642_ - (_R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ ix. 44), and in the list in _Chronicle - History of the London Stage_ (1890), 370. Here he criticizes - Collier’s claim to have a list of 500 actors, as he cannot find - ‘that any list at all was found among his papers’, and suggests - that a forgery was planned. I am glad to have an opportunity for - once of defending Collier, even if it is only against Fleay. The - fifth report (1846) of the _Sh. Soc._ shows that ‘a volume of - the original actors in plays by writers other than Shakespeare - was in preparation, and _Bodl. MS._ 29445 contains a number of - rough extracts made by Collier and P. Cunningham from London - parochial registers, with a digest of these and other material, - entitled ‘Old Actors. Collections for the Biography of, derived - from Old Books & MSS. Alphabetically arranged’. I have used - this manuscript and cite it as ‘Bodl.’ or ‘B.’. The information - is mainly from the registers of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, St. - Andrew’s Wardrobe, St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, St. Leonard’s, - Shoreditch, St. Giles’, Cripplegate, and other churches. It - appears to be reliable, except perhaps in one or two points. - One would, of course, prefer to have the registers themselves - in print, but with the exception of those of St. James’s, - Clerkenwell (_Harl. Soc._), and A. W. C. Hallen’s _Registers of - St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate_, the published London Registers, - as shown by A. M. Burke, _Key to the Ancient Parish Registers - of England and Wales_ (1908), are precisely those of least - theatrical interest. The Southwark registers in particular, and - the other records of that parish, including the ‘token-books’ - or annual lists, street by street, of communicants, ought to - be made available. Some notes from them are in W. Rendle, - _Bankside_ (1877, Harrison, Part ii). Southwark marriages - (1605–25) are in _Genealogist_ (n. s. vi-ix). In these records - ‘man’ clearly means ‘player’. Extracts from other registers - may be found in parochial histories and elsewhere. Some from - St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, are in J. P. Malcolm, _Londinium - Redivivum_ (1802–7), iii. 303, J. J. Baddeley, _St. Giles, - Cripplegate_ (1888), and W. Hunter’s _Addl. MS._ 24589. C. - C. Stopes, _Burbage_, 139, gives a full collection from St. - Leonard’s, Shoreditch. An interesting list of actors and their - addresses _c._ 1623 is in C. W. Wallace, _Gervase Markham, - Dramatist_ (1910, _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 345), cited as ‘J’. The - citations ‘H’ and ‘H. P’ are from Greg’s editions of Henslowe’s - _Diary_ and _Henslowe Papers_.] - -ABYNGDON, HENRY. Master of Chapel, 1455–78. - -ADAMS, JOHN. Sussex’s, 1576; Queen’s, 1583, 1588. He possibly played -the clown Adam in _A Looking Glass_ and Oberon in _James IV._. It would -hardly be justifiable to conjecture that he lived to join Hunsdon’s and -play Adam in _A. Y. L._ - -ALDERSON, WILLIAM. Chapel, 1509–13. - -ALLEYN, EDWARD, was born on 1 September 1566 in the parish of St. -Botolph, Bishopsgate.[916] His father was Edward Alleyn of Willen, -Bucks, Innholder and porter to the Queen, who died in 1570; his mother, -Margaret Townley, for whom he claimed a descent from the Townleys of -Lancashire which modern genealogists hesitate to credit, re-married -with one John Browne, a haberdasher, between whom and other Brownes who -appear in theatrical annals no connexion can be proved. Edward Alleyn -is said by Fuller in his _Worthies_ to have been ‘bred a stage player’. -In formal deeds he is generally described as ‘yeoman’ or ‘gentleman’, -and once, in 1595, as ‘musician’.[917] In January 1583 he was one of -Worcester’s players; at some later date he joined the Admiral’s men, -and had as ‘fellow’ his brother John, with whom during 1589–91 he was -associated in purchases of apparel. On 22 October 1592 he married Joan -Woodward, step-daughter of Philip Henslowe, with whom he appears ever -after in the closest business relations. A Dulwich tradition that he -was already a widower probably rests on a mention of ‘Mistris Allene’ -in an undated letter about a German tour by Richard Jones, which is -commonly assigned to February 1592, but is more probably of later -date.[918] Alleyn is specifically described as the Admiral’s servant -in the Privy Council letter of assistance to Strange’s men (q.v.), -with whom he travelled during the plague of 1593. Some of the letters -passing between him and his wife and father-in-law during this tour -are preserved at Dulwich, and are full of interesting domestic details -about his white waistcoat and his orange tawny woollen stockings, the -pasturing of his horse, his spinach bed, and the furnishing of his -house.[919] His ‘tenants’ are mentioned and his ‘sister Phillipes -& her husband’. He had by this time a high reputation as an actor, -as witnessed by Nashe in his _Pierce Penilesse_ of 1592, where he -classes him with Tarlton, Knell, and Bentley, and says, ‘Not Roscius -nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that haue liued euer since before -Christ was borne, could euer performe more in action than famous Ned -Allen’; and in his _Strange Newes_ of the same year, where he says of -Edmund Spenser that ‘his very name (as that of Ned Allen on the common -stage) was able to make an ill matter good’.[920] An undated letter at -Dulwich, written to him by an admirer who signs himself W. P., offers -a wager in which ‘Peele’s credit’ was also in some way concerned, and -in which Alleyn was to have the choice of any one of Bentley’s or -Knell’s plays, and promises that, even if he loses, ‘we must and will -saie Ned Allen still’.[921] In 1594 _The Knack to know a Knave_ is -ascribed, quite exceptionally, on its title-page, not to the servants -of a particular lord, but to ‘Ed. Allen and his Companie’. From 1594 to -1597 Alleyn was one of the Admiral’s men (q.v.) at the Rose. He then -‘leafte playnge’, but resumed at the request of the Queen, although -apparently without becoming a full sharer of the company, when the -Fortune (q.v.), which he had built for them, was opened in the autumn -of 1600. He became a servant of Prince Henry with the rest of his -fellows in 1604, and at the coronation procession on 15 March appeared -as the Genius of the City and delivered a ‘gratulatory speech’ to -James ‘with excellent action and a well-tun’de, audible voyce’.[922] -Further testimonies to his talent are rendered by John Weever;[923] -by Ben Jonson, _Epigram_ lxxxix (1616), who equals him to Aesop and -Roscius, and himself to Cicero, who praised them; by Heywood, who -says, ‘Among so many dead let me not forget one yet alive, in his time -the most worthy, famous Maister Edward Allen’;[924] and by Fuller, -who says, ‘He was the Roscius of our age, so acting to the life that -he made any part (especially a majestic one) to become him.’[925] Of -his parts are recorded Faustus,[926] Tamburlaine, Barabas in _The -Jew of Malta_,[927] and Cutlack in a play of that name revived by -the Admiral’s men in 1594 and now lost,[928] while that of Orlando -in Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_ is amongst the papers at Dulwich.[929] -Heywood, writing about 1608, speaks of Alleyn’s playing in the past. -He probably retired finally soon after the beginning of the new reign. -In 1605 he valued his ‘share of aparell’ at £100; but his name is not -in the patent to the Prince’s men of 30 April 1606, although as late -as 1611 he still retained his personal rank as servant to the prince. -It is difficult to give much credit to the legend that his withdrawal -was due to remorse, or, as one version has it, to an apparition of -the devil when he was playing Faustus.[930] Certainly he continued -to hold an interest in the Fortune, and conceivably in the Red Bull -(q.v.) also. And certainly remorse did not prevent him from continuing -to exercise the functions of Master of the Game of Paris Garden, a -post which he acquired jointly with Henslowe in 1604, having already -been interested in the Bear-garden itself since 1594. At this after it -became the Hope (q.v.) he was still about 1617 entertaining players. -But the time of his retirement synchronizes with the first beginnings -of his foundation of a school and hospital by the name of the College -of God’s Gift at Dulwich. By 1605 he was a wealthy man, with income -from substantial investments in leasehold property as well as the -profits from his enterprises, and on 25 October he took the first step -in the purchase of the manor of Dulwich, which was completed by 1614 at -a total cost of nearly £10,000. Here about 1613 he made his residence, -moving from Southwark, where he had been churchwarden of St. Saviour’s -in 1610. In 1613 also he began the building of the college, which was -opened in 1617. Alleyn himself acted as manager and was in a position -to spend upon the college and his own household some £1,700 a year. The -endowment of the college included, besides house property in London, -the freehold of the Fortune. Henslowe had died in January 1616 and -his widow in the following year, and his papers passed to Alleyn and -remain at Dulwich. Here, too, is Alleyn’s own diary for 1617–22, and -this and his correspondence show him as a friend of persons of honour, -and the patron of writers and the members of his own former profession. -Alleyn’s wife Joan died on 28 June 1623 and on the following 3 December -he married Constance, daughter of John Donne, dean of St. Paul’s, -settling on her £1,500. A letter of 23 July 1624 indicates that he -was then desirous of obtaining ‘sum further dignetie’. He died on 25 -November 1626. - -ALLEYN, JOHN. Admiral’s, 1589–91. Edward Alleyn had an elder brother -John, who was born in 1556–7, and is described as servant to Lord -Sheffield and an Innholder in 1580, and as servant to the Lord -Admiral in 1589. He died about May 1596, being then of St. Andrew’s, -Holborn, and left a widow Margaret and son John. Presumably he was the -Admiral’s player. But there was also an Allen family of St. Botolph’s, -Bishopsgate, one of whom, John, was a player. Here a John was baptized -on 17 October 1570, a Lowin, son of John, baptized on 15 December 1588, -a Joan buried on 13 May 1593, and a John on 18 May 1593. On 26 July -1596 is this curious baptismal entry: ‘Bennett, reputed daughter of -J^{no} Allen, which J^{no} went with S^r Fr. Drake to the Indians in -which time the child was got by a stage-player.’ Finally, on 18 October -1597, ‘Jone uxor Joh^{is} Allen player was buried with a still born -child’ (H. ii. 239; Bodl.) - -ALLEYN, RICHARD. Queen’s, (?) 1594; Admiral’s, 1597–1600. His daughters -Anna and Elizabeth were baptized at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, on 13 -May 1599 and 17 May 1601 respectively. Here he is traceable in the -token-books during 1583–1601, and was buried on 18 November 1601, -leaving a widow (Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi; H. ii. 239; Bodl.). - -ALLEYN (ALLEN), RICHARD. Revels, 1609; Lady Elizabeth’s, 1613. - -ANDREWE, HENRY. Chapel, 1509. - -ANDREWES, RICHARD. Worcester’s, 1583. - -ANDROWES, GEORGE. Whitefriars lessee, 1608. - -APILEUTTER, CHRISTOPHER. Germany, 1615. - -ARCHER, RICHARD. _Vide_ ARKINSTALL. - -ARCHER? (ARZSCHAR, ERTZER), ROBERT. Germany, 1608–16. - -ARKINSTALL, JOHN. A common player of interludes under licence, with -Richard Archer, Barker, and Anthony Ward as his fellows. He was at -Hastings on 25 March 1603, and on 30 March laid an information of the -proclamation of Lord Beauchamp as king by Lord Southampton (_Hist. -MSS._ xii. 4. 126). - -ARMIN, ROBERT, is said to have been apprentice to a goldsmith in -Lombard Street, and to have been encouraged as a ‘wag’ by Tarlton -(_ob._ 1588), who prophesied that he should ‘enjoy my clownes sute -after me’. He ‘used to’ Tarlton’s plays, and in time became himself a -player ‘and at this houre performes the same, where, at the Globe on -the Banks side men may see him’.[931] But his earliest reputation was -as a writer. He wrote a preface to _A Brief Resolution of the Right -Religion_ (1590) and probably other things now unknown, for he is -referred to as a son of Elderton in Nashe’s _Foure Letters Confuted_ -of 1592 (_Works_, i. 280). R. A. wrote verses to Robert Tofte’s _Alba_ -(1598), and R. A. compiled _England’s Parnassus_ (1600); the latter -is generally taken to be Robert Allot. The first dramatic company -in which Armin can be traced is Lord Chandos’s men. In an epistle -to Mary, widow of William Lord Chandos (1594–1602) prefixed to his -kinsman Gilbert Dugdale’s _True Discourse of the Practises of Elizabeth -Caldwell_, &c. (1604), he says, ‘Your good honor knowes Pinck’s poor -heart, who in all my services to your late deceased kind lord, never -savoured of flatterie or fixion.’ In his _Foole upon Foole, or Six -Sortes of Sottes_ (1600) he tells an incident which took place at -Pershore in Worcestershire, during a tour of ‘the Lord Shandoyes -players’, at which he was himself present, not improbably playing the -clown ‘Grumball’.[932] By 1599, however, he had probably joined the -Chamberlain’s men, for in the first edition of _Foole upon Foole_ he -describes himself as ‘Clonnico de Curtanio Snuffe’. In a later edition -of 1605 this becomes ‘Clonnico del Mondo Snuffe’. Both issues are -anonymous, but Armin put his name to an enlargement entitled _A Nest -of Ninnies_ (1608).[933] ‘Clunnyco de Curtanio Snuffe’ is also on the -title-page of _Quips upon Questions_ (1600), which must therefore be by -Armin and not by J. Singer, whose autograph Collier (_Bibl. Cat._ ii. -203) said that he found on a copy. This is a book of quatrains on stage -‘themes’ (cf. ch. xviii). It was written, as a reference to 28 December -as on a Friday shows, in 1599. The author serves a master at Hackney -(A ij). Later editions of 1601 and 1602 are said to have been in the -Harley collection, and there is a reprint by F. Ouvry (1875). His name -is in the 1603 licence for the King’s men and in the Coronation list -of 1604. In 1605 Augustine Phillips left him 20_s._ as his ‘fellow’. -Collier’s statement that in the same year he and Kempe (q.v.) were in -trouble for libelling aldermen cannot be verified. He is a King’s man -on the title-page of his _Two Maids of Moreclacke_ (1609), produced -by the King’s Revels, and on the title-page and in the S. R. entry on -6 February 1609 of his _Phantasma, the Italian Tailor and his Boy_. -This is a translation from Straparola and is dedicated to Lord and -Lady Haddington. In it he claims to have been ‘writ down an ass in his -time’ and refers to ‘his constableship’, from which it is inferred -that he played Dogberry in _Much Ado about Nothing_. Fleay, _L. of S._ -300, finds a pun on ‘armine’ (= wretch) in _London Prodigal_ (_c._ -1603), v. i. 179, and suggests that Armin played Matthew Flowerdale. -There is a clown Robin in _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ (1607), and -a clown Grumball in _If it be not Good_ (1610–12), but this was a -play of Anne’s men. He is in the actor-list of Jonson’s _Alchemist_ -(1610). An epigram on ‘honest gamesome Robert Armin’ is in John Davies -of Hereford’s _Scourge of Folly_ (S.R. 8 October 1610). He is not in -the actor-list of Jonson’s _Catiline_ (1611), nor has any later notice -of him been found. That Armin is the R. A. whose play _The Valiant -Welshman_ was published in 1615 is only a conjecture. He is in the -Folio list of actors in Shakespeare’s plays. It is possible that a -woodcut on the title-page of the _Two Maids_ (q.v.) gives his portrait. - -ARTHUR, THOMAS. Interluders, 1528. - -ATTEWELL (OTTEWELL, OTWELL), GEORGE. Strange’s, 1591; Queen’s, (?) -1595. ‘M^r Otwell’ lived in St. Saviour’s Close in 1599. He is perhaps -more likely than the following to be the author or singer of ‘M^r -Attowel’s Jigge: betweene Francis, a Gentleman; Richard, a farmer; and -their wives’, printed in A. Clark, _Shirburn Ballads_, lxi (H. ii. 240; -B. 147). - -ATTWELL (OTTEWELL), HUGH. Revels, 1609; Lady Elizabeth’s, 1613; -Charles’s, 1616–21; _ob._ 25 September 1621. - -AUGUSTEN (AGUSTEN), WILLIAM. A ‘player’, from whom Henslowe bought his -‘boy’ Bristow in 1597 (H. ii. 240). - -AYNSWORTH, JOHN. A ‘player’ buried at St. Leonard’s 28 September 1581 -(B. 153). - -BAKER, HARRY. Performer of Vertumnus in _Summer’s Last Will and -Testament_, 1567. - -BANASTER, GILBERT. Master of Chapel, 1478–83 (?). - -BARFIELD, ROGER. Anne’s, 1606. His d. Isabell was baptized at St. -Giles’s on 2 January 1611, and his d. Susan buried there on 3 July 1614 -(B. 157). - -BARKER. _Vide_ ARKINSTALL. - -BARKSTED (BACKSTEAD), WILLIAM. King’s Revels (?), 1607; Revels, 1609; -Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1613; Charles’s, 1616; also a dramatist (cf. -ch. xxiii) and a poet. His _Poems_, edited by A. B. Grosart as Part II -of _Choice Rarities of Ancient English Poetry_ (1876), were _Myrrha_ -(1607), which has commendatory verses by his kinsman Robert Glover -and I. W., Lewes Machin, and William Bagnall, and _Hiren_ (1611), -which has sonnets to Henry Earl of Oxford, and Elizabeth Countess of -Derby. On the title-page he describes himself as ‘one of the servants -of his Maiesties Revels’. The surmise of Fleay, i. 29, that this was -repeated from an earlier edition of _c._ 1607 now lost may receive some -confirmation from the connexion of Machin with the King’s Revels; but -it must also be remembered that the Whitefriars Revels’ company appears -to be occasionally described as the King’s Revels in provincial records -of _c._ 1611. A trivial anecdote of him is in J. Taylor, _Wit and -Mirth_ (1629). - -BARNE, WILLIAM. Admiral’s, 1602. - -BARRY, DAVID (LORD). Whitefriars lessee, 1608, and dramatist. - -BARTLE (?). Alexander Bartle, son of ‘---- a player’, was baptized at -St. Saviour’s on 27 February 1603 (B. 165). - -BARTON, ONESIPHORUS. A ‘player’, buried at St. Giles’s on 9 March 1608 -(B. 167). - -BASSE, THOMAS. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1613; Anne’s, 1617–19. - -BAXTER, ROBERT. Chapel, 1601; Lady Elizabeth’s (?), 1613. Greg, _H. P._ -58, 87, however, thinks that the ‘Baxter’ of 1613, whose Christian name -is not given, may be Barksted. Neither man is likely to have written -the ‘Baxsters tragedy’ of 1602 (_H. P._ 58). - -BAYLYE, THOMAS. Shrewsbury’s (provincial), 1581. J. Hunter, -_Hallamshire_ 80, and Murray, ii. 388, print from _College of Arms, -Talbot MS._ G. f. 74, a Latin letter written by him to Thomas Bawdewin -from Sheffield on 25 April 1581, in which he mentions a brother -William, thanks him for a tragedy played by the company on St. George’s -day, and begs him to procure ‘librum aliquem brevem, novum, iucundum, -venustum, lepidum, hilarem, scurrosum, nebulosum, rabulosum, et -omnimodis camificiis, latrociniis et lenociniis refertum ... qua in re -dicunt quod Wilsonus quidam Leycestrii comitis servus (fidibus pollens) -multum vult et potest facere’. - -BAYLYE. Paul’s chorister, >1582. - -BEART, RUDOLF. Germany, 1608. - -BEESTON, CHRISTOPHER, has been conjectured to be the ‘Kit’ who played -a Lord and a Captain in _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ for Strange’s or the -Admiral’s about 1590–1. The actor-list of _Every Man in his Humour_ -shows that he belonged to the Chamberlain’s men in 1598. He is not, -however, named as a performer of Shakespeare’s plays in the Folio of -1623. Probably he was at one time the hired man of Augustine Phillips -who left him 30_s._ as his ‘servant’ in 1605. By 1602 he had passed -to Worcester’s men, and with this company, afterwards Queen Anne’s, -he remained until it was reconstituted on the Queen’s death in 1619, -taking a prominent part in the management of the company, after the -death of Thomas Greene in 1612. He seems to have built or acquired the -Cockpit theatre, and to have successively housed there Queen Anne’s -men (1617–19), Prince Charles’s men (1619–22), Lady Elizabeth’s men -(1622–5), Queen Henrietta’s men (1625–37), and ‘the King’s and Queen’s -young company’, also known as ‘Beeston’s boys’ (1637). By 1639 he -had been succeeded as ‘Governor’ of this company by his son William -Beeston, and was doubtless dead. The Cockpit had passed by June 1639 -to ‘Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson’.[934] It appears from -the lawsuit of 1623, in which Queen Anne’s men were concerned, that -Christopher Beeston also bore the _alias_ of Hutcheson or Hutchinson. -But if Elizabeth was his widow, she must have been a second wife, for -the records of the Middlesex justices for 1615–17 record several true -bills for recusancy as brought against a wife Jane. In these records -Beeston, whose _alias_ is also given, is described as a gentleman or -yeoman, and as ‘late of St. James-at-Clerkenwell’, or in one case ‘of -Turmil streete’. In 1617 his house was burgled by Henry Baldwin and -others.[935] The registers of St. James’s, Clerkenwell, record the -baptism of a daughter Anne on 15 September 1611, and the burial of a -servant on 1 July 1615.[936] But at an earlier date Beeston lived in -St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, where his sons Augustine, Christopher, and -Robert were baptized, and the first two buried between 16 November 1604 -and 15 July 1610. Robert also was buried there on 26 December 1615, -but Christopher was then described in the register as of Clerkenwell. -Possibly he afterwards returned to Shoreditch, as Collier states that -his name is traceable in the register up to 1637.[937] His son William, -also a suspected recusant, was living in Bishopsgate Without just -before his death in 1682.[938] An earlier William Beeston, with whom -Christopher may have had some connexion, is the ‘Maister Apis Lapis’ -and ‘Gentle M. William’, to whom Nashe addressed his _Strange Newes_ -(1592).[939] - -BEESTON, ROBERT. Anne’s, 1604, 1609. - -BEESTON. A player at Barnstaple in 1560–1 (Murray, ii. 198). - -BELT, T. Strange’s (?), 1590–1. - -BENFIELD, ROBERT, is first named in the actor-lists of Beaumont and -Fletcher’s _The Coxcomb_ and _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, both of which -probably represent performances by the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1613. -Subsequently he joined the King’s men, but at what date is uncertain. -It may have been upon the death on 16 December 1614 of William Ostler, -whom he succeeded in the part of Antonio in Webster’s _Duchess of -Malfi_. He is in the actor-list of _The Knight of Malta_ (1616–19) and -in the patent of 1619. He seems to have been a member of the company to -the end, as he signed the dedication of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio -in 1647. He is in the Folio list of actors in Shakespeare’s plays. -Collier found some late records of his family (B. 181). - -BENTLEY, JOHN. Queen’s, 1583. He is named by Heywood as before his -time, lauded by Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592) (_Works_, i. 215) with -Tarlton, Alleyn, and Knell, coupled with Knell in the undated challenge -to Alleyn (q.v.) to play one of their parts, and placed by Dekker in _A -Knight’s Conjuring_ (1607) in the company of the poets, Watson, Kyd, -and Achelow, ‘tho he had ben a player molded out of their pennes, yet -because he had been their louer and register to the muse, inimitable -Bentley’. He may be the John Bentley whose poems are mentioned by -Ritson, _Bibliographia Poetica_ (1802), 129. - -BIERDT, BURCHARD. Germany, 1612. - -BILLINGESLY, JOHN. Payee for Westminster boys, 1572. - -BIRCH, GEORGE. Interluders, 1538–59. - -BIRCH, JOHN. Interluders, 1547–56. - -BIRD, _alias_ BORNE, WILLIAM. Chamberlain’s (?), 1597; Pembroke’s, -1597; Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1597–1622. Many personalia of -his family and debts are recorded in Dulwich manuscripts and church -registers (H. ii. 241; B. 204). - -‘BLACK DICK.’ Admiral’s, 1597. - -BLACKWOOD, THOMAS. Worcester’s, 1602–3; Germany, 1603–6(?). The -conjecture of Fleay, i. 290, that an earlier German tour is referred to -in _How to Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ (1602) is baseless (H. ii. -244). - -BLANEY, JOHN. Revels, 1609; Anne’s, 1616–19. He lived near the Red Bull -in St. John’s Street in 1623 (J. 347). - -BLANK, WILLIAM ALEXANDER. A Scottish dancer in Germany, 1605. - -BOONE, WILLIAM. A ‘player’ mentioned in books of St. Saviour’s, _c._ -1600 (Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi). Possibly an error for Borne. - -BORNE, WILLIAM. _Vide_ Birde. - -BOWER, RICHARD. Master of Chapel, 1545–61, and possibly author of -_Apius and Virginia_ (1575); cf. ch. xxiv. - -BOWRINGE, GREGORY. Paul’s chorister, >1582. - -BRADSHAW, RICHARD. Edward, Lord Dudley’s (provincial), 1595. He -was Gabriel Spencer’s ‘man’ in 1598, and concerned in financial -transactions with Henslowe during 1598–1601. He may be the same Richard -Bradshaw who had a provincial company, with a licence to which his -title was dubious, in 1630–33 (H. ii. 245; Murray, ii. 42, 106, 163). - -BRADSTREET, JOHN. Germany, 1592–7, 1604. He _ob._ in 1618. - -BRETTEN, WILLIAM. Chapel, >1546. - -BRISTOW, JAMES. Augusten’s boy, 1597; Admiral’s, 1597–1602 (H. ii. 245). - -BROMEHAM. Paul’s, >1582. - -BROWNE, EDWARD. Worcester’s, 1583; Admiral’s, 1602. He was a witness -for Henslowe in 1599 (H. ii. 246). - -BROWNE, JOHN. Interluders, 1551–63. - -BROWNE, JOHN. Revels (?), 1608. - -BROWNE, ROBERT. Worcester’s, 1583; Holland, 1590; Germany, 1592–3, 1594 -(?)-9; Derby’s, 1599–1601; Germany, 1601–7; Revels patentee, 1610; -Germany, 1618–20. His wife and family died at Shoreditch in the plague -of 1593, but a son Robert and daughter Elizabeth were baptized at St. -Saviour’s on 19 October 1595 and 2 December 1599. On 11 April 1612 he -wrote to Alleyn from Clerkenwell (_H. P._, 37, 63; B. 229; Rendle, -_Bankside_, xxvi). - -BROWNE, WILLIAM. Anne’s, _c._ 1616. - -BROWNE. It is not safe to identify the Browne whom Henslowe paid to -‘feach’ for the Admiral’s in 1596 (H. i. 45), or the ‘old Browne’ -who, as well as Edward, played in _1 Tamar Cham_ for the Admiral’s in -1602 (_H. P._ 148), or ‘Browne of the Boares head’ who, according to -Alleyn’s wife on 21 Oct. 1603, ‘is dead & dyed very pore, he went not -into the countrye at all’ (_H. P._ 59). The last may be the man whose -widow married Thomas Greene (q.v.). - -BRYAN, GEORGE, was one of the English company which visited Helsingör -in Denmark and Dresden in Germany during 1586–7. He is one of the three -actors distinguished as ‘Mr.’ in the plot of Tarlton’s _The Seven -Deadly Sins_ as played by Strange’s or the Admiral’s about 1590–1, and -is named in the Privy Council warrant for the travelling of Strange’s -in 1593. He was payee for the Chamberlain’s men on 21 December 1596, -but is not in the _Every Man in his Humour_ actor-list of 1598 or -traceable at any later date amongst the Chamberlain’s or King’s men. -Probably he left to take up duty as an ordinary Groom of the Chamber, -as he is found holding this post at Elizabeth’s funeral in 1603 and -still held it (_Chamber Accounts_) in 1611–13. His son George was -baptized at St. Andrew’s Wardrobe on 17 February 1600.[940] He is in -the Folio list of actors in Shakespeare’s plays. - -BUCKE, PAUL. A ‘player’ whose d. Sara was buried on 23 July 1580 and -his bastard son Paul buried on 23 July 1599 at St. Anne’s (B. 237). It -is apparently his name which, for whatever reason, appears at the end -of Wilson’s _Three Ladies of London_ (1584). ‘Paule Bucke’s praier for -Sir Humfrey Gilberte’ was entered in S. R. on 17 July 1578. - -BUGBY, JOHN. Grammar Master of Chapel, 1401. - -BULL, JOHN. Chapel, 1572 (?)->1586. - -BULL, THOMAS. Denmark, 1579–80. - -BURBADGE, JAMES. The Shakespearo-centric tendencies of literary -historians have led them to suggest a regional connexion between the -dramatist and the family of his most famous interpreter.[941] There -was a Warwickshire family of Burbadge, of whom John was bailiff of -Stratford-on-Avon in 1555, and Malone was thus led (_Var._ iii. 187) -to ‘suspect’ that James Burbadge was Shakespeare’s countryman. Collier -(iii. 258) having learnt that the arms claimed by Cuthbert Burbadge at -the London visitation of 1634, ‘crest, a boar’s head; and three boars’ -heads on a shield’ (_Harleian Soc._ xv), were those of a Hertfordshire -family, attempted the explanation that the two families ‘were in some -way related’. He committed himself deeply by publishing in 1835 (_New -Facts_, 32; cf. Ingleby, 256) a forged letter from H. S. to Sir Thomas -Egerton, containing the statement that Shakespeare and Richard Burbadge -are ‘both of one countie, and indeede almost of one towne’. Burbadges -are traceable in various parts of England, including Somerset, -Oxfordshire, and Durham (Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 344; Stopes, 134, -243), and the conjecture has about as much value as Malone’s derivation -of the name (_Var._ iii. 182) from ‘Borough-bridge’, or Chalmers’s -from ‘Boar’s badge’. Nor is any connexion known between James Burbadge -and various other Burbadges--Robert, John, and Edward--who appear in -contemporary documents (Collier, iii. 282; Stopes, 152), although A. -Wood (_Fasti Oxon._ i. 303) makes himself responsible for the statement -that one John Burbadge, of Lincoln College, was nearly related to the -actor. The name is indifferently spelt Burbadge, Burbage, or Burbege by -contemporaries, but usually Burbadge in family signatures (Wallace, 61, -63 ‘James Burbage’, 252; Collier, iii. 294; _Malone Soc. Coll._ ii. 69, -76). James sealed the Blackfriars indentures of 1596 with a griffin. - -James was about sixty on 16 February 1591 (Wallace, 61) and was -therefore born in 1530–1. He was ‘by occupacion a joyner and reaping -but a small lyving by the same, gave it over and became a commen -player in playes’ (Wallace, 141). He was one of Leicester’s men in -1572, 1574, and 1576, and apparently continued a ‘fellow’ of this or -some other company for a year or two after he established the Theatre -in 1576 (Wallace, 142). In this year he was a poor man, and of small -credit, not worth above 100 marks (Wallace, 134, 141, 153), but he had -enlisted the capital of John Brayne, whose sister Ellen he had married -(Wallace, 40, 139). His business history thereafter is bound up with -that of the Theatre (q.v.) and of the Blackfriars, which he planned, -but probably never used, during the last years of his life. Cuthbert -Burbadge says of him (_Blackfriars Sharers Papers_, 1635) that he ‘was -the first builder of playhowses, and was himselfe in his younger yeeres -a player’. He was described as ‘joyner’ in the lease of the Theatre -site in 1576, but in later years usually as ‘yeoman’ or ‘gentleman’. -Presumably he went to live in Shoreditch in 1576, as entries for his -family then begin in the registers of St. Leonard’s (Stopes, 139). They -testify to the baptism (17 March 1576) of a daughter Alice, mentioned -as Alice Walker in the will of Nicholas Tooley (q.v.) in 1623, and the -burial (18 August 1582) of a daughter Joan. Another daughter, Helen, -was buried at St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, on 15 December 1595 (_Bodl._). -Besides Alice and Helen he had in 1588 (Wallace, 39) two sons, Cuthbert -and Richard, who would both have been born before 1576. James himself -was buried at Shoreditch on 2 February 1597 and his widow on 8 May -1613. The registers generally give the family residence as ‘Halliwell -Street’, and the ‘Halliwell’ which appears in 1597 and 1601 is perhaps -an accidental variant. But the lawsuits suggest that James had built -himself a house in the old inner cloister yard of the priory, which lay -a little north of Halliwell Street, if that is the same as Holywell -Lane (Wallace, 232, 236). They also represent him as a man of violent -temper and not over-honest, while an independent record (App. D, No. -lxxiv) refers to him as ‘a stubburne fellow’. Before his death he seems -to have made over his interest in the Blackfriars to his son Richard, -while that in the Theatre had passed by redemption of a mortgage to -Cuthbert (Wallace, 55, 73, 108, 145, 278). - -Cuthbert Burbadge, the elder son of James, was not an actor, although -as holder of the leases of the Theatre and afterwards of the Globe -(q.v.) he was concerned during the greater part of his life with -theatrical management. On 16 February 1591 he was servant to Walter -Cope, gentleman usher to Lord Burghley. He was then twenty-four, and -must have been born in 1566–7. He was then probably living in the -Strand (Stopes, 152), but the subsidy rolls for 1597 (Stopes, 195) -show him as assessed at 10_s._ 8_d._ in Holywell Street, and the -registers of St. Leonard’s have the records of his children, Walter -(bapt. 22 June 1595), James (bur. 15 July 1597), and Elizabeth (bapt. -30 December 1601). Of these only Elizabeth, the wife first of Amias -Maxey and secondly of George Bingley, was alive in 1634 and her son -Amias had been adopted by his grandfather. Cuthbert himself was buried -at Shoreditch on 17 September 1636, and his widow Elizabeth, daughter -of John Cox, on 1 October 1636 (Stopes, 134, 140). His friendship with -members of the King’s company is commemorated by notices in the wills -of William Sly (1608), Richard Cowley (1618), and Nicholas Tooley, -who died in his house in 1623. Collier (iii. 285) identified him with -Cuthbert Burby the stationer, but Burby was in fact the son of Edmund -Burby of Beds., husbandman (Arber, ii. 127). Possibly, however, the -families were related, since Burby’s name is given at least once in the -Stationers’ Register (Arber, ii. 612) as ‘Burbidge’. - -BURBADGE, RICHARD, makes his first appearance, picturesquely enough, -in the brawl at the Theatre which followed upon the Chancery Order -of 13 November 1590, restoring a moiety of the profits of the house -to the widow Brayne (cf. p. 392). John Alleyn deposed (Wallace, 101) -that he ‘found the foresaid Ry. Burbage the yongest sone of the said -James Burbage there, w^t a broome staff in his hand, of whom when -this deponente asked what sturre was there, he answered in laughing -phrase hew they come for a moytie. But quod he (holding vppe the said -broomes staff) I haue, I think, deliuered him a moytie with this & -sent them packing.’ Nicholas Bishop (Wallace, 98, 115), one of Mrs. -Brayne’s agents, adds the confirmatory detail that ‘the said Ry. -Burbage scornfully & disdainfullye playing with this deponentes nose, -sayd, that yf he delt in the matter, he wold beate him also, and did -chalendge the field of him at that tyme’. Very possibly Richard was -then playing with the Admiral’s men at the Theatre. His exact age -is unknown, but he was younger than Cuthbert, born in 1566–7, and -as Cuthbert, long after, spoke of the ‘35 yeeres paines, cost, and -labour’ out of which his brother ‘made meanes to leave his wife and -children some estate’ in 1619 (_Sharers Papers_), it may perhaps be -inferred that his histrionic career began as early as 1584. The ‘plot’ -of _The Dead Man’s Fortune_, wherein the doubtful direction (cf. p. -125) ‘Burbage a messenger’ suggests that he played a minor part, may -belong to a performance by the Admiral’s _c._ 1590. It is a little -more difficult to suppose that at a date when the Queen’s men were -still active the Admiral’s or Strange’s had already acquired Tarlton’s -_Seven Deadly Sins_, in the ‘plot’ of which ‘R. Burbadg’ is cast for -the important characters of Gorboduc and Terens. But perhaps it is even -less probable that, after the breach of the Admiral’s with his father -in 1591, he took part in the performances of the same play by the -amalgamated Admiral’s and Strange’s men at the Rose in 1592. His name -does not appear amongst those of the Strange’s men who were travelling -in 1593. But when the amalgamation broke up, and the Chamberlain’s -company was formed, with some of its elements as a nucleus, in 1594, -he joined that company, and became a prominent member, often acting as -its representative or payee, both before and after its metamorphosis -into the King’s men, and to the end of his own life. His name is -constant in its lists (cf. ch. xiii), and his personal relations with -his fellows are reflected in the wills of Augustine Phillips in 1605, -Shakespeare in 1616, and Nicholas Tooley, whose ‘master’ he had been, -in 1623. It would appear that in the somewhat irregular disposition of -James Burbadge’s theatrical interests the Blackfriars freehold fell -primarily to Richard. The leases of 1608 were made by him as lessor -to his brother and other members of the King’s men’s syndicate as -lessees. This, however, was doubtless a mere family arrangement, for -Cuthbert spoke of the Blackfriars in 1635 as ‘our inheritance’, and the -two brothers shared in the supplementary transactions which rounded -off the original purchase (cf. ch. xvii). At the Globe, on the other -hand, Cuthbert and Richard held in common a moiety of the housekeepers’ -interest under the lease from Nicholas Brend (cf. ch. xvi). They -continued to live as close neighbours in Halliwell Street, Shoreditch, -where they shared the misfortune of having their houses burgled in -1615 (Jeaffreson, ii. 108) and where the registers of St. Leonard’s -(Stopes, 139) record Richard’s children: Richard (bur. 16 August -1607), Julia or Juliet (bapt. 2 January 1603, bur. 12 September 1608), -Frances (bapt. 16 September and bur. 19 September 1604), Anne (bapt. 8 -August 1607), Winifred (bapt. 10 October 1613, bur. 14 October 1616), -a second Julia (bapt. 26 December 1614, bur. 15 August 1615), William -(bapt. 6 November 1616), and a posthumous Sara (bapt. 5 August 1619, -bur. 29 April 1625). ‘Richard Burbadge, player’ was himself buried on -16 March 1619. He had died, not as Camden records in his _Annals_ on 9 -March, but on 13 March, after making the day before a nuncupative will -(Collier, iii. 293), witnessed by his brother and by Nicholas Tooley -and Richard Robinson of the King’s men, in which he left his wife -Winifred sole executrix. She subsequently married Richard Robinson, -and was still alive, as was Burbadge’s son William, in 1635 (_Sharers -Papers_). According to the gossip of the day he left ‘better than £300 -land to his heirs’ (Collier, iii. 297). - -Burbadge had a high reputation as a player, both in life and after -death. A note of 13 March 1602 by John Manningham (_Diary_, 39) -records how his impersonation of Richard III touched the heart of -a citizen’s wife, and how Shakespeare prevented him at a resultant -assignation. John Davies of Hereford coupled him with Shakespeare -in 1603 (_Microcosmos_) among players whom he loved ‘for painting, -poesie’, and in 1609 (_Civile Warres of Death and Fortune_) amongst -those whom Fortune ‘guerdond not, to their desarts’. He is introduced -_in propria persona_ into _2 Return from Parnassus_ (1602) and into -Marston’s induction to _The Malcontent_ (1604). Probably he is the -‘one man’ of the London stage with whom the player in _Ratseis Ghost_ -(1605; cf. ch. xviii) is advised ‘to play Hamlet for a wager’. Jonson, -in _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), v. iii, makes Cokes ask the master of -the puppets, ‘which is your _Burbage_ now?... your best _Actor_. Your -_Field_?’ He was apparently the model for the _Character of an Actor_ -in the _Characters_ of 1615 (App. C, No. lxi). And other evidences of -his fame can be traced down to Restoration days in Richard Corbet’s -_Iter Boreale_, in Sir Richard Baker’s _Chronicle_ and _Theatrum -Redivivum_, and in Richard Flecknoe’s _Short Discourse of the English -Stage_ and his _Euterpe Restored_ (cf. Collier, iii. 279; Stopes, 121; -_Shakespeare’s Centurie of Prayse_, N.S.S., 128, 250). - -Shortly after Burbadge’s death, on 20 May 1619, the Earl of Pembroke -wrote to Lord Doncaster in Germany of a great supper given the same -night by the Duke of Lennox to the French ambassador, and adds that the -company were now at the play, ‘which I being tender-harted could not -endure to see so soone after the loss of my old acquaintance Burbadg’ -(E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ (1882), i. 103). Several epitaphs and -elegies upon Burbadge are preserved. The shortest--‘Exit Burbadge’--was -printed in Camden’s _Remaines_ (1674), 541. Another is by Middleton -(Collier, iii. 280, 296). A third, which begins - - Some skillfull limner helpe mee, yf not soe, - Some sad tragedian, to expresse my woe, - -has been the subject of much controversy (cf. Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. -88; C. M. Ingleby, _The Elegy on Burbadge_, in _Shakespeare, the Man -and the Book_, ii. 169). It exists in two versions, one of 86 lines, -the other of 124 lines. Of the shorter version several undoubtedly -genuine manuscripts are known, and it is probably only by accident that -one of these omits ll. 2–5 of the following passage, which is given -completely by all the rest: - - Hee’s gone & with him what a world are dead, - Which he reuiud, to be reuiued soe. - No more young Hamlett, ould Heironymoe. - Kind Leer, the greued Moore, and more beside, - That liued in him, haue now for ever dy’de. - Oft haue I seene him leap into the graue, - Suiting the person which he seem’d to haue - Of a sadd louer with soe true an eye, - That theer I would haue sworne, he meant to dye. - Oft haue I seene him play this part in ieast, - Soe liuely, that spectators, and the rest - Of his sad crew, whilst he but seem’d to bleed, - Amazed, thought euen then hee dyed in deed. - -In the longer version ll. 2–5 are not only omitted, but are replaced by -an interpolation of many lines, detailing a number of parts, some of -which belonged to other companies than the King’s, and are not likely -to have been played by Burbadge. No manuscript of this version is -forthcoming, and there can be little doubt that the interpolation is -due to Collier, who referred to the version in his _New Particulars_ -(1836), 27, and published it in his _Memoirs of the Actors_ (1846), -52, professedly from a manuscript in the possession of Richard Heber. -Of the shorter version I can add to what has been recorded by others -that in _Stowe MS._ 962, f. 62^v, I have found a copy of it, with the -title ‘An Elegie on the death of the famous actor Rich: Burbage, who -died 13 Martij A^o. 1618’, and an ascription to ‘Jo ffletcher’. Other -copies also give the date of Burbadge’s death, or refer, as do the -opening lines themselves, to the fact that he was skilled not only as -an actor but as a limner. John Davies testifies to this in the verses -of 1603 already cited. The accounts of the Earl of Rutland for the -birthday tilt of 1613 contain the entry, ‘31 Martij, To M^r. Shakspeare -in gold, about my Lordes impreso, 44^s. To Richard Burbage for paynting -and makyng yt, in gold, 44^s’; and those for the tilt of 1616, ‘25 -Martij, 1616, paid given Richard Burbidg for my Lordes shelde and for -the embleance, 4^{li} 18^s’ (_H. M. C. Rutland MSS._ iv. 494, 508). The -gallery at Dulwich contains a picture presented by William Cartwright, -which is described in his catalogue as ‘a womans head on a boord done -by M^r. Burbige y^e actor’. The inveterate tendency of mankind to -guess has led to suggestions that he may have painted the portrait of -himself in the same gallery, the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, or -the original of the Droeshout print. - -One other record of Burbadge, apart from his company, may be noted. On -31 May 1610 he was employed by the City, with his fellow James Rice, -to deliver a speech to Prince Henry at a water-pageant on the Thames -(cf. ch. iv). Presumably he represented Amphion, ‘a grave and judicious -Prophet-like personage’, and Rice Corinea. - -BURGES, ROBERT. A ‘player’ buried at St. Bennet’s, Gracechurch, 14 -April 1559 (B. 251). - -CANDLER, JAMES. Leader of a company at Ipswich, 1569–70 (_Hist. MSS._ -ix. 1. 248). - -CARIE (GARY), GILES. Revels, 1609; Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1613. - -CARLETON, NICHOLAS. Paul’s, >1582. - -CARPENTER, WILLIAM. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611; Charles’s, 1619, 1625. He -was apparently porter at the Marshalsea in 1623 (J. 347). - -CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM. Admiral’s-Henry’s, 1598–1622 (H. ii. 247). He -lived at the upper end of White Cross Street in 1623 (J. 347). - -CASTLE, THOMAS. A ‘player’, whose son Nicholas and daughter Hester were -baptized at St. Giles’s on 9 October 1608 and 15 April 1610 (B. 262). - -CATTANES. Worcester’s, 1602 (H. ii. 248). - -CAVALLERIZZO, CLAUDIO. Italians, 1576 (?). - -CHAPPELL, JOHN. Chapel, 1600–1. - -CHESSON, THOMAS. Oxford’s (?), 1580. - -CLARK, SILL. Prince’s, 1603< >1641. - -CLARKE, ROBERT. A ‘player’ whose son Ezekiel was buried at St. Giles’s, -7 November 1617 (B. 268). - -CLARKE, THOMAS. Leicester’s, 1572. - -CLAY, NATHANIEL. Anne’s, 1618; Chamber of Bristol, 1618. - -CLEMENT, WILLIAM. London player, 1550 (App. D, No. v). - -CLIFTON, THOMAS. Kidnapped for Chapel, 1600. - -COBORNE, EDWARD. A ‘player’ whose son John was baptized at St. Giles’s -on 23 Nov. 1616. Of other family entries, 1613–25, some are for Edward -Coborne ‘gentleman’ (_Bodl._). He may be identical with COLBRAND. - -COKE, RICHARD. Interluders, 1547–56. - -COLBRAND, EDWARD. Palsgrave’s, 1610–13. - -COLE. Paul’s, 1599. - -COLMAN, WILLIAM. Chapel, 1509. - -CONDELL, HENRY, has been conjectured to be the ‘Harry’ cast for Ferrex -and a Lord in the ‘plot’ of _The Seven Deadly Sins_, as played by -Strange’s or the Admiral’s about 1590–1. The first definite notice of -him is in the cast of Jonson’s _Every Man in his Humour_, as played -by the Chamberlain’s men in 1598. Thereafter he appears in all formal -lists of the Chamberlain’s and King’s men, up to the Caroline patent -of 1625, including the list in the First Folio of 1623, of which, -with Heminges, he acted as editor. He is also in all the casts up to -_The Humourous Lieutenant_ (_c._ 1619). About this date he presumably -ceased to play; his part of the Cardinal in _The Duchess of Malfi_ had -passed to Richard Robinson by 1623. The fact that he took this part -somewhat discredits the conjecture of John Roberts (_Answer to Pope_, -1729) that he was a comedian; nor can the statement of the same writer -that he was a printer be verified. He is staged with other members of -the company in Marston’s _Malcontent_ (1604), and appears as ‘Henry -Condye’ in the verses on the burning of the Globe in 1613. He is -assigned 26_s._ 8_d._ to buy a ring as Shakespeare’s ‘fellowe’ in his -will of 1616, and appears also as a legatee in the will of Augustine -Phillips in 1605, as trustee in that of Alexander Cooke in 1614, as -executor and joint residuary legatee in that of Nicholas Tooley in -1623, under which also his wife and his daughter Elizabeth receive -legacies, and as executor in that of John Underwood in 1625. By 1599 he -was married and apparently settled in St. Mary Aldermanbury, where he -held various parochial offices during 1606–21, and the register records -his children: Elizabeth (bapt. 27 February 1599, bur. 11 April 1599), -Anne (bapt. 4 April 1601, bur. 16 July 1610), Richard (bapt. 18 April -1602), Elizabeth (bapt. 14 April 1603, bur. 22 April 1603), Elizabeth -(bapt. 26 October 1606), Mary (bapt. 30 January 1608, bur. from Hoxton -at St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, 24 March 1608), Henry (bapt. 6 May 1610, -bur. 4 March 1630), William (bapt. 26 May 1611), Edward (bapt. 22 -August 1614, bur. 23 August 1614).[942] Subsequently he had a ‘country -house’ at Fulham, at which on 10 September 1625 a pamphlet written -by certain players on their travels during the plague, as a reply to -Dekker’s _A Rod for Run-awayes_, under the title of _The Run-awayes -Answer_, was addressed to him, with an expression of gratitude for a -‘free and noble farewell’ which he had given the writers. At Fulham, -too, on 13 December 1627, he made his will, leaving to his widow -Elizabeth, his sons Henry and William, and his daughter Elizabeth, -wife of Herbert Finch, much household property at Aldermanbury and -elsewhere in London, including ‘rents and profits’ by ‘leases and -terms of years’ of ‘messuages houses and places’ in Blackfriars and on -the Bankside, which were to pass for a time to William and ultimately -to the widow.[943] Condell had not been an original sharer in the -house of the Globe, but by 1612 had acquired an interest jointly with -Heminges; of the Blackfriars house he was an original sharer in 1608. -_The Sharers Papers_ of 1635 indicate that Mrs. Condell had held -four-sixteenths of the Globe and one-eighth of the Blackfriars, but -had transferred two-sixteenths of the Globe when Taylor and Lowin were -admitted as sharers. A minor legacy in Condell’s will is to his old -servant, Elizabeth Wheaton, of her ‘place or priviledge’ in the Globe -and Blackfriars. Heminges and Cuthbert Burbadge are named as overseers. -Condell was buried on 29 December 1627, and his widow on 3 October -1635, both at St. Mary Aldermanbury.[944] - -COOKE, ALEXANDER, has been conjectured to be the ‘Sander’ who is cast -in the ‘plot’ of _The Seven Deadly Sins_ as played by Strange’s or the -Admiral’s about 1590–1, for the parts of Videna in _Envy_ and Progne -in _Lechery_. But, as far as this goes, he might just as well be the -‘San.’ who took the part of a player in _Taming of a Shrew_ (1594), -ind. 1, which was a Pembroke’s play. Malone ‘presumes’, with some -rashness, that he performed ‘all the principal female characters’ in -Shakespeare’s plays.[945] It must be doubtful whether he was on the -stage as early as 1592. He is traceable as a member of the King’s -men in the casts of _Sejanus_ (1603), _Volpone_ (1605), _Alchemist_ -(1610), _Catiline_ (1611), and _The Captain_ (1612–13). The fact that -in the first two of these his name occurs at the end of the lists has -been somewhat hazardously accepted as an indication that he played -women’s parts. He is also in the First Folio list of performers in -Shakespeare’s plays. Augustine Phillips left him a legacy as his -‘fellow’ in 1605. - -‘Mr. Cooke and his wife’ commend themselves to Alleyn in his wife’s -letter of 21 October 1603.[946] The token-books of St. Saviour’s, -Southwark, show an Alexander Cooke in Hill’s Rents during 1604, 1607, -1609, and 1610; and the parish register, recording the baptism of -Francis Cooke, son of Alexander, ‘a player’, on 27 October 1605, makes -an identification possible. There were three more children, Rebecca -(bapt. 11 October 1607), Alice (bapt. 3 November 1611), Alexander -(bapt. 20 March 1614). This last was posthumous; the register records -Alexander Cooke’s burial on 25 February 1614.[947] His will, dated -3 January 1614, leaves £50 each to Francis, Rebecca, and the unborn -child, and the residue to his wife.[948] He owned £50 ‘which is in the -hand of my fellowes, as my share of the stock’. He appoints ‘my master -Hemings’, to whom he had presumably been apprenticed, and Condell -trustees for his children, and mentions brothers Ellis and John, of -whom the latter is conjectured by Collier to be the author of Greene’s -_Tu Quoque_. - -COOKE, EDWARD. Chapel, 1509. - -COOKE, LIONEL. Queen’s, 1583, 1588. - -COOKE, THOMAS. Worcester’s, 1583. - -COOKE, WILLIAM. Whitefriars lessee, 1608. - -CORNISH, JOHN. Gentleman of Chapel, and pageant-master at wedding of -Arthur in 1501. - -CORNISH, KIT. A ‘ghost-name’ in Chapel records. - -CORNISH, WILLIAM. Master of Song School, Westminster, 1479–80. - -CORNISH, WILLIAM. Master of Chapel, 1509–23. Conceivably identical with -the last, and in any case probably of the same family. - -COWLEY, RICHARD, was of Strange’s men in 1593. He had played minor -parts with that company or the Admiral’s in _The Seven Deadly Sins_ -of 1590–1, and is mentioned in Alleyn’s correspondence as travelling -with the company. He joined the Chamberlain’s men, probably on -their formation in 1594, and was payee for the company in 1601. The -stage-directions to the Quarto (1600) and Folio texts of _Much Ado -about Nothing_, IV. ii, show that he played Verges. He is in the -1603 and 1604 lists of the King’s men, and received a legacy from -Augustine Phillips as his ‘fellow’ in 1605, but does not appear to -have been a sharer in the houses of the Globe or Blackfriars. He is -in the Folio list of performers in Shakespeare’s plays. He dwelt in -Holywell, or for a short period in Alleyn’s Rents, both in the parish -of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, whose register records his children, -Robert (bapt. 8 March 1596, bur. (?) 20 March 1597), Cuthbert (bapt. -8 May 1597), Richard (bapt. 29 April 1598, bur. 26 February 1603), -Elizabeth (bapt. 2 February 1602), as well as the funeral of his wife -Elizabeth on 28 September 1616, and his own on 12 March 1619.[949] His -will, dated on 13 January 1618, appoints his daughter Elizabeth Birch -executrix and is witnessed by Heminges, Cuthbert Burbadge, Shank, and -Thomas Ravenscroft, perhaps the madrigalist.[950] - -CRANE, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (App. D, No. v). - -CRANE, WILLIAM. Master of Chapel, 1523–45. - -CROSSE, SAMUEL, is named amongst the performers of Shakespeare’s plays -in the First Folio, but in no list of the Chamberlain’s or King’s men. -Probably, therefore, he belongs to the very beginning of Shakespeare’s -career, and is to be identified with the Crosse named by Heywood -amongst famous actors of a generation before his time.[951] - -CUMBER, JOHN. Anne’s, 1616–19. He lived in Aldermanbury in 1623, and -died in that year (J. 347; Fleay, 279). - -CURTEYS, JAMES. Chapel, 1509. - -CUTLER, JAMES. Chapel, > 1605. - -DABORNE, ROBERT. Revels patentee, 1610, and dramatist. - -DANIEL, JOHN. Chamber of Bristol patentee, 1615–17. - -DANIEL, SAMUEL. Allower of Revels’ plays, 1604, and dramatist. - -DARLOWE. Admiral’s, >1590. - -DAVIES, HUGH. Admiral’s (?), 1601 (H. ii. 255). - -DAWES, ROBERT. Duke of York’s, 1610; Lady Elizabeth’s, 1614. - -DAY, JOHN. Admiral’s (?), _c._ 1600. John, son of John Day, ‘player’, -was baptized at St. Saviour’s, 3 June 1604 (B. 308; cf. ch. xxiii). - -DAY, THOMAS. Chapel, 1601, 1602. - -DOB. Admiral’s, 1598–1601. - -DOWNTON (DOWTON, DOUTON (?), DOWTEN, DOWGHTON, DENYGTEN, DOUBTON), -THOMAS. Strange’s, 1593; Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1594–_c._ -1618. The St. Saviour’s registers record various family events, -including the baptism of Christopher, son of Thomas Dowton ‘musycyon’ -on 27 December 1592 and that of Thomas Dowton ‘baseborne, the supposed -son of Thomas Dowton, a player’, 25 May 1600. He apparently married a -vintner’s widow on 15 February 1618, became a vintner, and was still -alive on 18 August 1622 (B. 316; H. ii. 262, 265). Dr. Greg regards him -as one of the Dutton family. - -DRAKE, ROBERT. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -DRAYTON, MICHAEL. Whitefriars lessee, 1608, and dramatist. - -DREWE, BARTHOLOMEW. A ‘player’, whose son George was baptized at St. -Saviour’s on 12 November 1614 (B. 314). - -DREWE, THOMAS. Anne’s, 1616–19. - -DROM, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1601. - -DRUSIANO. _Vide_ MARTINELLI. - -DUKE, JOHN. Strange’s (?), 1590–1; Chamberlain’s, 1598; -Worcester’s-Anne’s, 1602–9. Four children were baptized at St. -Leonard’s, where he lived in Holywell Street, from July 1604 to January -1609 (H. ii. 265; Collier, _Actors_, xxxi). - -DULANDT (DOWLAND?), ROBERT. Musician in Germany, 1623. - -DUTTON, EDWARD. Admiral’s, 1597, with a boy ‘Dick’. Children of his -were baptized at St. Saviour’s during 1600–2 (B. 326). - -DUTTON, JOHN. Warwick’s, 1575–6; Oxford’s, 1580; Queen’s, 1583, -1588–91. Lincoln’s Inn paid him for musicians in 1567–8 (Walker, i. -362). There are family records of a John Dutton at St. Botolph’s, who -is called ‘player’ in the entry of a daughter Elizabeth’s baptism of 3 -July 1586 (B. 328). - -DUTTON, LAURENCE. Lane’s, 1571–2; Clinton’s, 1572–5; Warwick’s, 1575–6; -Oxford’s, 1580; Queen’s, 1589–91. It is curious that a John and a -Laurence Dutton also appear as Court Messengers. I find a payment on -23 May 1578 to John for carrying letters to Antwerp (_Pipe Office, -Chamber Declared Account_ 541, m. 211^v), and Laurence was paid for -‘sondry jorneys’ in 1561–2 (ibid. m. 39) and was during 1576–82 one -of the regular Messengers of the Chamber in attendance on the Privy -Council (Dasent, ix. 223, x. 223, 228, xi. 437, xii. 23, xiii. 135, -392, etc.). The ‘Edward’ Dutton of the last entry may be an error. In -1592 the Council (xxii. 493) recommended John the son of Laurence who -had ‘of long tyme served her Majestie’ as Messenger, for admission as -a Queen’s Scholar at Westminster. But this Laurence can hardly have -been the actor, for he was acting as Messenger on 20 May 1580, while -the affray for which Laurence the actor had been committed to the -Marshalsea on 13 April was still uninquired into. Somewhat earlier a -Thomas Dutton was employed as a post between Edward VI’s Council and -Thomas Gresham in Antwerp, and was Gresham’s agent in Hamburg, c. 1571 -(Burgon, _Gresham_, i. 109; ii. 421). It is easier again to conjecture -than to prove a connexion between the actors and the house of Dutton, -which had a hereditary jurisdiction over minstrelsy in Cheshire (cf. -ch. ix), although in this the names John and Laurence both appear. It -is perhaps an accident that two of the recorded visits of the Queen’s -men to Lord Derby’s northern seats in 1588–90 synchronize with visits -by a Mr. Dutton (Murray, ii. 296). - -ECCLESTONE, WILLIAM, appears as a King’s man in the casts of _The -Alchemist_ (1610) and _Catiline_ (1611). Mr. Fleay’s statement that -he joined the company from the Queen’s Revels in 1609 rests upon a -confusion with Field.[952] In 1611 he became a member of the Lady -Elizabeth’s men, but left them in 1613 after playing in _The Honest -Man’s Fortune_ during that year. He returned to the King’s, and his -name is found in the official lists of the company for 1619 and 1621 -and in most of the casts of their plays, from _Bonduca_ in 1613–14 to -_The Spanish Curate_ in 1622, as well as in the First Folio list of -performers in Shakespeare’s plays. Nicholas Tooley forgave him a debt -in his will of 3 June 1623. As he is not in the Caroline patent of -1625, he had probably died or retired by that date. He may be the W. -E. who writes commendatory verses to _The Wild-goose Chase_ in 1652. -If he is also the ‘William Eglestone’ whose marriage to Anne Jacob is -recorded in the register of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, on 20 February -1603, he lived to be an old man.[953] - -EDMONDS, JOHN. Globe lessee, 1612; Chamber of Bristol, 1618–19. The -St. Saviour’s registers record the marriage of a John Edmonds to -Margaret Goodyere on 22 February 1600 and the baptism of children of -John Edmonds, ‘player’, from 6 January 1605 to 17 July 1615 (B. 334). -Probably the two are not identical and the player is the John Edmans -who seems to have married his fellow-legatee, Mary Clarke, of the will -of Thomas Pope (q.v.) in 1604. - -EDWARDES, RICHARD. Master of Chapel, 1561–6, and dramatist. - -EICHELIN. Germany, 1604. - -ELDERTON, WILLIAM. One Elderton, dressed as a fool, played the part of -one of the Lord of Misrule’s sons in George Ferrers’s Christmas revel -of 1552–3 (Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 120; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, -i. 407). Conjecture may identify him with the Elderton who brought -the Eton boys to Court on 6 January 1573 and the William Elderton who -brought the Westminster boys on 1 January 1574, and with the rhyming -William Elderton, some of whose ballads are preserved and reprinted in -Collier, _Old Ballads from Early Printed Copies_ (1842, _Percy Soc._), -25, 45; H. Huth, _Ancient Ballads and Broadsides_ (1867, _Philobiblon -Soc._); and H. L. Collman, _Ballads and Broadsides_ (1912, _Roxburghe -Club_); or recorded, with ballads against him, in the Stationers’ -Register (Arber, i. 179, 180, 181, 199, 384, 403, 439; ii. 338, 363, -369, 388, 396, 399; cf. v. lxxvi), while his ‘ale-crammed nose’ and -‘rymes lying a steepe in ale’ are subject for much humour among the -pamphleteers (Lyly, iii. 398; Nashe, i. 197, 256, 280; iii. 123, 133, -177, 354). Stowe (_Survey_, i. 272) makes him an attorney in the -sheriff’s courts at the Guildhall about 1568, but he can hardly be the -‘master Elderton’ who sat as a justice at the Guildhall in a coining -case of 1562 (Machyn, 290). He appears to have been dead by 1592 -(Harvey, i. 163; Nashe, i. 280). A recent paper on Elderton by H. E. -Rollins is in _S. P._ xvii (1920), 199. - -ENGLISH, JOHN. Interluders, 1494–1531. - -EVANS, HENRY. Blackfriars lessee, 1583, 1600–8; payee for Oxford’s, -1584; manager of Chapel, 1600–3. He was a scrivener, and overseer to -the will of Sebastian Westcott, Master of Paul’s, in 1582. - -EVANS, THOMAS. Blackfriars lessee, 1608. - -EVESEED, HENRY. Chapel, >1585. - -FARNABY, RICHARD. Musician in Germany, 1623. - -FARRANT, RICHARD. Master of Children of Windsor, 1564–80; Acting Master -of Chapel and Blackfriars lessee, 1576–80. - -FERRABOSCO, ALFONSO. Italians, 1576, and Court musician (cf. ch. ii). - -FETHERSTON, WILLIAM. Of Danby, Yorks., unlicensed player, 1612 (cf. ch. -ix, p. 305). - -FIDGE, WILLIAM. H. R. Plomer (3 _Library_, ix. 252) cites from a -Canterbury record of 1571, ‘William Fidge and Whetstone owe the said -[Robert] Bettes [a painter] for their portions in buying of certen -playebookes 35_s._ 4_d._’ - -FIELD, NATHAN, was the son of John Field, preacher and castigator of -the stage (cf. App. C, No. xxxi), and was baptized at St. Giles’s, -Cripplegate, on 17 October 1587 (Collier, iii. 425). His name is -always spelt Nathan in formal contemporary documents, although he -was familiarly known as Nat or Nid. But he appears in many reputable -modern works of learning as Nathaniel. This error perhaps originated -with the compilers of the 1679 Folio of Beaumont and Fletcher, who in -four out of the six actor-lists in which his name is found used the -form Nathan and in two (_Loyal Subject_ and _Mad Lover_) Nathanael. It -was certainly encouraged by a muddle of Collier, who finding in the -Cripplegate registers that another son of John Field had been baptized -Nathaniel on 13 June 1581, and not realizing that a cranky theological -father might quite well use the names as distinct, thought it necessary -to assume that this Nathaniel had died before 1587. As a matter of -fact, he survived, was apprenticed to a stationer at Michaelmas 1596, -took up his freedom on 3 June 1611, and between 1624 and 1627 published -some books, including two sermons by a third brother, Theophilus Field, -Bishop of Llandaff (McKerrow, _Dict._ 101). I need hardly linger over -the suggestion that Nathan Field lived a double life as actor and -bookseller. At this time of the apprenticeship he was not yet nine -years old, and he was still a scholar of St. Paul’s Grammar School -when, not earlier than 1600, he was impressed by Nathaniel Giles and -his deputies to serve as one of the Children of the Chapel (_Clifton v. -Robinson_ in Fleay, 128). His education was not entirely interrupted, -for he fell into the hands of Ben Jonson, who told Drummond in -1619 that ‘Nid Field was his schollar, and he had read to him the -Satyres of Horace, and some Epigrames of Martiall’ (Laing, 11). Field -remained a member of the Chapel and the Queen’s Revels throughout the -vicissitudes of the company from 1600 to 1613. He is in the actor-lists -of _Cynthia’s Revels_ (1600), _The Poetaster_ (1601), and _Epicoene_ -(1609), and presumably played Humfrey in _K. B. P._ (1607).[954] With -his fellows he became absorbed into the Lady Elizabeth’s in March -1613, contracted with Henslowe and Meade on behalf of this company -(_Henslowe Papers_, 23), acted as their payee in 1615, and appears -in the actor-lists of _The Coxcomb_, _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, and -_Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), in the text of which Jonson compliments him -(v. 3) as follows: - - _Cokes._ Which is your _Burbage_ now? - - _Lanterne._ What meane you by that, Sir? - - _Cokes._ Your best Actor. Your _Field_? - -He seems to have been suspected by the company of taking bribes from -Henslowe to connive at transactions contrary to their interest -(_Henslowe Papers_, 88). Certainly he was in financial straits and on -more than one occasion appealed to Henslowe to secure his release from -an arrest (_Henslowe Papers_, 66, 67). Perhaps it was as a result of -this friction with his fellows that he abandoned their amalgamation -with Prince Charles’s men in 1615. Instead he joined, at or about -this date, the King’s men, and appears as one in the actor-lists of -_The Loyal Subject_, _The Knight of Malta_, _The Queen of Corinth_, -and _The Mad Lover_. It must, I think, have been by a slip that -Cuthbert Burbadge, in the _Sharers Papers_ of 1635, spoke of him as -joining the King’s with Ostler and Underwood in 1608 or 1609. It seems -probable that Field brought with him to the King’s a share of the -plays which had formed the repertory of the joint Lady Elizabeth’s -and Queen’s Revels, including Chapman’s _Bussy D’Ambois_, in which a -King’s prologue vaunts his success as Bussy. He did not stay with the -company very long, for though he is in the patent of 27 March and the -livery list of 19 May 1619, he is replaced by John Rice in the livery -list of 7 April 1621. And as he does not appear and Rice does appear -amongst the actors named in the stage-directions to _Sir John von -Olden Barnevelt_ in August 1619, it is probable that he had left in -the course of the summer (_M. L. R._ iv. 395). If so, his departure -synchronizes with a scandal which attached itself to his name. His -moral character was hardly becoming to the son of a preacher. More than -one manuscript commonplace book (e. g. _Ashm. MS._ 47, f. 49, which -appears from the spelling of the name to be a late copy) contains an -epigram with some such heading as _On Nathaniell Feild suspected for -too much familiarity with his M^{ris} Lady May_. And on 5 June 1619 Sir -William Trumbull wrote from Brussels to Lord Hay (E. J. L. Scott in -_Athenaeum_ (1882), i. 103) that he was told that the Earl of Argyll -had paid for the nursing of a child, ‘which the world sayes is daughter -to my lady and N. Feild the Player’. Lady Argyll was Anne, daughter of -Sir William Cornwallis of Brome. Field’s later life is obscure. There -is an unimportant jest about him in John Taylor’s _Wit and Mirth_ -(1629). He was married to a wife Anne, and had children baptized and -buried at St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, during 1619–25. If another epigram, -printed by Collier, iii. 437, can be trusted, he very properly suffered -from jealousy. In relevant register entries the name is given as -Nathan. The Blackfriars registers give children both of Nathan and of -Nathaniel Field, and on 20 February 1633 occurs the burial of Nathaniel -Field, whom, if the entry does not indicate that the confusion of -persons had already begun, we are bound to take to be the bookseller. -There is no reason why both brothers should not have resided in -Blackfriars. - -Field was dramatist, as well as actor. In addition to the two plays -published under his single name, he collaborated with Massinger in -_The Fatal Dowry_, which was a King’s play and not likely, therefore, -to fall outside the dates 1616–19. And as the Henslowe correspondence -(_Henslowe Papers_, 65, 84) show him as collaborating also with -Fletcher, Massinger, and Daborne for the Lady Elizabeth’s, he has been -conjectured as a possible sharer in the authorship of several of the -plays of the Beaumont and Fletcher series. He also, about the time of -his joining the King’s, wrote a defence of the stage, in the form of a -remonstrance to Mr. Sutton, a preacher of St. Mary Overies (App. C, No. -lxiii). A portrait of Field is at Dulwich. - -FLETCHER, LAWRENCE. Scotland, 1595, 1599, 1601; Admiral’s (?), 1596; -King’s, 1603. Although included as a King’s man in the royal patent, -there is no reason to suppose that Fletcher ever joined the company -acting at the Globe; the absence of his name from the actor-list in the -Shakespeare F_{1} of 1623 is strong evidence that he did not. He lived -in St. Saviour’s, where he had a homonym, a victualler, who survived -him. One of the two is shown by the token-books as housed in Hunt’s -Rents, Maid Lane, during 1605–7; probably this was the actor, who was -buried on 12 September 1608. The description ‘Lawrence Fletcher, a man: -in the church’ of the register is amplified in a fee-book to ‘Lawrence -Fletcher, a player, the King’s servant, buried in the church, with an -afternoon’s knell of the great bell, 20s.’ (Collier, _Memoirs of the -Actors_^1, x; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvii). - -FLOWER. Admiral’s (?), _c._ 1600. - -FOSTER, ALEXANDER. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1618; Charles’s, 1616. - -FREYERBOTT, BARTHOLOMEUS. Germany, 1615. - -FRITH, MOLL. It appears to be suggested in the Epilogue to _The -Roaring Girl_ (cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Dekker) that this lady was to -appear in person on the Fortune stage, _c._ 1610. - -FROST, JOHN. Chapel, 1601. - -GARLAND, JOHN. Queen’s, 1583, 1588; Lennox’s, 1605; Duke of York’s, -1610. He appears to have dwelt in 1605 at ‘the ould forde’ (H. ii. 267). - -GARLICK. In I. H., _This World’s Folly_ (1615), an actor of this name -is apparently said to have personated himself on the Fortune stage, -‘behung with chaynes of Garlicke’ (App. C, No. lix); cf. Dekker, _If -This be not a Good Play_ (1610–12), sc. x (ed. Pearson, iii. 325), -‘Fortune fauours no body but Garlicke, nor Garlike neither now, yet -she has strong reason to loue it; for tho Garlicke made her smell -abhominably in the nostrills of the gallants, yet she had smelt and -stuncke worse but for garlike’; H. Parrot, _Laquei Ridiculosi_ (1613), -Epig. 131, ‘_Greene’s Tu Quoque_ and those Garlicke Jigs’; in Tailor, -_Hog Hath Lost his Pearl_ (1614, ed. Dodsley^4, p. 434), a jig will -draw more whores ‘than e’er Garlic had’. - -GARRET, JOHN. Anne’s, 1619. - -GEDION. Admiral’s, 1602. - -‘GERRY.’ King’s Revels, 1607. - -GEW. A blind player, referred to in _1 Ant. Mellida_ (1599), ind. 142, -‘’t had been a right part for Proteus or Gew. Ho! blind Gew would ha’ -done ’t rarely, rarely’; E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), _Sat._ v, -‘One that for ape tricks can put Gue to schoole’, and _Epig._ xi, ‘Gue, -hang thy selfe for woe, since gentlemen Are now grown cunning in thy -apishness’; Jonson, _Epig._ cxxix, ‘Thou dost out-zany Cokely, Pod; -nay, Gue.’ Pod was a puppet-showman. - -GIBBS. Admiral’s, 1602. - -GIBSON, RICHARD. Interluders, 1494–1508; afterwards Yeoman of the -Revels. - -GILBURNE, SAMUEL, is recorded in the First Folio list of performers -in Shakespeare’s plays. All that is known of him beyond this is that -Augustine Phillips left him as his ‘late apprentice’ in his will of -1605 the sum of 40_s._, various garments, and a bass viol. Collier’s -inference that he could play on the viol is a fairly harmless example -of biographical conjecture.[955] The identification of him with the -‘b[oy?] Sam’ of the ‘plot’ of _The Dead Man’s Fortune_, a play probably -belonging to the Admiral’s, and of a date not later than 1591, is more -dangerous.[956] - -GILES, NATHANIEL. Master of Windsor Choir, 1595–1634; Master of Chapel, -1597–1634. - -GILES, THOMAS. Master of Paul’s, 1585–1590 <; Instructor in Music to -Henry, 1606, and Charles, 1613. - -GOODALE, BAPTISTE. ‘Ghost-name’ (?) in Queen’s list (1589) forged by -Collier, _New Facts_, ii. - -GOODALE, THOMAS. Berkeley’s, 1581; Strange’s (?), 1590–1; Chamberlain’s -(?) at date of _Sir Thomas More_ (cf. ch. xxiv). If he is the Thomas -Goodale, mercer, who entered with John Alleyn and Robert Lee into a -bond to Edward Alleyn on 18 May 1593 (H. ii. 295, from _Dulwich MS._ -iv. 29), he was not improbably connected with the Admiral’s >1590. - -GOUGHE or GOFFE, ROBERT, was probably the ‘R. Go.’ entered in the -‘plot’ of _The Seven Deadly Sins_, as playing Aspasia in _Sloth_ for -the Admiral’s or Strange’s men about 1590–1. Probably he belonged at -an early date to the King’s men. He is a legatee in Thomas Pope’s will -of 22 July 1603, and witnessed that of Augustine Phillips on 4 May -1605, in which Phillips names a sister Elizabeth Goughe, doubtless the -Elizabeth ---- recorded in the register of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, -as marrying Robert Gough on 13 February 1603. The token-books of St. -Saviour’s indicate Gough’s residence in Hill’s Rents during 1604, -Samson’s Rents during 1605 and 1606, and Austin’s Rents in 1612–22; and -the registers, which generally call him a ‘player’, record his children -Elizabeth (bapt. 30 May 1605), Nicholas (bapt. 24 November 1608), -Dorothy (bapt. 10 February 1611, bur. 12 January 1613), Alexander -(bapt. 7 August 1614), and his own burial on 19 February 1624.[957] -His son Alexander became in his turn a player. A stage-direction -to l. 1723 of _The Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ (1611) shows that he -played Memphonius. He also played Leidenberch in _Sir John von Olden -Barnevelt_ in 1619, and appears in the official lists of the King’s -men for 1619 and 1621 and in the First Folio list of performers in -Shakespeare’s plays. - -GOUGHE, THOMAS. Lane’s, 1572. - -GRACE, FRANCIS. Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1610–22. He lived at George Alley, -Golden Lane, in 1623 (J. 347). - -GRAUNGER, JOHN. Chapel, 1509. - -GREAVES, JOHN. Lane’s, 1572. - -GREEN, JOHN. Germany, 1608; France, >1608; Holland, 1613; Germany, -1615–20, 1626. On his verses and portrait, 1608, cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. -_Nobody and Somebody_. He may have been brother of the following. - -GREENE, THOMAS. Anne’s, 1604–12. In R. Braithwaite, _Remains after -Death_ (1618) are four epigrams on him, one of which says that he ‘new -come from sea, made but one face and dide’. A couplet on his death, -signed W. R., is in Cooke’s _Greene’s Tu Quoque_. I. H., _World’s -Folly_ (1615), mentions his performance of a baboon (cf. App. C, No. -lix). He was of St. James’s, Clerkenwell, in 1612, when he made his -will (Fleay, 192), naming his wife Susan, daughter Honor, sons-in-law -(i.e. stepsons) Robert and William Browne, daughters-in-law Susanna, -Elizabeth, and Anne Browne, brothers John and Jeffery Greene, and -sister Elizabeth Barrett. A conjecture that he was of Stratford origin -has no foundation (Lee, 54). - -GREUM, HENRY. Germany, 1608. - -GRIFFEN. Admiral’s, 1597. - -GRIGORIE, JACK. Admiral’s, 1602. - -GRYMES, THOMAS. Chapel, 1600–1. - -GUNNELL, RICHARD. Palsgrave’s, 1613–22. Family notes appear in the -registers of St. Giles’s, 1614–30 (B. 409). - -GYLLOME, FOKE. Player (?) to Alexander Houghton, 1581 (cf. ch. ix, p. -280). - -GYRKE, RICHARD. A London player in 1550 (App. D, No. v). - -HALLAWAIE, ‘the younger’. Paul’s, 1580. - -HAMLEN (HAMLETT), ROBERT. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611–13; Charles’s, 1616, -1625. - -HAMMOND, JOHN. Interluders, 1494. - -HAMOND. Worcester’s, 1565. - -HARRISON, JOHN. A ‘player’ whose daughter Suzanna by wife Anne was -baptized at St. Helen’s on 10 January 1602. - -HARRISON, WILLIAM. Worcester’s, 1583. - -HARVEY. Chamberlain’s, 1597. - -HAWKINS, ALEXANDER. Blackfriars lessee, 1601; Revels patentee, 1604. - -HAYNE, WILLIAM. Head Master of Merchant Taylors’, 1599–1625. - -HAYSELL, GEORGE. Worcester’s, 1583. For a possible notice of the same -man, cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _Misogonus_. - -HEARNE, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1597. - -HELLE, JOHN. Admiral’s, 1597. - -HEMINGES, JOHN, whose name is variously spelt, appearing, for example, -as ‘Heminge’ in his signature to the dedication of the First Folio -of Shakespeare’s plays, and as ‘Hemmings’ in the actor-list in the -same volume, is known to have had a wife Rebecca, and may fairly be -identified with the ‘John Hemminge, gent.’ of St. Mary Cornhill, -who was married on 10 March 1588 to Rebecca Knell, widow, relict of -William Knell, gent., late of St. Mary Aldermanbury. In the same parish -William Knell had married Rebecca Edwards on 30 January 1586, and an -older William Knell had been buried on 24 September 1578.[958] One -of these was not improbably the early actor celebrated by Heywood. -Malone found a family of Heming at Shottery, and conjectured that of -this family John was born at some date earlier than the opening of -the Stratford-on-Avon register in 1558.[959] But this is rendered -improbable by a confirmation of arms in 1629 to ‘John Hemings of London -Gent. of long tyme Servant to Queen Elizabeth of happie Memory, also to -King James hir Royal Successor and to King Charles his Sonne’, in which -he is described as ‘Sonne and Heire of George Hemings of Draytwiche -in the Countye of Worcester Gent.’[960] There seems little reason to -doubt that this John Hemings is the player. He very probably began his -theatrical career with the Queen’s company, to which also Knell had -belonged. By May 1593, however, he had joined Strange’s men, from whom -he passed to the Chamberlain’s men, probably on the original formation -in 1594. Of this company, afterwards the King’s men, he remained a -member to the end of his career. He appears in all the official lists -of the company up to 1629, and regularly acted as their payee for -Court performances, generally with a colleague from 1596 to 1601, and -thereafter alone. This and his prominence in the negotiations of the -company and the lawsuits arising out of them, suggest that he acted as -their business manager. As an actor he appears in all the casts up to -_Catiline_ in 1611, but not thereafter; possibly he may have resigned -acting, and devoted himself to business. The unreliable John Roberts, -_Answer to Pope_ (1729), conjectures that he was a ‘tragedian’. Malone -had seen a statement in some tract of which he had forgotten the title, -that he was the original performer of Falstaff.[961] The lines on the -burning of the Globe in 1613 thus describe him: - - Then with swolne eyes, like druncken Flemminges, - Distressed stood old stuttering Heminges. - -He is ‘old Master Hemings’ in Jonson’s _Masque of Christmas_ (1616). -He lent his ‘boy’ John Rice (q.v.) to the Merchant Taylors for their -entertainment of James on 16 July 1607, and another ‘boy’ for Chapman’s -mask of 1613. He is named as a legatee and overseer in the will of -Augustine Phillips in 1605, and as executor in the event of the widow’s -re-marriage; also as a trustee in the will of Alexander Cooke, who -calls him his ‘master’, in 1614; as a witness in that of Richard -Cowley in 1618; as a legatee in that of Shakespeare in 1616; and as -a legatee and overseer in those of Underwood in 1624 and of Condell -in 1627. He was appointed a trustee for Shakespeare’s Blackfriars -property in 1613,[962] and acted with Condell as editor of the First -Folio of the plays in 1623. This fact is probably the origin of the -statement of Roberts that he was engaged with Condell in business as -a printer. He filled various parochial posts from 1608 to 1619 in -St. Mary’s, Aldermanbury, and the registers contain records of the -following children: Alice (bapt. 10 November 1590, married John Atkins -11 February 1612), Mary (bapt. 26 May 1592, bur. 9 August 1592), Judith -(bapt. 29 August 1593), Thomasine (bapt. 15 January 1595), Joan (bapt. -2 May 1596), John (bapt. 12 August 1599), Beavis (bapt. 24 May 1601), -William (bapt. 3 October 1602), George (bapt. 12 Feb. 1604), Rebecca -(bapt. 4 February 1605), Elizabeth (bapt. 6 March 1608), Mary (bapt. 21 -June 1611, bur. 23 July 1611).[963] In the same parish ‘John Heminge, -player’ was himself buried on 12 October 1630, beside his wife Rebecca, -who preceded him on 2 September 1619. He is registered as a ‘stranger’ -and was therefore probably residing elsewhere. In his will, made on -9 October, he describes himself as ‘citizen and grocer of London’, -appoints his son William executor and trustee for his unmarried and -unadvanced children, and Cuthbert Burbadge and ‘Mr. Rice’, possibly the -actor, overseers, and leaves legacies to his daughters Rebecca, wife of -Captain William Smith, Margaret, wife of Mr. Thomas Sheppard, who is -not mentioned in the register, Elizabeth, and Mrs. Merefield, and to -his son-in-law Atkins ‘and his now wife’, and his grandchild Richard -Atkins. He also leaves 10_s._ for a ring ‘unto every of my fellows -and sharers, his majesties servants.[964] William Heminges went to -Westminster and Christ Church, and became a playwright.[965] Unnamed -in the will is Thomasine, who may have been dead, but certainly had -quarrelled seriously with her father. She had married William Ostler of -the King’s men in 1611 and her son Beaumont was baptized at St. Mary’s, -Aldermanbury, on 18 May 1612. Ostler died intestate on 16 December -1614 in possession of shares in the leases both of the Globe and the -Blackfriars. These passed of right to Thomasine as his administratrix, -and formed all the provision left for her maintenance and her husband’s -debts. The leases, however, passed into the hands of Heminges, who -retained them and asserted that Ostler had created a trust, of which -Thomasine declared that she knew nothing. On 20 September 1615 she -entered a bill in Chancery against her father, and subpœnaed him to -appear during the coming Michaelmas term. On 26 September Heminges -promised that if she would withdraw her suit, and would also ‘doe her -dutie’ to him and to her mother Rebecca, he would satisfy her to the -value of the shares. Thomasine states that on the same day kneeling and -in tears she made her submission at her father’s house in Aldermanbury. -She also stayed her suit, but Heminges, although called upon to fulfil -his promise on 5 October, failed to do so, and on 9 October Thomasine -brought a common law action against him for damages to the amount of -£600, which she estimated to be the value of the shares.[966] The issue -of the case is unknown, but it would seem probable from the _Sharers -Papers_ of 1635 that Heminges succeeded in retaining the shares, and -that at his death they passed to his son William. Professor Wallace -states that in 1616 Thomasine Ostler was involved in another lawsuit -with Walter Raleigh, son of Sir Walter, and obtained a verdict of £250 -against him for insult and slander. One way and another, Heminges seems -to have acquired a considerable financial interest in the Globe and -Blackfriars. He had an original seventh of a moiety of the Globe lease -in 1599, and an original seventh of the Blackfriars lease in 1608. But -as executor to Phillips (q.v.) and otherwise he had opportunities of -adding to these holdings. The _Sharers Papers_ show that at his death -he had four sixteenths of the Globe and probably two eighths of the -Blackfriars; and these, or some of them, he had enjoyed ‘thirty yeeres -without any molestacion, beeing the most of the sayd yeeres both player -and houskeeper, and after hee gave over playing diverse yeeres’. In -_Witter v. Heminges and Condell_ he is described as being in 1619 of -‘greate lyveinge wealth and power’.[967] The play-house shares seem -to have been the chief part of the property left by his will. They -passed to William Heminges as his executor. He seems to have gradually -disposed of them, first selling one share in the Globe by arrangement -with the company to Taylor and Lowin, and later, by transactions which -some of his fellows resented, one share in each house to John Shank -during 1633 for £156, and the remaining shares also to John Shank -during 1634, for £350. He was then in difficulties, and Shank disbursed -additional small sums to him in prison. It was these sales to Shank -which brought about the petition to the Lord Chamberlain recorded in -the _Sharers Papers_. - -HENSLOWE, FRANCIS. Queen’s, 1594; Lennox’s, 1605. He was son of Richard -and nephew of Philip Henslowe, and various entries in the diary and -other Dulwich MSS. record his imprisonments, more than once on criminal -charges, his employment during 1593–4 in his uncle’s pawnbroking, and -his loans, one of which on 1 June 1595 was of £9 ‘to laye downe for his -hallfe share with the company which he dothe playe with all’ (H. i. 6), -conceivably, as Dr. Greg suggests, some company other than the Queen’s, -in which he had already acquired a half share in 1594. He dwelt in -the Clink in 1594, took a house called the Upper Ground on Bankside -in 1597, and was of St. George’s, Southwark, in 1606, in which year, -between 30 March and 6 October, both he and his wife died (H. ii. 277). - -HENSLOWE, PHILIP. Owner of Rose, Fortune, Hope, and perhaps lessee of -Whitefriars; cf. ch. xi. - -HERIOT, HENRY. Interluders, 1547–52. - -HEYWOOD, JOHN. For his possible connexion with Paul’s, cf. ch. xii, -s.v. Chapel. - -HEYWOOD, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1598; Worcester’s Anne’s, 1602–19, and -dramatist. - -HINSTOCK, ROBERT. Interluders, 1538–51. - -HOBBES, THOMAS. Charles’s, 1610, 1616–25. He lived at the upper end of -Shoreditch in 1623 (J. 348). - -HOLE, RICHARD. Interluders, 1526–30. - -HOLLAND, J. Strange’s (?), 1590–1. - -HOLT, JAMES. Anne’s, 1604–19. - -HOLT, JOHN. A ‘momer’, who helped the Westminster boys in 1561, -probably identical with the Yeoman of the Revels of that name (cf. ch. -iii), who helped them in 1564–5. - -HOLZHEW, BEHRENDT. Germany, 1614–15. - -HOVELL, WILLIAM. Licensee for 2 King’s Revels, 1615. - -HOWARD, THOMAS. A ‘player’ named in St. Saviour’s records _c._ -1600 (Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi). - -HUDSON, RICHARD. Weaver of Hutton Bushell, Yorks, unlicensed player, -1612 (cf. ch. ix, p. 305). - -HÜLL, JOHN. Germany, 1600–1. - -HUNNIS, JOHN. A ‘ghost-name’ by an error for the following. - -HUNNIS, WILLIAM. Master of Chapel, 1566–97, and dramatist. - -HUNT (HONTE), THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1599, 1602; Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611 (H. -ii. 285). - -HUNTLEY, DICK. Actor in _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_ -(_vide_ l. 14). - -HUSE, RICHARD. Paul’s chorister, >1582. - -IVY, NICHOLAS. Chapel, 1509. - -JEFFES, ANTHONY. Chamberlain’s (?), 1597; Pembroke’s, 1597; -Admiral’s-Henry’s, 1597–>1613. Anthony, son of Richard Jeffes, -baptized at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, on 14 December 1578, may be the -same who married Faith Jones there on 19 February 1601. Children of -Anthony Jeffes ‘player’ are recorded in the registers of St. Giles’s, -Cripplegate, from 11 June 1602 to 1 May 1609; in later entries from 30 -May 1610 to 30 October 1616, Anthony is called ‘brewer’ (H. ii. 286; -_Bodl._). - -JEFFES, HUMPHREY. Chamberlain’s (?), 1597; Pembroke’s, 1597; -Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1597–1616<. He was buried at St. -Giles’s, 21 August 1618. A daughter Mary was baptized at St. Saviour’s, -25 January 1601 (H. ii. 287; Collier, _Actors_, xxx). - -JOHNSON, WILLIAM. Leicester’s, 1572–4; Queen’s, 1583, 1587–8. The -baptismal entries at St. Giles’s include on 10 February 1587 ‘Comedia, -baseborne daughter of Alice Bowker, and, as she saithe, the father’s -name is William Johnson, one of the Queen’s plaiers’, and the burials -on 3 March 1593 ‘Comedia, daughter of William Johnson, player’. Is -he the William Johnson, vintner, who was trustee of Shakespeare’s -Blackfriars property 1613–18 (Lee, 459, 493)? - -JONES, RICHARD. Worcester’s, 1583; Admiral’s (?), >1589; Germany, -1592–3; Admiral’s, 1594–6; Pembroke’s, 1597; Admiral’s, 1597–1602; -Revels patentee, 1610; Germany (?), 1615; Germany, 1620, 1622–4. His -wife Harris inherited a lease of the Leopard’s Head in Shoreditch from -her father in 1620. A Richard Jones is traceable in the Southwark -token-books from 1588 to 1607 and may or may not be the same who -married Anne Jube there on 14 February 1602 (H. ii. 288; _H. P._ -94; _Bodl._). - -JONES, ROBERT. Germany, 1602; Porter’s Hall patentee, 1615. - -JONNS, DANIEL. Denmark, 1586. - -JONSON, BENJAMIN. Pembroke’s (?), 1597; Chamberlain’s (?), _c._ -1598; and dramatist. - -JUBY, EDWARD. Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1594–1618, Fortune -lessee, 1618. An Edward Juby is traceable during 1598 to 1619 in the -token-books of St. Saviour’s, Southwark. In the last year he is marked -‘dead’, and his burial was registered on 20 November 1618. In 1610 and -1614 he filled parish offices. He may fairly be identified with the -‘player’ whose children occur in the registers from 3 June 1599 to 15 -September 1614. His widow Francis held his share of the Fortune lease -in 1622 (H. ii. 290; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi; _Bodl._). - -JUBY, RICHARD. Admiral’s, 1602. His son Richard was baptized at St. -Saviour’s, Southwark, on 1 May 1602 (_Bodl._). - -JUBY, WILLIAM (?). Admiral’s, 1599–1602 (H. ii. 290). - -JUGLER, RICHARD. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -KEMP, JOHN. Germany, 1601. - -KEMPE, WILLIAM, cannot be securely identified or connected with -any one of various homonyms who have been traced in _D. N. B._ and -elsewhere.[968] He probably emerges as one of Leicester’s men in the -Low Countries during 1585–6 and thence made his way to Denmark. He -was in London and had already won a comic reputation by 1590 when the -dedication of _An Almond for a Parrat_ (Nashe, iii. 341), ‘To that -most Comicall and conceited Caualeire Monsieur du Kempe, Jestmonger -and Vice-gerent generall to the Ghost of Dicke Tarlton,’ tells how -the anonymous author, possibly Nashe, had been asked by ‘that famous -Francatrip’ Harlicken’ at Bergamo in the previous summer, whether -he knew ‘any such Parabolano here in London as Signior Chiarlatano -Kempino’ of whose ‘pleasance’ Harlicken had heard ‘report’. In _Four -Letters Confuted_ (1592) Nashe says of an action of Harvey’s, ‘Will -Kempe, I mistrust it will fall to thy lot for a merriment, one of these -dayes’ (i. 287). An example of Kempe’s merriments is to be found in -sc. xii of _A Knack to Know a Knave_ (1594) played by Strange’s men, -to whom Kempe belonged by 1593. He was also famous for his jigs. Four -of these are entered in the Stationers’ Register during 1591–5 (cf. -ch. xviii) but are not preserved, and ‘Kemps jiggs’ is the heading to -some music collected by John Dowland and preserved in _Camb. Univ. -Libr. MS._ Dd. ii. 11 (cf. Halliwell, _MS. Rarities_, 8). Marston (iii. -372), _Scourge of Villainy_ (1598), sat. xi. 30, ‘the orbs celestial -Will dance Kempe’s jig,’ and E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), sat. v, -‘Whores, bedles, bawdes, and sergeants filthily Chaunt Kemps Jigge, -or the Burgonians tragedy,’ show his vogue. In 1594–5 he was one -of the recently constituted Chamberlain’s men and the intrusion of -his name into stage-directions to _R. J._ iv. 5. 102 (Q_{2}) and _M. -Ado_, iv. 2, shows that he played Peter in the one play and Dogberry -in the other. Oddly enough, one of his speeches (iv. 2. 4) in _M. -Ado_ is assigned to ‘Andrew’, possibly a generic name for a clown or -‘merry-Andrew’. He is in the actor-list of _Every Man in his Humour_ -(1598) but not in that of _Every Man out of his Humour_ (1599), and -this fact, together with his sale of his share in the Globe soon after -the lease of 21 February 1599 was signed, points to his leaving the -company. ‘Would I had one of Kemps shooes to throw after you,’ says a -speaker in _E. M. O._ IV. v (q.v.). This may be an allusion to some -clownery by Kempe, perhaps in a performance with some other company -at the Curtain in the autumn of 1599 after the Chamberlain’s left -that house; or, less probably, to Kempe’s famous morris-dance for a -wager from London to Norwich, at the end of which he hung his buskins -in the Guildhall, for this began on 11 February 1600 and ended on 11 -March, the year being fixed by the mayoralty (1599–1600) of Roger Weld -at Norwich. Another allusion to ‘Kemps morice’ is in _Jack Drum’s -Entertainment_ (1600), i. 45. Dudley Carleton wrote to John Chamberlain -on 13 October 1600 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxv. 93) that on his way from -Witham to Englefield ‘we met a company of mad wenches, whereof M^{rs}. -Mary Wroughton and young Stafford were ringleaders, who travelled -from house to house, and to some places where they were little known, -attended with a concert of musicians, as if they had undertaken the -like adventure as Kemp did from London to Norwich’. Kempe’s own account -of his adventure was entered in the Stationers’ Register as ‘Kemps -morris to Norwiche’ on 22 April 1600 (Arber, iii. 160). In the Epistle -to Anne Fitton, whom, possibly by confusion with her sister Mary, -he describes as maid of honour to Elizabeth, he refers to unentered -ballads on the subject, and when he says that ‘I haue daunst my selfe -out of the world’ is not improbably jesting on his departure from the -Globe. At the end he foreshadows crossing to Calais, which he no doubt -did. A John Kemp, who was in charge of a touring company, which had -been in Holland and reached Münster by November 1601, may have been a -relative. But William Kempe had returned to England, after visiting -Italy as well as Germany, on 2 September 1601, as is shown by the -following interpolation in a diary of one William Smith of Abingdon, in -_Sloane MS._ 414, f. 56 (wrongly cited by Halliwell, _Ludus Coventriae_ -410, as _Sloane MS._ 392, f. 401; cf. F. J. Furnivall in _N.S.S. Trans. -1880–6_, 65): - - ‘Sep. 2. Kemp, mimus quidam, qui peregrinationem quandam in - Germaniam et Italiam instituerat, post multos errores, et - infortunia sua, reversus: multa refert de Anthonio Sherley, - equite aurato, quem Romae (legatum Persicum agentem) convenerat.’ - -Possibly Kempe rejoined the Chamberlain’s for a while. In _3 Parnassus_ -(? January 1602), iv. 3, he is introduced as a fellow of Burbadge and -Shakespeare, and greeted with allusions to his ‘dancing the morrice -ouer the Alpes’ and ‘the Emperour of Germany’. But on 10 March 1602 -he had a loan from Henslowe, and during the winter of 1602–3 he was -certainly one of Worcester’s men. The dates do not lend support to the -suggestion of Fleay, ii. 20, that he had already in 1599–1600 been at -the Rose with Pembroke’s men. After the end of Elizabeth’s reign he -is not traceable, and he is mentioned as dead in Heywood, _Apology_ -(_c._ 1608), and dead or retired in Dekker, _Gull’s Hornbook_ (1609), -11, ‘Tarlton, Kemp, nor Singer, nor all the litter of fools that now -come drawling behind them, never played the clown more naturally.’ A -William Kempe is recorded in token-books of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, -as living in Samson’s Rents in 1595, 1596, 1598, and 1599, in Langley’s -New Rents in 1602, and later near the old play-house (Collier, -iii. 351, and _Bodl._; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi). Collier, but not -Rendle, gives the date ‘1605’ for the last entry, probably with a -view to supporting his notice of Kempe, as playing with Armin at the -Blackfriars (q.v.) in 1605, which is doubtless a fabrication. On the -other hand, though the date is plausible, the notice of ‘Kempe a man’ -as buried at St. Saviour’s on 2 November 1603 (Rendle, xxvii) is not -so worded as to be absolutely conclusive. The name was a common one, -and Collier, _Actors_, xxxvi, gives notices of it from other parishes. -In T. Weelkes, _Ayres on Phantasticke Sprites_ (1608), it is said of -Kempe that ‘into France He took pains to skip it’. His visit to Venice -and meeting with Sherley are dramatized in _Travels of Three English -Brothers_ (1607) and apparently misdated after the _Englands Joy_ of -November 1602. Finally, an epitaph upon him is in R. Braithwaite, -_Remains after Death_ (1618), sig. F 8^v, which suggests that he died -not long after his morris. - -KENDALL, THOMAS. Blackfriars manager, 1602; Revels patentee, 1604. He -died in 1608. - -KENDALL, WILLIAM. Admiral’s, 1597–8; Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, >1614. His -son John was baptized at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, on 5 January 1615 -(_Bodl._). - -KEYSAR, ROBERT. Revels manager, 1606–10 (?); Blackfriars lessee, -1606–8. To him was written the epistle to _K. B. P._ - -KING, ARTHUR. Berkeley’s, 1581. - -KING, THOMAS. Denmark-Germany, 1586–7. - -KINGMAN (KINGSMAN), PHILIP. Germany, 1596; Porter’s Hall patentee, -1615. ‘M^r Kyngman the elder’ was a witness for Henslowe on 16 April -1599 (H. i. 205). - -KINGSMAN, ROBERT. Germany, 1599, 1601; afterwards a tradesman in -Strassburg, 1606 (?), 1618, 1626. - -KIRCK (KIRCKMANN), JOHN. Denmark, 1579–80. - -KIRKHAM, EDWARD. Chapel manager, 1602; Revels patentee, 1604–6. He is -probably the Yeoman of the Revels (cf. ch. iii). - -KITE, JOHN. Gentleman of Chapel, 1508; afterwards Abp. of Armagh. - -KNAGGES, RICHARD. Of Moorsham, Yorks, unlicensed player, 1612 (cf. ch. -ix, p. 305). - -KNELL, WILLIAM (?). Queen’s, >1588. A Rebecca, widow of William Knell, -married John Heminges (q.v.), 10 March 1588. Heywood notes Knell as -before his time. Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (1592, _Works_, i. 215), -names him with Tarlton, Alleyn, and Bentley, and he is coupled with -Bentley in the undated challenge to Alleyn (q.v.) to play one of their -parts. - -KNIGHT, ROBERT. Paul’s chorister, >1582. - -KOSTRESSEN, JOHAN, musician. Germany, 1623. - -KRAFFT, JOHN. Denmark, 1579–80. - -LANEHAM, JOHN. Leicester’s, 1572–4; Queen’s, 1583, 1588–91. Heywood -notes him as before his time. Was he related to Robert Laneham, Keeper -of the Council Chamber door, who described the Kenilworth entertainment -(cf. ch. xxiv) in 1575? - -LANMAN, HENRY. Owner of Curtain, 1581–92. Adams, 80, suggests, -apparently from the similarity of the names, that he was a brother of -John Laneham. - -LEBERWURST, HANS. Germany, 1613. - -LEDBETTER, ROBERT. Admiral’s, 1597; Germany, 1599, 1601, 1606. - -LEE, ROBERT. Admiral’s (?), >1591; Anne’s, 1604–19; Revels Company, -1622. He had a business transaction with Edward and John Alleyn and -Thomas Goodale (q.v.) in 1593. He lived in Clerkenwell Close in 1623 -(H. ii. 294; J. 347; Murray, i. 198). - -LEEKE, DAVID. Possibly an actor at Canterbury, c. 1571 (_3 -Library_, ix. 253). - -LEVESON, ROBERT. Oxford’s, 1580. - -LISTER, EDWARD. Weaver of Allerston, Yorks, unlicensed player, 1612 -(cf. ch. ix, p. 305). - -LONG, NICHOLAS. Revels (provincial) manager, 1612, 1617; Lady -Elizabeth’s, 1614–15. For his later career, cf. Murray, i. 192, 361; -ii. 101. He was buried at St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on 21 January 1622 -(_Bodl._). - -LOVEKYN, ARTHUR. Chapel, 1509–13. - -LOWIN, JOHN, was a member of Worcester’s company during their season of -1602–3 with Henslowe at the Rose. On 12 March 1603 Henslowe lent him -money to go into the country with the company, but during the course -of the year he must have transferred his services to the King’s men, -presumably as a hireling, since, although in the cast of _Sejanus_ -(1603) and the Induction to _Malcontent_ (1604) he is not in the -official lists of 1603 and 1604. A portrait of him in the Ashmolean -Museum at Oxford, has the inscription ‘1640, Aetat. 64’, and he may -therefore be identified with the John, son of Richard Lowen, baptized -at St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on 9 December 1576. If so, his father -seems to have been a carpenter, and he had a sister Susan and a brother -William.[969] He remained through a long life with the King’s men, -appearing in most of the casts, in the actor-list of the First Folio, -and in the official lists from 1619 onwards. He played Bosola in _The -Duchess of Malfi_. A pamphlet entitled _Conclusions upon Dances_ (1607) -has a dedication to Lord Denny, dated 23 November 1606, and signed -‘I. L. _Roscio_’. Collier claims to have found in a copy of this the -note ‘By Jhon Lowin. Witnesseth Tho. D. 1610’.[970] A John Lowen -married Joan Hall, widow, by licence, in St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, -on 29 October 1607.[971] Shortly afterwards a John Lowin was paying a -poor-rate of 2_d._ weekly in the liberty of the Clink. The Southwark -token-books attest his residence ‘near the play-house’ and in other -parts of the parish at various dates from 1601 to 1642.[972] He was -overseer of Paris Garden in 1617–18.[973] But in 1623 he lived in -Lambeth (J. 348). He is named as a legatee and overseer in the will -of his ‘fellow’ John Underwood in 1624. It appears from the _Sharers -Papers_ that he had no interest in the play-houses until after the -death of Heminges in 1630, when he was admitted to purchase two -sixteenths of the Globe and one eighth of the Blackfriars. From this -time onwards he seems to have shared the business responsibilities of -the company with Joseph Taylor. He was also prominent as an actor.[974] -Wright enumerates amongst his parts Shakespeare’s Falstaff; but when -Roberts adds Hamlet and Henry VIII, he is presumably guessing that -Lowin was ‘fat and scant of breath’. He may have been the original -Henry VIII, for Downes reports that Betterton was instructed in the -part by Sir William Davenant, ‘who had it from old Mr. Lowen, that had -his instructions from Mr. Shakespeare himself’.[975] Wright tells us -that at the outbreak of civil war he was ‘superannuated’, and ‘in his -latter days kept an inn (the Three Pigeons) at Brentford, where he dyed -very old (for he was an actor of eminent note in the reign of King -James the First), and his poverty was as great as his age’.[976] He -signed with Taylor the dedication to Fletcher’s _The Wild-goose Chase_ -in 1652, the publication of which was an attempt to relieve their -necessities. A ‘John Lewin’ who left a widow Martha, was buried at St. -Martin’s-in-the-Fields on 18 March 1659, and a ‘John Lowen’ at St. -Paul’s, Covent Garden, on 16 March 1669.[977] Probably a G. Lowin who -played Barnaveldt’s daughter to Lowin’s Barnaveldt in 1619 was his son. - -LYLY, JOHN. Blackfriars lessee, 1583; Oxford’s payee, 1584; and -dramatist. - -MACHIN, RICHARD. Germany, 1600–3, 1605–6. - -MAGETT, STEPHEN. Admiral’s tireman, 1596, 1599 (?) (H. ii. 295). - -MARBECK, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1602. - -MARSHALL, CHARLES. Palsgrave’s (provincial), 1616. - -MARSTON, JOHN. Blackfriars lessee, 1603–8, and dramatist. - -MARTINELLI (?), ANGELICA. Italians, >1598. - -MARTINELLI, DRUSIANO. Italians, 1578. - -MARTON, THOMAS. Chapel, 1602. - -MARTYN, WILLIAM. Payee for a company at Ipswich, 20 February 1572 -(Murray, ii. 290). - -MASON, JOHN. Whitefriars lessee, 1608, and dramatist. - -MASSEY (MASSYE), CHARLES. Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1597–>1635 -(?); Fortune lessee, 1618–>1635; and dramatist (cf. ch. xxiii). He is -probably the Charles Marcy or Mercy, variously described as ‘player’, -‘gentleman’, and ‘yeoman’ in the registers of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, -from 30 December 1610 to 20 July 1625. He died before 6 December 1635, -leaving a widow Elianor, and had a cousin Ned Collins (H. ii. 296; -_Bodl._). - -MAXE, ROBERT. Chapel, 1509–>1513. - -MAY, EDWARD. Interluders, 1494–1503. - -MAY, NATHAN. Licensee for 2 King’s Revels, 1615. Possibly the name, as -given in Murray, ii. 340, may be a mistake for Clay (q.v.). - -MAYLER, GEORGE. Interluders, 1525–40. - -MEADE, JACOB. Keeper of the Bears, by 1599, and partner with Henslowe -in the Bear Garden and Hope. He was buried at St. Saviour’s on 9 July -1624 (_Bodl._). - -MELYONEK, JOHN. Master of Chapel (?), 1483–5. - -MERYELL, HENRY. Chapel, 1509. - -MILS (MYLLES), TOBIAS. Queen’s, 1583. Heywood notes him as before his -time. He was buried as ‘one of the Queenes Maiesties players’ at St. -Olave’s, Southwark, on 11 July 1585, and his sons William and Toby were -baptized on 3 January 1584 and 5 September 1585 (_Bodl._). Probably, -therefore, ‘one Myles, one of my lord of Summersettes players’, -whose testimony to the value of Bath waters for the gout is cited in -a hydropathic treatise of 1557 (Collier, i. 139), was of an older -generation. Somerset was beheaded on 22 January 1552. Robert Cecil had -a Secretary Milles, whose son Tobias was buried at Chelsea on 9 April -1599 (R. Davies, _Chelsea Old Church_, 296). - -MOON, PETER. Payee for a company of players at Ipswich, 1562 (Murray, -ii. 287). - -MOORE, JOSEPH. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611; 1616–29. He lived at the Harrow -in Barbican in 1623 (Murray, i. 252; J. 347). - -MOTTERAM, JOHN. Chapel, 1600–1. - -MUFFORD, JOHN. Beauchamp’s, 10 June 1590 (Murray, ii. 337). - -MULCASTER (MONCASTER), RICHARD. Head Master of Merchant Taylors, -1561–86; of St. Paul’s Grammar School, 1596–1608. - -MUNDAY, ANTONY. A player before 1582, according to a contemporary -pamphlet, possibly with Oxford’s, whose ‘servant’ he was in 1580, and -dramatist (cf. ch. xxiii). - -NASION. Paul’s chorister, >1582. - -‘NED.’ Musician (?) in _Summer’s Last Will and Testament, prol._ 7. - -‘NED.’ Strange’s (?), 1590–1. - -NETHE, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -NETHERSALL, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -NEWARK, WILLIAM. Master of Chapel, 1493–1509. - -NEWMAN, JOHN. Blackfriars lessee, 1581–3. - -NEWTON, JOHN. Charles’s, 1610, 1616, 1619, 1625. - -‘NICK.’ Admiral’s, 1601–3. See also TOOLEY. - -NILL, JOHN. A ‘player’ whose daughter Alice was baptized at St. -Saviour’s on 13 August 1601 (_Bodl._). - -NORWOOD. Paul’s, 1599. - -NYCOWLLES, ROBERT. A ‘player’ who witnessed a loan to Francis Henslowe -on 1 June 1595 (H. i. 6). - -OFFLEY, THOMAS. Paul’s, _c._ 1522. - -OSTLER, WILLIAM, began his career as a boy actor in the Chapel company. -He took a part in Jonson’s _Poetaster_ in 1601. From the _Sharers -Papers_ we learn that on growing up he was, like Field and Underwood, -‘taken to strengthen the King’s service’.[978] He first appears amongst -the King’s men in the cast of Jonson’s _The Alchemist_ in 1610, and -played also in _Catiline_, _The Captain_, _The Duchess of Malfi_, in -which he took the part of Antonio, _Valentinian_, and _Bonduca_. The -following epigram in John Davies, _Scourge of Folly_ (_c._ 1611), -attests his fame and his participation in some forgotten brawl: - - _To the Roscius of these Times, Mr. W. Ostler._ - - Ostler, thou took’st a knock thou would’st have giv’n, - Neere sent thee to thy latest home: but O! - Where was thine action, when thy crown was riv’n, - Sole King of Actors! then wast idle? No: - Thou hadst it, for thou would’st bee doing? Thus - Good actors deeds are oft most dangerous; - But if thou plaist thy dying part as well - As thy stage parts, thou hast no part in hell. - -Ostler married Thomasine, daughter of John Heminges, in 1611. His son -Beaumont was baptized at St. Mary’s, Aldermanbury, on 18 May 1612.[979] -He acquired shares in the Blackfriars on 20 May 1611, and the Globe on -20 February 1612, and died on 16 December 1614, leaving his shares a -subject for litigation between his widow and Heminges (q.v.). - -PAGE, OLIVER. A London player in 1550 (App. D, No. v). - -PALLANT, ROBERT. Strange’s (?), 1590–1; Worcester’s-Anne’s, 1602–19; -Lady Elizabeth’s, 1614; Charles’s, 1616; King’s, 1619, unless, indeed, -the R. Pallant who played the female part of Cariola in _Duchess of -Malfi_ was of a younger generation. This is not unlikely, for while -the St. Saviour’s registers record the burial of Robert Pallant, ‘a -man,’ on 4 September 1619, the token-books give the name in 1621 as -well as in 1612 and 1616. Ephraim and Hanburye, sons of Robert Pallant -‘player’, were baptized there on 1 January 1611 and 3 July 1614 -respectively. There were others earlier. Pallant wrote commendatory -verses for Heywood’s _Apology_ (1612), and is noted as visiting -Henslowe on his death-bed on 6 January 1616 (H. ii. 20, 300; _Bodl._). - -PANT, THOMAS. Unlicensed player, 1607–10 (cf. ch. ix, p. 304). - -PARR, WILLIAM. Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1602–20. - -PARROWE (PARLOWE), RICHARD. Interluders, 1538–45. - -PARSELEY, RICHARD. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -PARSONS, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1597, 1602 (H. ii. 301). - -PATESON, WILLIAM. Worcester’s, 1584. - -PAVY. Admiral’s, 1602. - -PAVY, SALATHIEL (SALMON). Chapel, 1600–3. An epitaph on him is in -Jonson’s _Epigrams_ (1616), cxx, which gives his age at death, after -three years of playing, as 13. He was ‘apprentice to one Peerce’, when -he was pressed for the Chapel. This is not likely to have been the -Master of Paul’s, from whom it would have been rash to take a boy. - -PAYNE, ROBERT. Revels patentee, 1604. - -PEACOCKE, ROBERT. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -PEARCE (PIERS), EDWARD. Gentleman of Chapel, 1589; Master of Paul’s, -1600. - -PEDEL, ABRAHAM. Germany, 1614–15; Palsgrave’s, 1623. He lived at George -Alley in Golden Lane in 1623 (J. 348, 350). - -PEDEL (BEHEL, BIEL), JACOB. Germany, 1597, 1614–15. - -PEDEL, WILLIAM. Holland, 1608; Germany, 1614–15. Children of a William -Peadle, variously described as ‘tumbler’ and ‘gentleman’, were baptized -at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1610, 1617, and 1629 (_Bodl._). - -PENN, WILLIAM. Revels, 1609; Charles’s, 1616, 1625. He lived at George -Alley, Golden Lane, in 1623 and had children baptized and buried at St. -Giles’s, Cripplegate, in 1636 (J. 347; _Bodl._). - -PENTON, FABIAN. Germany, 1602. - -PEPEREL, GILES. Possibly an actor in the _Bugbears_ of John Jeffere -(cf. ch. xxiii). - -PERKIN, JOHN. Leicester’s, 1572–4. Is he the Parkins who assisted -George Ferrers as Lord of Misrule in 1552–3 (Feuillerat, _Edw. and -Mary_, 120)? - -PERKINS, RICHARD. Worcester’s-Anne’s, 1602–19; for his later history, -cf. Murray, i. 198, 200, 266. He wrote commendatory verses for -Heywood’s _Apology_ (1612), and Webster praises his acting in -_The White Devil_ (1612) in a note at the end of the print. His -portrait is at Dulwich. He lived at the upper end of St. John’s Street -in 1623 (H. ii. 301; J. 347). - -PERRY, WILLIAM. Licensee for 2 King’s Revels, 1615; Queen’s Revels -manager, 1617. - -PERSJ (PERSTEN), ROBERT (RUPERT). Denmark-Germany, 1586–7. - -PERSONN, JOHANN. Denmark, 1579–80. - -PERY, ROBERT. Chapel, 1529–31. - -PERY, WILLIAM. Chapel, 1530. - -‘PETER’ (?). King’s. At _Taming of the Shrew_, iv. 4. 68, F_{1} has the -s.d. ‘Enter Peter’, apparently a servant of Tranio, who does not speak. - -PFLUGBEIL, AUGUST. Germany, 1614–15. - -PHILIP, ROBERT. Chapel, 1514. - -PHILLIPPE, ROBERT. A ‘momer’, buried at St. Leonard’s, on 9 April 1559 -(Collier, _Actors_, 79). He might be identical with the foregoing. - -PHILLIPS, AUGUSTINE, is included in the 1593 list of Strange’s men, -and played for them or the Admiral’s in _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ about -1590–1 as ‘Mr. Phillipps’. Probably he joined the Chamberlain’s men -on their formation in 1594. He appears in the actor-lists of 1598 and -1599, was one of the original Globe shareholders of 1599, and on 18 -February 1601 gave evidence as to the performance of _Richard II_ by -the company before the Essex rising. He is also in the official lists -of the King’s men in 1603 and 1604, in the actor-list of _Sejanus_ in -1603, and in that of the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays. ‘Phillips -his gygg of the slyppers’ was entered in the Stationers’ Register on -26 May 1595 (cf. p. 552). It has been conjectured that Phillips was a -brother-in-law of Alleyn, to whom Henslowe wrote on 28 September 1593, -‘Your sister Phillipes & her husband hath leced two or thre owt of ther -howsse, yt they in good health & doth hartily comend them unto you.’ If -so, his wife was probably Elizabeth Woodward. But it is also possible -that the family in question was that of one Edward Phillipes, who was -also in relations with Henslowe and Alleyn.[980] An Augustine Phillipps -buried at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1592, was probably a relative -of the actor, whose children the register of the same parish records -as Magdalen (bapt. 29 September 1594), Rebecca (bapt. 11 July 1596), -and Austen or Augustine (bapt. 29 November 1601, bur. 1 July 1604). The -father is designated _histrio_, ‘player,’ or ‘player of interludes’. -The parish token-books show that he dwelt in Horseshoe Court during -1593 and 1595, thereafter near the Swan in Paris Garden, in Montagu -Close during 1601, in ‘Bradshaw’s Rents’ during 1602, and in Horseshoe -Court again during 1604.[981] But by 4 May 1605, when he made his will, -he was of Mortlake, Surrey, where he had a house and land of which -he had lately purchased the lease.[982] Doubtless he had prospered. -A note of heraldic irregularities delivered by William Smith, Rouge -dragon, to the Earl of Northampton as commissioner for the Earl Marshal -states that ‘Phillipps the player had graven in a gold ring the armes -of S^r W^m Phillipp, Lord Bardolph, with the said L. Bardolph’s cote -quartred, which I shewed to M^r. York at a small gravers shopp in -Foster Lane’.[983] The will mentions Phillips’s wife, whose name was -not Elizabeth but Anne, his daughters Magdalen, Rebecca, Anne, and -Elizabeth, his mother Agnes Bennett, his brothers William and James -Webb, his sister Margery Borne, and her sons Miles and Philipps, and -his sister Elizabeth Gough. Elizabeth had been married at St. Saviour’s -in 1603, to Robert Gough (q.v.) of the King’s men, who witnesses the -will.[984] Margery Borne may have been the wife of William Borne -_alias_ Bird (q.v.) of the Prince’s men. Presumably the Webbs were his -brothers-in-law, in which case his wife was obviously not a Woodward. -There are legacies of £5 to ‘the hyred men of the company which I am -of’, of 30_s._ pieces to his ‘fellows’ William Shakespeare and Henry -Condell, and his ‘servant’ Christopher Beeston, of 20_s._ pieces -to his ‘fellows’ Laurence Fletcher, Robert Armin, Richard Cowley, -Alexander Cook and Nicholas Tooley, of silver bowls to John Heminges, -Richard Burbadge, and William Sly, and of £20 to Timothy Whithorne. -Samuel Gilburne, ‘my late apprentice’ is to have 40_s._ and ‘my mouse -colloured velvit hose and a white taffety dublet, a blacke taffety -sute, my purple cloke, sword, and dagger, and my base viall’. James -Sands ‘my apprentice’ is to have 40_s._ and ‘a citterne, a bandore and -a lute’. The widow is appointed executrix, but if she re-marries she -is to have ‘no parte or porcion of my goods or chattells’, and is to -be replaced by the overseers of the will, Heminges, Richard Burbadge, -Sly, and Whithorne. After proving the will on 13 May 1605, the widow -did in fact re-marry, with John Witter, and it was proved again by John -Heminges on 16 May 1607. His share in the Globe was subsequently the -subject of litigation.[985] Heywood (_c._ 1608) praises his deserts -with those of other dead actors. - -PICKERING, JAMES. Mason of Bowlby, Yorks, unlicensed player, 1612 (cf. -ch. ix, p. 305). - -PLUMMER, JOHN. Master of Chapel, 1444–55. - -POKELEY, RICHARD. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -POLE. Gate-keeper at Paul’s, 1582. - -POPE, THOMAS, was one of the English players, who visited Denmark and -Germany in 1586 and 1587. He is in the 1593 list of Strange’s men and -played as ‘Mr. Pope’ for them or the Admiral’s in _2 Deadly Sins_ about -1590–1. He joined the Chamberlain’s men, probably on their foundation -in 1594, was joint payee for them with Heminge from 1597–9, and appears -in the actor-lists of 1598 and 1599. On 30 August 1598, William -Bird borrowed 10_s._ of Henslowe, ‘to folowe the sewt agenst Thomas -Poope’.[986] In 1600 he is mentioned, with Singer of the Admiral’s, by -Samuel Rowlands in _The Letting of Humour’s Blood in the Head-Vein_, -sat. iv: - - What meanes Singer then, - And Pope, the clowne, to speak so boorish, when - They counterfaite the clownes upon the Stage? - -He had an original fifth share of a moiety of the Globe, increased to a -fourth on the retirement of Kempe. But he does not appear in the lists -of the King’s men, and had therefore probably retired by 1603. On 22 -July of that year he made his will, which was proved on 13 February -1604.[987] He leaves his interests in the Globe and Curtain to Mary -Clark, _alias_ Wood, and Thomas Bromley, and legacies to Robert Gough -and John Edmans. He mentions the house in Southwark, in which he -dwelt, held with other tenements of the late Francis Langley; also his -brothers John and William Pope, and his mother Agnes Webbe. This hardly -justifies Collier in connecting him with the Webbes of Snitterfield, -Shakespeare’s kin. Bazell Nicholl, scrivener, and John Wrench, are -left executors. As in 1612 a sixth of the Globe was in the hands of -Basil Nicoll and John and Mary Edmonds, it is probable that John -Edmonds married Mary Clark. It appears from the Southwark token-books -that one Pope lived in Blamer’s Rents during 1593, in Wrench’s Rents -during 1595, and in Mr. Langley’s New Rents during 1596, 1598, 1600, -and 1602.[988] Dr. Greg thinks that Thomas Pope, rather than a Morgan -Pope who also had interests in Southwark, was the ‘Mr. Pope’ with whom -Henslowe had an interview on 25 June 1603, ‘at the scryveners shope -wher he lisse’, concerning the renewal of the lease of the Rose.[989] -But Thomas Pope clearly lived in his own house. Collier (_Actors_, -xxxvi) gives a marriage of a Thomas Pope and Elizabeth Baly at St. -Botolph’s on 20 December 1584, but the indications of the will do not -suggest a married man. William Smith complains that ‘Pope the player -would have no other armes but the armes of Sir Thomas Pope, Chancelor -of y^e Augmentations’.[990] Heywood mentions the ‘deserts’ of Pope in -his _Apology_. He is included in the actor-list of the First Folio -Shakespeare. - -POWLTON, THOMAS. Worcester’s, 1584. - -PRICE, JOHN. Musician in Germany, 1609. - -PRICE (PRYOR?), RICHARD. Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1600 (?), 1610, -1613, 1622. He lived in White Cross Street in 1623, and records of his -children are in the registers of St. Giles, Cripplegate, from 1620 -to 1627, where he is variously entered as ‘gentleman’, ‘yeoman’, and -‘player’ (J. 348; _Bodl._). - -PROCTOR. Admiral’s, 1599. - -PRUN, PETER DE. Germany, 1594. He was of Brussels. - -PUDSEY, EDWARD. Germany, 1626. He was presumably the owner of the -manuscript note-book from which extracts are given in R. Savage, -_Stratford-upon-Avon Notebooks_ (1888), i; cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Chapman, -_Blind Beggar of Alexandria_. - -PULHAM, GEORGE. Anne’s, 1612. - -PYE, JOHN. A ‘momer’, whose son Samuel was baptized at St. Leonard’s, -Shoreditch, on 28 May 1559 (_Bodl._). - -PYK (PIK, PYGE, PIGGE), JOHN. Strange’s, 1593; Admiral’s, 1597–9 (H. -ii. 303). - -PYKMAN, PHILIP. Chapel, 1600–1. - -RADSTONE, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -RASTALL, WILLIAM. Chapel manager, 1602. He died in 1608. - -RAWLYNS, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -READE, EMANUEL. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1613; Anne’s, 1613 (?)-17. - -READING, WILLIAM. Interluders, 1559–63 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -REASON, GILBERT. Charles’s, 1610, 1616, 1625. - -REDFORD, JOHN. Master of Paul’s, _c._ 1540, and dramatist (cf. -_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 454). - -REEVE, RALPH. Germany, 1603–9; Revels manager (provincial), 1611; -Porter’s Hall patentee, 1615. - -REYNOLDS, ROBERT. Anne’s, 1616–17; Germany, 1616, 1618–20, 1626. He -was known in Germany by the clown-name Pickleherring. He and his wife -Jane were indicted for non-attendance at church in 1616 and 1617 -(Jeaffreson, ii. 120, 127). - -RICE, JOHN, was ‘boy’ to Heminges when he delivered a speech in -Merchant Taylors’ hall on 16 July 1607, and must have been still -with the King’s men when he took part as Corinea with Burbadge in -the water-pageant of 31 May 1610. He became one of the original Lady -Elizabeth’s men in 1611, and seems to have joined the King’s men again -in 1619. The Southwark token-books indicate a John Rice as a resident -in 1615, 1619, 1621, and 1623, with an ‘uxor’ in 1621, and another -record names John Rice ‘of the Bankside’ amongst players in 1623.[991] -He is not in the official list of May of that year, but played in _Sir -John van Olden Barnavelt_ about August, and is in the official list of -1621. He is traceable up to the list of 1625, but is not in that of -1629. It is not improbable that he retired, and went into Orders, for -Heminges, in his will of 1630, leaves 20_s._ to ‘John Rice, clerk, of -St. Saviour’s in Southwark’, and also names ‘Mr. Rice’ as overseer. -Rice is in the actor-list of the First Folio Shakespeare. - -‘ROBIN.’ Chapel, 1518. - -ROBINS (ROBINSON), WILLIAM. Anne’s, 1616–19. He lived on Clerkenwell -Hill in 1623 (J. 348). - -ROBINSON, JAMES. Chapel manager, 1600. - -ROBINSON, RICHARD, first appears in the _Catiline_ actor-list of the -King’s men in 1611, and as playing the Lady in a stage direction (l. -1929) to _The Second Maiden’s Tragedy_ of the same year. In _The Devil -is an Ass_ (1616), ii. 8. 64, Merecroft describes ‘Dicke Robinson’ as -a lad, and as masquerading ‘drest like a lawyer’s wife’. I think it -not impossible that he was a son of James Robinson, who was a member -of the Children of the Chapel syndicate in 1600. If so, he may have -been a Blackfriars boy. He played in _Bonduca_ (_c._ 1613), is in the -1619 patent to the King’s men, and in the actor-list of the First Folio -Shakespeare, and is traceable as a King’s man up to the Beaumont and -Fletcher Folio of 1647. He may have married Richard Burbadge’s widow, -who held shares in the Globe and Blackfriars as Mrs. Robinson in 1635. -He owed Tooley £29 13_s._ when the latter made his will in 1623. -According to Wright he was a comedian. The same author states that he -took up arms for the King, and was killed by Major Harrison at the -taking of Basing House, on 14 October 1645. A contemporary report of -this event by Hugh Peters confirms the death of ‘Robinson, the player, -who, a little before the storm, was known to be mocking and scorning -the Parliament’. There were, however, other actors named Robinson, and -probably this was one of them. If Richard had been killed in 1645, he -could not have signed the dedication of the Beaumont and Fletcher plays -in 1647. Moreover, the register of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, records the -burial of ‘Richard Robinson, a player’ on 23 March 1648.[992] He seems -to have lived at the upper end of Shoreditch in 1623 (J. 347). - -ROBINSON, THOMAS. Germany, 1626. - -ROLL (ROE), JOHN. Interluders, 1530. He died in 1539. - -RONNER, JOHN. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -ROSE. Henry’s, 1612, where his wife became (?) a gatherer (_H. P._ -63). - -ROSSETER, PHILIP. Whitefriars lessee, 1609–15; Revels patentee, 1610; -Porter’s Hall patentee, 1615; Revels manager, 1617. He was one of the -royal lutenists from Midsummer 1604 to Easter 1623, and published _A -Booke of Ayres_ (1601) with Campion, who left him his property in 1620. -He died on 5 May 1623 (_D. N. B._; _Chamber Accounts_). - -ROSSILL. Chamberlain’s, 1597. - -ROWLEY, SAMUEL. Admiral’s-Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1597–1624 (?), and -dramatist (cf. ch. xxiii; H. ii. 307). - -ROWLEY, THOMAS. Admiral’s, 1602. - -ROWLEY, WILLIAM. Charles’s, 1610–19; King’s, 1623–5. But he remained -technically a Prince’s man until the death of James in 1625 (Murray, i. -162, 172, table). - -RUSSELL, JOHN. Gatherer for Palsgrave’s, _c._ 1617 (_H. P._ -28, 29, 85). - -RUTTER, WILLIAM. Interluders, 1503. - -SACKVILLE, THOMAS. Germany, 1592–3, 1597–1602. He used the clown-name -Johannes Bouset, was a merchant in Frankfort, 1604–17, and died in 1628. - -‘SAM.’ Admiral’s, >1591. - -SANDERSON, GREGORY. Anne’s, 1617–19. - -SANDS, JAMES. King’s, 1605; Anne’s, _c._ 1617? He received legacies -from Augustine Phillips (q.v.), to whom he was apprentice, in 1605 and -from William Sly (q.v.) in 1608. A James Sands appears in the Southwark -token-books in 1596, 1598, and 1612 (_Bodl._). - -SANDT, BERNHARDT. Germany, 1600–1. - -SAUNDERS, WILLIAM. Chapel, >1517. - -SAUSS, EVERHART. Netherlands, 1592. - -SAVAGE, JEROME. Warwick’s, 1575–9. - -SAVEREY, ABRAHAM. Lennox’s, 1605. - -SCHADLEUTNER, SEBASTIAN. Germany, 1623. - -SCARLETT, JOHN. A ‘player’ whose son Richard was baptized at St. -Giles’s on 1 September, and buried on 19 September 1605 (_Bodl._). - -SCARLETT, RICHARD. A ‘player’, buried on 23 April 1609 at St. Giles’s, -where his daughter Susan had been baptized on 11 February 1607 and his -wife Marie buried on 12 February 1607. Several Scarletts were royal -trumpeters--Edward, William, and William the younger in 1483, John in -1509, Arthur in 1559–1603, John in 1677–9 (_Bodl._; _Chamber -Accounts_; Lafontaine, 1, 3, 325, 341). - -SCOTT, JOHN. Interluders, 1503–28. - -SEBECK, HENRY. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1617. - -SEHAIS, JEHAN. France, 1598. Possibly the John Shaa, who witnessed -an Admiral’s payment to Dekker, 24 November 1599 (H. i. 114). ‘John’ -appears for ‘Robert’ Shaw, probably by an error, in a play warrant of -1600 as given in the P. C. Acts (cf. App. B). - -SHAKESPEARE, EDMOND. The burials at St. Saviour’s include, on 31 -December 1607, ‘Edmond Shakespeare, a player: in the church,’ which is -expanded in a fee-book as ‘Edmund Shakespeare, a player, buried in the -church, with a forenoone knell of the great bell, 20_s._ (Collier, -_Actors_, xiv). Presumably this is the brother of William. - -SHAKESPEARE, EDWARD. The baptisms at St. Giles’s include, on 12 August -1607, ‘Edward, sonne of Edward Schackspeere, Player: base borne’ -(Collier, _Actors_, xv; J. Hunter in _Addl. MS._ 24589, f. -24). - -SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM. Strange’s, 1592; Pembroke’s (?), 1593; Sussex’s -(?), 1594; Chamberlain’s-King’s, 1594–1616; and dramatist. - -SHAKSHAFTE, WILLIAM. Player (?) to Alexander Houghton, 1581 (cf. ch. -ix, p. 280). - -SHANBROOKE, JOHN. A ‘player’ buried on 17 Sept. 1618 at St. Giles’s, -where his children appear in the registers from 10 June 1610 to 4 June -1618 (_Bodl._). - -SHANK, JOHN, or SHANKS, for the name is variously spelt, describes -himself to Lord Chamberlain Pembroke in the _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 -as ‘beeing an old man in this quality, who in his youth first served -your noble father, and after that the late Queene Elizabeth, then King -James, and now his royall Majestye’.[993] Presumably the Pembroke’s -company in question was that of 1597–1600, and the Queen Elizabeth’s -men the travelling company of the latter years of the reign. Shank’s -account of his own career may be amplified from the records of his -name in the 1610 list of Prince Henry’s men and in the patent issued -to the same company when they became the Elector Palatine’s men in -1613. He lived in Rochester Yard, Southwark, in 1605, but the register -of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, shows him later in Golden Lane, and -records several baptisms and burials of his children between 1610 and -1629.[994] He had joined the King’s men between 1613 and 1619, as his -name is in the patent of the latter year. It recurs in the official -lists of the company up to 1629, but occasionally only in actor-lists -up to 1631, including that of the First Folio Shakespeare. Amongst -his ‘boyes’ or apprentices were Thomas Pollard, John Thompson, John -Honiman, and Thomas Holcome. Thompson cost him £40; for other boys he -had spent by 1635 as much as £200. After the death of John Heminges, -Shank bought from his son William, surreptitiously, as his fellows -averred, two shares in the Blackfriars and three in the Globe, for a -total sum of £506. It was these transactions, which took place between -1633 and 1635, that led to the petition of Benfield, Swanston, and -Pollard to the Lord Chamberlain recorded in the _Sharers Papers_. As -a result Shank was directed to transfer one share in each house to the -petitioners. He, however, complained that he could not get satisfactory -terms from them, and that they restrained him from the stage. The -Cripplegate register records Shank’s burial on 27 January 1636.[995] -James Wright calls him a ‘comedian’,[996] and the following verses, -signed W. Turner, and quoted by Collier from Turner’s _Dish of Stuff, -or a Gallimaufry_, may perhaps be taken as confirming this[997]: - - That’s the fat fool of the Curtain, - And the lean fool of the Bull: - Since Shancke did leave to sing his rhimes, - He is counted but a gull: - The players on the Bankside, - The round Globe and the Swan, - Will teach you idle tricks of love, - But the Bull will play the man. - -The verses are dated 1662, but the theatres named indicate a much -earlier date. - -SHAW (SHAA, autograph), ROBERT. Chamberlain’s (?), 1597; Pembroke’s, -1597; Admiral’s, 1597–1602. John, son of Robert Shaw, ‘player’, was -baptized on 10 April 1603, at St. Saviour’s, and Robert Shaw, ‘a man’, -buried on 12 September 1603 (H. ii. 309; _Bodl._). - -SHEALDEN. A ‘player’, who witnessed a loan for Henslowe on 24 August -1594 (H. i. 76). - -SHEPARD. Paul’s door-keeper, 1582. - -SHEPPARD, WILLIAM. A ‘player’, whose son Robert by his wife Johane was -baptized at St. Helen’s, 26 November 1602. - -SIBTHORPE, EDWARD. Whitefriars lessee, 1608. - -SIMPSON, CHRISTOPHER. Shoemaker of Egton, Yorks, recusant and -unlicensed player in 1610–12 (cf. ch. ix, p. 305). - -SIMPSON, CUTHBERT. Of Egton, recusant and unlicensed player, 1616 -(_ibid._). - -SIMPSON, JOHN. Of Egton, recusant and unlicensed player, 1616 (_ibid._). - -SIMPSON, RICHARD. Of Egton, recusant and unlicensed player, 1616 -(_ibid._). - -SIMPSON, ROBERT. Shoemaker of Staythes, Yorks, recusant and unlicensed -player, 1612, 1616 (_ibid._). - -SINCLER (SINKLO, SINCKLO), JOHN. Strange’s (?), 1590–1; Pembroke’s (?), -1592–3; Chamberlain’s, 1594 (?)-1604. - -SINGER, JOHN. Queen’s, 1583, 1588; Admiral’s, 1594–1603. He became an -ordinary Groom of the Chamber in 1603. A John Singer in 1571 owed money -to a Canterbury citizen, who had also debts from players (H. R. Plomer -in _3 Library_, ix. 253). Children of John Singer, ‘player’, appear in -the St. Saviour’s register from 1 August 1597 to 5 October 1609, and -his name is in the token-books from 1596 to 1602 (_Bodl._). The _Quips -upon Questions_ (1600) of Armin (q. v.) has been ascribed to Singer in -error. Rowlands couples him as a clown with Pope (q. v.) in 1600, and -Dekker, _Gull’s Horn Book_ (1609), says, ‘Tarlton, Kemp, nor Singer, -nor all the litter of fooles that now come drawling behind them, never -played the clowns more naturally than the arrantest sot of you all -shall’. Heywood praised him as dead in the same year (H. ii. 310). - -SKINNER, RICHARD. Interluders, 1547–58. - -SLATER (SLAUGHTER), MARTIN. Admiral’s, 1594–7; Scotland, 1599; -Hertford’s, 1603; Anne’s, 1606; King’s Revels manager, 1608; Chamber -of Bristol, 1618–19. He is sometimes recorded by his Christian name -only. He had a wife on 22 July 1604, and is described as a citizen and -ironmonger in 1608. His name is in the Southwark token-books from 1595 -to 1602, and Martin Slawter, ‘a servant’, was buried there on 4 August -1625 (H. ii. 310; _Bodl._). - -SLAUGHTER, WILLIAM. ‘Ghost-name’ evolved by Mr. Fleay for a supposed -Queen’s man. - -SLEE (SLYE), JOHN. Queen Jane’s, >1537; Interluders, 1539–40. - -SLY, WILLIAM, was doubtless of Strange’s men or the Admiral’s about -1590–1, when he played in _2 Seven Deadly Sins_. On 11 October 1594 -Henslowe sold him ‘a jewell of gowld seat with a whitte safer’ for -8_s._ to be paid for at the rate of 1_s._ weekly.[998] But apparently -he never paid more than 6_s._ 6_d._ An inventory of garments belonging -to the Admiral’s men on 13 March 1598 includes ‘Perowes sewt, which -W^m Sley were’.[999] Presumably this had come from Strange’s men, -as Sly is never traceable as a member of the Admiral’s company. -Probably he joined the Chamberlain’s men on their formation in 1594. -He is in all the lists of this company from 1598 to 1605, and in the -Induction to _The Malcontent_ (1604). He is also in the actor-list -of the First Folio Shakespeare. The fact that ‘Christopher Sly, old -Sly’s son of Burton Heath’ is the name given to the beggar in _The -Taming of the Shrew_ (_c._ 1594), led Collier to suggest that he -migrated from Warwickshire about the same time as Shakespeare. But the -beggar in _A Shrew_ is already Sly, and the name occurs in various -parts of London. The Southwark token-books show a William Sly in -Norman’s Rents during 1588, in Horseshoe Court during 1593, and in -Rose Alley during 1595 and 1596.[1000] In 1605 he was named as one of -the overseers and residuary executors, with a legacy, in the will of -Augustine Phillips. The register of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, records -the baptism on 24 September and the burial on 4 October 1606 of John, -base-born son of William Sly, player, by Margaret Chambers; and the -register of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, records his own burial on 16 -August 1608, from Halliwell Street. His nuncupative will was made on 4 -August 1608. He left legacies to Cuthbert Burbadge, and James Sandes, -and the rest of his property to Robert and Cecily Browne and their -daughter Jane. Robert is to have his part of the Globe, and Cecily -is appointed executrix. The will was witnessed by several illiterate -women, and disputed by a relative named William Sly, but proved on -24 August.[1001] He was not one of the original shareholders in the -Globe, but was admitted to a share in 1605 or later. On 9 August 1608, -between the date of his will and that of his death, he was granted a -lease of a seventh share in the Blackfriars, and this his executrix -afterwards surrendered to Richard Burbadge.[1002] Heywood names Sly -(_c._ 1608) amongst other dead players, whose ‘deserts’ he commemorates. - -SMITH, ANTONY. Charles’s, 1616, 1625. - -SMITH, JOHN. Interluders, _c._ 1547–80. Is he the John Smith who -assisted George Ferrers as Lord of Misrule in 1552–3 (Feuillerat, -_Edw. and Mary_, 120)? - -SMITH, JOHN. Revels, 1609. - -SMYGHT, WILLIAM. A ‘player’ who witnessed a loan from Philip to Francis -Henslowe on 1 June 1595 (H. i. 6; ii. 312). - -SOMERSET, GEORGE. Admiral’s, 1601–2. See also JOHN WILSON. - -SOUTHEY, THOMAS. Interluders, 1547–56. - -SOUTHYN, ROBERT. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -SPENCER, GABRIEL. Chamberlain’s (?), 1597; Pembroke’s, 1597; Admiral’s, -1598. He was slain by Ben Jonson (cf. ch. xxiii) on 22 September 1598, -and was buried on the next day but one at St. Leonard’s, where the -register records him as from Hogge Lane (Collier, _Actors_, xxii). On -3 December 1596 a coroner’s inquest found that he had himself slain -James Feake with a rapier in the house of Richard East, barber, in St. -Leonard’s (Jeaffreson, i. xlv, 234). Henslowe sometimes describes him -merely as ‘Gabriel’, and under this name Heywood praises him (H. ii. -312). - -SPENCER, JOHN. Germany, 1605–23. He was known by the clown-name of Hans -Stockfisch. - -SQUIRE, LAWRENCE. Master of Chapel, 1486–93. - -STEVENS, THOMAS. Denmark-Germany, 1586–7. - -STOKEDALE, EDMUND. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -STRATFORD, WILLIAM. Henry’s-Palsgrave’s, 1610–23. He lived at the upper -end of White Cross Street in 1623. His children appear in the St. -Giles’s register in that year, and he was buried as a ‘player’ there on -27 August 1625 (J. 348, 350; _Bodl._). - -STROWDEWIKE, EDMUND. Interluders, 1559–68. - -SUDBURY, THOMAS. Interluders, 1530. - -SUTTON, ROBERT. A London player in 1550 (cf. App. D, No. v). - -SWANSTON, ELIARD. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1622; King’s, 1624–42 (Murray, i. -172, 255). - -SWINNERTON (SWETHERTON), THOMAS. Anne’s, 1604–19; for his later career -cf. Murray, ii. 101, 105. - -SYFERWESTE, RICHARD. Worcester’s (?), 1602 (H. ii. 314). - -SYMCOCKES. Lennox’s, 1605. - -SYMONS, JOHN. A tumbler. Strange’s, 1583; Oxford’s, 1585; Strange’s, -1586–8 (?); Queen’s, 1588 (?)-9. - -TAILOR, ROBERT. Admiral’s, 1601–2. - -TARBUCK, JOHN. Revels patentee, 1610. - -TARLTON, RICHARD, first appears in the ‘Q^d Richard Tarlton’ at the end -of a ballad called _A very lamentable and wofull discours of the fierce -fluds ... the 5. of October, 1570_ (Arber, i. 440).[1003] This is -preserved (Halliwell, 126; Collier, _Old Ballads_, 78; H. L. Collman, -_Ballads and Broadsides_, 265). The Stationers’ Registers also record -in 1576 ‘a newe booke in Englishe verse intituled Tarltons Toyes’ -(Arber, ii. 306), in 1578 ‘Tarltons Tragical Treatises conteyninge -sundrie discourses and pretie conceiptes bothe in prose and verse’ -(Arber, ii. 323), and in 1579 ‘Tarltons devise upon this unlooked for -great snowe’ (Arber, ii. 346); but these are all lost. _Tarltons Jigge -of a horse loade of Fooles_ (Halliwell, xx) should, if it is genuine, -date from about 1579, as the jest at the Puritan fool ‘Goose son’ is -obviously aimed at Stephen Gosson; but it reads to me like a fake, -and Halliwell took it from a manuscript belonging to Collier, who had -already quoted it in his tainted _New Facts_, 18. It is improbable -that Richard is the ‘one Tarlton’ whose house in Paris Garden is -included in a list of suspected papist resorts sent by Richard Frith -to Alderman Martin at some date not earlier than 1585 (Wright, _Eliz._ -ii. 250). The first mention of him is by Gabriel Harvey (cf. p. 4) -in 1579, when he had already acquired some reputation. He became an -original member of the Queen’s men (q. v.) in 1583, and remained -their principal comedian until his death in 1588. For this company he -wrote _The Seven Deadly Sins_ (q. v.) in 1585. Music for some of his -jigs is in existence (Halliwell, _Cambridge Manuscript Rarities_, 8) -and his facility as a jester made him, until he pushed it too far, a -_persona grata_ in Elizabeth’s presence. Bohun, 352, says that the -Queen admitted ‘Tarleton, a famous comedian, and a pleasant talker, -and other such like men, to divert her with stories of the town and -the common jests or accidents, but so that they kept within the bounds -of modesty and chastity’. He adds, ‘Tarleton, who was then the best -comedian in England, had made a pleasant play, and when it was acting -before the Queen, he pointed at Sir Walter Raleigh and said “See, the -Knave commands the Queen”, for which he was corrected by a frown from -the Queen; yet he had the confidence to add that he was of too much -and too intolerable a power; and going on with the same liberty, he -reflected on the overgreat power and riches of the Earl of Leicester, -which was so universally applauded by all that were present, that she -thought best to bear these reflections with a seeming unconcernedness. -But yet she was so offended, that she forbad Tarleton and all her -jesters from coming near her table, being inwardly displeased with this -impudent and unseasonable liberty.’ An anecdote of Tarlton ‘playing -the God Luz with a flitch of bacon at his back’, fighting the Queen’s -little dog Perrico de Faldes with sword and long staff, and exchanging -chaff with the Earl of Sussex (Halliwell, _Death-bed_, 30, from _S. -P. Dom. Eliz._ ccxv, 89) might have some point if Luz was a take-off -of Leicester. On 27 October 1587 Tarlton was allowed as a Master -of Fence, and is described as an ‘ordenary grome off her majestes -chamber’ (_Sloane MS._ 2530, f. 6). The same description recurs in -his will, which was signed on 3 September 1588, the actual day of his -burial at St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, from Halliwell Street. He left -his property to his son Philip, as whose guardians he appointed his -mother Katharine, then a widow, his friend Robert Adams, and his fellow -of the Queen’s men, William Johnson. One of the witnesses, Charles -Barnard, was his sister’s husband. This will was disputed by Katharine -Tarlton, who brought a bill in Chancery, alleging that after signing it -and making over property worth £700 to Adams, Tarlton repented, tried -in vain to recall the will, and made another. A rejoinder by Adams -accuses Katharine of acting under the influence of another son-in-law, -Thomas Lee, a butcher, and describes how Adams was called to Tarlton’s -death-bed in the house of one Emma Ball in Shoreditch, ‘of a very -bad reputacion’. Some colour is given to his mother’s complaint by a -death-bed petition from Tarlton to Walsingham, begging his protection -for Philip, who was Sidney’s godson, against ‘a sly fellow, on Addames’ -(_S. P. Dom. Eliz._ ccxv. 90). There is no mention of Tarlton’s wife; -the boy was six years old. Robert Adams was apparently a lawyer, and to -be distinguished from John Adams of the Queen’s men, who is referred -to as a fellow of Tarlton’s by the stage keeper in _Bartholomew Fair_ -(Induction 38), ‘I kept the Stage in Master _Tarletons_ time, I thanke -my starres. Ho! and that man had liu’d to haue play’d in _Bartholmew -Fayre_, you should ha’ seene him ha’ come in, and ha’ beene coozened i’ -the Cloath-quarter, so finely. And _Adams_, the Rogue, ha’ leap’d and -caper’d vpon him, and ha’ dealt his vermine about, as though they had -cost him nothing.’ After Tarlton’s death, several pamphlets, ascribed -to him or otherwise exploiting his popularity, came to the press; in -1588 ‘a ballad intituled Tarltons Farewell’ (Arber, ii. 500); in 1589 -‘a sorowfull newe sonnette, intituled Tarltons Recantacon uppon this -theame gyven him by a gentleman at the Bel savage without Ludgate -(nowe or ells never) beinge the laste theame he songe’ (Arber, ii. -526); in 1589 ‘Tarltons repentance of his farewell to his frendes in -his sicknes a little before his deathe’ (Arber, ii. 531); in 1590 ‘a -pleasant dyttye dialogue wise betwene Tarltons ghost and Robyn Good -Fellowe’ (Arber, ii. 559). These are lost, unless, indeed, _Tarltons -Farewell_ is identical with ‘A pretie new ballad, entituled Willie -and Peggie, to the tune of Tarlton’s Carroll’, printed in _Archiv._ -cxiv. 341, and A. Clark, _Shirburn Ballads_, 351, from _Rawl. Poet. -MS._ 185, f. 10. This ends ‘qd. Richard Tarlton’, but it is in fact -a lament over the death of Tarlton under the name of Willie, as is -clearly shown by lines 23 ‘None would be wery to see him one stage’, -41 ‘A groome of her chamber my Willie was made’, 55 ‘To singe them -their themes he never denied’. These verses support the theory, based -upon a contemporary note in a copy of Spenser (cf. _6 N. Q._ xi. 417; -Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 394), that Tarlton is the ‘pleasant Willy’ -mourned as dead in the _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), 208, and if he is -also the Yorick of _Hamlet_, v. 1. 201, he was sufficiently honoured. -Another ballad in the same manuscript on the Armada (_Archiv._ cxiv. -344; _Ballads from MS._ ii. 92) also claims to be to the tune of -Tarlton’s ‘carroll’; the ‘Carroll’ itself is unknown. ‘_Tarltons Newes -out of Purgatorie. Onelye such a jest as his Jigge, fit for Gentlemen -to laugh at an houre, &c. Published by an old companion of his, Robin -Goodfellow_’ (n.d., but entered in S. R. 26 June 1590; Arber, ii. -553) is a volume of _novelle_, put into the mouth of Tarlton’s ghost. -The writer describes him as ‘only superficially seene in learning, -having no more but a bare insight into the Latin tung’, and physically -as ‘one attired in russet, with a buttond cap on his head, a great -bag by his side, and a strong bat in his hand’. Similarly, Henry -Chettle, who put into his mouth a defence of plays forming a section -of _Kind-hartes Dreame_ (1592; cf. App. C, No. xlix), knew him in a -dream ‘by his sute of russet, his buttond cap, his taber, his standing -on the toe, and other tricks’. _The Cobler of Caunterburie or an -Invective against Tarltons Newes out of Purgatorie_ (1590) is also a -volume of _novelle_, and has practically nothing about Tarlton. On -the other hand, _Tarltons Jests_ at least claims to be biographical, -although its material, like that of Peele’s _Jests_, largely consists -of the flotsam and jetsam of all the jest-books. The earliest extant -edition is of 1611. But it was transferred from one publisher to -another in 1609 (Arber, iii. 402), the second of its three parts, -which mentions the Globe (Halliwell, 23), was entered in S. R. on 4 -August 1600 (Arber, iii. 168), and probably therefore the first part -was already in print in the sixteenth century. It speaks of Tarlton -as a Queen’s man (Halliwell, 13, 27, 29, 30, 33), as playing at the -Bull in Bishopsgate (13, 24), where he did both the clown and the -judge in ‘Henry the Fifth’ (_The Famous Victories_) to Knell’s Harry, -the Curtain (16), and the Bell in Gracechurch Street (24), as singing -themes (16, 27, 28, 40), and as jesting in clown’s apparel in the royal -presence or in the Great Chamber at Court (7, 8). It also tells us, -for what the statements are worth, that his father lived at Ilford -(40), that he had a wife Kate of light character (17, 19), that he -kept the Saba tavern in Gracechurch Street, where he was scavenger of -the ward (15, 21, 22), and an ordinary in Paternoster Row (21, 26), -and that he had a squint (12) and a flat nose (28). A woodcut on the -title-page confirms these peculiarities of feature, and represents a -short, broad-faced, cunning-looking man, with curly hair, an elaborate -moustache and a starved beard, wearing a cap, and a bag or moneybox -slung at his side, and playing on a tabor and a pipe. This appears to -be taken from a drawing by John Scottowe in an initial letter to some -verses on Tarlton’s death in _Harl. MS._ 3885, f. 19. Nashe, _Pierce -Penilesse_ (1592, _Works_, i. 188), gives us a hint of his stage -methods in describing how at a provincial performance, as the Queen’s -men ‘were now entring into their first merriment (as they call it) the -people began exceedingly to laugh, when _Tarlton_ first peeped out his -head’, and how a ‘cholericke wise Iustice’ laid his staff about their -pates, ‘in that they, being but Farmers & poore countrey Hyndes, would -presume to laugh at the Queenes men, and make no more account of her -cloath in his presence’. According to Fuller (_Worthies_, iii. 139) -Tarlton was born at Condover in Shropshire, and kept his father’s -swine there, until a servant of the Earl of Leicester, struck with his -witty replies, brought him to Court. On the other hand, in the _Three -Lords and Three Ladies of London_ (1590), by his fellow Robert Wilson, -Simplicity produces his picture, and says he was ‘a prentice in his -youth of this honorable city: ... when he was yoong he was leaning to -the trade ... waterbearing: I wis he hath tossed a tankard in Cornehil -er now’ (sign. C^v). Halliwell (xxx) has collected a large number of -allusions to Tarleton and his humours, lasting well into the middle -of the seventeenth century. Taverns were named after him, and one is -said to have still stood in Southwark in 1798. Much of the action of W. -Percy’s _Cuck-Queanes and Cuckolds Errants_ (q. v.) takes place at the -Tarlton Inn, Colchester, of which he is said to have been the ‘quondam -controller and induperator’. Tarlton himself speaks the prologue to the -play. George Wilson, _The Commendation of Cockes and Cock-fighting_ -(1607), records that on 4 May 1602 there fought at Norwich ‘a cocke -called Tarleton, who was so intituled, because he alwayes came to the -fight like a drummer, making a thundering noyse with his winges, which -cocke fought many batels with mighty and fierce adversaries’. - -TAWYER, WILLIAM. At _M. N. D._ v. 1. 128, F_{1} has the s. d. ‘Tawyer -with a Trumpet before them’. The St. Saviour’s burials give in June -1625, ‘William Tawier, M^r Heminges man’. - -TAYLOR, JOHN. Choir Master at St. Mary’s, Woolnoth, 1557; at -Westminster, 1561–7. - -TAYLOR, JOSEPH, is conjectured by Collier to be the Joseph Taylor -who was baptized at St. Andrew’s by the Wardrobe in Blackfriars on 6 -February 1586, the Joseph Taylor who married Elizabeth Ingle, widow, -at St. Saviour’s, Southwark, on 2 May 1610, and the Joseph Taylor who -is shown by the Southwark token-books as dwelling in ‘M^r Langley’s -new rents, near the play-house’ during 1607, in Austen’s Rents during -1612 and 1615, as ‘gone’ in 1617, and as dwelling ‘near the play-house’ -in 1623 and 1629, ‘on the Bankside’ in 1631, and in Gravel Lane -during 1633. ‘Joseph Taylor, player,’ is entered in the St. Saviour’s -registers as the father of Elsabeth (bapt. 12 July 1612), Dixsye and -Joseph (bapt. 21 July 1614), Jone (bapt. 11 January 1616), Robert -(bapt. 1 June 1617), and Anne (bapt. 24 August 1623).[1004] On the -other hand, a Joseph Taylor, not improbably a player, was living in -Bishopsgate near the Spittle in 1623 (J. 347). He was a member of the -Duke of York’s company in 1610, but left them without the consent of -his fellows for the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1611, and thereby involved -himself during the same year in a lawsuit with John Heminges.[1005] -He is in the actor-lists of _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ (1613) and of -_The Coxcomb_, as played by the Lady Elizabeth’s men about the same -date, and is also named in the text of their _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614). -There seems to have been some sort of amalgamation between the Duke -of York’s, now Prince Charles’s, and the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1615, -and when this terminated in the following year, Taylor became again -a member of the Prince’s company. He was still with them between -6 January and 2 February 1619, when he appeared as Dr. Almanac in -Middleton and Rowley’s _Mask of Heroes_, but on 19 May 1619 he appears -in a livery warrant issued for the King’s men. As he is not in their -patent of the previous 27 March, it is to be supposed that he joined -them to replace Burbadge, who had died on 13 March.[1006] The rest of -his stage career was spent with the King’s men. He succeeded Burbadge -in several of his characters, including Ferdinand in the _Duchess of -Malfi_ and Hamlet, although the incidence of dates must cast some -doubt upon the statement of Downes that he was instructed in the part -‘by the Author M^r Shakespear’.[1007] Wright says that he played it -‘incomparably well’, and praises him also as Iago in _Othello_, Truewit -in _Epicoene_, and Face in _The Alchemist_.[1008] He is included in -the First Folio list of performers in Shakespeare’s plays. In 1623 -Nicholas Tooley left him £10 to pay a debt for which Tooley had become -his surety. With Lowin he seems to have assumed the leadership of the -company in succession to Heminges and Condell, and after Heminges’s -death in 1630 he was admitted to two shares in the ‘house’ of the -Globe and one in that of the Blackfriars, which he still held in -1635. About 1637 he petitioned for a waiter’s place in the Custom -House of London,[1009] and on 11 November 1639 he obtained the post -of Yeoman of the Revels, probably through the influence of Sir Henry -Herbert, with whom he had been in frequent contact as representative -of his company.[1010] After the closing of the theatres he joined his -fellows of the King’s men in publishing the First Folio of Beaumont -and Fletcher’s plays in 1647, and for his benefit and Lowin’s _The -Wild-goose Chase_ was added in 1652. He died at Richmond and was there -buried on 4 November 1652.[1011] The ascription to his brush of the -‘Chandos’ portrait of Shakespeare is now discredited. - -THARE (THAYER), JOHN. Worcester’s, 1602–3; Germany, 1603–6 (?). - -TILBERY, JOHN. Chapel, 1405. - -TOMSONE, JOHN. A ‘player’ who borrowed 5_s._ from Henslowe on 22 -December 1598 (H. i. 40). - -TOOLEY, NICHOLAS, appears in the 1619 patent to the King’s men, but -not in that of 1603. He probably joined the company about 1605, as he -received a legacy under the will of Phillips on 4 May as his ‘fellow’. -He is not in the actor-list of _Volpone_ in that year, but is in most -of the later actor-lists from _The Alchemist_ (1610) to _The Spanish -Curate_ (1622), and in that of the First Folio Shakespeare. In 1619 he -witnessed Richard Burbadge’s will. He made his own will as Nicholas -Tooley, Gentleman, on 3 June 1623. After legacies to charity, to the -families of ‘my good friend Mr. Cuthbert Burbadge (in whose house I -do now lodge)’, of ‘my late Mr. Richard Burbadge deceased’, and of ‘my -good friend Mr. Henry Condell’, and to Joseph Taylor, and remissions -of debt to John Underwood and William Ecclestone, but not to Richard -Robinson, he ends by making Burbadge and Condell his executors and -residuary legatees. By a codicil of the same date, signed as Nicholas -Wilkinson _alias_ Tooley, he guards against any danger of invalidity -due to his failure to use the name of Wilkinson.[1012] Presumably, -therefore, Wilkinson, and not Tooley, was his original name. The name -of Tooley was fairly common in London, and more than one Nicholas -Wilkinson has been traced. He may have been the Nicholas, son of -Charles Wilkinson, baptized at St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, on 3 February -1575.[1013] There seems no reason to connect him with a Nicholas Tooley -found on the Warwickshire muster-book in 1569.[1013] His reference to -Richard Burbadge as his ‘master’ suggests that he was his apprentice. -It is tempting, but arbitrary, to identify him with the ‘Nick’ who -played with Strange’s men in _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ about 1592, or the -‘Nycke’ who tumbled before Elizabeth for the Admiral’s in 1601 and -is commended by Joan to Edward Alleyn on 21 October 1603.[1014] The -register of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, records the burial of ‘Nicholas -Tooley, gentleman, from the house of Cuthbert Burbidge, gentleman’, on -5 June 1623.[1015] - -TOTTNELL, HARRY. A ‘player’ whose daughter Joan was baptized at St. -Saviour’s on 20 March 1591 (_Bodl._). - -TOWNE, JOHN. Queen’s, 1583, 1588, 1594–7. Greg (H. ii. 315) rather -arbitrarily suggests that Henslowe’s note of him as a witness to a loan -to Francis Henslowe of the Queen’s on 8 May 1593 (H. i. 4) is by an -error for Thomas (q. v.). - -TOWNE, THOMAS. Admiral’s-Henry’s, 1594–1610. His name is in a s. d. to -_1 Honest Whore_ (1604). Alleyn’s papers record a widow Agnes. Towne’s -name is in the Southwark token-books during 1600–7, and Thomas Towne ‘a -man’ was buried on 9 August 1612. Towne’s will of 4 July 1612 names his -wife, whom he calls Ann, and his brother John, of Dunwich in Suffolk -(‘if he be still living’) and leaves £3 to his fellows Borne, Downton, -Juby, Rowley, Massey, and Humphrey Jeffes, ‘to make them a supper when -it shall please them to call for it’ (H. ii. 316; _Bodl._, citing will -in P. C. C.). - -TOWNSEND, JOHN. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1616–32 (?); for his later -career, cf. Murray, i. 252–60; ii. 8. - -TOY. The performer of Will Summer in _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_. - -TREVELL, WILLIAM. Whitefriars lessee, 1608, 1621. - -TRUSSELL, ALVERY. Chapel, 1600–1. - -TUNSTALL (DONSTALL, DONSTONE), JAMES. Worcester’s, 1583; Admiral’s, -1590–1, 1594–7. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), refers to him in -conjunction with Alleyn (q. v.). The variation in his name is made -more, rather than less, puzzling by the baptism at St. Botolph’s of -Dunstone Tunstall on 20 August 1572 (H. ii. 261). - -UBALDINI, PETRUCCIO. Italians, 1576 (?). - -UNDERELL. Worcester’s, 1602. A Thomas Underell was a royal trumpeter in -1609–24 (_Chamber Accounts_). - -UNDERWOOD, JOHN, was a Chapel boy in the year 1601, and continued at -Blackfriars until, as the _Sharers Papers_ state, on growing up to -be a man, he was taken to strengthen the King’s service. This was in -1608 or a little later. He is not in the Queen’s Revels actor-list -of _Epicoene_ (1609), and is in the King’s men’s actor-list of _The -Alchemist_ (1610), and thereafter in the official lists and most of -the actor-lists of the company, including that of the First Folio -Shakespeare, up to 1624. Tooley in his will of 1623 forgave him a debt. -His own will was made on 4 October 1624 and has a codicil appended -on 10 October, doubtless from his oral directions, but after his -death. He describes himself as ‘of the parish of Saint Bartholomew the -Less, in London, gent.’, and leaves his shares in the Blackfriars, -Globe, and Curtain to his executors, of whom Henry Condell is one, in -trust for his five children, all under twenty-one--John, Elizabeth, -Burbage, Thomas, and Isabel. The executors and his ‘fellowes’, Mr. John -Heminges and John Lowin, who are appointed overseers, have 11s. each -for rings.[1016] The baptism of his son John on 27 December 1610 is in -the register of Saint Bartholomew the Less, West Smithfield.[1017] The -trust was still unexpired at Condell’s death in 1627, and was handed on -by him to his wife. The _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 show one share in the -Blackfriars still in the hands of an Underwood; but apparently a third -of it had been parted with about 1632 to Eliart Swanston.[1018] - -VINCENT. Strange’s (?), 1590–1. - -VIRNIUS, JOHANN FRIEDRICH. Germany, 1615. - -WAKEFIELD, EDWARD. Germany, 1597, 1602. - -WALPOLE, FRANCIS. Anne’s, 1616–17. - -WARD, ANTHONY. Vide ARKINSTALL. - -WAYMUS (WAMBUS), FRANCIS. Lady Elizabeth’s, 1611, 1617–24. - -WEBSTER, GEORGE. Germany, 1598, 1600–3. - -WEBSTER, JOHN. Germany, 1596. Is he identical with the dramatist? - -WESTCOTT, SEBASTIAN. Master of Paul’s, 1557–82. He is sometimes -described by his Christian name alone. - -WHETSTONE, _c._ 1571. Cf. s.v. FIDGE. Plomer suggests that he might be -George Whetstone (cf. ch. xxiii). - -WHITELOCKE, JAMES, afterwards Sir James. Merchant Taylors, 1575–86. - -WILDER, PHILIP VAN. Gentleman of the Privy Chamber and lutenist, -commissioned to raise a royal company of young minstrels in 1550; cf. -ch. xii, s.v. Chapel. - -‘WILL.’ Strange’s, 1590–1. - -‘WILL.’ Admiral’s, 1597. - -WILLIAMS, JOHN. Chapel, 1509. - -WILSON, JOHN. In _Much Ado_, ii. 3. 38, for the ‘Enter Balthaser with -musicke’ of Q_{1}, F_{1} has ‘Enter ... Iacke Wilson’, who therefore, -at some date before 1623, sang ‘Sigh no more, ladies!’ He is probably -the son of Nicholas Wilson, ‘minstrel’, baptized at St. Bartholomew’s -the Less on 24 April 1585. He had an elder brother Adam, and buried -a wife Joan on 17 July 1624, and an unnamed son on 3 September 1624 -at St. Giles’s from the house of George Sommerset, musician (Collier, -_Actors_, xviii). He seems to have become a city ‘wait’ about 1622 and -to have still held his post in 1641, and has been confused (Collier in -_Sh. Soc. Papers_, ii. 33; E. F. Rimbault, _Who was Jacke Wilson?_, -1846) with another John Wilson, born in 1595, a royal lutenist and -musician of distinction (cf. _D. N. B._). One or other of them was -concerned with a performance of _M. N. D._ in the house of John -Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, on 27 September 1631, which gave offence -to the Puritans (Murray, ii. 148). - -WILSON, ROBERT, was one of Leicester’s men in 1572, 1574, and 1581. A -reference in Gabriel Harvey’s correspondence of 1579 suggests that he -was conspicuous amongst the actors of the day, and Lodge’s praise about -the same date in the _Defence of Plays_ of his _Shorte and Sweete_, -‘the practice of a good scholler,’ shows that he was also a playwright. -This piece Lodge compares with Gosson’s _Catiline’s Conspiracies_, and -it may have been on the same theme. Further evidence of his reputation -is in the letter of 1581 from T. Baylye (q. v.). In 1583 he joined the -Queen’s men, and is described by Howes in his account of the formation -of that company as a ‘rare’ man ‘for a quicke, delicate, refined, -extemporall witt’. He is not in the Queen’s list of 1588. This may -not be quite complete; on the other hand he may by then have left the -company. I see no solid foundation for the conjectures of Fleay, ii. -279, that he was the player of _Greenes Groatsworth of Wit_ (cf. App. -C, No. xlviii) who penned the _Moral of Man’s Wit_ and the _Dialogue of -Dives_, that he wrote _Fair Em_, that he left the Queen’s for Strange’s -in 1590 and thereby incurred Greene’s hostility, that he is the Roscius -of Nashe’s _Menaphon_ epistle, that he died of the plague in 1593. It -is extremely unlikely that he died in 1593, for in his _Palladis Tamia_ -of 1598, after lauding Tarlton as famous for ‘extemporall verse’, Meres -continues, ‘And so is now our wittie Wilson, who for learning and -extemporall witte in this facultie is without compare or compeere, as -to his great and eternall commendations he manifested in his chalenge -at the Swanne on the Banke side.’ The common use by Meres and Howes -of the phrase ‘extemporall witte’ renders it almost impossible to -suppose that they are not speaking of the same man. It is true that, -in the _Apology for Actors_, Heywood, whose knowledge of the stage -must have gone back at least to 1594, classes Wilson with the older -generation of actors, whom he never saw, as being before his time, and -I take it the explanation is that, at or before the virtual break-up -of the Queen’s men in the plague of 1592–3, Wilson gave up acting, and -devoted himself to writing, and occasional extemporizing on themes. He -is generally supposed to be the R. W. of _The Three Ladies of London_ -(1584) and _The Three Lords of London_ (1590), and the ‘Robert Wilson, -Gent.’ of _The Cobbler’s Prophecy_ (1594). The ‘Gent.’ is hardly an -insuperable obstacle to identifying him with the ‘Robert Wilson, yoman -(a player)’, who was buried at St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on 20 November -1600 (Collier, _Actors_, xviii). A Wilson is in the suspected Admiral’s -cast of _c._ January 1600. But now comes the real difficulty. Meres, -also in the _Palladis Tamia_ and without any indication that he has -another man in mind, includes ‘Wilson’ in a group of ‘the best for -comedy amongst vs’, which is composed of the principal writers for the -Admiral’s in 1598, and amongst these writers, as shown by Henslowe’s -papers, was a Robert Wilson, who collaborated in eleven plays during -1598, and in three more during 1599 and 1600. He is last mentioned in -a letter of 14 June 1600. This is generally taken to be a younger man -than the Queen’s player, possibly a Robert Wilson who was baptized at -St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, on 22 September 1579, and married Mary -Eaton there on 24 June 1606, possibly the Robert Wilson (not described -as ‘a player and the younger’ as Collier suggests in _Bodl._) whose -son Robert was baptized at St. Leonard’s on 15 January 1601 (Stopes, -_Burbage_, 141), possibly the Robert Wilson whose burial is recorded -at St. Bartholomew’s the Less on 21 October 1610. On the whole, I am -inclined to think that, in view of the character of Meres’ references, -of the use of Catiline as a play-theme both about 1580 and in 1598 (cf. -ch. xxiii), and of the sudden disappearance of Wilson from Henslowe’s -diary in the year of the ‘player’s’ death, the balance of evidence is -in favour of one playwright rather than two. The undefined share of -the Admiral’s man in the extant _1 Sir John Oldcastle_ does not really -afford a basis for stylistic comparison with the more old-fashioned -manners of the 1584–94 plays. There is nothing to show that the -Bishopsgate man had any connexion with the stage, still less that he -was a son of the Queen’s player, as has been suggested. - -WINTER, RICHARD. Possibly an actor at Canterbury, _c._ 1571 (_3 -Library_, ix. 253). - -WODERAM, RICHARD. Oxford’s, 1586–7 (?). - -WOODFORD, THOMAS. Whitefriars lessee, 1608, 1621. - -WOODS, JOHN. Holland, 1604. - -WORTH, ELLIS. Anne’s, 1615–19; for his later career, cf. Murray, i. -198, 218. He is described as ‘gentleman’ in the register of St. Giles’s -at the baptism of his daughter Jane on 19 July 1613, and as ‘player’ at -that of his son Elizeus on 12 March 1629 (_Bodl._). - -WYLKYNSON, JOHN. A London ‘coriour’, who maintained players in his -house in 1549 (cf. App. D, No. ii). - -YOUNG, JOHN. Queen Jane’s, >1537; Interluders, 1539–53 (?). He seems to -have been still alive in 1569–70. - - - - - BOOK IV - - THE PLAY-HOUSES - - The world the stage, the prologue tears, - The acts vain hope and varied fears: - The scene shuts up with loss of breath, - And leaves no epilogue but death. - HENRY KING. - - - - - XVI - - INTRODUCTION: THE PUBLIC THEATRES - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Some notes in the _Gentleman’s - Magazine_ for 1813–16 by Eu. Hood [Joseph Haslewood] are - reprinted in _The Gentleman’s Magazine Library_, xv (1904), - 86, and in _Roxburghe Revels_ (ed. J. Maidment, 1837). J. P. - Collier, _History of English Dramatic Poetry_, iii. 79, has - _An Account of the Old Theatres of London_, and chronological - sections on the subject are in F. G. Fleay, _A Chronicle History - of the London Stage_ (1890). T. F. Ordish, _Early London - Theatres_ (1894), covers the Shoreditch and Bankside theatres - ‘in the Fields’ other than the Globe; a companion volume on - the urban houses has never appeared. The Bankside houses are - also dealt with by W. Rendle, _The Bankside, Southwark, and the - Globe_ (1877), being Appendix I to F. J. Furnivall, _Harrison’s - Description of England_, Part II (_N. Sh. Soc._), and in _Old - Southwark and its People_ (1878) and _The Play-houses at - Bankside in the Time of Shakespeare_ (_Walford’s Antiquarian_, - 1885, vii. 207, 274; viii. 55). J. Q. Adams, _Shakespearean - Play-houses_ (1917), is a comprehensive and valuable work, - which reached me when this chapter was practically complete. I - am glad to find that our results so generally agree. The chief - London maps have been reproduced by the _London Topographical - Society_ and on a smaller scale by G. E. Mitton, _Maps of Old - London_ (1908). Some are also given as illustrations in G. P. - Baker, _The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist_ (1907). - They are classified by W. Martin, _A Study of Early Map-Views - of London_ in _The Antiquary_, xlv (1909), 337, 406, and their - evidence for the Bankside analysed by the same writer, with - partial reproductions, in _The Site of the Globe Play-house of - Shakespeare_ (1910, _Surrey Archaeological Collections_, xxiii. - 149). - - The evidence of the maps as to the position of the theatres - is obscured, partly by uncertainties as to the dates and - authorships both of the engravings and of the surveys on which - they were based, and partly by the pictorial character of the - topography. They are not strict plans in two dimensions, such - as modern cartographers produce, but either drawings in full - perspective, or bird’s-eye views in diminished perspective. - The imaginary standpoint is always on the south, and the - pictorial aspect is emphasized in the foreground, with the - result that, while the Bankside theatres, but not those north - of the river, are generally indicated, this is rarely with a - precision which renders it possible to locate them in relation - to the thoroughfares amongst which they stand. This is more - particularly the case since, while the general grouping of - buildings, gardens, and trees appears, from a comparison of - one view with another, to be faithfully given, it is probable - that the details are often both conventionally represented and - out of scale. The following classification is mainly borrowed - from Dr. Martin: (_a_) Pre-Reformation representations of - London throwing no light on the theatres; (_b_) _Wyngaerde_, a - pictorial drawing (_c._ 1543–50) by A. Van der Wyngaerde (_L. - T. Soc._ i; Mitton, i); (_c_) _Höfnagel_, a plan with little - perspective by G. Höfnagel, from a survey of _c._ 1554–7 (cf. - A. Marks in _Athenaeum_ for 31 March 1906), published (1572) - with the title _Londinum Feracissimi Angliae Regni Metropolis_ - in G. Braun and F. Hohenburg, _Civitates Orbis Terrarum_ (L. - T. Soc. ii; Mitton, iv); (_d_) _Agas_, an engraving with - more perspective, but generally similar to that of Höfnagel - and possibly from the same survey, but drawn after 1561, and - assigned by G. Vertue, who reproduced it (1737), to Ralph Agas - (L. T. Soc. xvii; Mitton, ii); (_e_) _Smith_, a coloured drawing - by William Smith, possibly based on Höfnagel or Agas, in _B. M. - Sloane MS._ 2596, reproduced in H. B. Wheatley and E. W. Ashbee, - _W. Smith_, _The Particular Description of England, 1588_ - (1879), and in G. P. Baker, _The Development of Shakespeare - as a Dramatist_ (1907), 18; (_f_) _Bankside Views_, small - representations of the same general character as (_c_), (_d_), - and (_e_), used as backgrounds to pictures and described by W. - Martin in _Antiquary_, xlv. 408; (_g_) _Norden_, engravings - in slight perspective of ‘London’ and ‘Westminster’ by P. Van - den Keere in J. Norden, _Speculum Britanniae_ (1593), from - survey of about the same date (L. T. Soc. vii; Mitton, v, vi; - Furnivall, _Harrison’s Description of England_, Part I, with - notes on p. lxxxix by H. B. Wheatley, reprinted by L. T. Soc. - in _Record_, ii); (_h_) _Delaram Group_, perspective views as - backgrounds to portrait (_c._ 1616) of James I by F. Delaram - (1620), reproduced by W. Martin in _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. - 186, and other portraits probably based on some original of - _c._ 1603; (_i_) _Hondius Group_, (i) drawing by P. D. Hondius - (1610) in J. Speed, _Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain_ - (1611), as inset to map of Britain (_L. T. Record_, ii, with - notes by T. F. Ordish; Baker, _f. p._), (ii) engraving on - title-page of R. Baker, _Chronicle_ (1643), reproduced by Martin - in _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. 187, (iii) engraving on title-page - of H. Holland, _Herwologia Anglica_ (1620), (iv) engraving of - triumphal arch at coronation entry of James I by W. Kip in S. - Harrison (cf. ch. xxiv), _The Arches of Triumph_ (1604), all - perhaps based on the same original or survey; (_k_) _Visscher_, - engraving in perspective by Nikolaus Janssen Visscher (1616), - ‘Amstelodami, ex officina Judoci Hondii’, with mutilated text - from Camden’s _Britannia_, reproduced from unique copy in Brit. - Mus. (L. T. Soc. iv, with notes by T. F. Ordish in _L. T. - Record_, vi; also W. Martin in _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. 188, - and in Ordish, _Shakespeare’s London_, _f. p._ and elsewhere); - (_l_) _Merian Group_, (i) engraving in perspective by M. Merian - in J. L. Gottfried, _Neuwe Archontologia Cosmica_ (1638), 290, - reproduced by Martin, 191, and Adams, 256, and copied in (ii) - _f. p._ to James Howell, _Londinopolis_ (1657), reproduced - by Baker, 154, and (iii) R. Wilkinson, _Londina Illustrata_ - (1819); (_m_) _‘Ryther’ Group_, (i) engraving in very slight - perspective from drawing unfinished as regards the Bankside in - Crace Collection, No. 32, without date, imprint, or indication - of authorship, reproduced by W. J. Loftie, _History of London_, - ii. 282, C. L. Kingsford, _Chronicles of London_, (1905) _f. - p._, and Baker, 36, 125, 135, and ascribed to Augustine Ryther - in 1604, but probably of about 1636–45 (cf. _4 N. Q._ ix. 95; _6 - N. Q._ xii. 361, 393; _7 N. Q._ iii. 110; vi. 297; vii. 498) in - view of (ii) another version in Crace Coll., No. 31, with the - Bankside complete, bearing the imprint of ‘Cornelis Danckerts - grauer of maps’ in Amsterdam (_c._ 1631–56), and possibly by - Hollar, who worked for Danckerts, and was in England 1636–45, - (iii) map by T. Porter (_c._ 1666), based on (i) with later - additions (reproduced L. T. Soc. v); (_n_) _Hollar_, engraving - in perspective by W. Hollar (in London 1635–43), published - by Cornelius Danckerts in 1647 (L. T. Soc. xix; section by - Martin in _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. 194); (_o_) _Faithorne and - Newcourt_, engraving in conventional perspective by William - Faithorne from drawing by Richard Newcourt, published in - 1658 (L. T. Soc. xviii; Mitton, vii). Of the various maps of - post-conflagration London the most useful are that of Leeke and - Hollar (_c._ 1666), of which a section is reproduced by Martin - in _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. 191, and those of John Ogilby and - W. Morgan (1677, Mitton, viii), John Ogilby and W. Morgan (1682, - L. T. Soc. xv), and John Rocque (1746, L. T. Soc. xxxiv, xxxv, - xxxvii; Mitton, ix; section in Martin, _ut supra_, 197). Rendle, - _Bankside_, has attempted to indicate the sites of the Bankside - theatres upon a reconstructed map based on Rocque, and Martin in - _Surrey A. Colls._ xxiii. 155, 202, gives parts of the Bankside - area as it now stands from the Ordnance Survey map (1896) and a - plan of the Anchor Brewery (1909).] - - - A. INTRODUCTION - -The detailed notices, which will form the greater part of this chapter, -may with advantage be prefaced with some general observations upon -the historical sequence of the theatres and their distribution at -different periods over the London area. The earlier Tudor London -knew no theatre, in the sense of a building specially planned and -maintained for public dramatic performances, although Yarmouth had -its ‘game-house’ by 1538, and a _theatrum_ at Exeter was the scene -of satirical farces far back in the fourteenth century. The miracle -plays, not in London processional, were given in the open air, and -probably on temporary scaffolds. Similar stages may sometimes have -been used for the interludes, but these were ordinarily represented -in the winter-time, and sought the kindly shelter of a hall.[1019] In -the provision of specialized buildings, the drama appears to have been -anticipated by the ruder sport of baiting. Höfnagel’s pre-Elizabethan -map already shows on the Southwark side of the river the two rings, -with open centres and roofed seats for spectators, which are repeated -later on by Agas and by Smith. They stand in yards or gardens lined -with dog-kennels. One is lettered ‘The Bowll bayting’, the other -‘The beare bayting’. When the first Elizabethan theatres were built -in 1576, it was the hall on the one hand, and the ring on the other, -which determined the general structure of the two types of auditorium -that came simultaneously into being.[1020] The ‘private’ house, roofed -and lit, and with its seats arranged in tiers along three sides of a -long room, and the ‘public’ house, generally circular, with covered -stage and galleries, and a central yard or ‘pit’ open to the day, -co-existed for more than half a century, and finally merged in the -post-Restoration type of theatre which has come down to our own day. -The distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ is an unessential one, -depending probably upon some difference in the methods of paying for -admission necessitated by the regulations of the City or the Privy -Council.[1021] The performances in all the houses were public in the -ordinary sense. There was, however, another important factor, besides -the baiting ring, which greatly affected the structure of the open-air -theatre. This was the inn-yard. Long before 1576, interludes had been -given in public, as well as in the private halls of the great, and even -the need for some kind of permanent, or quasi-permanent, installation -had been felt. No doubt there were halls in London which could be -hired. The keeper of the Carpenters’ Hall in Shoreditch was prosecuted -towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign for procuring a Protestant -interlude ‘to be openly played’.[1022] Fees for the letting of Trinity -Hall for plays occur among the ‘casuall recepts’ of the churchwardens -of St. Botolph without Aldersgate in 1566–7.[1023] A jest-book of -1567 records a play at Northumberland Place.[1024] But an even more -convenient hospitality was afforded by the great court-yards of the -City inns, where there was sack and bottle-ale to hand, and, as the -Puritans averred, chambers ready for deeds of darkness to be done, when -the play was over.[1025] In these yards, approached by archways under -the inn buildings from one or more streets, and surrounded by galleries -with external staircases giving access to the upper floors, an audience -could quickly gather, behold at their ease, and escape payment with -difficulty. The actors could be accommodated with a tiring-room on the -ground floor, and perform as on a natural stage between the pillars -supporting the galleries. An upper gallery could be used to vary the -scene. The first performances in London inns upon record were at the -Saracen’s Head, Islington, and the Boar’s Head, Aldgate, both in -1557.[1026] By the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the use of them was -normal. Plays ‘in hostels and taverns’ were specified for prohibition -by the proclamation of April 1559, and the City regulations of 1574 are -clearly aimed at the control of the ‘greate innes, havinge chambers -and secrete places adjoyninge to their open stagies and gallyries’, -and impose obligations for the sake of good order upon innkeepers -and tavern-keepers in the forefront of those regarded as likely to -harbour plays.[1027] It is not reading too much between the lines to -suggest that the owners of particular houses specially laid themselves -out to secure the attraction of public entertainments, entered into -regular contracts with players, and probably even undertook structural -alterations which in fact converted their yards into little less -than permanent theatres.[1028] We have, indeed, the record of a -trade dispute about the workmanship of play-scaffolds at the Red -Lion in Stepney as far back as 1567. The Red Lion stood outside the -jurisdiction of the City. Within it, and so far as we can judge, much -more important in the history of the stage were the Bell and the Cross -Keys, both in Gracechurch Street, the Bull in Bishopsgate Street, -and the Bel Savage on Ludgate Hill. No one of these four is in fact -mentioned by name as a play-house earlier than 1575, and although they -must have been hard hit by the regulations of 1574, it is clear that -they did not go altogether out of use, especially during the winter, -when climatic conditions rendered the suburbs unattractive, for another -twenty years. Stockwood, in 1578, speaks of six or eight ‘ordinarie -places’ where plays were then performed.[1029] Nevertheless the action -of the City, and the enterprise of James Burbadge, whose descendants -claimed for him the honour of being ‘the first builder of playhowses’, -led to a shifting of the dramatic focus. The Theatre and the Curtain, -both built in or about 1576, stood in ‘the fields’ to the north of -London proper, and were perhaps soon followed by Newington Butts on -the south side of the river, beyond St. George’s Fields; while the -Blackfriars, adapted in the same year (1576) by Richard Farrant to -house the performances of children, occupied an old monastic building -in the precinct of a ‘liberty’ which, although within the walls, was -largely exempt from the jurisdiction of the Corporation. This became -the home of the Children of the Chapel, while the Paul’s boys played -in their own ‘song-school’, either the church of St. Gregory or some -other building in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s. How long this -arrangement had existed, or whether any company of children had played -in public at all before the date of Farrant’s experiment, we do not -know. From 1576 onwards, it is the Theatre and the Curtain which have -to bear the brunt of the Puritan attack, and the luxury of these, as -compared with the primitive accommodation of the inn-yards, arouses -a special indignation. ‘The sumptuous Theatre houses, a continual -monument of Londons prodigalitie and folly’, wails Thomas White in -1577. Stockwood in 1578 discommends ‘the gorgeous playing place erected -in the fieldes’; and William Harrison, perhaps about the same time, -finds it ‘an evident token of a wicked time when plaiers wexe so riche -that they can build such houses’.[1030] Presently the theatres became -notable amongst the sights which foreign travellers must see in London. -Lupold von Wedel in 1584 says nothing of them, although he records the -baiting and its rings.[1031] But they are noticed in the following year -by Samuel Kiechel, a merchant of Ulm, who writes:[1032] - - ‘Comedies are given daily. It is particularly mirthful to - behold, when the Queen’s comedians act, but annoying to a - foreigner who does not know the language, that he understands - nothing. There are some peculiar houses, which are so made as to - have about three galleries over one another, inasmuch as a great - number of people always enters to see such an entertainment. It - may well be that they take as much as from 50 to 60 dollars [£10 - to £12] at once, especially when they act anything new, which - has not been given before, and double prices are charged. This - goes on nearly every day in the week; even though performances - are forbidden on Friday and Saturday, it is not observed.’ - -The Theatre and the London inns were still the chief playing-places, -when at some date between 1576 and 1596 William Lambarde illustrated -his account of the pilgrimages to Boxley, by explaining that those who -visited the shrine did not get off scot-free-- - - ‘no more than such as goe to Parisgardein, the Bell Sauage, or - Theatre, to beholde Beare baiting, Enterludes, or Fence play, - can account of any pleasant spectacle, unlesse they first pay - one pennie at the gate, another at the entrie of the Scaffolde, - and the thirde for a quiet standing.’[1033] - -Paris Garden was the generic name given to the successive places -for bear-baiting which lay on the Surrey side of the river, not in -Southwark proper, which was in the jurisdiction of the City, but in the -Liberty of the Clink, which stretched in a westerly direction along -the Bankside, or still farther to the west, in the Manor of Paris -Garden itself. In Surrey, no less than in London, plays had established -themselves at an early date. A performance was going on in Southwark, -while the priests of St. Saviour’s sang _Dirige_ for Henry VIII’s -soul in 1547.[1034] The Privy Council ordered the Surrey justices to -suppress plays in the Borough and the adjoining places during 1578; and -it seems probable that a regular play-house had been built south of -the river at a date not much later than that of the Theatre itself. It -stood far back behind Southwark, in the village of Newington, divided -from the river by St. George’s Fields. The distance and the bad roads -were against it; and it was not until the Rose was built in the Clink -about 1587, that the Bankside became a serious rival to the ‘fields’ -in the north as the home of theatres. The Swan, in Paris Garden, was -built in 1595. Newington is too far to the south to appear in the maps, -but Norden’s map of 1593 shows two round buildings, standing between -Bankside and an unnamed road, which may safely be identified with that -called Maiden Lane. One is lettered ‘The Beare howse’, the other, more -to the east and the south, ‘The play howse’; and this must clearly be -the Rose. - -In 1596 the City appear to have at last obtained the assent of the -Privy Council to the complete exclusion of plays from the area of -their jurisdiction. This is probably the proceeding described, with -no precise indication of date, in the following passage from Richard -Rawlidge’s _A Monster Lately Found out and Discovered, or the -Scourging of Tipplers_ (1628):[1035] - - ‘_London_ hath within the memory of man lost much of hir - pristine lustre, ... by being ... filled with ... sinnes, - which ... are ... maintained, in Play-houses, Ale-houses, - Bawdy-houses, Dising-houses, ... All which houses, and traps - for Gentlemen, and others, of such Receipt, were formerly taken - notice of by many Citizens, and well disposed graue Gentlemen - ... wherevpon some of the pious magistrates made humble suit - to the late Queene Elizabeth of ever-liuing memorie, and her - priuy Counsaile, and obteined leaue from her Majesty to thrust - those Players out of the Citty and to pull downe the Dicing - houses: which accordingly was affected, and the Play-houses in - _Gracious street_, _Bishops-gate-street_, nigh _Paules_, that on - _Ludgate_ hill, the _White-Friars_ were put down, and other lewd - houses quite supprest within the Liberties, by the care of those - religious senators, ... and surely had all their successors - followed their worthy stepps, sinne would not at this day haue - beene so powerfull, and raigning as it is.’ - -The play-houses in Gracious or Gracechurch Street, Bishopsgate Street, -and Ludgate Hill were presumably the Bell and the Cross Keys, the -Bull, and the Bel Savage. By the house ‘nigh Paul’s’ Rawlidge possibly -meant the choir song-school; but in fact there had been no plays by -the Paul’s boys since 1590. If there was really a Whitefriars house -at so early a date, this is the only notice preserved of it. It may -be suspected that Rawlidge confused it with the Blackfriars, which -James Burbadge was apparently prevented, upon representations by the -City, from reopening in 1596. The claim of the City to exercise any -control over the old religious precincts of the Blackfriars and the -Whitefriars was a doubtful one; and although they ultimately secured -jurisdiction, they were not able to prevent the so-called ‘private’ -theatres from establishing themselves in these ‘liberties’.[1036] With -these exceptions, however, and possibly that of the Boar’s Head, which -seems to have been used for a few years after 1602, but was more likely -just outside the bars, 1596 probably saw the last of playing within the -actual gates of the City. - -Londoners had now to look wholly to the suburbs for their dramatic -entertainment. Prince Lewis of Anhalt-Cöthen found four theatres -in 1596.[1037] These were doubtless the Theatre and the Curtain on -the north and the Rose and the Swan on the south of the river. The -Newington house was still used in 1594, but even before that had long -been out of fashion. It was probably also about 1596 that John de -Witt wrote his _Observations Londinenses_. He too mentioned the -four theatres, together with the baiting house, and was particularly -struck by the newest, and as he avers, the largest and fairest of -them, the Swan, of the interior of which he attached a rough sketch to -his manuscript. This manuscript is lost, but fortunately an extract -survives, copied into a commonplace book by Arend van Buchell of -Utrecht. The following is the complete text:[1038] - - - EX OBSERVATIONIBUS LONDINENSIBUS JOHANNIS DE WITT. - - De phano D. Pauli. Huic Paulino phano adheret locus ab - asservandis sacratioribus vestimentis Sacristi dictus, omnino - observatione dignus, quippe quo DIANAE delubrum fuisse - ferunt. Sacellum est rotundum, hemyphericum, concameratum, - cuius structura Romanam antiquitatem referre videtur. Aiunt - cum fundamenta templi iacerentur effossam ante huius aediculae - fores innumeram cervinorum capitum copiam; inde colligi Dianae - sacrificia (cui cervis litabatur) ibi olim peracta esse eique - hanc aedem sacratam fuisse; in eodem phano sunt epitaphia et - sepulcra varia praeter ea quae alio loco a me notata sunt, - Guilelmi Herberti Penbrochiae comitis Walliae praesidis qui - obijt A^o aetat. lxiii Christi vero 1569. - - Ibidem in aede Westmonasteriensi sunt monumenta cum suis - elogiis: Guill. Thynne armigeri ex antiqua Bottevillorum - familia, Joannis Thynne fratris qui obijt 14 Martii 1584, item - Joannis Bourgh Duisburgi gubernatoris A^o 1596. - - Amphiteatra Londinij sunt iv visendae pulcritudinis quae a - diversis intersigniis diuersa nomina sortiuntur: in iis varia - quotidie scaena populo exhibetur. Horum duo excellentiora vltra - Tamisim ad meridiam sita sunt, a suspensis signis ROSA et Cygnus - nominata: Alia duo extra vrbem ad septentrionem sunt, viâ quâ - itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgat nuncupatam. - Est etiam quintum, sed dispari [vsu?] et structura, bestiarum - concertationi destinatum, in quo multi vrsi, tauri, et stupendae - magnitudinis canes, discretis caueis & septis aluntur, qui - [_drawing occupies rest of page_] ad pugnam adseruantur, - iocundissimum hominibus spectaculum praebentes. Theatrorum autem - omnium prestantissimum est et amplissimum id cuius intersignium - est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn [off te swan]),[1039] - quippe quod tres mille homines in sedilibus admittat, - constructum ex coaceruato lapide pyrritide (quorum ingens in - Britannia copia est) ligneis suffultum columnis quae ob illitum - marmoreum colorem, nasutissimos quoque fallere possent. Cuius - quidem formam quod Romani operis vmbram videatur exprimere supra - adpinxi. - - Narrabat idem se vidisse in Brittannia apud Abrahamum de - lyndeley [?] mercatorem Alberti Dureri omnia opera cartacea - elegantissima et absolutissima. - -The account of Paul Hentzner, who was in London from 31 August to -8 September 1598, lays less stress upon the theatres than upon the -baiting, and is not altogether consistent with that of de Witt as to -the structure of the Swan, which was the nearest house to the moorings -of the royal barge at the west end of Paris Garden.[1040] Hentzner -writes: - - ‘Sunt porro Londini extra Urbem Theatra aliquot, in quibus - Histriones Angli Comoedias & Tragoedias singulis fere diebus, in - magna hominum frequentia agunt, quas variis etiam saltationibus, - suavissima adhibita musica, magno cum populi applausu finire - solent. Non longe ab uno horum theatrorum, quae omnia lignea - sunt, ad Thamesim navis est regia, quae duo egregia habet - conclavia, fenestris perlucidis, picturis & sculpturis eleganter - exornata, in sicco & quidem sub tecto collocata, propterea, ut a - pluviis & coeli injuria immunis sit.’ - -Hentzner then describes the baiting.[1041] He concludes: - - ‘Utuntur in hisce spectaculis sicut & alibi, ubicunque locorum - sint Angli, herba Nicotiana, quam Americano idiomate Tabacam - nuncupant (Paetum alii dicunt) hoc modo frequentissime; Fistulae - in hunc finem ex argilia factae, orificio posteriori, dictam - herbam probe exiccatam, ita ut in pulverem facile redigi possit, - immittunt, & igne admoto accendunt, unde fumus ab anteriori - parte ore attrahitur, qui per nares rursum, tanquam per - infurnibulum exit, & phlegma ac capitis defluxiones magna copia - secum educit. Circumferuntur insuper in hisce theatris varii - fructus venales, ut poma, pyra, nuces & pro ratione temporis, - etiam vinum & cerevisia.’[1042] - -It is perhaps natural that foreign visitors should be more struck by -the English theatres at a time when the English stage was serving as a -model to northern Europe, than was the case with a native chronicler of -grave and slightly Puritanic tendencies. John Stowe, when he published -his _Survey of London_ in 1598, had nothing to say of the Bankside -houses, and but little of those in Middlesex. After writing of the -miracle plays, he says: - - ‘Of late time in place of those Stage playes, hath beene vsed - Comedies, Tragedies, Enterludes, and Histories, both true and - fayned: For the acting whereof certaine publike places as the - Theater, the Curtine, &c., haue been erected’ [_in margin_, - ‘Theater and Curten for Comedies & other shewes’].[1043] - -In another place, at the end of a description of Holywell, he adds: - - ‘And neare therevnto are builded two publique houses for the - acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies, and Histories, for - recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, the other - the Theatre: both standing on the South-west side towards the - field.’[1044] - -Even these scanty references were pruned in the second edition of -1603, after the Theatre had disappeared at the end of 1598 and the -Chamberlain’s men had left the Curtain. And of the Globe, built -during the earlier half of 1599, to which they migrated, Stowe takes -no notice. The Globe, however, appears, although unnamed, together -with two other theatres, of which one must be the Curtain, in the next -foreign account, a very full one by Thomas Platter of Basle, who was -in England from 18 September to 20 October 1599.[1045] I translate the -passage, of which sufficient use has not been made by historians of the -stage: - - ‘After dinner on the 21st of September, at about two o’clock, - I went with my companions over the water, and in the strewn - roof-house saw the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius with - at least fifteen characters very well acted. At the end of - the comedy they danced according to their custom with extreme - elegance. Two in men’s clothes and two in women’s gave this - performance, in wonderful combination with each other. On - another occasion, I also saw after dinner a comedy, not far from - our inn, in the suburb; if I remember right, in Bishopsgate. - Here they represented various nations, with whom on each - occasion an Englishman fought for his daughter, and overcame - them all except the German, who won the daughter in fight. He - then sat down with him, and gave him and his servant strong - drink, so that they both got drunk, and the servant threw his - shoe at his master’s head and they both fell asleep. Meanwhile - the Englishman went into the tent, robbed the German of his - gains, and thus he outwitted the German also. At the end they - danced very elegantly both in English and in Irish fashion. - And thus every day at two o’clock in the afternoon in the city - of London two and sometimes three comedies are performed, - at separate places, wherewith folk make merry together, and - whichever does best gets the greatest audience. The places are - so built, that they play on a raised platform, and every one - can well see it all. There are, however, separate galleries and - there one stands more comfortably and moreover can sit, but one - pays more for it. Thus anyone who remains on the level standing - pays only one English penny: but if he wants to sit, he is let - in at a further door, and there he gives another penny. If he - desires to sit on a cushion in the most comfortable place of - all, where he not only sees everything well, but can also be - seen, then he gives yet another English penny at another door. - And in the pauses of the comedy food and drink are carried round - amongst the people, and one can thus refresh himself at his own - cost. - - ‘The comedians are most expensively and elegantly apparelled, - since it is customary in England, when distinguished gentlemen - or knights die, for nearly the finest of their clothes to be - made over and given to their servants, and as it is not proper - for them to wear such clothes but only to imitate them, they - give them to the comedians to purchase for a small sum. - - ‘What they can thus produce daily by way of mirth in the - comedies, every one knows well, who has happened to see them - acting or playing.’ - -Platter then describes the Cockpit and the baiting. He concludes: - - ‘With such and many other pastimes besides the English spend - their time; in the comedies they learn what is going on in other - lands, and this happens without alarm, husband and wife together - in a familiar place, since for the most part the English do not - much use to travel, but are content ever to learn of foreign - matters at home, and ever to take their pastime.’ - -A year later than Platter, another traveller thus describes a visit to -the Bankside:[1046] - - ‘1600 die Lunae 3 Julii. Audivimus comoediam Anglicam; theatrum - ad morem antiquorum Romanorum constructum ex lignis, ita - formatum ut omnibus ex partibus spectatores commodatissime - singula videre possint. In reditu transivimus pontem magnificis - aedificiis ornatum e quibus uni adhuc affixa cernuntur capita - quorundam comitum et nobilium, qui laesae Majestatis rei - supplicio affecti sunt.’ - -When Lewis of Anhalt and de Witt wrote, there were four theatres, -exclusive of the City inn-yards, which were probably already closed. -Platter found two, and sometimes three, performances being given daily. -This agrees with the evidence available from other sources. After the -scandal of _The Isle of Dogs_ in 1597, the Privy Council decreed -a limitation of the London companies to two, the Chamberlain’s men and -the Admiral’s. The former played at the Curtain until 1599, when they -destroyed the Theatre and built the Globe. The latter played at the -Rose until 1600, when they migrated to the newly built Fortune. But -it is clear that the ordinance of the Privy Council was not strictly -observed. An intruding company was playing in February 1598, either -at the Theatre or the Swan. Platter’s three houses in 1599 included -the Curtain, together presumably with the Globe and the Rose. When the -Council sanctioned the opening of the Fortune in 1600, they understood -that the Curtain was to be ‘either ruinated or applied to some other -good use’, but it was still the scene of plays in 1601. Finally, in -the spring of 1602 Elizabeth ordered the Council to tolerate a third -company, that of the Earl of Worcester, Master of the Horse. This -was then playing at the Boar’s Head, a short-lived house of which -practically nothing is known; in the autumn it moved to the Rose. The -Swan possibly went out of use, except for the occasional performances -of acrobats and fencers, or of amateurs. On the other hand, Lord -Hertford’s men were in London during the winter of 1602–3, in addition -to the three privileged companies, and they must have practised -somewhere. - -To the above must be added, for the closing years of Elizabeth’s -reign, the ‘private’ houses; Paul’s reopened in the winter of 1599, -the Blackfriars in that of 1600. Of these Platter knows nothing, but -Duke Philip Julius of Stettin-Pomerania, in the autumn of 1602, in -addition to performances at the Fortune and another theatre, saw also, -doubtless at the Blackfriars, the _Kinder-comoedia_. The following -is an extract from the diary of the visit kept by the duke’s secretary, -Frederic Gerschow:[1047] - - ‘13 [September] On the thirteenth a comedy was played, of - the taking of Stuhl-Weissenberg, firstly by the Turks, and - thereafter back again by the Christians. - - 14. In the afternoon was played a tragicomedy of Samson and the - half tribe of Benjamin.’[1048] - -On 16 September the duke and his retinue saw the baiting. On 18 -September they visited the Blackfriars, and Gerschow wrote an account -of the organization of the Children of the Chapel and of the nature of -their performances.[1049] - -The Globe and the Fortune continued in regular use, as the houses of -the King’s men, and the Prince’s men respectively, during the new -reign, and endured to the closing of the theatres in 1642. Each was -destroyed by fire and rebuilt; the former in 1613, the latter in 1621. -Queen Anne’s men at first used the Boar’s Head and the Curtain, but -migrated from the Boar’s Head to the Red Bull, which had been built by -1606. This became their principal house, and they cannot be shown to -have used the Curtain after 1609. These were the only companies of men -players in London during 1603–8, and the Globe, the Fortune, and the -Red Bull are obviously the ‘three houses’ whose rivalry is referred to -by Dekker in the following passage from his _Raven’s Almanack_ of -1608:[1050] - - ‘Another ciuill warre doe I finde wil fal betweene players, who - albeit at the beginning of this fatall yeare, they salute one - another like sworne brothers, yet before the middle of it, shall - they wish one anothers throate cut for two pence. The contention - of the two houses, (the gods bee thanked) was appeased long - agoe, but a deadly warre betweene the three houses will I feare - burst out like thunder and lightning. For it is thought that - Flag will be aduanced (as it were in mortall defiance against - Flag), numbers of people will also bee mustred and fall to one - side or other, the drums and trumpets must be sounded, partes - will then (euen by the chiefest players) bee taken: words will - passe to and fro: speeches cannot so bee put vp, handes will - walke, an alarum be giuen, fortune must fauour some, or els they - are neuer able to stand: the whole world must sticke to others, - or else al the water in the theames wil not serue to carrie - those away that will bee put to flight, and a third faction must - fight like wilde Buls against Lyons, or else it will be in vaine - to march vp into the field.’ - -There were, however, more than three London companies about 1608. M. -de la Boderie tells us how one fell into disgrace during that year, -and how four others subscribed to buy off the consequent inhibition -of plays.[1051] The reconciliation is simple. Dekker has in mind only -the ‘public’ and not the ‘private’ houses. Of these Paul’s was closed -in 1606; it was made worth its Master’s while not to reopen it. The -Blackfriars was used by the successive boy companies, known generically -as the Queen’s Revels, until 1608 or 1609, when it passed to the King’s -men, who thereafter maintained it as a winter house, to supplement the -Globe. The Queen’s Revels then moved to the Whitefriars, a private -house built at some time before 1608, and occupied in that year by the -ephemeral company of the King’s Revels. - -An increase in the number of adult companies now made fresh demands -upon theatrical house-room. It is presumably the Duke of York’s men -who were described at Leicester in 1608 as ‘the Princes players -of the White Chapple, London’. The description suggests that they -used the Boar’s Head, but if so, nothing more is heard of it, and -it is conceivable that they soon succeeded to the Curtain. The Lady -Elizabeth’s, who came into existence in 1611, are traceable at the -Swan, which Henslowe may have taken over to succeed the Rose, disused, -if not pulled down, by 1606. The following lines are in John Heath’s -_Two Centuries of Epigrammes_ (1610), but may of course, especially as -the Red Bull is not named, date back to the period when the Curtain -was still in the hands of the Queen’s men: - - Momus would act the fooles part in a play, - And cause he would be exquisite that way, - Hies me to London, where no day can passe - But that some play-house still his presence has; - Now at the Globe with a judicious eye - Into the Vice’s action doth he prie. - Next to the Fortune, where it is a chaunce - But he marks something worth his cognisance. - Then to the Curtaine, where, as at the rest, - He notes that action downe that likes him best.[1052] - -A foreign traveller again gives us help. The relation of the visit of -Prince Lewis Frederick of Württemberg in 1610 merely records that he -went to the Globe, and Justus Zingerling, who was in London at about -the same date, has the briefest note of the existence of ‘theatra -comoedorum et in quibus ursi et tauri cum canibus committuntur’.[1053] -But the itinerary of Prince Otto of Hesse-Cassel in the following year -is more expansive. The compiler writes: - - ‘In London there are seven theatres, where daily, except on - Sundays, comedies are performed, whereof the most important is - the Globe, which lies over the water. The theatre, where the - children play, is on the hither side of the water; they play - at three o’clock, but only from Michaelmas to Easter. Here it - only costs half a shilling to enter, but for the other places - at least half a crown. These play only with lights, and are the - best company in London.’[1054] - -In addition to the Globe and the Whitefriars, the tale of seven -theatres is probably made up by the Blackfriars, the Fortune, the Red -Bull, the Curtain, and the Swan. - -Henslowe’s correspondence with Daborne shows that he still had a -‘publique howse’, probably the Swan, in December 1613, and also that -in June of that year his company was only just thinking of ‘comming -over’ for a summer season, presumably from the Whitefriars, as he had -recently carried out an amalgamation between the Lady Elizabeth’s -men and the Queen’s Revels.[1055] In the following year occurred an -episode which curiously emphasizes the constant shifting of the focus -of theatrical interest during the whole of the period with which we -are concerned. Originally stageland was in the heart of the City -itself. With the building of the first theatres, it was transferred -to the Fields of the northern suburbs. During the last decade of the -sixteenth century the Fields in their turn gave way to the Bankside. -The Rose, the Swan, and the Globe successively made their appearance, -and the vestry of Southwark began to echo the earlier outcry of the -City against the iniquities of players, until their mouths were stopped -with tithes. But the transpontine period proved a brief one. Hardly was -the Globe up, before Alleyn’s choice of a site for the Fortune set the -fashion veering again, and opened up a new theatrical region in the -western suburbs. This was convenient for the Court and the great houses -along the Strand and for the lawyers in the Temple and at Westminster, -as well as for the City proper, and its tradition has endured until -quite recent years. The Red Bull and the Whitefriars followed in the -same area. On the other hand, the Rose had vanished, and the King’s -men, although they did not desert the Globe, acknowledged the change -of venue by taking up their winter quarters in the Blackfriars hard -by. One result was that men who had ridden to the Fields and been -ferried to the Bankside, now walked or drove in their coaches to the -theatre door. During the spring of 1614 things were probably at their -worst. Both the Globe, after its fire, and the Hope were still in the -builder’s hands, and if the Lady Elizabeth’s lingered again at the -Whitefriars, there can have been no plays across the water at all. -The watermen, who twenty years before had exercised the influence -of their patron, the Lord Admiral, to induce the Privy Council to -revoke an inhibition on the Bankside houses, sent up a bitter cry -of protest. John Taylor, the ‘water-poet’, whom they chose as their -spokesman, tells the story.[1056] A petition to the King was prepared, -to the effect that no play-house might be permitted ‘in London or in -Middlesex, within four miles of the City on that side of the Thames’, -and with this Taylor pursued James to Theobalds, Newmarket, and -Royston. It recited the service done by watermen in the navy during the -Armada invasion of 1588 and in such expeditions as those of Essex in -1596 and 1597. And it proceeded: - - ‘Afterwards the players began to play on the Bankside and to - leave playing in London and Middlesex (for the most part), - then there went such great concourse of people by water that - the small number of watermen remaining at home were not able - to carry them, by reason of the court, the terms, the players, - and other employments, so that we were enforced and encouraged - (hoping that this golden stirring would have lasted ever) to - take and entertain men and boys.’ - -It was calculated that the number of watermen and their dependants -between Windsor and Gravesend had now by 1614 reached 40,000: - - ‘The cause of the greater half of which multitude hath been - the players playing on the Bankside, for I have known three - companies besides the bear-baiting, at once there; to wit, the - Globe, the Rose, and the Swan. And it is an infallible truth - that, had they never played there, it had been better for - watermen by the one half of their living, for the company is - increased more than half by their means of playing there in - former times.’ - -Foreign employment had now come to an end: - - ‘And the players have all (except the King’s men) left their - usuall residency on the Bankside, and do play in Middlesex far - remote from the Thames, so that every day in the week they do - draw unto them three or four thousand people, that were used to - spend their monies by water.’ - -Such, Taylor assures us, was the effect of the petition. It was -referred by James to ‘his commissioners for suits’, that is to say, the -Court of Requests, composed of Sir Julius Caesar, Sir Thomas Parry, Sir -Francis Bacon, Sir Henry Montagu, Sir Walter Cope, George Calvert, and -Baron Sotherton. The King’s men exhibited a counter-petition, and the -case came on for hearing. - - ‘Sir Francis Bacon very worthily said that so far as the public - weal was to be regarded before pastimes, or a serviceable - decaying multitude before a handful of particular men, or - profit before pleasure, so far was our suit to be preferred - before theirs.’ - -The players appealed to the Earl of Somerset, who became Lord -Chamberlain and in that capacity their official protector on 10 July -1614, but he proved well affected towards the watermen. The hearing was -adjourned and never resumed, owing to the death of Cope on 31 July, -the promotion of Caesar to the Mastership of the Rolls on 1 October, -and the consequent dissolution of the commission. Ill feeling broke -out between Taylor and his fellows the watermen, who declared that -he met the players at supper at the Cardinal’s Hat on Bankside, and -took bribes of them to let the suit fall. Taylor, therefore, wrote his -pamphlet to vindicate his position.[1057] The completion of the new -Globe and the Hope during the progress of the dispute had probably -eased matters temporarily for the watermen, but the growing tendency -of things theatrical towards Middlesex was not permanently checked. -Some of the minor companies used the Hope until 1617, and then left -it to the bears again. The Globe survived, but will be found to have -occupied during the Caroline period a distinctly secondary position -to the Blackfriars in the economy of the King’s men. For this there -was another reason besides the geographical superiority of Middlesex -over Surrey. The acquisition of the Blackfriars, even though only for -winter purposes, in 1608 was an acknowledgement of the advantages for -adult companies of the ‘private’ or roofed type of theatre, hitherto -used only by boys. Once these advantages were realized, the doom of -the old ‘ring’ type, with its central opening, was written. Probably -the Hope was the only new house constructed on these lines after 1608, -and obviously the Hope required free ventilation to get rid of the -stink of bears and dogs. In 1615 Philip Rosseter and others obtained -sanction for the conversion of Porter’s Hall in the Blackfriars into -a theatre. This was to be used by children as well as adults, and was -probably roofed. It was pulled down again by what seems a somewhat -arbitrary decision in 1617. About the same time, the roofed Cockpit in -Drury Lane was converted into a theatre, under the name of the Phoenix, -for the occupation of the Queen’s men, who migrated to it from the Red -Bull. Whether or not the Fortune was given a roof at the rebuilding -of 1623, or the Red Bull at somewhat the same time, is uncertain; but -at any rate the Salisbury Court theatre, built near the Whitefriars -in 1629, perhaps to replace the old Whitefriars theatre, was a roofed -house.[1058] This was the last new theatre built before the civil -wars. The Blackfriars, the Cockpit, and Salisbury Court were the most -important of the Caroline stages, and in the post-Restoration houses, -although these were on a larger scale than the ‘private’ houses of the -past, the roofed model was invariably adopted. - -Soon after the completion of Salisbury Court, Edmund Howes, who had -already edited the fourth edition of John Stowe’s _Annales_ in 1615, -was again revising the text for the fifth edition of 1631, and took -occasion to append to his account of the burnings of the Globe and the -Fortune the following summary of theatrical enterprise since 1569:[1059] - - ‘In the yeere one thousand sixe hundred twenty nine, there was - builded a new faire Play-house, neere the white Fryers. And this - is the seauenteenth Stage, or common Play-house, which hath - beene new made within the space of threescore yeeres within - London and the Suburbs, _viz._ - - ‘Fiue Innes, or common Osteryes turned to Play-houses, - one _Cockpit_, S. _Paules_ singing Schoole, one in the - _Black-fryers_, and one in the _White-fryers_, which was built - last of all, in the yeare one thousand sixe hundred twenty - nine, all the rest not named, were erected only for common - Play-houses, besides the new built Beare garden, which was - built as well for playes, and Fencers prizes, as Bull bayting; - besides, one in former time at _Newington_ Buts; Before the - space of threescore yeares aboue-sayd, I neither knew, heard, - nor read, of any such Theaters, set Stages, or Play-houses, as - haue beene purposely built within mans memory.’ - -This passage serves as a fair summary of the detailed investigations -set out in this chapter. Howes only allows one house to the Blackfriars -and one to the Whitefriars, and must therefore be leaving out of -account the abortive Porter’s Hall house, and treating Salisbury Court -as a continuation of the earlier Whitefriars. The Hope and Newington -Butts are afterthoughts, and make his seventeen into nineteen. We can -identify his five inns as the Bull, the Bell, the Cross Keys, the -Bel Savage, and probably the Red Lion, although this just antedates -his period of sixty years; while his balance of eight unnamed common -play-houses must be the Theatre, the Curtain, the Rose, the Swan, the -Globe, the Fortune, the Boar’s Head, and the Red Bull. - -Prynne, in his _Histriomastix_ (1633), records six ‘divels chappels’ as -then in use, and these are doubtless the six houses, the Blackfriars, -Globe, Cockpit, Salisbury Court, Fortune, and Red Bull, which are also -noted by the Restoration writers on the stage, John Downes and James -Wright, as surviving up to the cataclysm of the civil wars.[1060] - -Somewhat more confused and vague in their datings are the reminiscences -about 1660 of the Marquis of Newcastle in his letter of advice to -Prince Charles, under the head of ‘Devertismentes for your Ma^{tie} -People’:[1061] - - ‘Firste for London Paris Garden will holde good for the meaner - People. - - ‘Then for severall Playe Houses as ther weare five att leaste In - my Time,-- - - ‘Black-Friers, the Cock-Pitt, Salsburye Courte, the Fortune, - & the Redd Bull,--Ther weare the Boyes thatt played at - Black-Friers, & Paules, & then the Kinges Players played att the - Globe--which is nowe calde the Phenixe [!]--Some Played, att - the Bores heade, & att the Curtin In the feildes & some att the - Hope whiche Is the Beare Garden, and some at White Friers,--Butt - five or Sixe Playe Houses Is enough for all sortes off Peoples - divertion & pleasure In thatt kinde.’ - -The marquis is the only one of the chroniclers who definitely records -the Boar’s Head. - -A manuscript continuation of Stowe’s _Annales_, found in a copy -of the 1631 edition, narrates the havoc wrought by Puritans and -ground-landlords:[1062] - - ‘Play Houses. The Globe play house on the Banks side in - Southwarke, was burnt downe to the ground, in the yeare 1612. - And now built vp againe in the yeare 1613, at the great charge - of King Iames, and many Noble men and others. And now pulled - downe to the ground, by Sir Matthew Brand, On Munday the 15 of - April 1644, to make tenements in the room of it. - - ‘The Blacke Friers players play-house in Blacke Friers, London, - which had stood many yeares, was pulled downe to the ground on - Munday the 6 day of August 1655, and tennements built in the - rome. - - ‘The play house in Salsbury Court, in Fleetstreete, was pulled - downe by a company of souldiers, set on by the sectuaries of - these sad times, on Saturday the 24 day of March 1649. - - ‘The Phenix in Druery Lane, was pulled downe also this day, - being Saterday the 24 day of March 1649, by the same souldiers. - - ‘The Fortune Play-house betweene White Crosse streete and - Golding Lane was burnd downe to the ground in the yeare 1618. - And built againe with brick worke on the outside in the yeare - 1622. And now pulled downe on the inside by the souldiers this - 1649. - - ‘The Hope, on the Banks side in Southwarke, commonly called - the Beare Garden, a Play House for Stage Playes on Mundayes, - Wedensdayes, Fridayes, and Saterdayes, and for the baiting of - the Beares on Tuesdayes and Thursdayes, the stage being made - to take vp and downe when they please. It was built in the - year 1610, and now pulled downe to make tennementes, by Thomas - Walker, a peticoate maker in Cannon Streete, on Tuesday the 25 - day of March 1656. Seuen of M^r. Godfries beares, by the command - of Thomas Pride, then hie Sheriefe of Surry, were then shot to - death, on Saterday the 9 day of February 1655, by a company of - souldiers.’ - -Downes and Wright do not mention the Hope, as they were not discussing -baiting. On the other hand, the annalist says nothing of the fate of -the Red Bull, which in fact appears to have escaped destruction, to -have been occasionally used for ‘drolls’ during the Commonwealth, and -to have served once more, with the Cockpit and Salisbury Court, the -demolition of which was probably limited to the interior fittings, -for the first entertainments of the Restoration. The building of Vere -Street in 1660, Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1661, and Drury Lane in 1663 -made them obsolete.[1063] - -These records leave ambiguous the fate of the Curtain and the Swan. The -Curtain is traceable in occasional use up to about 1627, and is figured -as a roundish building in the ‘Ryther’ maps, which are probably of a -decade later.[1064] It cannot, therefore, have vanished long before -the civil wars, and was the most long-lived of all the theatres. It -may, of course, have been rebuilt, later than its original foundation -in 1576, but as to this there is no evidence. The ‘Ryther’ maps also -show the Fortune. No other maps give any of the theatres on the north -of the river. Of the Bankside houses, the Swan is shown by a decagonal -ground-plan, with the inscription ‘Old Play house’, in the Paris Garden -Manor survey of 1627.[1065] And it is described as still existing side -by side with the Globe and the Hope, but clearly also as derelict, in -the following passage from _Holland’s Leaguer_ (1632): - - ‘Especially, and aboue all the rest, she was most taken with the - report of three famous _Amphytheators_, which stood so neere - scituated, that her eye might take view of them from the lowest - _Turret_, one was the _Continent of the World_, because halfe - the yeere a World of _Beauties_, and braue _Spirits_ resorted - vnto it; the other was a building of excellent _Hope_, and - though _wild beasts_ and _Gladiators_ did most possesse 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 handes with this - Fortresse, beeing in times past as famous as any of the other, - was now fallen to decay, and like a dying _Swanne_, hanging - downe her head, seemed to sing her owne dierge.’[1066] - -I turn now to the maps of the Bankside, which, had they been datable, -and drawn with cartographical precision, ought not only to have -furnished valuable evidence as to the duration of the theatres, but -also to have indicated accurately the position of each amongst the -streets and lanes of the district. Neither condition is, however, -fulfilled. Even where the date of an engraving is known, the date of -the survey on which it was based can, as a rule, be only approximately -determined. And the constant intrusion of pictorial elements, which -gives the maps the character of perspective views rather than of -plans, is naturally emphasized on the Bankside, which has to serve as -a foreground to the design. The main topographical features which have -to be borne in mind are simple, and can easily be related to those -in John Rocque’s map of 1746, as interpreted by Strype’s _Survey_ of -1720, or in a modern Ordnance map. The whole region concerned lies -roughly between the southern approaches to London and Blackfriars -Bridges. It underwent a good deal of development during one period, -especially in the area of the Clink, a liberty lying between Southwark -on the east and another liberty of Paris Garden on the west, and -affording a convenient suburban resort outside the jurisdiction of -the City. Stowe’s account of the neighbourhood in 1598 is perhaps a -little misleading. He describes no more than the Bankside proper, ‘a -continuall building of tenements’ on the riverside, extending about -half a mile west of London Bridge. Here he places, from west to east, -the bear gardens, the former stews, the prison of the Clink, Winchester -House, and the church of St. Mary Overie in Southwark.[1067] This -agrees pretty well with the maps of Agas (_c._ 1561) and Norden -(1593), except that there was already a group of houses falling outside -Stowe’s purview, which stood on the river near Paris Garden Stairs -and practically continued the Bankside westwards. But there was also, -which Stowe does not mention, a marshy _hinterland_ to the Bankside, -of ponds and gardens, among which Agas, and still more Norden, show -a good many scattered houses. By the end of the century there was a -fairly definite north to south street known as Deadman’s Place, which -debouched from the east end of the Bankside, and from which in its turn -struck out one called Maid or Maiden Lane, which went in an irregular -line westwards over the marshes, and was finally joined by two -divergent ways, Love Lane and Gravel (afterwards Holland) Lane, to the -Paris Garden group of houses. Thus was formed a rough parallelogram, -half a mile long, and from 200 to 350 feet deep, within or near which -all the theatrical sites are placed by the maps. In Norden’s map of -1593, both the Bear House and the Play House, which must be the Rose, -stand considerably to the west of Deadman’s Place. The Bear House is -the most westerly of the two, and is about halfway between the Bankside -houses on the north and Maid Lane on the south. The Rose is a good -deal nearer Maid Lane. In the Delaram views (1603–20) there are three -flagged, but unnamed, structures. One which stands well back from -the river and, after allowing for the view-point, appears slightly -the most easterly of the three, is cylindrical; the upper half is -alone windowed, and has a smaller diameter than the lower half. It is -placed amongst trees and meadows. There is nothing which obviously -indicates Maid Lane.[1068] The two other buildings stand much nearer -the river’s edge, amongst houses; they are angled, probably octagonal, -and not cylindrical. The ‘Hondius’ views repeat the cylindrical -building and the most westerly of the two angled buildings much in -the same relative position; the intermediate one has disappeared. It -seems obvious that the cylindrical building must be the Globe, and -the other two the Bear Garden, afterwards the Hope, to the west, and -the Rose, left out of the ‘Hondius’ group, because it disappeared in -1605, in the centre. The Delaram and ‘Hondius’ views do not extend -far enough west to include the Swan. It is shown by Visscher in 1616, -and named. So are the Bear Garden and the Globe, both of which appear -as angled buildings, octagonal or hexagonal, about equidistant from -the Bankside houses, and north of Maid Lane, the angle of which next -Deadman’s Place is shown.[1069] As the change from a cylindrical to an -angled representation of the Globe coincides with the rebuilding of the -house in 1614, we may perhaps infer that the structural form is not -a mere cartographic convention.[1070] It is rather singular that in -the Merian maps (_circa_ 1638) there are four houses again, including -the Swan, well to the west. This, with two of the three houses in the -eastern group, is named by the engraver. A third unnamed house stands -between the Globe on the east and the Bear Garden on the west, which is -approximately where the Rose used to stand. It is distinctly nearer the -river than the other two, but all three are north of Maid Lane, from -which the Bear Garden is slightly more remote than the Globe.[1071] -If the Rose had actually a second term of existence, it was probably -only a brief one.[1072] The fullest of the Ryther maps (_c._ 1636–45) -has two angled buildings, one to the west, rather nearer to Bankside -than to Maid Lane; the other to the east, and south of Maid Lane, -standing in an angle between that and a track running from north-west -to south-east. There are no names, but obviously the eastern house is -the Globe, and the western the Hope, and indeed the dogs can be made -out. The track joining Maid Lane may be Globe Alley. The Hollar view of -1647 shows two cylindrical, not angled, buildings. One lettered ‘The -Globe’ is on the extreme brink of the river; the other, to the east and -south of it, is lettered ‘Beere bayting’. Faithorne and Newcourt, in -1658, give no theatres proper, but only a ring marked ‘Beare garden’. -Finally, Leeke and Hollar about 1666 give a single unnamed roundish -theatre, south of Maid Lane. Presumably it is the Globe, but copied -from a survey of earlier date, as the Globe had been pulled down for -tenements in 1644. - -On the whole, the maps are disappointing guides. It seems more -probable than has quite been recognized, that the singular two-storied -structure shown by Hondius and Delaram really represents the earlier, -the Shakespearian, Globe. And the representation of a fourth house by -Merian, even if he did not know its name, gives support to the view -that the Rose may have had some kind of existence at a later date than -the Sewers records indicate. But as regards the alinement, the distance -from the river, and the relation to Maid Lane, of the three houses in -the Clink, it is clear that no consistent story is told. The general -impression one gets is that the Hope stood farthest to the west, then -the Rose, and then the Globe; and that the Rose stood nearest to the -river, then the Hope, and then the Globe. Nor is this inconsistent with -documentary evidence, which in particular indicates that the parcel of -land, on which the latest of the Bear Gardens was built, was contiguous -on the west to that known as ‘the little Rose’.[1073] Bear Garden and -Rose Alley, running side by side from the Bankside into Maid Lane -or Park Street, are traceable in eighteenth-century maps and in the -modern Ordnance map.[1074] Did one judge by the maps alone, one would -probably, in spite of the dissenting testimony of ‘Ryther’ and of Leeke -and Hollar, come to the conclusion that the Globe stood to the north -of Maid Lane. The balance of other evidence points unmistakably in the -other direction.[1075] - - - B. THE PUBLIC THEATRES - - i. The Red Lion Inn. - ii. The Bull Inn. - iii. The Bell Inn. - iv. The Bel Savage Inn. - v. The Cross Keys Inn. - vi. The Theatre. - vii. The Curtain. - viii. Newington Butts. - ix. The Rose. - x. The Swan. - xi. The Globe. - xii. The Fortune. - xiii. The Boar’s Head. - xiv. The Red Bull. - xv. The Hope. - xvi. Porter’s Hall. - - - i. THE RED LION INN - -The following record appears in the court books of the Carpenters’ -Company:[1076] - - Courte holden the xv^{th} daie of Julie 1567, Annoque Regni - Reginae Eliz. nono by M^r William Ruddoke, M^r Richard More, - Henrye Whreste & Richard Smarte wardeins, & M^r Bradshawe. - - Memorandum that at courte holden the daie & yeare abovesayd - that, whear certaine varyaunce, discord & debate was betwene - Wyllyam Sylvester carpenter on thone partie & John Brayne - grocer on thother partie, yt is agreed, concluded & fullie - determyned by the saide parties, by the assent & consent of them - bothe, with the advise of the M^r & wardeins abovesayd that - Willyam Buttermore, John Lyffe, Willyam Snellinge & Richard - Kyrbye, Carpenters, shall with expedicon goe & peruse suche - defaultes as are & by them shalbe found of in & aboute suche - skaffoldes, as he the said Willyam hathe mad at the house called - the Red Lyon in the parishe of Stebinyhuthe, & the said Willyam - Sillvester shall repaire & amend the same with their advize - substancyallie, as they shall thinke good. And that the said - John Brayne, on Satterdaie next ensuenge the date above written, - shall paye to the sayd Willyam Sylvester the some of eight - poundes, tenne shillinges, lawfull money of England, & that - after the playe, which is called the storye of Sampson, be once - plaied at the place aforesaid the said John shall deliver to - the said Willyam such bondes as are now in his custodie for the - performaunce of the bargaine. In witnesse whereof both parties - hereunto hathe sett their handes. - - by me John Brayne grocer. - [Sylvester’s mark.] - -This is the only notice of the Red Lion playing-inn which has been -preserved, but John Brayne, grocer, is doubtless the same who financed -his brother-in-law, James Burbadge, in the far more important -enterprise of the Theatre in 1576. Stebunheth or Stepney was a parish -in Middlesex, lying to the east of the City, beyond Whitechapel, and, -although near enough to be in a sense a suburb, was outside the civic -jurisdiction. - - - ii. THE BULL INN - -The first notice of the Bull is on 7 June 1575 when the playing of a -‘prize’ there is recorded in the register of the School of Defence. -It appears to have been the most popular of all localities for this -purpose and there are fourteen similar notices of its use in the -register, ending with one on 3 July 1590.[1077] Florio refers to it -as a place for plays in 1578.[1078] Stephen Gosson in his _Schoole of -Abuse_ (1579) exempts from his ordinary condemnation of plays _The Jew_ -and _Ptolemy_ ‘shown at the Bull’.[1079] On 1 July 1582 the Earl of -Warwick asked permission from the Lord Mayor for his servant John David -to play his provost prizes at ‘the Bull in Bishopsgatestrete or some -other conuenient place to be assigned within the liberties of London’. -This was refused, much to Warwick’s annoyance, on the ground that an -inn was a place ‘somewhat to close for infection’, and David appointed -to play ‘in an open place of the Leaden hall’.[1080] The Bull, with -the Bell, was assigned by a civic order of 28 November 1583 to the -Queen’s men for their first winter season. Tarlton and the Queen’s men -are said in the _Jests_ to have played ‘oftentimes’ at ‘the Bull in -Bishops-gate-street’, and here their play of _The Famous Victories of -Henry the Fifth_, with Tarlton in the parts of the judge and the clown -and Knell in that of Henry, was given.[1081] This must, of course, have -been between 1583 and Tarlton’s death in 1588. In 1592 the translator -of _The Spaniard’s Monarchie_ disclaims any ‘title fetched from the -Bull within Bishopsgate, as a figge for a Spaniard’. I do not know -whether any old play underlying the Admiral’s (q.v.) _Spanish Fig_ of -1601–2 can be referred to. The house was still in use during 1594, for -in April or May of that year Anthony Bacon settled in Bishopsgate, to -the vexation of his mother, ‘on account of its neighbourhood to the -Bull Inn, where plays and interludes were continually acted, and would, -she imagined, corrupt his servants’.[1082] Richard Flecknoe mentions -the Bull in Bishopsgate Street, with the Cross-Keys, as one of the inns -turned into theatres at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, as -was ‘at this day to be seen’ in 1664.[1083] The site was at No. 91 on -the west of Bishopsgate Street, and is shown in Hatton’s map of 1708, -and the Ordnance Survey maps of 1848–51 and 1875. - - - iii. THE BELL INN - -This inn existed in 1560, for on 12 June of that year ‘the wyff of the -Bell in Gracyous-strett’ was carted as a bawd and whore.[1084] Plays -must have been used there in 1576–7, in the Revels Account for which -year an item of 10_d._ is included ‘ffor the cariadge of the partes -of y^e well counterfeit from the Bell in Gracious strete to St. Iohns -to be performed for the play of Cutwell’.[1085] With the Bull, it was -assigned to the Queen’s men by a civic order of 28 November 1583 for -their first winter season. _Tarlton’s Jests_ also mention Tarlton and -‘his fellowes’, probably the Queen’s men, as performing at the Bell -‘by’ the Cross Keys which was also in Gracious Street, and this must -have been before Tarlton’s death in 1588.[1086] Both houses may be -included in Rawlidge’s reference to play-houses in Gracious street and -elsewhere ‘put down’ by the City in Elizabeth’s time. I suppose that -the site is that of Bell Yard at No. 12 on the west of Gracechurch -Street.[1087] - - - iv. THE BEL SAVAGE INN - -The Bel Savage is named as an early London play-house in the 1596 -edition of Lambarde’s _Perambulation of Kent_. This inn, of which the -name is still preserved on Ludgate Hill, where it stood until 1873 -(Harben, 63), must be distinguished from another in Gracechurch Street -once kept by Tarlton, which in his time was known as the Saba.[1088] -The origin of the name is obscure; a deed of 1452 refers to an ‘inn -... called Savages Inn, otherwise called the Bell on the Hoop, in the -parishe of St. Bride in Fleet Street’ (_L. T. R._ ii. 71). Probably -therefore the notion of the Belle Sauvage is a later perversion. -Gascoigne, in the prologue to his _Glass of Government_ (1575), -repudiates the ‘worthie jests’ and ‘vain delights’ of ‘Bellsavage -fair’.[1089] Gosson, in 1579, excepts from his general condemnation -of plays ‘the two prose books, played at the Belsavage, where you -shall find never a word without wit, never a line without pith, never -a letter placed in vain’.[1090] A play-house ‘on Ludgate Hill’ is -included by Rawlidge in his list of those ‘put down’ in Elizabeth’s -time. Probably the Queen’s men were acting at the Bel Savage in 1588, -for after the death of Tarlton in that year was published ‘a sorowfull -newe sonnette, intituled Tarltons Recantacion uppon this theame gyven -him by a gentleman at the Belsavage without Ludgate (nowe or els -never) beinge the laste theame he songe’.[1091] Prynne’s reference -to _Dr. Faustus_ (q.v.) at the Bel Savage suggests that at some time -the Admiral’s also played there. It was also occasionally used for -the playing of ‘prizes’; the earliest recorded date in the Register -of the School of Defence being in 1575–7 and the latest on 31 January -1589.[1092] - - - v. THE CROSS KEYS INN - -This inn may have been the play-house, or one of the play-houses, -‘in Gracious Street’ said by Rawlidge to have been ‘put down’ under -Elizabeth. The first notice of it dates from 23 June 1579, on which -day James Burbadge was arrested at the suit of John Hynde for £5 1_s._ -1_d._, ‘as he came down Gracious Street towards the Cross Keys there -to a play’. The house is described as the dwelling-house of Richard -Ibotson, citizen and brewer of London.[1093] It was in use as a place -of popular amusement during the life of Tarlton, who died in 1588, -for one of the Jests relates how he came from the Bell, where he was -playing to ‘the Crosse-Keyes in Gracious streete’ to see Banks’s -performing horse there.[1094] A company can first be definitely -located at it in 1589, on 5 November of which year Lord Strange’s men, -as reported by Lord Mayor Hart to Burghley, disobeyed an admonition -to forbear playing, and ‘went to the Crosse Keys and played that -afternoon’. In 1594 Strange’s men were absorbed in Lord Hunsdon’s, and -on 8 October 1594 Hunsdon wrote to the Lord Mayor to obtain toleration -for ‘my nowe companie of players’ who had been accustomed ‘to plaie -this winter time within the citye at the Crosse Kayes in Gracious -street’.[1095] How long Shakespeare’s fellows continued to use the -Cross Keys as a winter house is unknown; presumably it ceased to be -available in 1596. The adaptation of the inn as a theatre was still -visible at the Restoration, and is assigned by Richard Flecknoe to -‘about the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign’. The site is shown in -Ogilby and Morgan’s map of 1677 and the Ordnance Survey map of 1848–51: -it is on the west of Gracechurch Street. - - - vi. THE THEATRE - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Material is available in the records - of four litigations: (a) _Peckham v. Allen_ (Wards and Liveries, - 1589) as to the title to the site; (b) _Burbadge v. Ames et al._ - (Coram Rege, 1596–9) and _Earl of Rutland v. Allen and Burbadge_ - (Exchequer, 1599–1602) as to the title to a neighbouring - plot; (c) _Burbadge v. Brayne_ (Chancery, 1588–95). _Brayne_ - (afterwards _Miles_) _v. Burbadge_ (Chancery, 1590–5), and - _Miles v. Burbadge_ (Requests, 1597), as to the profits of the - house; (d) _Allen v. Street_ (Coram Rege, 1600), _Burbadge v. - Allen_ (Requests, 1600), _Allen v. Burbadge_ (Queen’s Bench, - 1601–2), and _Allen v. Burbadge et al._ (Star Chamber, 1601–2), - as to the removal of the fabric. A few documents from these, - some of which he supposed to relate to the Blackfriars, were - printed by Collier in _Memoirs of the Actors_ (1846 and _H. E. - D. P._ iii. 257) and in _Original History of the Theatre in - Shoreditch_ (1849, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 63). A large number - were used by Halliwell-Phillipps for his excursus on _The - Theatre and Curtain_ (_Outlines_, i. 345), and in C. C. Stopes, - _Burbage and Shakespeare’s Stage_ (1913), where abstracts of - (a) and (b) may be consulted. The full texts of (c) and (d) are - printed in C. W. Wallace, _The First London Theatre, Materials - for a History_ (1913, _Nebraska University Studies_, xiii. 1). - The exact locality of the site has been carefully investigated - by W. W. Braines in _Holywell Priory and the Site of the - Theatre, Shoreditch_ (1915, _Indication of Houses of Historical - Interest in London_, xliii), and again in _The Site of the - Theatre, Shoreditch_ (1917, _L. T. R._ xi. 1).] - -The following statement as to the beginnings of theatrical enterprise -in London is made by Cuthbert Burbadge and his family in the so-called -_Sharers Papers_ of 1635:[1096] - - ‘The father of us, Cutbert and Richard Burbage, was the first - builder of playehowses, and was himselfe in his younger yeeres - a player. The Theater hee built with many hundred poundes taken - up at interest. The players that lived in those first times had - onely the profitts arising from the dores, but now the players - receave all the commings in at the dores to themselves and halfe - the galleries from the houskepers. Hee built this house upon - leased ground, by which meanes the landlord and hee had a great - suite in law, and, by his death, the like troubles fell on us, - his sonnes; wee then bethought us of altering from thence, and - at like expence built the Globe.’ - -The accuracy of this is fully borne out by the records of the various -legal proceedings in connexion with the Theatre, which a painful -investigation has exhumed, and the topographical indications furnished -by the evidence in some of these have made it possible to locate with -some precision the site of London’s first regular play-house. - -The Theatre stood in the Liberty of Halliwell or Holywell, part of the -Middlesex parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, immediately outside -the Bishopsgate entrance to the City.[1097] The name of the Liberty -was derived from an ancient holy well, which has now disappeared, and -its status from the fact that it had been the property of a priory of -Benedictine nuns. The buildings of the priory lay between Shoreditch -High Street, leading north from Bishopsgate, on the east and the open -Finsbury fields on the west. Its southern gate was in a lane leading -from the High Street to the Fields, then and still known as Holywell -Lane or Street, on the south of which lay the Prioress’s pasture -called the Curtain. Part of this south end of the liberty, lying on -both sides of Holywell Lane, had been leased in 1537 and 1538 to the -Earls of Rutland, who continued to hold it from the Crown after the -dissolution in 1539, and obtained a renewed lease in 1584.[1098] The -rest of the property, including the main conventual buildings, was -sold in 1544 to one Henry Webb, whose daughter Susan and her husband -Sir George Peckham sold it in 1555 to Christopher Bumsted, and he in -the same year to Christopher Allen and his son Giles. The alienation -of 1555 was challenged as illegal by Susan Peckham’s heirs in 1582, -and ultimately, but not until about thirty years later, they appear -to have made good their claim.[1099] In the meantime Giles Allen had -leased a part of the property, which became the site of the Theatre, -to James Burbadge on 13 April 1576.[1100] This was bounded to the -north by the wall of Allen’s own garden, probably corresponding to the -main cloister of the convent, on the east or south-east by the Earl -of Rutland’s holding, and on the west by a ditch dividing it from the -open Finsbury fields. Within the ditch and divided from it by a strip -of void ground, was the old brick wall of the precinct. On the extreme -south was a bit of void ground lying between an Oat Barn occupied by -Rutland and another Great Barn included in the lease. The Oat Barn and -the void ground were in fact debatable property claimed both by Allen -and Rutland. North of the Great Barn, and immediately to the east of -the precinct wall was more void and garden ground; farther to the east -the ‘inner court yarde’ of the convent. This held tenements backing -upon Allen’s garden to the north, and others, including a mill-house, -backing on the garden ground to the west. In this yard was a well, -probably the eponymous ‘Holywell’, which fed a horsepond by Rutland’s -stable on the south-east, and then drained away through the debatable -ground to the Finsbury ditch.[1101] Since Burbadge’s barn is known to -have been shored up to the Theatre, it is evident that this must have -been constructed in the void and garden ground between the tenements -and the precinct wall, and as there was no right of way through -Rutland’s holding from Holywell Lane, an entrance was made through -the wall direct from Finsbury fields. The Theatre itself, indeed, was -sometimes loosely spoken of as ‘in the fields’.[1102] Working from -later title-deeds of the locality, Mr. Braines has successfully located -the precise site of the building in the angle now formed by Curtain -Road, which occupies the strip of void ground between the precinct wall -and Finsbury ditch, and New Inn Yard, which occupies a strip of the -‘debateable ground’ and a strip also of the site of the Great Barn. -The site is now part of the premises of the Curtain Road Elementary -School.[1103] - -Burbadge’s lease was for a term of twenty-one years from Lady Day 1576. -He was to pay a fine of £20 and an annual rent of £14. He covenanted -to spend £200 within the first ten years in improving the existing -buildings, and in return Allen covenanted to make a new lease for -twenty-one years at any time within the first ten years, and also to -allow the tenant at any time within the term of either lease ‘to take -down such building as should within the sayd tenne yeeres be erected -on the sayd voyde growndes for a theater or playinge place’. It was -also agreed that Allen and his wife and family ‘vpon lawfull request -therfore made’ should be entitled ‘to enter or come into the premisses -and their in some one of the vpper romes to have such convenient place -to sett or stande to se such playes as shalbe ther played freely -without any thinge therefore payeinge soe that the sayd Gyles hys wyfe -and familie doe com and take ther places before they shalbe taken vpp -by any others’. Burbadge, a joiner as well as a player, had probably -the technical qualifications for his enterprise. But he was a man of -small means, not worth above 100 marks, and had no credit.[1104] He -found a partner in his brother-in-law, John Brayne, a well-to-do grocer -of Bucklersbury, who had already been connected with a play-house -speculation at the Red Lion inn. The association proved a calamitous -one, and its history can only be traced through the dubious _ex parte_ -statements of later litigation. Burbadge, in an unfortunately mutilated -document, appears to have alleged that Brayne acquired an interest by -means of a promise, which he afterwards evaded, to leave it to his -sister’s children.[1105] Robert Miles, of the George Inn, Whitechapel, -a friend of Brayne, who supported and ultimately inherited the case -of his widow, told a different story.[1106] He had heard Burbadge -‘earnestlie insynuate’ Brayne to join in the transaction, as one which -‘wold grow to ther contynual great profitt and commodytie’. Brayne was -‘verye loth to deale in the matter’, and complained later to Miles -that it was ‘his vtter vndoing’, and that he would never have touched -it, but for the ‘swete and contynuall’ persuasions of Burbadge. His -brother-in-law had assured him that the cost of erecting the play-house -would not exceed £200, and after it had already cost £500, urged that -‘it was no matter’, and that the profits ‘wold shortlie quyte the -cost vnto them bothe’. Obviously Brayne was out for profits, and had -to take his risks. But if the account of Miles is to be trusted, he -had also definite grievances against his partner. Burbadge’s small -contribution to the outlay was partly made in material, for which he -overcharged at the rate of sixpence for a groat’s worth. When funds -ran short, Brayne and his wife worked as labourers on the structure, -while Burbadge, if he set his hand to a job, took the regular rate -of wages for it. And there is some corroboration of a more serious -charge of ‘indyrect dealing’, after the house was opened, about the -‘collecting of the money for the gallories’.[1107] Miles alleged that -during a space of two years Burbadge used a secret key made by one -Braye, a smith in Shoreditch, to filch from ‘the commen box where the -money gathered at the said playes was putt in’, thus cheating ‘his -fellowes the players’ as well as Brayne. He would also ‘thrust some of -the money devident betwene him and his said ffellowes in his bosome -or other where about his bodye’. The Theatre was in use by 1 August -1577, as it is mentioned by name in the Privy Council inhibition of -that date.[1108] But it was opened before the work was completed, and -the last stages were paid for out of the profits.[1109] Moreover, -in addition to what Brayne and Burbadge could find, money had to -be raised on mortgage, with the result that Brayne never got full -security for his interest in the undertaking. He was not a party to -the original lease, thinking that if a joint lease were entered into, -the survivor would take all.[1110] When a draft assurance of a moiety -of the profits to him was prepared on 9 August 1577, it could not be -executed because the lease was at pawn, and ultimately, on 22 May -1578, Burbadge gave him a bond of £400 to assure in due course.[1111] -An assurance was, however, never made. The friction between the -partners led to violent disputes. On one occasion, after high words -in a scrivener’s shop, ‘Burbage did there strike him with his fist -and so they went together by the eares in somuch that this deponent -could herdly part them’.[1112] On 12 July 1578 they submitted their -differences to arbitrators, who decided that, with the exception of -10_s._ weekly for Brayne’s housekeeping and 8s. for Burbadge’s out of -the profits of ‘such playes as should be playd there vpon Sundaies’, -the first charge upon the rents and profits of the property should be -the repayment of debts due upon the theatre. Thereafter Brayne should -take them ‘till he shuld be answered suche somes of money which he had -lade out for and vpon the same Theatre more then the said Burbage had -done’. And when this claim too was discharged, the rents and profits -should ‘go in devydent equallye betwene them’. Should it be necessary -to raise money on mortgage, it should be a joint mortgage, and its -redemption would then come in as the first claim on the rents and -profits. Burbadge gave Brayne a further bond of £200 for the keeping -of this award.[1113] On 26 September 1579 a mortgage was in fact -entered into for a loan of £125 from John Hyde, grocer, to be repaid -in a year. The amount, however, was not forthcoming, and although -Hyde made an arrangement to take £5 a week out of the profits, he -only got it for four or five weeks. In June 1582 he arrested Burbadge -and got £20 out of him. Shortly afterwards he claimed forfeiture of -the lease, and as Burbadge warned him that Brayne ‘wold catch what -he cold’, appointed one of his own servants with Burbadge ‘to gather -vp v^{li} wekely during the tyme of playes’. In this way he got back -another £20 or £30. There was, however, still at least £30 outstanding -when Brayne died in August 1586.[1114] His widow Margaret claimed a -moiety of the interest under the lease as his heir. At first, we hear, -Burbadge allowed her ‘half of the profittes of the gallaries’, but only -so long as she could lay out money ‘to the necessary vse of the said -playe howsse’, and when she had so spent £30, he said that he must -take all the profits until the debts were paid, made her gather as a -servant, and finally thrust her out altogether.[1115] Meanwhile Hyde -was getting impatient for his money. He had promised Mrs. Brayne that, -if he were satisfied, he would reassure the lease to her and Burbadge -jointly, but not to either party separately. But now he said that he -must convey it to whichever would pay him first, and being approached -through Walter Cope, the master of Burbadge’s son Cuthbert, he did in -fact, on some promise that Mrs. Brayne should not be wronged, take his -£30 and make over the lease to Cuthbert Burbadge on 7 June 1589.[1116] -Henceforward Cuthbert, and not his father, was the ostensible tenant -of the property. This transaction stimulated Mrs. Brayne to assert her -claims. About a year before the Burbadges had brought an action against -her in Chancery, apparently in the hope of enforcing the alleged -promise of Brayne to leave his interest to his sister’s children; and -she now retorted with a counteraction against James and Cuthbert, in -which she claimed to have an assignment of a moiety of the lease.[1117] -Her chief witness was the Robert Miles on whose statements this -narrative has already drawn. He was not of unimpeachable reputation. -His long association with Brayne had ended in a quarrel. Brayne had -‘charged Miles with his deathe, by certaine stripes geven him by -Miles’. The widow had accused him before the coroner and procured his -indictment as ‘a comon barreter’. Afterwards they had become friends, -and he was now maintaining Mrs. Brayne in her suit.[1118] Much of his -evidence, however, received corroboration from his son Ralph, from -William Nicoll, a notary who had prepared the deeds connected with -the partnership, and from Edward Collins, who had acquired Brayne’s -grocery business in Bucklersbury. Burbadge, on the other hand, relied -largely on one Henry Bett, who had had an opportunity of perusing Mrs. -Brayne’s papers, and had then transferred his services to the other -side. We cannot perhaps assume that all the evidence in the cross-suits -is preserved. So far as what we have goes, there seems to have been -no attempt on Burbadge’s part to defend himself against the charge of -indirect dealing during the early years of partnership. Nor were the -main facts as to the history of the lease much in dispute. The chief -issue was as to Mrs. Brayne’s equitable claim to an interest in it, -and this of course turned largely on the state of the account between -Brayne and Burbadge at the death of the former. Miles asserted that -the expenditure on the building of the Theatre in cash and credit had -been practically all Brayne’s, that he had started as a rich man, but -had had to sell his lease and stock in Bucklersbury and pawn his own -wardrobe and his wife’s to get the work finished, that he was ruined, -and that Mrs. Brayne was now ‘vtterlye vndone’ by the suit, and owed -500 marks to her friends.[1119] On the other side it was claimed that -Brayne’s wealth, variously reputed at from £500 to £1,000, had been -exaggerated, that he was already involved when he took the Theatre in -hand, and that his downfall was largely due to unfortunate investments -outside the partnership, especially in a soap-making business carried -on with Miles at the George, where in fact Burbadge had incurred losses -in helping him.[1120] Bett, moreover, said that, while Brayne ‘would -never plainlie declare’ what his profits on the Theatre had been, ‘yt -seemed by his taulke, that he had gayned and receyved a grete deale of -monye, more than he had disbursed’.[1121] The actual figures produced -in the course of the case, which are sufficient to enable us to arrive -at a fair estimate of the main position, do not quite bear out this -suggestion. Towards the original outlay Burbadge seems to have found -about £50; Brayne as much and £239 more, which he claimed as due to him -from the partnership. In addition there were outside debts outstanding -at the time of his death to the amount of at least £220. Something, -moreover, had already been spent out of takings before 1586 in payments -on Hyde’s mortgage. So that we may perhaps reasonably accept the total -cost of the building as being somewhere about the 1,000 marks (£666) at -which common repute estimated it.[1122] A certain amount of building -material, worth perhaps 100 marks, was still in hand. All that Brayne -could be shown to have received as against his considerable outlay was -a sum of £135 1_s._, for which his receipt was produced. What Burbadge -had received it is difficult to say. A comparison of various estimates -suggests that after Brayne’s death it may have been between £100 and -£200 a year.[1123] On the other hand, he had paid off the debt of -£220 which Brayne had left outstanding. And throughout he had been -responsible, without aid from Brayne, for certain outgoings independent -of the structure of the Theatre, for which he was entitled to claim -credit. He had paid £230 in rent and laid out at least £220 in putting -the tenements in order, as well as at least £30 early in 1592 on the -repair of the Theatre itself.[1124] - -The fortunes of the case in Chancery were various. In 1590 the -Court seemed inclined to grant a sequestration of half the profits; -but instead made an order that the arbitrament of 1578 should be -observed.[1125] On the strength of this Mrs. Brayne and Miles came -to the Theatre on more than one occasion, and claimed to appoint -collectors, including one Nicholas Bishop, who was asked to stand -‘at the door that goeth vppe to the gallaries of the said Theater to -take and receyve for the vse of the said Margarett half the money that -shuld be gyven to come vppe into the said gallaries at that door’. They -were, however, refused access, and on 16 November 1590 there was a row -royal, of which independent witness was borne by John Alleyn, of the -Admiral’s men, who were then playing at the Theatre. James Burbadge, -‘looking out at a wyndoe vpon them’, joined his wife in reviling them -as a murdering knave and whore, and expressed his contempt for the -order of Chancery; Cuthbert, who came home in the middle of the fray, -backed him up; while Richard Burbadge, the youngest son, snatched up a -broom-staff, and as he afterwards boasted, paid Robert Miles his moiety -with a beating. He also threatened Nicholas Bishop, ‘scornfully and -disdainfullye playing with this deponentes nose’. James said that at -their next coming his sons should provide pistols charged with powder -and hempseed to shoot them in the legs.[1126] Both Cuthbert and James -were summoned on 28 November for contempt before the court, which -instead of dealing with this charge proceeded to take the whole case -into further consideration.[1127] This was something of a triumph for -Burbadge, who continued to resist the order, and repeated with oaths -that twenty contempts and as many injunctions would not force him to -give up his property. This was heard by John Alleyn in the Theatre yard -about May 1591, and about eight days later ‘in the Attyring housse or -place where the players make them ready’, on the occasion of a dispute -with the Admiral’s men about some of ‘the dyvydent money between him -and them’ which he had detained, Burbadge was equally irreverent before -Alleyn and James Tunstall about the Lord Admiral himself, saying ‘by -a great othe, that he cared not for iij of the best lordes of them -all’.[1128] Margaret Brayne died in 1593, leaving her estate to Miles, -who thus became a principal in the suit.[1129] And on 28 May 1595 the -court came to the decision that it could not entertain the case, until -Miles had endeavoured to obtain relief at common law, by suing on the -two bonds which Burbadge had given to Brayne in 1578.[1130] He does not -seem to have thought it worth while to do this, probably because he -saw very little chance of recovering money from James Burbadge, while -Cuthbert, who now held the lease, was not a party to the bonds.[1131] - -It is the personality of Burbadge rather than the conduct of the -Theatre that these details illumine. But we may gather that the -building was constructed mainly of timber with some ironwork, that it -had a tiring-house and galleries, one at least of which was divided -into upper rooms, where spectators could sit as well as stand, and -that money was taken by appointed gatherers, placed in locked boxes, -and subsequently shared out amongst those entitled to it.[1132] From -other sources it appears that 1_d._ was charged for admission to the -building and 1_d._ or 2_d._ more for a place in the galleries.[1133] -Apparently the players took the entrance fee and the owners of the -house the whole or an agreed proportion of the gallery money. In the -winter of 1585 an interesting arrangement was entered into between -Burbadge and Brayne on the one hand and Henry Lanman, owner of the -neighbouring Curtain, on the other, by which during a period of seven -years the Curtain was taken ‘as an Esore’ to the Theatre, and the -profits of both houses pooled and equally divided between the two -parties. This arrangement was still operative in 1592.[1134] Kiechel -tells us that the number of galleries was three, and De Witt that the -shape was that of an ‘amphitheatrum’.[1135] It is impossible to trace -with any certainty the successive occupation of the Theatre by various -companies of players or to reconstruct the list of plays produced upon -the boards. Its occupants were Burbadge’s ‘fellows’ at the time of his -frauds of 1576–8, and may reasonably be identified with Leicester’s, -of whom he was certainly one in 1574.[1136] Stephen Gosson tells us -in 1579 that amongst plays then ‘vsually brought in to the Theater’, -were _The Blacksmith’s Daughter_ and his own _Catiline’s Conspiracies_, -and in 1582 assigns to the same house Lodge’s, if it was Lodge’s, -_Play of Plays and Pastimes_ given on the last 23 February, the play -of _The Fabii_ and possibly the history of _Caesar and Pompey_.[1137] -Presumably _The Fabii_ is _The Four Sons of Fabius_, presented by -Warwick’s men at Court on 1 January 1580. Warwick’s men had therefore -probably replaced Leicester’s at the Theatre, and it was the same men, -then in the service of the Earl of Oxford, who were concerned in a riot -at the Theatre on 10 April 1580.[1138] In 1582 came the controversy -between Edmund Peckham and Giles Allen about the freehold of the -Theatre site, as a result of which Burbadge was ‘disturbed and trobled -in his possession’, and ‘the players for sooke the said Theater to -his great losse’.[1139] So there was probably another change at this -time. And in 1583 there was a complete reshuffling of all the London -companies on the formation of the Queen’s men. Professor Wallace, who -is primarily considering that part of the evidence which he has himself -discovered, says that the Queen’s did not act at the Theatre.[1140] But -most certainly they did. It is true that, when an inhibition against -the Theatre and Curtain was obtained on 14 June 1584, the owner of the -Theatre, ‘a stubburne fellow’, described himself as Lord Hunsdon’s man. -Nevertheless the only companies named as concerned are the Queen’s and -Arundel’s, and Burbadge may not himself have been then acting.[1141] -And as to the presence of the Queen’s in the Theatre at some date there -is no doubt. Tarlton is not traceable in any other company than the -Queen’s, and it was at the Theatre that Tarlton made jests of Richard -Harvey’s _Astrological Discourse upon the Conjunction of Saturn and -Jupiter_, published in 1583.[1142] The Queen’s certainly did not -confine themselves to the Theatre; but that they were there again in -1589 may be inferred from a mock testament of Martin Marprelate in -_Martins Month’s Mind_, in which he is made to admit that he learned -his twittle tattles ... at the Theater of Lanam and his fellows’. A -marginal note in the same pamphlet indicates that it was at the Theatre -that the ‘Maygame’ representing the ‘launcing and worming’ of Martin -was staged, and there is other evidence that Laneham, then one of the -Queen’s men, was one of the players who took a part in the ribald -controversy.[1143] Gabriel Harvey’s scoff at Lyly as ‘the Foolemaster -of the Theatre’ may perhaps indicate his authorship of plays for the -house. In 1590–1 it is clear that the Admiral’s men, probably already -associated with Strange’s, were at the Theatre, and their quarrel with -Burbadge doubtless led them to cross the river and join Henslowe at -the Rose. After the reconstitution of the companies in 1594, James -Burbadge’s son Richard became a leading member of the Chamberlain’s -men, and it is probable that, when this company left the Rose about the -middle of June, it was to the Theatre that they went. Here _Hamlet_, -which certainly belonged to them, was being acted in 1596.[1144] It -must be added that the Theatre was not strictly reserved for the -purposes of the legitimate drama. It was built for ‘activities’, -amongst other things, according to Stowe, and prizes of the School of -Defence were played at it between 1578 and 1585.[1145] On 22 February -1582, there took place at the Theatre ‘a scurvie play set oot al by one -virgin, which there proved a fyemarten without voice, so that we stayed -not the matter’.[1146] - -It was a natural consequence of the success of Burbadge’s new departure -that the Theatre and its immediate successor, the Curtain, had to bear -the brunt of the Puritan denunciations of the stage. These incidentally -bore witness to the costly elaborateness of the new accommodation -provided for the players.[1147] Apart from the moral corruption upon -which the Puritans laid most stress, there is some evidence that the -position of the Theatre, with a great space of open ground before it, -made it a natural focus for the disorderly elements of society. As -early as 5 October 1577, just after the resumption of plays for the -autumn, the Mayor and Recorder Fleetwood were listening to ‘a brabell -betwene John Wotton and the Leuetenuntes sonne of the one parte, and -certain ffreholders of Shordyche, for a matter at the Theater’. There -was serious trouble in the course of 1584. Fleetwood wrote to Burghley -how on 8 June, ‘very nere the Theatre or Curten, at the tyme of the -playes, there laye a prentice sleping upon the grasse and one Challes -_alias_ Grostock dyd turne upon the too upon the belly of the same -prentice; whereupon the apprentice start up, and after wordes they -fell to playne bloues’; and how on 10 June, ‘one Browne, a serving man -in a blew coat, a shifting fellowe, having a perrelous witt of his -owne, entending a spoile if he cold have browght it to passe, did at -Theatre doore querell with certen poore boyes, handicraft prentises, -and strooke some of theym; and lastlie he with his sword wondend and -maymed one of the boyes upon the left hand; whereupon there assembled -nere a ml. people’.[1148] Unscrupulous characters might find congenial -companions in the throng. Somewhere in 1594 a diamond, which had gone -astray from the loot of a Spanish vessel, was shown in Finsbury Fields -by a mariner to certain goldsmiths, who said that they had met him -by chance at a play in the Theatre at Shoreditch.[1149] But James -Burbadge had obtained for himself a tactical advantage by building -outside the jurisdiction of the City and within that, less organized -or more easy-going, of the Middlesex magistrates. The Corporation were -powerless, except in so far as, directly by persuasion, or indirectly -by invoking the Privy Council, they could stir the county bench to -action. They lost no opportunity, which brawls or plague afforded, of -attempting this.[1150] An exceptionally troublous year was 1580. It -began with an indictment of John Brayne and James Burbadge ‘yeomen’ of -Shoreditch, at the Middlesex sessions, for bringing unlawful assemblies -together on 21 February and other days ‘_ad audienda et spectanda -quaedam colloquia sive interluda vocata_ playes or interludes’ by them -and others ‘_exercitata et practicata_’ at the Theatre in Holywell, -with the result of affrays and tumults leading to a breach of the -peace.[1151] On 6 April was the great earthquake, which threw down -chimneys in Shoreditch, and according to one account ‘shaked not only -the scenical Theatre, but the great stage and theatre of the whole -land’.[1152] Four days later was the riot between Lord Oxford’s men and -the Inns of Court, and the two events gave the Lord Mayor an excellent -opportunity of pointing out to the Council that the players of plays -which were used at the Theatre were ‘a very superfluous sort of men’ -and of securing a suspension of performances until after Michaelmas. -The riot of 8 June 1584 similarly led to the inhibition by the Council -and Fleetwood already noticed, although it is clear that this was not -so permanent as the City probably hoped, when the authority for ‘the -suppressing and pulling downe of the Theatre and Curten’ reached them. -Matters came to a crisis again in 1597 with the production of _The Isle -of Dogs_ on the Bankside, and an appeal of the City on 28 July was -answered on the same day by mandates of the Council, of which one was -addressed to the Middlesex justices, and directed them to send for the -owners of the Theatre and Curtain, and enjoin them to ‘plucke downe -quite the stages, gallories and roomes that are made for people to -stand in, and so to deface the same as they maie not be ymploied agayne -to suche use’.[1153] - -It is unlikely that the Theatre was ever opened again. It is certain -that the Chamberlain’s men had moved to the Curtain before the end of -1597, and the abandonment of the old house is referred to unmistakably -enough in a satire published in 1598.[1154] The explanation is to be -found in the relations of the Burbadges to their ground landlord, -Giles Allen. The following account is taken in the main from Cuthbert -Burbadge’s allegations in litigation of 1600. On 1 November 1585, -shortly before the termination of the first ten years of the lease, -James Burbadge, as he was entitled to do, presented Allen with a draft -of a new twenty-one years’ lease. This Allen evaded signing, apparently -alleging that it was not in verbatim agreement with the old lease, and -probably also that some of Burbadge’s covenants under the old lease -had remained unfulfilled.[1155] By way of precaution, Burbadge thought -it desirable to put on record in his account-book some evidence that -he had spent the £200 in improving the tenements, upon which his right -to remove the structure of the Theatre depended. He called in expert -craftsmen, and took two ‘views’, one on 20 November 1585, another, -after some further work had been done, on 18 July 1586. The first -estimate was £220, the second £240. This last was later confirmed by -a third view taken in connexion with the Brayne litigation in July -1591.[1156] The money had been spent, partly on ordinary repairs, -partly on converting the old barn into tenements, partly on putting up -two new houses, one of which was for Burbadge’s own occupation.[1157] -The matter of the new lease now slumbered until the expiration of the -old one on 13 April 1597 drew near. In 1596 negotiations took place -between landlord and tenant, and a compromise was mooted, by which -the new lease was to be granted, but for an increased rent of £24 -instead of £14. Allen afterwards asserted and Cuthbert Burbadge denied -that there was a proviso that after five years the building should be -converted to some other use than that of a play-house.[1158] Cuthbert -continued the negotiations after James Burbadge’s death in February -1597, but they finally broke down, and for a year or so the tenancy -was only on sufferance.[1159] Finally, in the autumn of 1598, when -Cuthbert had agreed to demands which he thought extortionate, Allen -refused to accept his brother Richard as security, and all hope of a -settlement disappeared.[1160] Cuthbert now resolved to avail himself of -the covenant of the expired lease, under which the tenant was entitled -to pull down and remove the Theatre. This he began to do, in spite of -a protest from Allen’s representative, on 28 December 1598, with the -concurrence of his mother and brother, and the financial aid of one -William Smith of Waltham Cross.[1161] The work was still in progress -on 20 January 1599, when Burbadge’s agent, Peter Street, carpenter, -entered the close with ten or twelve men, and carried the timber to the -other side of the river for use in the erection of the Globe. For this -act Allen brought an action of trespass against Street in the Queen’s -Bench, alleging that he had trampled down grass in the close to the -value of 40_s._, and claiming damages for £800 in all, of which £700 -represented his estimate of the value of the Theatre.[1162] Burbadge -applied to the Court of Requests to stop the common law suit, alleging -in effect that he was equitably entitled to act upon the covenant, -even though the lease had expired, on account of the unreasonable -refusal of Allen to grant the new lease when applied for, under the -terms of the old one, in 1585.[1163] The issue really turned upon -whether this refusal was reasonable. Allen said that James Burbadge had -been a troublesome tenant, that he had converted the barn into eleven -tenements, whose inhabitants became a nuisance to the parish by begging -for their 20_s._ rents, that he had not repaired the building but only -shored it up, that he had not spent the stipulated £200, and that £30 -rent was in arrear at the time of the application of 1585 and was -still unpaid.[1164] Probably these last two were the only allegations -to which the court attached importance. Allen claimed that he had no -remedy against James Burbadge’s estate, for he had made deeds of gift -to his sons of his property, and his widow and administratrix was -without funds. Burbadge, however, produced evidence of the estimates -of 1585 and 1586, and suggested that his father had a counter-claim -against the rent in the expense to which he had been put in maintaining -his possession at the time of Peckham’s claim to the freehold. On 18 -October 1600 the Court decided in his favour.[1165] Allen brought a -Queen’s Bench action against him in 1601 for breach of agreement, and -in 1601 complained to the Star Chamber of perjury on the part of the -expert witnesses and other wrongs done him in the course of the earlier -proceedings; but, although the conclusions of these suits are not on -record, it is not likely that he succeeded in obtaining a favourable -decision.[1166] - - - vii. THE CURTAIN - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Some rather scanty material is - brought together by T. E. Tomlins, _Origin of the Curtain - Theatre and Mistakes regarding it_ in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, - i. 29, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _The Theatre and Curtain_ - (_Outlines_, i. 345).] - -The Curtain is included with the Theatre in Stowe’s general description -of Holywell as ‘standing on the South-west side towards the field’. -That it was somewhat south of the Theatre is indicated by a reference -to it in 1601 as in Moorfields, a name given to the open fields lying -south of and adjacent to Finsbury Fields. But, although it stood in -the parish of Shoreditch and the liberty of Holywell, it was not, like -the Theatre, actually within the precinct of the dissolved priory. -_Curtina_ is glossed by Ducange as ‘_minor curtis, seu rustica area, -quae muris cingitur_’, and the description is sufficiently met by the -piece of land lying outside the southern gate of the priory, and on -the other side of Holywell Lane into which that gate opened.[1167] -A priory lease to the Earl of Rutland of his town house in 1538 -described it as ‘_infra muros et portas eiusdem monasterii_’, and -part of the holding consisted of stables and a hay-loft ‘_scituata -et existentia extra portas eiusdem monasterii prope pasturam dictae -Priorissae vocatam_ the Curtene’. Post-dissolution conveyances refer -to a ‘house, tenement or lodge’ called the Curtain, and to a parcel of -ground, enclosed with a wall on the west and north, called the Curtain -close, which lay south of the Earl of Rutland’s house, and on which -by 1581 stood various tenements, which were described as ‘sett, lyeng -and being in Halliwell Lane’. The property in question formed part of -the possessions of Sir Thomas Leigh of Hoxton at his death in 1543 and -had formerly been conveyed to him by Lord Wriothesley. Through Leigh’s -daughter Katharine it passed to her husband Lord Mountjoy. On 20 -February 1567 it was sold for £40 to Maurice Long and his son William, -being then in the occupation of one Wilkingeson and Robert Manne. On -23 August 1571 Maurice Long conveyed it for £200 to Sir William Allen, -then Lord Mayor, possibly by way of mortgage in connexion with building -speculations, since on 18 March 1581 it was in the hands of William -Long, who then sold it to Thomas Herbert. There had evidently been an -increase in the number of tenements on the site, and Thomas Wilkinson, -Thomas Wilkins, Robert Medley, Richard Hicks, Henry Lanman, and Robert -Manne are named as tenants.[1168] As Henry Lanman or Laneman had the -profits of the theatre in 1585, there can be little doubt that it stood -on part of the land dealt with in the conveyances. Halliwell-Phillipps -thinks that it must have been situated ‘in or near the place which -is marked as Curtain Court in Chassereau’s plan of Shoreditch, -1745’,[1169] and is now known as Gloucester Street. If so, it was very -near the boundary between Holywell and Moorfields, much along the line -of which now runs Curtain Road. But it must be remembered that Curtain -Court may also have taken its name from the ‘house, tenement or lodge’ -which already existed in 1567 and is mentioned as the Curtain House in -the Shoreditch registers as late as 1639; and certainly in Ryther’s map -(_c._ 1636–45) the theatre, though still bordering on Moorfields, is -shown a good deal farther, both to the east and the south, than the -point indicated by Halliwell-Phillipps.[1170] - -The Burbadges claimed that James was the first builder of play-houses, -but the Curtain must have followed very soon after the Theatre. It is -not mentioned by name with its predecessor in the Privy Council order -of 1 August 1577, but is in Northbrooke’s treatise of the following -December. Up to 1597 its history is little more than a pendant to that -of the Theatre, with which it is generally coupled in the Puritan -attacks and in the occasional interferences of authority. From 1585 to -1592, indeed, it was used as an ‘easer’ to the Theatre, and the profits -of the two houses were pooled under an arrangement between Henry Lanman -and the Burbadges.[1171] The companies who occupied the Curtain can for -the most part only be guessed at.[1172] At the time of the inhibition -of 14 June 1584 it was probably occupied by Lord Arundel’s men. Tarlton -appeared at it, but not necessarily after the formation of the Queen’s -company.[1173] Prizes of the School of Defence were occasionally played -at it from 1579 to 1583.[1174] Unlike the Theatre, the Curtain was -certainly reopened after the inhibition of 1597. It is likely that the -Chamberlain’s men repaired to it in October of that year, and remained -at it until the Globe was ready in 1599. The same satirist, who tells -us that the Theatre was closed in 1598, tells us that the Rose, which -was continuously occupied by the Admiral’s men, and the Curtain were -open;[1175] and a clue to the actors at it is given by Marston’s -reference to ‘Curtain plaudities’ in the closest connexion with _Romeo -and Juliet_.[1176] In 1600 Robert Armin, of the Chamberlain’s men, -published his _Fool upon Fool_, in which he called himself ‘Clonnico de -Curtanio Snuffe’. In the 1605 edition he changed the name to ‘Clonnico -del Mondo Snuffe’. The direct connexion of the Chamberlain’s men with -the Curtain probably ended on the opening of the Globe. But a share in -it belonged to Thomas Pope, when he made his will on 22 July 1603, and -another to John Underwood, when he made his on 4 October 1624. Both -were of the Chamberlain’s men, although Underwood cannot have joined -them until about 1608. - -The Curtain did not go entirely out of use when the Chamberlain’s left -it. It must have been the theatre near Bishopsgate at which Thomas -Platter saw a play in September or October 1599.[1177] It is possible -that Kempe (q.v.) was then playing there. In March 1600 one William -Hawkins, barber, of St. Giles’s without Cripplegate was charged at -the Middlesex Sessions with taking a purse and £1 6_s._ 6_d._ at the -Curtain, and Richard Fletcher, pewterer, of Norwich, was bound over to -give evidence.[1178] - -On 22 June 1600, when the Privy Council gave authority for the opening -of the Fortune, they were given to understand by the Master of the -Revels that it would replace the Curtain, which was therefore to be -‘ruinated or applied to some other good use’. This arrangement seems to -suggest that the Curtain was in some way under the control of Alleyn -or Henslowe. It was, however, departed from, and apparently with the -tacit consent of the Council, as although they had occasion on 10 -May 1601 to instruct the Middlesex justices to suppress a libellous -play produced at ‘the Curtaine in Moorefeilds’, they did not take, -as they might have done, the point that no play ought to have been -produced there at all. On 31 December they were again insisting on -the limitation of the theatres in use to two; and on 31 March 1602 -they again departed from their own principles by licensing Oxford’s -and Worcester’s men to play at the Boar’s Head. Henceforward three -companies of men players were regularly tolerated, and when a draft -licence was prepared for Worcester’s, or as they had then become -Queen Anne’s, men early in the following year the Curtain and the -Boar’s Head were named as ‘there now usuall howsen’. The Curtain is -also specified for them in the Council’s warrant for the resumption -of plays on 9 April 1604. About 1606 they also took into use the Red -Bull, and thereafter but little is heard of the Curtain. The Queen’s -men, however, played Day, Wilkins, and Rowley’s _The Travels of Three -English Brothers_ there at some time before its entry on 29 June 1607. -It was still theirs in April 1609, but may perhaps soon have passed to -the Duke of York’s men. It is mentioned, with the Globe and Fortune, in -Heath’s _Epigrams_ of 1610, and plays heard ‘at _Curtaine_, or at Bull’ -and ‘a Curtaine Iigge’ are objects of ridicule in Wither’s _Abuses -Stript and Whipt_ of 1613.[1179] It was used by an amateur company for -a performance of Wentworth Smith’s _Hector of Germany_ in 1615, and it -is obscurely referred to in I. H.’s _This World’s Folly_ of the same -year.[1180] Malone gathered from Sir Henry Herbert’s office-book that -it was used by Prince Charles’s men in 1622, and soon thereafter only -by prize-fighters. It was still in use in 1624, and still standing in -1627.[1181] - - - viii. NEWINGTON BUTTS - -A theatre, of which the history is very obscure, but which may have -been built soon after the Theatre and Curtain, stood at Newington, a -village one mile from London Bridge, divided from the Bankside by St. -George’s Fields, and reachable by the road which continued Southwark -High Street.[1182] Here there were butts for the practice of archery. -Plays at Newington Butts, outside the City jurisdiction, are first -mentioned in a Privy Council letter of 13 May 1580 to the Surrey -justices. A similar letter of 11 May 1586 speaks more precisely of -‘the theater or anie other places about Newington’. A third letter, -undated, but probably belonging to 1591 or 1592, recites an order -of the Council restraining Strange’s men from playing at the Rose, -and enjoining them to play three days a week at Newington Butts, and -rescinds it, ‘by reason of the tediousness of the way, and that of long -time plays have not there been used on working days’.[1183] Possibly -the theatre had come into Henslowe’s hands, for his diary records that -it was at Newington that the combined companies of the Admiral’s and -Chamberlain’s men began their first season after the plague of 1592–4, -apparently playing there from 5 to 15 June 1594, and then going their -separate ways to the Rose and the Theatre respectively. The theatre is -mentioned in the list given by Howes in 1631.[1184] It is said to have -been ‘only a memory’ by 1599.[1185] A bad pun is called a ‘Newington -conceit’ in 1612.[1186] - - - ix. THE ROSE - - [_Bibliographical Note._--All the more important documents are - printed or calendared from the _Dulwich MSS._ with a valuable - commentary in Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_ and _Henslowe Papers_, - and in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_ and _Henslowe’s Diary_.] - -The Rose owed its name to the fact that it stood in what had been, as -recently as 1547–8, a rose garden.[1187] On 3 December 1552 Thomasyn, -widow of Ralph Symonds, fishmonger, granted to trustees, for her own -use during life and thereafter to the charitable uses of the parish of -St. Mildred, Bread Street, her ‘messuage or tennement then called the -little rose with twoe gardens’ formerly in St. Margaret’s and then in -St. Saviour’s, Southwark. St. Mildred’s still has a plan of the estate, -which extended to about three roods.[1188] A ‘tenement called the Rose’ -is referred to in a recital of a lease of Henry VIII’s reign as the -eastern boundary of other tenements, by name the Barge, the Bell, and -the Cock, which lay ‘vppon the banke called Stewes’ in St. Margaret’s, -afterwards St. Saviour’s, parish, between the highway next the Thames -on the north and Maiden Lane on the south.[1189] It is located by -Mr. Rendle just to the east of the still existing Rose Alley. The -site therefore lay in the Liberty of the Clink midway between those -afterwards occupied by the Globe on the east and the Hope on the -west. On 20 November 1574 the parish let the property for thirty-one -years at £7 annually to William Griffin, vintner. Griffin assigned -it on 11 December 1579 to Robert Withens, vintner, and Withens on 24 -March 1585 to Henslowe.[1190] There was as yet no theatre. The first -mention of one as in contemplation is in an agreement of 10 January -1587 between Henslowe and one John Cholmley, citizen and grocer of -London, for partnership during the next eight years and three months, -should both parties live so long, in a garden plot ninety-four feet -square on the Bankside in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, and -‘a playe howse now in framinge and shortly to be ereckted and sett vppe -vpone the same’. Under this Henslowe undertook to have ‘the saide play -house with all furniture thervnto belonginge’ set up ‘with as muche -expedicion as maye be’ by John Grigges, carpenter, to pay all rents due -on the premisses, and to repair the bridges and wharves belonging to -them before the following Michaelmas. Cholmley undertook to bear his -share of any further cost of maintaining the premises, and also to pay -Henslowe the sum of £816 in quarterly instalments. In consideration of -this, he was to take half of all such profits as ‘shall arysse grow be -colectted gathered or become due for the saide parcell of grounde and -playe howse when and after yt shalbe ereckted and sett vpe by reason of -any playe or playes, that shalbe showen or played there or otherwysse -howsoever’. The partners are jointly to appoint ‘players to vse -exersyse & playe in the saide playe howse’, and collect sums themselves -or by deputy of all persons coming to the performances ‘excepte yt -please any of the saide partyes to suffer theire frendes to go in for -nothinge’. Cholmley is also to have the sole right of selling food or -drink on the premises and a small house already in his tenure on the -south of the plot close to Maiden Lane, ‘to keepe victualinge in’ or -for any other purpose, and with a right of ingress from Thames side by -Rose Alley.[1191] The deed does not name the property, but it cannot -be doubted that it refers to a part of the Little Rose. Presumably the -theatre was to be built on a garden at the back of the holding, and the -existing tenement on Bankside was not to be interfered with. Henslowe -had ‘Rosse rentes’ of a residential character in 1602 or 1603.[1192] -Norden’s map (1593) puts the Rose farther from the river than the Bear -Garden. The Delaram and Merian drawings, on the other hand, put it -very near the river, and these, although of less authority than Norden, -are followed in Mr. Rendle’s plan. Probably Norden’s Bear Garden was -an older one than that which afterwards became the Hope.[1193] The -provision as to the wharfs and bridges seems to indicate an intention -to open the Rose at Michaelmas 1587, and I see no reason to doubt -that it was in fact ready for occupation by about that date. On 29 -October the Privy Council called the attention of the Surrey justices -to complaints from Southwark of breaches of the rule against plays on -Sunday, ‘especiallie within the Libertie of the Clincke and in the -parish of St. Saviour’s in Southwarke’. There may, of course, have been -plays at inns in the Clink, but it is more natural to take the protest -as one against the newly opened Rose. No other regular theatre existed -in the Clink at this time. That the Rose was built by 1588 appears from -a record of the Sewer Commission for Surrey.[1194] It is not in Smith’s -plan of 1588, but this may easily not have been quite up to date. - -The next that is heard of the Rose is probably in 1592.[1195] In March -and April of that year Henslowe, who had recently taken his famous -‘diary’ into use as a financial memorandum book, noted in it some -building expenditure, and a little later set out ‘a note of suche -carges as I haue layd owt a bowte my playe howsse in the yeare of our -lord 1592’.[1196] Henslowe is not known to have owned Newington Butts, -or any other theatre except the Rose, and it is reasonable to assume -that this is what he meant by ‘my playe howsse’. The work probably -began in or before January, as an entry halfway through the list is -dated on 6 February. It entailed the purchase of a barge and a certain -amount of breaking up and paling and wharfing. Henslowe appears to have -done the work himself and not by contract. He bought a mast, turned -balusters, boards and laths, in part from the carpenter Grigges who is -named in the agreement with Cholmley, and in part from a ‘timber man’ -called Lee. He bought bolts, hinges, and nails from the ironmonger at -the Fryingpan in Southwark and from one Brader. He bought lime, sand, -chalk, and bricks. He paid wages to carpenters, workmen, and labourers, -and employed painters and a thatcher. The exact nature and extent of -the work are not specified, but it included the painting of the stage, -the ceiling of ‘my lords rome’, and ‘the rome ouer the tyerhowsse’, and -the ‘makeinge the penthowsse shed at the tyeringe howsse doore’. It has -sometimes been supposed that the Rose never got built in 1587, and that -these are the accounts, or part of them, for the original construction. -This seems to me most unlikely. The total expense, with the exception -of a small number of items lost by the mutilation of a page, only -amounted to about £108. This could not cover more than repairs. On -the other hand, these were clearly substantial repairs, and the fact -that they were needed suggests that the building cannot have been a -very new one. The lapse of five years since 1587 would, however, be -consistent with the necessity for them. Almost simultaneously with the -earliest dated entries in the building account, begins on 19 February -1592 the record of performances by Lord Strange’s men, which continues -to the following 22 June. If these were at the Rose, the paint on the -stage can hardly have been dry in time for them, unless, as Dr. Greg -suggests, the payments made in March and April were for work done a -little earlier. That it was at the Rose that Strange’s men played -seems indicated by the Privy Council order, reciting the restraint of -this company ‘from playinge at the Rose on the Banckside’, which it -is difficult to assign to any year but 1591 or 1592.[1197] It is a -little curious that nothing more is heard of John Cholmley, and I think -the natural inference is that he was dead and that the partnership -had thereby, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, been -automatically dissolved.[1198] - -The assumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that until -he acquired a share in the Fortune Henslowe had no proprietary interest -in any other theatre must explain the assignment to the Rose of all -the playing recorded in the diary between 1592 and the autumn of 1600, -with the exception of the few performances definitely stated to have -been at Newington Butts. The further conjecture must, I think, be -accepted that the season begun by the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s men -at Newington Butts in the summer of 1594 was transferred, so far as the -Admiral’s men were concerned, to the Rose after 15 June. If so, the -Rose housed Strange’s men again from 29 December 1592 to 1 February -1593, Sussex’s from 26 December 1593 to 6 February 1594, the Queen’s -and Sussex’s together from 1 to 9 April 1594, and the Admiral’s from -14 to 16 May 1594, and then regularly from the following June until -their transference to the Fortune in 1600. The only actual mentions -of the theatre by name in the diary during this period are in the -agreements of 1597 between Henslowe and the players Jones and Borne, -in which Henslowe specifies ‘the Rosse’ as ‘my howsse’ in which they -are to play. It was no doubt in use when Guilpin’s _Skialetheia_ (S. -R. 8 September 1598) was written.[1199] In the Lenten interval of 1595 -Henslowe made ‘A nott of what I haue layd owt abowt my playhowsse ffor -payntynge & doinge it abowt with ealme bordes & other repracyones’. -The expenditure reached a total of £108 19_s._, which was much about -the same as that of 1592, and was supplemented in the following June -by a further £7 2_s._ for carpenters’ work, including ‘mackinge the -throne in the heuenes’.[1200] The accounts of 1592 and 1595 suggest -that the building was of wood and plaster on a brick foundation, and -this is consistent with Hentzner’s statement of 1598. Part of it, at -least, was thatched. If the maps can be trusted, it was octagonal. In -1600 Henslowe had to find new occupants for the Rose. He records that -Pembroke’s men began to play there on 28 October, but only enters two -unprofitable performances. Possibly the Privy Council, who had decreed -in the previous July a limitation of houses to one on each side of the -river, interfered. But this limitation was certainly not permanent. -There is a receipt for a play bought for Worcester’s men ‘at the Rose’, -and they probably used the house during the term of their account with -Henslowe between August 1602 and May 1603. Subsequently they moved -to the Curtain and Boar’s Head. Henslowe’s lease of the site was due -to expire at the end of 1605, and this explains to some extent the -following entry in the diary: - - ‘The 25 of June 1603 I talked with M^r. Pope at the scryveners - shope wher he lisse consernynge the tackynge of the leace a new - of the littell Roosse & he showed me a wrytynge betwext the - pareshe & hime seallfe which was to paye twenty pownd a yeare - rent & to bestowe a hundred marckes vpon billdinge which I sayd - I wold rather pulle downe the playehowse then I wold do so & he - beade me do & sayd he gaue me leaue & wold beare me owt for yt - wasse in him to do yt.’[1201] - -It is impossible to say whether ‘Mr. Pope’ was Thomas Pope of the -King’s men at the neighbouring Globe, or Morgan Pope, who was formerly -interested in the Bear House, or some other Pope; nor is it clear how -he was in a position to authorize Henslowe to pull down the theatre. -Dr. Greg draws the natural inference from the wording that he may have -given his consent as a prospective lessee of the property.[1202] In -any case the Rose was not pulled down until two or three years later. -The Sewers records show that in January 1604 not Philip but Francis -Henslowe was amerced 6_s._ 8_d._ for it, which may mean that Lennox’s -men were playing there; that on 4 October 1605 Philip Henslowe was -amerced, but return was made that it was ‘out of his hands’; that on -14 February 1606 Edward Box, of Bread Street, London, was amerced for -it; and that on 25 April 1606 Box was amerced for the site of ‘the late -play-house in Maid lane’.[1203] - -There is no record of plays at the Rose after 1603.[1204] It is in -the Delaram engravings, but not in any later views except those of -the Merian group, where it appears, flagged but unnamed, on the river -edge.[1205] Nor is it mentioned with the Hope, Globe, and Swan in -_Holland’s Leaguer_ (1632). The explanation may perhaps be that the -Merian engraver followed some out-of-date authority, such as Delaram, -which had got the house farther north than Norden puts it, and as it -had long ceased to exist, did not know its name. On the other hand, -it is also just conceivable that for a short period the Rose, or some -other building at the north end of the Rose site, had a renewed life -as a place of public entertainment. Alleyn was paying ‘tithe dwe for -the Rose’ in 1622.[1206] And Malone cites Herbert’s ‘office-book’ for a -statement that after 1620 the Swan and the Rose were ‘used occasionally -for the exhibition of prize-fighters’.[1207] - - - x. THE SWAN - - [_Bibliographical Note._--John de Witt’s description and plan - are published in K. T. Gaedertz, _Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen - Bühne_ (1888), and more exactly by H. B. Wheatley in _On a - Contemporary Drawing of the Swan Theatre_, 1596 (_N. S. S. - Trans. 1887–92_, 215). They are discussed by H. Logemann in - _Anglia_, xix. 117, by W. Archer in _The Universal Review_ - for June 1888, by W. Rendle in _7 N. Q._ vi. 221, by J. Le G. - Brereton, _De Witt at the Swan_ (1916, _Sh.-Homage_, 204), by - myself in a paper on _The Stage of the Globe_ in _The Stratford - Town Shakespeare_, x. 351, and in most recent treatises on - Elizabethan staging; cf. chh. xviii, xx. Earlier material is - collected by W. Rendle in _The Play-houses at Bankside in the - Time of Shakespeare_ (_Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer_, - 1885, vii. 207). The facts as to Langley’s purchase and the - pleadings and order in the suit of _Shawe et al. v. Langley_ - before the Court of Requests in 1597–8 (cited as _S. v. L._) - are given by C. W. Wallace, _The Swan Theatre and the Earl of - Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _E. S._ xliii. 340). T. S. Graves, - _A Note on the Swan Theatre_ (_M. P._ ix. 431), discusses the - light thrown on the internal arrangements of the Swan by the - accounts of _England’s Joy_ in 1602.] - -The Swan stood in the Liberty and Manor of Paris Garden, at the western -end of the Bankside. This manor, from which the royal ‘game’ of -bear-baiting took its traditional appellation, had come into the hands -of the Crown as part of the possessions of the dissolved monastery of -Bermondsey. It was granted in 1578 to nominees of Henry, Lord Hunsdon, -conveyed by them to the Cure family, and sold for £850 on 24 May 1589 -by Thomas Cure the younger to Francis Langley, a citizen and goldsmith -of London. Langley, who was brother-in-law to Sir Anthony Ashley, one -of the clerks to the Privy Council, held the office of Alnager and -Searcher of Cloth, to which he had been appointed by the Corporation -on the recommendation of the Privy Council and Sir Francis Walsingham -in December 1582.[1208] The site of the theatre can be precisely -identified from a plan of the manor dated in 1627, but based on a -survey of 1 November 1624.[1209] It was in the north-east corner of the -demesne, east of the manor-house, twenty-six poles due south of Paris -Garden stairs, and immediately west of a lane leading to a house called -Copt Hall. The outline shown is that of a double circle, or perhaps -dodecahedron, divided into twelve compartments, with a small porch or -tiring-house towards the road. The exact date of building is unknown. -On 3 November 1594 the Lord Mayor wrote to Burghley that Langley -‘intendeth to erect a niew stage or Theater (as they call it) for the -exercising of playes vpon the Banck side’, and detailed the usual civic -objections to the stage as arguments in favour of the suppression of -the project.[1210] It is probable that Burghley refused to intervene -and that Langley proceeded at once with the erection of the Swan, which -may then have been ready for use in 1595. It is impossible, without -the Swan, to make up the tale of four ‘spielhäuser’ seen by the Prince -of Anhalt in 1596 (360). To 1596 again is assigned, although with -probability rather than certainty, the visit of John de Witt, who -not only names but also describes and delineates the Swan.[1211] In -any case the Swan had already been in use by players before February -1597, when Langley entered into an arrangement for its occupation by -Lord Pembroke’s men.[1212] The terms of the lease provided that he -should make the house ready and furnish apparel, which he alleged cost -him £300, and should get his return for this expenditure out of the -company’s moiety of the gallery takings, in addition of course to the -other moiety which in accordance with theatrical custom went to him as -rent.[1213] The enterprise was rudely interrupted by the production of -_The Isle of Dogs_ at the Swan itself, and the restraint of 28 July -1597 which was the result. The leading members of Pembroke’s company -joined or rejoined the Admiral’s at the Rose, and became involved in -litigation with Langley on account of their breach of covenant.[1214] -For a time Langley succeeded in keeping a company together, and the -Swan remained open.[1215] It was perhaps the intention of the Privy -Council order of 19 February 1598, against an intrusive ‘third company’ -which was competing with the Chamberlain’s and the Admiral’s, to close -it.[1216] If so, Langley may still for a time have found means of -evasion, since on the following 1 May the vestry of St. Saviour’s -were viewing new buildings of his, and at the same time negotiating -with Henslowe and Meade for money for the poor ‘in regarde of theire -playe-houses’.[1217] During the next few years, however, such notices -as we get of the Swan, while showing that it was still in existence -and available for occasional entertainments, carry no evidence of any -use by a regular company. Francis Meres, in his _Palladis Tamia_ of -1598, tells us that it was the scene of a challenge in ‘extemporall’ -versifying by Robert Wilson.[1218] It was one of the wooden theatres -which were seen by Hentzner in the same year, and no doubt the one -near which he describes the royal barge as lying.[1219] On 15 May -1600 the Council sanctioned its use for feats of activity by Peter -Bromvill.[1220] On 7 February 1602 it was occupied by fencers, and -while two of these, by names Turner and Dun, were playing their prizes -upon its stage, Dun was unfortunate enough to receive a mortal wound -in the eye.[1221] On 6 November 1602 it was chosen by Richard Vennar -for his impudent mystification of _England’s Joy_. The accounts of this -transaction show that it was fitted with ‘hangings, curtains, chairs, -and stools’, and capable of scenic effects, such as the appearance -of a throne of blessed souls in heaven and of black and damned souls -with fireworks from beneath the stage.[1222] Meanwhile Langley had -died in 1601 and in January 1602 the Paris Garden estate was sold to -Hugh Browker, a protonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, in whose -family it remained to 1655.[1223] About 1611 it was once more taken -into use for plays. _The Roaring Girl_ (1611), itself a Fortune play, -has an allusion to a knight who ‘lost his purse at the last new play -i’ the Swan’,[1224] and the accounts of the overseers of Paris Garden -contain entries of receipts from ‘the play house’ or ‘the Swan’ in -each April from 1611 to 1615.[1225] The last entry is of so small an -amount that it probably only covered a fraction of a year, and I think -the inference is that the Swan was disused on the opening of the Hope -in 1614.[1226] If so, it had probably been taken over by Henslowe for -the use of the Lady Elizabeth’s men, who came into existence in 1611, -and whose _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ was published in 1630 as ‘often -acted at the Swan on the Bankeside’. The Hope itself was modelled -structurally upon the Swan. Its measurements were the same, and it -had similar partitions between the rooms and external staircases. Its -heavens, however, were to be supported without the help of posts from -the stage, since this had to be removable on days of bear-baiting. -It is obviously illegitimate to infer from this specification that -the stage of the Swan, which was not used for bear-baiting, was also -removable. The accounts of the overseers show one more payment from -the ‘players’ in 1621, which perhaps supports the statement contained -in one of Malone’s notes from Sir Henry Herbert’s office-book, that -after 1620 the Swan was ‘used occasionally for the exhibition of -prize-fighters’.[1227] The theatre is marked ‘Old Play-house’ in the -manor map of 1627. The last notice of it is in _Holland’s Leaguer_ -(1632) as a famous amphitheatre, which was ‘now fallen to decay, and -like a dying swanne hanging downe her head seemed to sing her own -dierge’.[1228] - -Many of the maps of the Bankside do not extend far enough west to -take in the Swan. It is named and shown as an octagonal or decagonal -building by Visscher (1616) and in maps of the Merian group (1638), but -not by Hollar (1647). - - - xi. THE GLOBE - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The devolution of the Globe shares - can be traced in the documents of three lawsuits: (_a_) _Ostler - v. Heminges_, in the Court of King’s Bench in 1616 (_Coram Rege - Roll_ 1454, 13 Jac. I, Hilary Term, m. 692), described by C. - W. Wallace in _The Times_ of 2 and 4 Oct. 1909, and in part - privately printed by him in _Advance Sheets from Shakespeare, - the Globe, and Blackfriars_ (1909), here cited as _O. v. H._; - (_b_) _Witter v. Heminges and Condell_, in the Court of Requests - (1619–20), described by C. W. Wallace in _The Century_ of Aug. - 1910, and printed by him in _Nebraska University Studies_, x - (1910), 261, here cited as _W. v. H._; and (_c_) the proceedings - before the Lord Chamberlain in 1635 known as the _Sharers - Papers_, and printed by Halliwell-Phillipps in _Outlines_, i. - 312. Professor Wallace’s descriptive articles require some - corrections from the texts of his documents. Much evidence - bearing upon the site of the theatre was collected by W. Rendle - in _The Bankside, Southwark, and the Globe Play-house_ (1877), - printed by the N. S. S. as an appendix to Harrison, pt. ii - (cited as Rendle, _Bankside_), in _Walford’s Antiquarian_, - viii (1885), 209, and in _The Anchor Brewery_ (1888, _Inns of - Old Southwark_, 56), by G. Hubbard in _Journal of the Royal - Institute of British Architects_, 3rd series, xvii. 26, and - _London and Middlesex Arch. Soc. Trans._ n. s. ii (1912), pt. - iii, and most fully by W. Martin in _Surrey Archaeological - Collections_, xxiii (1910), 149. Some additional facts, from - records of the Sewers Commission for Kent and Surrey in the - possession of the London County Council, and from deeds - concerning the Brend estate, were published by Dr. Wallace in - _The Times_ of 30 April and 1 May 1914, and led to discussion - by Dr. Martin, Mr. Hubbard, and others in _11 N. Q._ x. 209, - 290, 335; xi. 447; xii. 10, 50, 70, 121, 143, 161, 201, 224, - 264, 289, 347, and by W. W. Braines in _The Site of the Globe - Play-house_ (1921). A paper by the present writer on _The Stage - of the Globe_ is in the _Stratford Town Shakespeare_, x. 351.] - -In the building of the Globe use was made of the materials of the old -Theatre (q.v.) which, according to _Allen v. Burbadge_ (1602), the -Burbadges, with Peter Street and others, pulled down on 28 December -1598, carried ‘all the wood and timber therof unto the Banckside in -the parishe of St. Marye Overyes, and there erected a newe playehowse -with the sayd timber and woode’.[1229] An earlier account gives the -date of the audacious proceeding as 20 January 1599. The formal lease -of the new site from the freeholder, Nicholas Brend of West Molesey, -was executed on 21 February 1599. No doubt Street, who had assisted -in the transfer, was the builder and had finished his job when on 8 -January 1600 he contracted with Henslowe and Alleyn to put up the -Fortune (q.v.) on the model, with certain modifications, of ‘the late -erected plaiehowse on the Banck in the saide parishe of St. Saviours -called the Globe’. This contract allowed twenty-eight weeks for the -work. Probably the Globe took about the same time, for it is described -as ‘de novo edificata’ in the inquisition on the property left by the -lessor’s father, Thomas Brend, which is dated on 16 May 1599.[1230] It -may not then have been quite finished, but it was doubtless ready for -the occupation of the Chamberlain’s men by the beginning of the autumn -season of 1599. One of the earliest plays there produced by them was -Shakespeare’s _Julius Caesar_ which on 21 September Thomas Platter -crossed the water to see ‘in dem streüwinen Dachhaus’.[1231] Whether -the Globe or its predecessor the Curtain was the ‘wooden O’ of _Henry -V_, 1, prol. 13, must be more doubtful, as the prologue to Act V of the -same play contemplates the triumphant return of Essex from Ireland, and -in fact Essex left England on 27 March and returned, not triumphant, -on 28 September 1599.[1232] Jonson refers to ‘this faire-fild Globe’ -as the scene of his _Every Man Out of his Humour_, produced in the -autumn of 1600.[1233] The Privy Council order of the previous 22 June, -which enacts that there shall be one allowed house only ‘in Surrey in -that place which is commonlie called the Banckside or there aboutes’, -goes on to recite that the Chamberlain’s men had chosen the Globe to be -that one. The allowance of the house ‘in Surrey called the Globe’ is -confirmed by the Privy Council letter of 27 December 1601. The order -of 9 April 1604 authorizes the opening after the plague of ‘the Globe -scituate in Maiden Lane on the Banckside in the Countie of Surrey’. -This order evidently contemplates that the King’s men will use the -house, which was assigned to them by name as ‘theire nowe vsual howse -called the Globe within our County of Surrey’ by the terms of the -patent of 19 May 1603. The precedent is followed in the later patents -of 1619 and 1625, and there is nothing to indicate that any other -company than the Chamberlain’s or King’s men ever performed, even -temporarily, at the theatre. - -The Globe was held by a syndicate, composed mainly of members of -the company, on a leasehold tenure. The site, which had been garden -ground, was described in the original lease with some minuteness as -follows:[1234] - - ‘totam illam parcellam fundi nuper praeantea inclusam & factam - in quatuor separalia gardina nuper in tenuris & occupacionibus - Thomae Burt & Isbrand Morris diers & Lactantii Roper Salter - civis Londoniae continentem in longitudine ab oriente vsque - occidentem ducentos & viginti pedes assisae vel eo circiter - iacentem & adiungentem viae sive venellae ibidem ex vno - latere & abbuttantem super peciam terrae vocatam the Parke - super boream & super gardinum tunc vel nuper in tenura siue - occupacione cuiusdam Johannis Cornishe versus occidentem & - super aliud gardinum tunc vel nuper in tenura sive occupacione - cuiusdam Johannis Knowles versus orientem cum omnibus domibus - aedificiis structuris vijs easiamentis commoditatibus & - pertinentiis adinde spectantibus vel aliquo modo pertinentibus - quae dicta praemissa sunt scituata iacentia & existentia infra - parochiam sancti Salvatoris in Southwarke in Comitatu Surria - aceciam totam illam parcellam terrae nuper praeantea inclusam - & factam in tria separalia gardina vnde duo eorundem nuper in - tenura sive occupacione cuiusdam Johannis Robertes carpenter - ac aliud nuper in occupacione cuiusdam Thomas Ditcher civis & - mercatoris scissoris Londoniae scituatam iacentem & existentem - in parochia praedicta in praedicto comitatu Surria continentem - in longitudine ab oriente ad occidentem per estimacionem centum - quinquaginta & sex pedes assisae vel eo circiter & in latitudine - a borea ad austrum centum pedes assisae per estimacionem vel eo - circiter iacentem & adiungentem super alio latere viae sive - venellae praedictae & abbuttantem super gardinum ibidem tunc vel - nuper praeantea in occupacione Willelmi Sellers versus orientem - & super vnum aliud gardinum ibidem tunc vel nuper praeantea - in tenura Johannis Burgram sadler versus occidentem & super - venellam ibidem vocatam Mayden lane versus austrum cum omnibus - domibus aedificijs structuris vijs easiamentis commoditatibus & - pertinentiis ultimis recitatis praemissis seu alicui parti vel - parcellae inde spectantibus seu aliquo modo pertinentibus simul - cum libero ingressu egressu & regressu & passagio ... per & - trans praedictam viam sive venellam iacentem & existentem inter - praemissa praedicta.’ - -The lease was granted for a term of thirty-one years from Christmas -1598 to Christmas 1629, and conveyed the property in two equal -moieties, the one to Cuthbert and Richard Burbadge and the other to -William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, -and William Kempe.[1235] With the exception of Cuthbert Burbadge -these were all members of the Chamberlain’s company. Each moiety was -charged with a ground-rent of £7 5_s._ There is nothing to show how -the funds for building were found. ‘Wee’, said the Burbadges in 1635, -‘at like expence built the Globe, with more summes of money taken up -at interest, which lay heavy on us many yeeres; and to ourselves wee -joyned those deserveing men, Shakspere, Hemings, Condall, Philips, and -others, partners in the profittes of that they call the House, but -makeing the leases for twenty-one yeeres hath beene the destruction of -ourselves and others, for they dyeing at the expiration of three or -four yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres became dissolved to -strangers, as by marrying with their widdowes and the like by their -children.’[1236] This is, however, not a strictly accurate account -of what took place in 1599, for Condell was not one of the original -‘housekeepers’, and the original lease was for thirty-one, not -twenty-one, years. In any case, the Burbadges contributed the woodwork -of the Theatre. - -Between the execution of the lease and the completion of the -play-house, Shakespeare and his four fellows assigned their moiety to -William Levison and Thomas Savage, who ‘reassigned to euerye of them -seuerally a fift parte of the said moitie’, so that after the building -each of the five had a ‘ioynt tenancie’ with the other four in a moiety -of the ground and galleries, and was also ‘tenant in common’ during the -term of the lease.[1237] Professor Wallace explains that ‘the purpose -of a joint-tenancy was to prevent the breaking up and scattering of an -estate into fractions by keeping the property always in the hands of -the members, or the longest survivors, or survivor, of them all, thus -not allowing it to descend to heirs’. The legal distinction is no doubt -sound, but we shall find that, whatever the intention of the assignment -and reassignment may have been, the Globe shares did in fact descend -to heirs, and that a good deal of trouble and litigation was thereby -caused.[1238] - -Shortly after the house was built Kempe, no doubt on his withdrawal -from the company, assigned his interest to Shakespeare, Heminges, and -Phillips, who by further assignments to and from one Thomas Cressey -brought in Pope, with the result that each of the four now held a -fourth part of the moiety.[1239] Pope died before 13 February 1604 and -left his interest to Mary Clark, _alias_ Wood, and Thomas Bromley. -Mary Clark must have married John Edmonds, another legatee under the -will, for in 1612 an interest corresponding to Pope’s was held by -John and Mary Edmonds and Basil Nicoll.[1240] Nicoll, who was Pope’s -executor, was presumably acting as trustee for Thomas Bromley. Edmonds, -though an actor, belonged not to the King’s men, but was a Queen’s -man by 1618. One-eighth of the house, therefore, was alienated from -the company in 1604. A further alienation, which proved particularly -troublesome in its results, took place on the death of Phillips in May -1605. The exact facts became a matter of legal dispute. But it appears -that Phillips’ interest passed first to his widow Anne as executrix, -and, when her marriage in the course of 1606 to the spendthrift John -Witter became known, to Heminges, who succeeded her as executor under -the terms of the will. In this capacity Heminges leased an interest -to the Witters on 14 February 1611 for a term of eighteen years from -Christmas 1610.[1241] This interest was not a fourth, but only a sixth -of the moiety, since at some date between the death of Phillips and -that of Sly on 16 August 1608 the moiety had been redivided to allow of -the introduction of Henry Condell and William Sly into the syndicate -of housekeepers.[1242] A similar transaction took place on 20 February -1612, when Basil Nicoll and John and Mary Edmonds, then holding -one-sixth of the moiety, Shakespeare and Witter, each also holding -one-sixth, and Heminges and Condell, holding three-sixths, joined to -convey one-seventh of the moiety to William Ostler.[1243] It must, I -think, be assumed that Heminges and Condell had together purchased the -share left by Sly to his son Robert. - -The acquisition of the Blackfriars by the King’s men in 1608 did not, -at first at least, detract from the importance of the Globe as the -leading London theatre. It is so accepted by foreign visitors in 1610 -and again in 1611.[1244] - -On 29 June 1613 the house was ‘casually burnt downe and consumed with -fier’.[1245] The event was important enough to find a record in Howes’ -continuation of Stowe’s _Annales_:[1246] - - ‘Upon S. Peters day last, the play-house or Theater, called the - Globe, upon the Banckside near London, by negligent discharging - of a peal of ordinance, close to the south-side thereof, the - thatch took fire, and the wind sodainly disperst the flame round - about, and in a very short space the whole building was quite - consumed, and no man hurt; the house being filled with people to - behold the play, viz. of Henry the Eighth. And the next spring - it was new builded in far fairer manner than before.’ - -Many other contemporary accounts exist. Thus Thomas Lorkin wrote to Sir -Thomas Puckering on 30 June:[1247] - - ‘No longer since than yesterday, while Burbage’s company were - acting at the Globe the play of Henry VIII, and there shooting - off certain chambers in way of triumph, the fire catched and - fastened upon the thatch of the house, and there burned so - furiously, as it consumed the whole house, all in less than two - hours, the people having enough to do to save themselves.’ - -On 2 July Sir Henry Wotton wrote to his nephew Sir Edmund Bacon:[1248] - - ‘Now, to let matters of state sleep, I will entertain you at - the present with what has happened this week at the Bank’s - side. The King’s players had a new play, called _All is True_, - representing some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII, - which was set forth with many extraordinary circumstances - of pomp and majesty, even to the matting of the stage; the - Knights of the Order with their Georges and garters, the Guards - with their embroidered coats, and the like: sufficient in - truth within a while to make greatness very familiar, if not - ridiculous. Now, King Henry making a masque at the Cardinal - Wolsey’s house, and certain chambers being shot off at his - entry, some of the paper, or other stuff, wherewith one of them - was stopped, did light on the thatch, where being thought at - first but an idle smoke, and their eyes more attentive to the - show, it kindled inwardly, and ran round like a train, consuming - within less than an hour the whole house to the very grounds. - This was the fatal period of that virtuous fabric, wherein - yet nothing did perish but wood and straw, and a few forsaken - cloaks; only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would - perhaps have broiled him, if he had not by the benefit of a - provident wit put it out with bottle ale.’ - -On 8 July John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Ralph Winwood:[1249] - - ‘The burning of the Globe, or play-house, on the Bankside, on - St. Peter’s day, cannot escape you; which fell out by a peal of - chambers (that I know not upon what occasion were to be used in - the play), the tamplin or stopple of one of them lighting in the - thatch that covered the house, burn’d it down to the ground in - less than two hours, with a dwelling-house adjoining, and it was - a great marvaile and fair grace of God, that the people had so - little harm, having but two narrow doors to get out.’ - -Nor was poetic chronicles of the disaster lacking. On the day after the -fire took place, two ballads about it were entered in the Stationers’ -Register.[1250] Neither is known in print, but the use of the word -‘doleful’ suggests that one of them, of which the author was William -Parrat, is probably identical with the following set of verses, -preserved in manuscript:[1251] - - _A Sonnett upon the pittiful burneing of the Globe playhowse - in London._ - - Now sitt the downe, Melpomene, - Wrapt in a sea-cole robe, - And tell the dolefull tragedie, - That late was playd at Globe; - For noe man that can singe and saye - [But ?] was scard on St. Peters daye. - Oh sorrow, pittifull sorrow, and yett all this is true. - - All yow that please to understand, - Come listen to my storye, - To see Death with his rakeing brand - Mongst such an auditorye; - Regarding neither Cardinalls might, - Nor yett the rugged face of Henry the Eight. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - This fearfull fire beganne above, - A wonder strange and true, - And to the stage-howse did remove, - As round as taylors clewe; - And burnt downe both beame and snagg, - And did not spare the silken flagg. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - Out runne the knightes, out runne the lordes, - And there was great adoe; - Some lost their hattes, and some their swordes; - Then out runne Burbidge too; - The reprobates, though druncke on Munday, - Prayd for the Foole and Henry Condye. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - The perrywigges and drumme-heades frye, - Like to a butter firkin; - A wofull burneing did betide - To many a good buffe jerkin. - Then with swolne eyes, like druncken Flemminges, - Distressed stood old stuttering Heminges. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - No shower his raine did there downe force - In all that Sunn-shine weather, - To save that great renowned howse; - Nor thou, O ale-howse, neither. - Had itt begunne belowe, sans doubte, - Their wives for feare had pissed itt out. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - Bee warned, yow stage-strutters all, - Least yow againe be catched, - And such a burneing doe befall, - As to them whose howse was thatched; - Forbeare your whoreing, breeding biles, - And laye up that expence for tiles. - Oh sorrow, &c. - - Goe drawe yow a petition, - And doe yow not abhorr itt, - And gett, with low submission, - A licence to begg for itt - In churches, sans churchwardens checkes, - In Surrey and in Midlesex. - Oh sorrow, pittifull sorrow, and yett all this is true. - -John Taylor, the water-poet, has his epigram on the theme:[1252] - - As gold is better that’s in fier try’d, - So is the Bankside _Globe_, that late was burn’d; - For where before it had a thatched hide, - Now to a stately theator ’tis turn’d: - Which is an emblem, that great things are won - By those that dare through greatest dangers run. - -Ben Jonson, in his _Execration upon Vulcan_, writes as if he had been -an eye-witness:[1253] - - Well fare the wise men yet, on the Bank side, - My friends the watermen! they could provide - Against thy fury, when to serve their needs, - They made a Vulcan of a sheaf of reeds, - Whom they durst handle in their holiday coats, - And safely trust to dress, not burn their boats. - But O those reeds! thy mere disdain of them - Made thee beget that cruel stratagem, - Which some are pleased to style but thy mad prank, - Against the Globe, the glory of the Bank: - Which, though it were the fort of the whole parish, - Flanked with a ditch, and forced out of a marish, - I saw with two poor chambers taken in, - And razed; ere thought could urge this might have been! - See the World’s ruins! nothing but the piles - Left, and wit since to cover it with tiles. - The Brethren they straight nosed it out for news, - ’Twas verily some relict of the Stews; - And this a sparkle of that fire let loose, - That was raked up in the Winchestrian goose, - Bred on the Bank in time of Popery, - When Venus there maintained the mystery. - But others fell with that conceit by the ears, - And cried it was a threatning to the bears, - And that accursed ground, the Paris-garden: - ‘Nay,’ sighed a sister, ‘Venus’ nun, Kate Arden, - Kindled the fire!’ But then, did one return, - No fool would his own harvest spoil or burn! - If that were so, thou rather wouldst advance - The place that was thy wife’s inheritance. - ‘Oh no,’ cried all, ‘Fortune, for being a whore, - Scaped not his justice any jot the more: - He burnt that idol of the Revels too. - Nay, let Whitehall with revels have to do, - Though but in dances, it shall know his power; - There was a judgement shewn too in an hour.’ - -The Puritans did in fact draw such morals as Jonson satirized. Prynne, -for example, finds the hand of God in ‘the sudden feareful burning, -even to the ground, both of the Globe and Fortune play-houses, no man -perceiving how these fires came’.[1254] - -The Globe was at once rebuilt. It was open again by 30 June 1614, -when John Chamberlain wrote to Alice Carleton that he had called -upon her sister Williams, and found her ‘gone to the new Globe, to a -play. Indeed’, he says, ‘I hear much speech of this new play-house, -which is said to be the fairest that ever was in England, so that if -I live but seven years longer, I may chance to take a journey to see -it’.[1255] The manuscript continuator of Stowe, describing the end -of the theatre, says that the rebuilding was ‘at the great charge -of King Iames, and many Noble men and others’.[1256] The lawsuit -documents contain no indication that any part of the burden fell upon -any one but the ‘housekeepers’, who being bound under their lease to -‘mainteyne and repaire’ the house, resolved to ‘reedifie the same’. -The first estimate of cost seems to have been about £700 to £800, for -a levy of ‘50^{li} or 60^{li}’ was called upon each seventh share -of the moiety.[1257] Witter was unable to meet this demand, and as -he was also behindhand with his share of the ground-rent and other -payments, Heminges resumed possession of the seventh and gave half of -it ‘gratis’ to Henry Condell. By this time it had been ascertained that -the re-edifying would be ‘a verie greate charge’, and Heminges claims -that the re-edifying of Witter’s ‘parte’ had in fact cost himself and -Condell ‘about the somme of cxx^{li}’.[1258] This would mean a total -cost of about £1,680.[1259] Heminges appears to have taken a sub-lease -at 20_s._ a year from his partners of two small parcels of the land -in 1615, and to have built on them a house, probably a taphouse, as a -private enterprise.[1260] - -Ostler died in December 1614, and Heminges took possession of his -interest and drew the profits until October 1615, when his daughter -Thomasina, Ostler’s widow, brought an action against him for them, the -result of which is unknown.[1261] Shakespeare died in April 1616, and -his interest, if not previously alienated, would have passed under -his will, with other ‘leases’ to John and Susanna Hall.[1262] At some -time earlier than April 1619, probably when he joined the company -about 1616, Field was admitted to be a housekeeper, and the moiety was -then divided into eighths instead of sevenths.[1263] In April 1619 -Witter brought an action against Heminges and Condell in the Court of -Requests, to recover the interest which he had forfeited at the time of -the rebuilding. He estimated the present annual value of the seventh, -which he had held, at £30 to £40, and in the course of the proceedings -expressed his willingness either to pay a rent of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ for -the half of that seventh which Heminges had not passed over to Condell, -or, alternatively, to take the profits of the houses on the site, other -than the theatre, and in return for those to become responsible for the -whole of the ground-rents due under the principal leases. The defence -consisted in a denial of Witter’s claim to benefit under the will of -Augustine Phillips, and an assertion that, after Heminges had allowed -him to draw considerable sums in respect of the share, he had deserted -his wife, at whose death Heminges ‘out of charitie was at the charges -of the buryeing of her’. The depositions of the witnesses, who included -Thomas Woodford and one James Knasborough, are unfortunately missing. -Ultimately Witter failed to proceed with his case, and on 29 November -1620 the Court gave judgement for the defendants. - -In October 1624 died John Underwood and left a share in the Globe in -trust for his children to Condell and others as his executors. It must -be supposed that he had succeeded to Field’s eighth, when the latter -left the King’s men in 1619. Condell himself died in December 1627 -and left his interest to his son William until he should have made -£300 out of it, and thereafter to his widow. Heminges died in October -1630, and his interest passed to his son William as his executor. -During the last years of their lives Heminges and Condell, following -out the policy of absorption which has already been illustrated, -appear to have acquired in one way or another the whole of the shares -formerly held by Shakespeare, by Basil Nicoll and John Edmonds as -successors of Sly, and by Underwood. This fact emerges from the records -known as the _Sharers Papers_, which start with a petition from -Robert Benfield, Eliard Swanston, and Thomas Pollard, then important -members of the King’s company, to the Lord Chamberlain in 1635, to -be admitted to shares as ‘housekeepers’ in the profits of the Globe -and the Blackfriars.[1264] The allegations show that the Globe had -been ‘formerly’ divided into sixteen shares, of which eight were -held by Cuthbert Burbadge and Richard Burbadge’s widow Winifred, now -Mrs. Robinson, in her own right and that of her son William, four by -Mrs. Condell, and four by William Heminges. Afterwards Joseph Taylor -and John Lowin were allowed to acquire shares, and later still the -remaining Heminges interest was ‘surreptitiously’ purchased by John -Shank. At the date of the petition, therefore, the Burbadges held -seven shares, Mrs. Condell two, Shank three, and Taylor and Lowin two -each. The case furnishes valuable information as to the organization -of the theatre, and as to the division of outgoing and profits between -the housekeepers and the actors as such. It is pretty evident that -by 1635 the Globe took a secondary place to the Blackfriars in the -economy of the King’s men.[1265] Shank admitted that he had bought -a two years’ term of one Globe share in 1633 and a one year’s term -of two more in 1634, together with interests in the Blackfriars, and -seems to have thought that the £506 which he gave was full value for -the purchases.[1266] The Burbadges protested against being called upon -to part with any part of their property to ‘men soe soone shott up’ -and not having the ‘antiquity and desert’, which had customarily been -looked for in housekeepers. In support of their plea they recalled -the early services of their father in the building of theatres and -the claims of their family to profit by ‘the great desert of Richard -Burbadge for his quality of playing’. They suggested that ‘makeing -the leases for twenty-one yeeres’ to their fellows, whose widows or -children subsequently alienated the profits from the company, had been -their ‘destruction’. The Lord Chamberlain, however, directed that -the Burbadges should transfer two shares and Shank one to the three -petitioners, ‘at the usual and accustomed rates, and according to the -proportion of the time and benefit they are to injoy’. This the order -states, in the case of the Globe, as five years. Probably there is an -error here. The terms bought by Shank were to expire in 1635, but at -the time of the petition a suit was pending in the Court of Requests -for the confirmation of a ‘lease paroll’ from Sir Matthew Brend for -a further nine years from 25 March 1635. The original lease of 1599 -from Nicholas Brend was for thirty-one years and would have expired in -1629. But on 26 October 1613, when the rebuilding of the theatre was -in hand, a fresh lease extending the term to 1635 had been granted by -Sir John Bodley as trustee for Nicholas’s son Matthew, who was then a -minor. Not content with this, the syndicate had procured a promise of -a further extension to 1644 from young Matthew himself, which he now -repudiated.[1267] I think that Bodley must have taken the opportunity -in 1613 to raise the ground-rent from £14 10_s._ to £20. A draft for a -return of new and divided houses, made for the Earl Marshal in 1634, -has the following entry: - - ‘The Globe play-house nere Maid lane built by the company of - players, with the dwelling-house thereto adjoyninge, built with - timber, about 20 yeares past, upon an old foundation, worth - 14^{li} to 20^{li} per ann., and one house there adjoyning - built about the same tyme with timber, in the possession of W^m - Millet, gent., worth per ann. 4^{li} [_In margin_, Play-house & - house, S^r Mathew Brend’s inheritance].’ - -A corrected return of 1637 runs: - - ‘The Globe play-house nere Maide lane built by the Company - of Players with timber about 20 yeares past uppon an old - foundacion, worth 20^{li} per ann. beinge the inheritance of S^r - Mathew Brand, K^{nt}.’[1268] - -The petitioners in the _Sharers Papers_ declare that up to Lady Day -1635 the rent for the Globe and Blackfriars together was not above -£65. The original rent of the Blackfriars was £40, but this also may -have been put up on the expiration of the first lease in 1629. The -Court of Requests finally confirmed the extension of the lease to -1644, apparently at a still further increased rent of £55, as Shank -states the combined rent of the two houses as £100. The Globe was -‘pulled downe to the ground, by Sir Matthew Brand, on Munday the 15 -of April 1644, to make tenements in the room of it’; that is to say, -immediately upon the expiration of the nine years’ term from Lady Day -1635 contemplated in the _Sharers Papers_.[1269] - -The precise locality of the Globe has been matter of controversy. -The various contemporary documents already quoted place it beyond -doubt in Surrey, and ‘on the Bankside’, a term which must certainly -be taken to cover, not merely the row of houses looking directly upon -the river, but also the whole of the western part of Southwark lying -behind and south of these. With somewhat greater minuteness, the -parish of St. Mary Overies is specified in the lawsuit of _Allen v. -Burbadge_, and the parish of St. Saviour’s in the Fortune contract. -There is no inconsistency here. The two ancient parishes of St. Mary -Magdalen and St. Margaret on the Hill were amalgamated under the name -of St. Saviour’s at the Reformation.[1270] I do not know that the -ancient boundaries are upon record. The Rose stood in what had been St. -Margaret’s, and one would therefore expect to find the Globe nearer -than the Rose to the old priory church of St. Mary’s. In the Privy -Council order of 1604 the situation is described as ‘in Maiden lane’, -and in the return to the Earl Marshal of 1637 as ‘nere Maide lane’. -But, apart from the difference between ‘in’ and ‘nere’, Maiden Lane -is a fairly long thoroughfare, and so far as these indications are -concerned, the Globe may have been either to the north or the south of -it. Local tradition, as elaborated by Southwark antiquaries, has been -inclined to put it to the south, within the area occupied by what was -formerly Thrale’s and is now Barclay and Perkins’s Anchor Brewery, of -which Maiden Lane, now Park Street, forms the northern boundary. The -main reason for this is the inclusion within the brewery of the course -of a passage known as Globe Alley, which ran west from Deadman’s Place -in a parallel line to Maiden Lane for about 360 feet and then turned -northwards for another 100 feet until it debouched into the Lane. So -far as measurements go, Globe Alley might be the _venella_ of the -1599 lease. The name first appears in the St. Saviour’s token book -for 1614, where it is applied to houses formerly described as Brand’s -Rents, and from 1613 onwards as Sir John Bodley’s Rents.[1271] Land -south of Maiden Lane certainly formed part of the Brend estate, and -a plot of it conveyed by Sir Matthew Brend to one Hilary Memprise in -1626 was bounded on the south by a sewer dividing it from the Bishop -of Winchester’s park, and on the north by ‘the alley or way leading to -the Gloabe Play-house commonly called Gloabe Alley’.[1272] A century -later, property acquired for the brewery in 1732 is similarly described -as ‘fronting a certain alley or passage called Globe Alley, in antient -times leading from Deadman’s Place to the Globe Play-house’.[1273] - -It was certainly a belief in the Thrale family that the site of the -theatre itself had passed into their hands. Mrs. Piozzi, Johnson’s -friend, who married Henry Thrale in 1763, left the following -autobiographical note of her residence in Southwark between that date -and her husband’s death in 1781: - - ‘For a long time, then--or I thought it such--my fate was bound - up with the old Globe Theatre, upon the Bankside, Southwark; - the alley it had occupied having been purchased and thrown down - by M^r Thrale to make an opening before the windows of our - dwelling-house. When it lay desolate in a black heap of rubbish, - my Mother, one day, in a joke, called it the Ruins of Palmyra; - and after that they laid it down in a grass-plot. Palmyra was - the name it went by, I suppose, among the clerks and servants of - the brewhouse.... But there were really curious remains of the - old Globe Play-house, which though hexagonal in form without, - was round within.’[1274] - -Dr. Martin seems to think that the lady’s recollection was confused and -that the garden called Palmyra stood on the east of Deadman’s Place -opposite to Globe Alley. But, according to Concanen and Morgan it was -‘on the opposite side of the street’ to the brewery.[1275] However -this may be, there are other notices which show that, however complete -the demolition of 1644, the theatre or part of it was still regarded -by tradition as standing a hundred years later amongst the tenements -by which it was replaced.[1276] In 1787 the brewery was purchased -by Barclay and Perkins, and the conveyance recites amongst other -property a plot of ground between Globe Alley and a common sewer, from -which had been cleared in 1767 some ‘ruinous and decayed’ tenements -formerly occupied in 1715 by John Knowles and others.[1277] This is -probably the clearance referred to by Mrs. Piozzi. Under Acts of 1786 -and 1812 Globe Alley was closed, and it is now covered over within the -brewery precinct. Horwood’s map of 1799 shows the eastern end already -obliterated. The western end is called Globe Walk, and to the north of -it is Globe Court, perhaps representing the space cleared in 1767. - -On the assumption that the theatre stood in Globe Alley, there has -been divergence of opinion as to the precise part of the Alley in -which it stood. Mr. Rendle fixed on a spot on the north side, about -80 or 100 feet from the Deadman’s Place end.[1278] To this he was -guided, partly by a further local tradition, according to which the -site was occupied successively by a meeting-house and a windmill, and -partly by an argument derived from the entries in the St. Saviour’s -token-book for 1621.[1279] Here, under the heading ‘Sir John Bodley’s -Rentes’ are recorded in succession about ten names. Then comes a new -heading, differently written, ‘Gloab Alley’, then two more names, then -in the margin of the page the word ‘Gloabe’. This Mr. Rendle took -to mean that the Globe was about twelve houses from the east end of -the alley. If this is an indication of the site of the Globe at all, -which is a mere conjecture, I should myself draw the inference that it -stood, not twelve, but two houses from the end of the alley, and that -a part, if not the whole, of Bodley’s Rents was outside the alley. And -why should the enumerator be supposed to have worked from the east, -rather than from the north end of the alley? Dr. Martin, in fact, -turns Mr. Rendle’s argument round in this way, and uses the token-book -to support a theory which places the theatre south of Globe Alley, -just at the angle where it turns to the north, and 360 feet, instead -of Mr. Rendle’s 80 or 100 feet, west of Deadman’s Place.[1280] Here -it appears to be located in a borough history of 1795;[1281] and is -certainly located in more than one early nineteenth-century plan.[1282] -Dr. Martin has attempted to obtain confirmation of this siting from an -investigation of the brewery title-deeds. From 1727 onwards the history -of the angle site is clear. In that year it was transferred, subject -to a mortgage, by Timothy Cason and his wife Elizabeth, heiress of the -Brend estate, to certain parishioners of St. Saviour’s. Upon it was -built the parish workhouse referred to by Concanen and Morgan. This -stood just at the outer south-west angle of Globe Alley, which Dr. -Martin conceives to have been occupied by the theatre. In 1774 a new -workhouse was built, and the site of the old one bought by the Thrales. -It was conveyed with the rest of the brewery to Barclay and Perkins -in 1787, and was then described as the ground ‘on which lately stood -all that great shop or workhouse formerly used for a meeting-house’. -Dr. Martin thinks that this forgotten meeting-house may have been -confused in local tradition with that further to the east along Globe -Alley.[1283] Dr. Martin suggests that the property transferred by -the Casons in 1727 is to be identified with that described in a deed -executed by the same persons in 1706, of which a copy is also to be -found amongst the brewery title-deeds, as consisting of tenements built -‘where the late play-house called the Globe stood and upon the ground -thereunto belonging’. If this were so, he would of course have proved -his point. The deed of 1706 seems to have been a family settlement -covering various fragments of Brend property in Southwark, which had -only just been brought together in the hands of Elizabeth Cason. The -Globe site had been settled by Sir Matthew Brend in 1624 upon his -wife Frances as a jointure. She died in 1673, and it then passed as -a jointure to Judith, wife of Sir Matthew’s son Thomas and mother of -Elizabeth, under a deed of 1655 in which the reference to ‘the late -play-house called the Globe’, repeated in that of 1706, first occurs. -Judith Brend had died in 1706. - -As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to reconcile the Southwark -tradition that the Globe stood on the south of Maiden Lane, either -in Mr. Rendle’s or in Dr. Martin’s interpretation of it, with more -than one bit of evidence which we owe to the research of Professor -Wallace. The first of these is the lease of 1599 itself, as recited -in the pleadings of _Ostler v. Heminges_. This states quite clearly -that the leased plot abutted on a piece of land called the Park ‘super -boream’ and on Maiden Lane ‘versus austrum’, and it is difficult to -take very seriously either the Latinity which makes ‘versus austrum’ -mean that the leased plot was on the south, or the suggestion that the -draughtsman was working carelessly from a plan which had the south -instead of the north of the plot at the top of the sheet, and got -the points of his compass wrong.[1284] I daresay that such things do -sometimes happen in conveyancer’s offices, but it is hardly legitimate -to call them in aid as a canon of interpretation. No doubt it is -tempting to identify the piece of land called the Park with the Bishop -of Winchester’s park, which lay at a reasonable distance to the south -and not to the north of Maiden Lane, but after all this must once have -extended nearly up to the Bankside, since Maiden Lane itself is known -to have been cut out of it, and it is not at all improbable that some -little strip of land retained the name.[1285] It can only have been -a very little one. The lease describes the Globe site as consisting -of two plots lying apparently on opposite sides of a way or alley -(_venella_) by which access was obtainable to them. One of these, that -next the Park, had been the gardens of Thomas Burt, Isbrand Morris, -and Lactantius Roper. It was 220 feet in length and lay between the -garden of John Knowles on the east and John Cornish on the west. The -southern plot, bounded by Maiden Lane on the south, had similarly been -the gardens of John Roberts and Thomas Ditcher. This was only 156 feet -long and 100 feet deep, and lay between the gardens of William Sellers -to the east and John Burgram to the west. Now the whole space between -Maiden Lane and the Thames is only from 200 to 350 feet at various -points, so that there could not have been room for much of a ‘park’ -between the Globe site and the Bankside houses. - -The evidence of the lease is confirmed in various ways by the records -of presentments made by the Commissioners of Sewers for Kent and Surrey -against negligent occupiers in this marshy neighbourhood. The most -important entry is one of 14 February 1606: - - ‘It is ordered that Burbidge and Heminges and others, the owners - of the Play-house called the Globe in Maid-Lane shall before the - xx^{th} day of Aprill next pull vp and take cleane out of the - Sewar the props or postes which stand vnder their bridge on the - north side of Mayd-lane vpon paine to forfeit xx^s.’ - -This is endorsed ‘done’, but another order of the same day requiring -the same men to ‘well and sufficientlye pyle boorde and fill vp viij -poles more or lesse of theire wharfe against theire said Play-house’ -needed a repetition on 25 April before it received attention.[1286] -Earlier records, before the Globe came into existence, relate to some -of the garden-holders named in the lease. A plot of John Bingham or -Burgram abutted on a Maiden Lane sewer in 1596, and this is probably -identical with the ‘common sewer leading from Sellors gardin to the -beare garden’, which William Sellers and others were ordered to cleanse -on 5 December 1595. Certainly the bear garden was to the north and -not the south of Maiden Lane. There was also a sewer bordering upon -the park, and on this Jasper Morris and Thomas Burt had encroached in -1593.[1287] - -The old maps, as usual, do not give much help when it comes to a pinch, -although the balance of their authority, for what it is worth, seems to -me to be in favour of a northern site.[1288] Mr. Hubbard, calculating -from Visscher’s map, would put the Globe on the site of the present -Central Wharf, 15 feet south of the Bankside houses and 136 feet west -of Bank End, and therefore not very near Maiden Lane at all.[1289] I do -not think that he sufficiently recognizes the imperfections of the maps -from a surveyor’s point of view. I doubt whether more is to be got out -of them than that the Globe stood more to the east and probably more to -the south than either the Hope or the Rose.[1290] - -The foregoing paragraphs show the state of the controversy when the -body of this chapter was written. Since then Mr. Braines has taken -up the investigation where it was left by Dr. Martin, with the help -of the brewery title-deeds and many other documents bearing on the -distribution of tenements in Maiden Lane and Globe Alley over more than -a century. It now seems clear that, in view of the known history of -properties north of Maiden Lane, there is no room for the Globe plot -there, that this plot did pass from the Casons to the workhouse and -ultimately the brewery, and that it did lie at Dr. Martin’s angle site, -being indeed precisely located on the map by Concanen and Morgan’s -description of 1795. We must therefore assume that the points of the -compass were, as Dr. Martin conjectured, inverted in the lease of -1599, east with west and north with south, and that the Globe company -maintained a bridge over the sewer on the opposite side of Maiden Lane -to the theatre, for the convenience of visitors coming down Horseshoe -Alley from the river. The _venella_ of 1599 must have been a westward -extension of Globe Alley, afterwards disused. - -Some notion of the structural character of the Globe may be gleaned -from the builder’s contract for the Fortune in 1600.[1291] The Globe -was then the last new thing in theatres, and in entering into his -agreement for the Fortune with Peter Street, the builder of both -houses, Henslowe was careful to specify that the Globe should be taken -as the model, alike as regards the arrangement of the galleries and -staircases, the contrivances and fashioning of the stage, and all -other minor points not particularly indicated. The only alterations of -design set out in the agreement were that the scantlings or standard -measurements of the timber should be rather stouter than those of the -Globe, and that the main posts of the stage and auditorium should -be shaped square and carved with figures of satyrs. It is probable, -however, that a more important difference is passed without notice. -The Fortune was rectangular; the Globe was almost certainly round. The -reference to a circular house in _Henry V_ and _A Warning for Fair -Women_, both plays of about 1599, may indeed belong to the Curtain -rather than the Globe, but there are similar references in _E. M. -O._ (1599) and in _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (1608), which are -certainly Globe plays, and there seems no reason to doubt that the -Globe is represented by the cylindrical buildings, windowless below, -windowed and of narrower diameter above, which are shown in the maps -of the Hondius group and in the background of Delaram’s portrait of -James I.[1292] A few details are furnished by the various narratives -of the fire of 1613. The roof was thatched, whence arose the accident. -The walls were of timber, for nothing was burnt but wood and straw. -The building was ‘flanked with a ditch, and forced out of a marish’. -It had a stage-house ‘round as taylors clewe’, and carried a silken -flag. There were two narrow doors, and hard by stood an alehouse. The -new Globe built after the fire was tiled for greater safety. In other -respects there was probably no great change. The building is described -in 1634 as of timber, upon an old foundation. The maps, if they can be -trusted, figure it as polygonal, rather than strictly round. No doubt -it was round inside; an ‘amphytheator’, it is called in _Holland’s -Leaguer_. The _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 mention the tiring-house door, -at which money was taken. James Wright tells us that it was a summer -house, large and partly open to the weather, and that the acting was -always by daylight. Malone conjectured that the name ‘Globe’ was taken -from the sign, ‘which was a figure of Hercules supporting the Globe, -under which was written _Totus mundus agit histrionem_’.[1293] I do not -know where he got this information. - - - xii. THE FORTUNE - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Most of the documents are at Dulwich, - and are printed in full or in abstract by W. W. Greg in - _Henslowe Papers_, and by J. P. Collier in _Alleyn Memoirs_ - and _Alleyn Papers_. The _Register_ of the Privy Council adds - a few of importance. Valuable summaries of the history of the - theatre are given by W. W. Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. 56, - and W. Young, _History of Dulwich College_ (1889), ii. 257. - _The Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Muniments at Dulwich_ - (1881–1903) by G. F. Warner and F. B. Bickley is also useful.] - -The settlement of the Chamberlain’s men in 1599 at the Globe, hard by -the Rose, on Bankside, probably led Henslowe and Alleyn to plan during -the same year a countermove, by the transference of the Admiral’s -men to a new theatrical locality in the rapidly growing districts on -the north-west boundary of the City. The Rose, although not built -fifteen years, was in decay, and the swamps of the Bankside had not, -especially in bad weather, proved attractive to visitors. The new -centre might be expected to serve in summer and winter alike, and, -while in a place ‘remote and exempt’ from the City jurisdiction, would -be convenient for the well-to-do population, which was establishing -itself in the western suburbs, along the main roads of Holborn and the -Strand. The Fortune on the north, and the Blackfriars, opened about -the same time on the south, delimited a region which has remained -almost to our own day the head-quarters of the stage. The actual site -selected lay just outside Cripplegate between Golding or Golden Lane -and Whitecross Street, in the county of Middlesex, the lordship or -liberty of Finsbury, and the parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate. -The title-deeds at Dulwich make it possible to trace the history of -the property or part of it back to the reign of Henry VIII, but for -the present purpose it is sufficient to begin with 11 July 1584, the -date of a lease by Daniel Gill, son of William Gill, gardener, to -Patrick Brewe, goldsmith, of five tenements on the east side of Golding -Lane and one on the west side of Whitecross Street at a rent of £12 a -year. This lease Brewe assigned to Alleyn on 22 December 1599, for a -sum of £240. Subsequently, in 1610, Alleyn bought up a reversionary -lease for £100, and also, after troublesome negotiations with the -numerous descendants of Daniel Gill, the freehold of the property for -£340.[1294] This purchase, however, and probably also the original -lease, included a good deal more than the actual plot on which the -theatre was built. The deed of sale recites six tenements on the east -of Golden Lane and six on the west of Whitecross Street. It is pretty -clear, from the boundaries described, as compared with those in a -temporary assignment by Alleyn of the lease, that the property dealt -with in 1584 and in 1610 was the same, and it is natural to conclude -that Alleyn had himself added to the number of tenements.[1295] This -is confirmed by a note of Alleyn’s that, in addition to building the -play-house, he spent £120 ‘for other priuat buildings of myn owne’. One -such building adjoined the south side of the play-house in 1601.[1296] -Alleyn’s note gives the cost of the play-house itself as £520, making -up with the private buildings and the purchase of leasehold, reversion, -and freehold, a total expenditure of £1,320.[1297] The contract for -building the framework was taken by Peter Street, carpenter, at £440, -which presumably left Alleyn £80 for the painting and other decorative -work excluded from the contract. The following is the text of the -contract, which is preserved at Dulwich:[1298] - - ‘This Indenture made the Eighte daie of Januarye 1599, and in - the Twoe and Fortyth yeare of the Reigne of our sovereigne Ladie - Elizabeth, by the grace of god Queene of Englande, Fraunce - and Irelande, defender of the Faythe, &c. betwene Phillipp - Henslowe and Edwarde Allen of the parishe of S^{te} Saviours - in Southwark in the Countie of Surrey, gentlemen, on thone - parte, and Peeter Streete, Cittizen and Carpenter of London, - on thother parte witnesseth That whereas the saide Phillipp - Henslowe & Edward Allen, the daie of the date hereof, haue - bargayned, compounded & agreed with the saide Peter Streete - ffor the erectinge, buildinge & settinge upp of a new howse - and Stadge for a Plaiehouse in and vppon a certeine plott or - parcell of grounde appoynted oute for that purpose, scytuate - and beinge nere Goldinge lane in the parishe of S^{te} Giles - withoute Cripplegate of London, to be by him the saide Peeter - Streete or somme other sufficyent woorkmen of his provideinge - and appoyntemente and att his propper costes & chardges, for - the consideracion hereafter in theis presentes expressed, made, - erected, builded and sett upp in manner & forme followinge (that - is to saie); The frame of the saide howse to be sett square and - to conteine ffowerscore foote of lawfull assize everye waie - square withoutt and fiftie fiue foote of like assize square - everye waie within, with a good suer and stronge foundacion - of pyles, brick, lyme and sand bothe without & within, to be - wroughte one foote of assize att the leiste aboue the grounde; - And the saide fframe to conteine three Stories in heighth, - the first or lower Storie to conteine Twelue foote of lawfull - assize in heighth, the second Storie Eleaven foote of lawfull - assize in heigth, and the third or vpper Storie to conteine - Nyne foote of lawfull assize in height; All which Stories - shall conteine Twelue foote and a halfe of lawfull assize in - breadth througheoute, besides a juttey forwardes in either - of the saide twoe vpper Stories of Tenne ynches of lawfull - assize, with ffower convenient divisions for gentlemens roomes, - and other sufficient and convenient divisions for Twoe pennie - roomes, with necessarie seates to be placed and sett, aswell - in those roomes as througheoute all the rest of the galleries - of the saide howse, and with suchelike steares, conveyances & - divisions withoute & within, as are made & contryved in and to - the late erected Plaiehowse on the Banck in the saide parishe - of S^{te} Saviours called the Globe; With a Stadge and Tyreinge - howse to be made, erected & settupp within the saide fframe, - with a shadowe or cover over the saide Stadge, which Stadge - shalbe placed & sett, as alsoe the stearecases of the saide - fframe, in suche sorte as is prefigured in a plott thereof - drawen, and which Stadge shall conteine in length Fortie and - Three foote of lawfull assize and in breadth to extende to the - middle of the yarde of the saide howse; The same Stadge to be - paled in belowe with good, stronge and sufficyent newe oken - bourdes, and likewise the lower Storie of the saide fframe - withinside, and the same lower storie to be alsoe laide over - and fenced with stronge yron pykes; And the saide Stadge to - be in all other proporcions contryved and fashioned like vnto - the Stadge of the saide Plaie howse called the Globe; With - convenient windowes and lightes glazed to the saide Tyreinge - howse; And the saide fframe, Stadge and Stearecases to be - covered with Tyle, and to haue a sufficient gutter of lead to - carrie & convey the water frome the coveringe of the saide - Stadge to fall backwardes; And also all the saide fframe and - the Stairecases thereof to be sufficyently enclosed withoute - with lathe, lyme & haire, and the gentlemens roomes and Twoe - pennie roomes to be seeled with lathe, lyme & haire, and all - the fflowers of the saide Galleries, Stories and Stadge to - be bourded with good & sufficyent newe deale bourdes of the - whole thicknes, wheare need shalbe; And the saide howse and - other thinges beforemencioned to be made & doen to be in all - other contrivitions, conveyances, fashions, thinge and thinges - effected, finished and doen accordinge to the manner and - fashion of the saide howse called the Globe, saveinge only that - all the princypall and maine postes of the saide fframe and - Stadge forwarde shalbe square and wroughte palasterwise, with - carved proporcions called Satiers to be placed & sett on the - topp of every of the same postes, and saveinge alsoe that the - said Peeter Streete shall not be chardged with anie manner of - pay[ntin]ge in or aboute the saide fframe howse or Stadge or - anie parte thereof, nor rendringe the walls within, nor seeling - anie more or other roomes then the gentlemens roomes, Twoe - pennie roomes and Stadge before remembred. Nowe theiruppon the - saide Peeter Streete dothe covenant, promise and graunte ffor - himself, his executours and administratours, to and with the - saide Phillipp Henslowe and Edward Allen and either of them, - and thexecutours and administratours of them and either of - them, by theis presentes in manner & forme followeinge (that - is to saie); That he the saide Peeter Streete, his executours - or assignes, shall & will att his or their owne propper costes - & chardges well, woorkmanlike & substancyallie make, erect, - sett upp and fully finishe in and by all thinges, accordinge - to the true meaninge of theis presentes, with good, stronge - and substancyall newe tymber and other necessarie stuff, all - the saide fframe and other woorkes whatsoever in and vppon - the saide plott or parcell of grounde (beinge not by anie - aucthoretie restrayned, and haveinge ingres, egres & regres to - doe the same) before the ffyue & twentith daie of Julie next - commeinge after the date hereof; And shall alsoe at his or - theire like costes and chardges provide and finde all manner - of woorkmen, tymber, joystes, rafters, boordes, dores, boltes, - hinges, brick, tyle, lathe, lyme, haire, sande, nailes, lade, - iron, glasse, woorkmanshipp and other thinges whatsoever, which - shalbe needefull, convenyent & necessarie for the saide fframe - & woorkes & euerie parte thereof; And shall alsoe make all the - saide fframe in every poynte for Scantlinges lardger and bigger - in assize then the Scantlinges of the timber of the saide newe - erected howse called the Globe; And alsoe that he the saide - Peeter Streete shall furthwith, aswell by himself as by suche - other and soemanie woorkmen as shalbe convenient & necessarie, - enter into and vppon the saide buildinges and woorkes, and shall - in reasonable manner proceede therein withoute anie wilfull - detraccion vntill the same shalbe fully effected and finished. - In consideracion of all which buildinges and of all stuff & - woorkemanshipp thereto belonginge, the saide Phillipp Henslowe - & Edward Allen and either of them, ffor themselues, theire, and - either of theire executours & administratours, doe joynctlie - & seuerallie covenante & graunte to & with the saide Peeter - Streete, his executours & administratours by theis presentes, - that they the saide Phillipp Henslowe & Edward Allen or one of - them, or the executours administratours or assignes of them or - one of them, shall & will well & truelie paie or cawse to be - paide vnto the saide Peeter Streete, his executours or assignes, - att the place aforesaid appoynted for the erectinge of the saide - fframe, the full somme of Fower hundred & Fortie Poundes of - lawfull money of Englande in manner & forme followeinge (that - is to saie), att suche tyme and when as the Tymber-woork of - the saide fframe shalbe rayzed & sett upp by the saide Peeter - Streete his executours or assignes, or within seaven daies - then next followeinge, Twoe hundred & Twentie poundes, and - att suche time and when as the saide fframe & woorkes shalbe - fullie effected & ffynished as is aforesaide, or within seaven - daies then next followeinge, thother Twoe hundred and Twentie - poundes, withoute fraude or coven. Prouided allwaies, and it - is agreed betwene the saide parties, that whatsoever somme or - sommes of money the saide Phillipp Henslowe & Edward Allen or - either of them, or the executours or assignes of them or either - of them, shall lend or deliver vnto the saide Peter Streete his - executours or assignes, or anie other by his appoyntemente or - consent, ffor or concerninge the saide woorkes or anie parte - thereof or anie stuff thereto belonginge, before the raizeinge - & settinge upp of the saide fframe, shalbe reputed, accepted, - taken & accoumpted in parte of the firste paymente aforesaid - of the saide some of Fower hundred & Fortie poundes, and all - suche somme & sommes of money, as they or anie of them shall - as aforesaid lend or deliver betwene the razeinge of the - saide fframe & finishinge thereof and of all the rest of the - saide woorkes, shalbe reputed, accepted, taken & accoumpted - in parte of the laste pamente aforesaid of the same somme - of Fower hundred & Fortie poundes, anie thinge abouesaid to - the contrary notwithstandinge. In witnes whereof the parties - abouesaid to theis presente Indentures Interchaungeably haue - sett theire handes and seales. Yeoven the daie and yeare ffirste - abouewritten. - - P S - - Sealed and deliuered by the saide Peter Streete in the presence - of me William Harris Pub[lic] Scr[ivener] And me Frauncis Smyth - appr[entice] to the said Scr[ivener] - - [_Endorsed_:] Peater Streat ffor The Building of the Fortune. - -The constant references in the terms of the contract to the model -of the Globe, while bearing testimony to the stimulus which the -building of the Globe had given to theatrical competition, leaves -some uncertainty as to many details of planning, and it is matter -for regret that the ‘plot’ of the stage and staircases furnished to -the builder has not itself been preserved. We learn, however, that -the house was a square one, 80 feet each way by outside and 55 feet -by inside measurement; that the stage was 43 feet wide and projected -into the middle of the yard; that the framework was of wood, on a -foundation of brick and piles, and with an outer coating of plaster; -that the framework and stage were boarded within and strengthened -with iron pikes; that there were three galleries rising to a total -height of 32 feet, and that sections of these were partitioned off and -ceiled as ‘gentlemens rooms’, of which there were four, and ‘two-penny -rooms’; that the tiring-house had glazed windows; that there was a -‘shadowe or cover’ over the stage, and that this, with the galleries -and staircases, were tiled and supplied with lead gutters to carry off -the rain-water. Two divergences from the Globe model are specified: -the timber work is to be stouter, and the principal posts of the frame -work and stage are to be square and carved with satyrs. An ingenious -attempt has been made by Mr. William Archer and Mr. W. H. Godfrey to -reconstruct the plan of the theatre from these and other indications, -with a liberal allowance of conjecture.[1299] It will be observed -that Henslowe, as well as Alleyn, was a party to the contract; but -it is pretty clear from Alleyn’s note already referred to that he -found the money, and although Henslowe did in fact become his partner -in the enterprise, this was under a lease of 4 April 1601, whereby -he took over a moiety of the play-house and its profits for a term -of twenty-four years from the previous 25 March at an annual rent -of £8.[1300] This lease did not include Alleyn’s private tenements, -but it did include some enclosed ‘growndes’ on the north and west of -the house, and a passage 30 feet long by 14 feet wide running east -from the south-west angle of the building ‘from one doore of the said -house to an other’. It is, I think, to be inferred from this that the -main approach to the earlier Fortune theatre was from the Golden Lane -side. The contract with Street is dated on 8 January 1600 and provides -for the completion of the work by the following 25 July, and for the -payment of the price in two instalments, one when the framework was -up and the other upon completion. In fact, however, the acquittances -by Street and others, endorsed upon the Dulwich indenture, show that -Henslowe acted as a kind of banker for the transaction, and made -advances from time to time to Street, or to pay workmen or purchase -materials, all of which were debited against the amounts payable under -the contract. Work seems to have begun before 17 January. By 20 March -Henslowe had paid £180 and by 4 May £240. It is therefore a little -puzzling to find a payment ‘at the eand of the fowndations’ on 8 May. -About £53 more was paid before 10 June, making nearly £300 in all by -that date. The last entry is one of 4s. to Street ‘to pasify him’, -which suggests that some dispute had taken place. Here the acquittances -stop, but Henslowe’s _Diary_ indicates that he was frequently dining -in company with Street from 13 June to August 8, and probably the work -was completed about the latter date.[1301] Alleyn had had to face some -opposition in carrying out his project. He began by arming himself with -the authority of his ‘lord’, the Earl of Nottingham, who wrote in his -favour to the Middlesex justices on 12 January 1600, explaining the -reasons for leaving the Bankside and the general convenience of the new -locality, and citing the Queen’s ‘special regarde of fauor’ towards -the company as a reason why the justices should allow his servant to -build ‘w^{th}out anie yo^r lett or molestation’. This action did not -prove sufficient to avert a local protest. Lord Willoughby and others -complained to the Council, who on 9 March wrote to the Middlesex -justices informing them that the erection of a new play-house, ‘wherof -ther are to manie allreadie not farr from that place’, would greatly -displease the Queen, and commanding the project to be ‘staied’. Alleyn, -however, was secure in the royal favour. He also, by offering a weekly -contribution to the relief of the poor, succeeded in obtaining a -certificate from the petty officials and other inhabitants of Finsbury -of their consent to the toleration of the house; and on 8 April the -Council wrote again to the justices, withdrawing their previous -inhibition and laying special stress on Elizabeth’s desire that Alleyn -personally should revive his services as a player, ‘wheareof, of late -he hath made discontynuance’. The letter also referred to the fact -that another house was pulled down instead of the Fortune, and a -formal Privy Council order of 22 June, laying down that there shall -in future be one house in Middlesex for the Admiral’s men, and one on -the Bankside for the Chamberlain’s, makes it clear that the condemned -theatre was the Curtain.[1302] Nevertheless, it is certain that neither -the Curtain nor the Rose was in fact plucked down at this date. - -The Fortune was opened in the autumn of 1600 by the Admiral’s men, -probably with Dekker’s _1 Fortune’s Tennis_, and its theatrical history -is closely bound up with that of the same company, who occupied it -continuously, as the Admiral’s to 1603, then as Prince Henry’s men -to his death in 1612, and finally as the Palsgrave’s men. It is -only necessary to deal here with matters that directly concern the -building. That it became something of a centre of disturbance in the -peaceful suburbs of the north-west is shown by various entries in the -records of the Middlesex Bench. On 26 February 1611, two butchers, -Ralph Brewyn and John Lynsey, were charged with abusing gentlemen -there. On 1 October 1612, the justices regarded it as the resort -of cutpurses, and were thereby led to suppress the jigs at the end -of plays, which especially attracted such persons. In 1613 a true -bill was found against Richard Bradley for stabbing Nicholas Bedney -there on 5 June.[1303] The upkeep of the structure was expensive. A -note in Alleyn’s hand of sums laid out upon the play-house during -the seven years 1602–8 shows an average amount of about £120. Only -£4 2_s._ was spent during 1603, for the greater part of which year -the theatres were closed, but £232 1_s._ 8_d._ in 1604.[1304] No -doubt wooden buildings, open to the weather, perished rapidly. It is -not unreasonable to suppose that the relations between the company -and their landlords were much what they had been at the Rose; that -is to say that the latter took half the gallery receipts and bore -repairs, while the former took the rest of the receipts and met all -other outgoings. An unexecuted draft lease to Thomas Downton of 1608 -indicates that Alleyn and Henslowe then had it in mind to bind the -company more closely to the theatre, by dividing a quarter of their -interest amongst the eight members of the company.[1305] Possibly the -plan was carried out. In asking a loan from Alleyn on a date apparently -earlier than August 1613, Charles Massye, who was one of the eight, not -only offers repayment out of his ‘gallery mony’ and ‘house mony’, but -also the assignment of ‘that lyttell moete I have in the play housses’ -as a security.[1306] Certainly the company took over the house after -Henslowe’s death on 6 January 1616. His share in the building passed -to his widow, who contemplated a sale of it to Gregory Franklyn, Drew -Stapley, and John Hamond.[1307] But the deed remained unexecuted at her -death in 1617, and the whole property was now once more in Alleyn’s -hands. On 31 October 1618 he leased it to the company for £200 a year, -to be reduced to £120 at his death. With it went a taphouse occupied by -Mark Brigham, the rent of a two-room tenement held by John Russell, and -a strip of impaled ground 123 feet by 17 feet, lying next the passage -on the south.[1308] This is perhaps the garden in which, according to -John Chamberlain, the players, ‘not to be overcome with courtesy’, -banqueted the Spanish ambassador when he visited the theatre on 16 July -1621.[1309] John Russell is presumably the same whose appointment by -Alleyn as a ‘gatherer’ lead to a protest from William Bird on behalf -of the company.[1310] A few months after the ambassador’s visit, John -Chamberlain records the destruction of the Fortune on 9 December -1621:[1311] - - ‘On Sonday night here was a great fire at the Fortune in - Golden-Lane, the fayrest play-house in this towne. It was quite - burnt downe in two howres, & all their apparell & play-bookes - lost, wherby those poore companions are quite undone.’ - -Alleyn also notes the event in his diary.[1312] On 20 May 1622 he -formed a syndicate, and leased to it the site at a rent of £128 6_s._, -under an obligation to build a new theatre at a cost of £1,000.[1313] -This, ‘a large round brick building’, was erected in the following -year.[1314] The site conveyed covered a space of almost exactly 130 -feet square, and on it had stood, besides the buildings named in the -lease of 1618, other tenements, in one of which William Bird himself -lived. Mr. Lawrence has suggested that the new Fortune may have been a -roofed-in house, but his evidence is hardly sufficient to outweigh the -explicit statement of Wright that it ‘lay partly open to the weather, -and there they always acted by daylight’.[1315] This can hardly refer -only to the earlier building. The Fortune was dismantled in 1649 and -‘totally demolished’ by 1662, and the façade still extant in 1819 -cannot therefore have belonged to it, although it may have belonged -to a Restoration ‘nursery’ for young actors, possibly upon the same -site.[1316] No acting seems to have taken place at the Fortune after -1649.[1317] - - - xiii. THE BOAR’S HEAD - -There appear to have been at least six city inns under this sign.[1318] -The most famous was that on the south side of Great Eastcheap, in -St. Michael’s, which seems to have been regarded in the middle of -the sixteenth century as the traditional locality of the tavern -scenes in _Henry IV_.[1319] This inn was in the occupation of Joan -Broke, widow, in 1537, and in that of Thomas Wright, vintner, about -1588.[1320] Another Boar’s Head stood ‘without’ Aldgate, in the -extra-mural Portsoken ward, which lay between that gate and the bars -with which the liberties of the City terminated at Hog Lane. Here, -according to Stowe, there were ‘certaine faire Innes for receipt of -trauellers repayring to the Citie’.[1321] At the Aldgate inn had -been produced in 1557 a ‘lewd’ play called _The Sackful of Newes_, -which provoked the interference of Mary’s Privy Council.[1322] But it -seems to me exceedingly improbable that either this or the Eastcheap -inn was converted into the play-house, of which we have brief and -tantalizing records in the seventeenth century. Both were within the -City jurisdiction, where the licensing of play-houses seems to have -definitely terminated in 1596. It is true that a Privy Council letter -of 31 March 1602, which directs that the combined company of Oxford’s -and Worcester’s men shall be allowed to play at the Boar’s Head, is -addressed to the Lord Mayor.[1323] But so are other letters of the -same type, the object of which is to limit plays to a small number of -houses outside the liberties, and to restrain them elsewhere over the -whole area of the City and the suburbs.[1324] And when, a year or two -later, Worcester’s men became Queen Anne’s, and a draft patent was -drawn up to confirm their right to play in the Curtain and the Boar’s -Head, both houses are described, not as in the City, but as ‘within -our County of Middlesex’.[1325] Presumably Anne’s men left the Boar’s -Head when the Red Bull became available for their use in 1606, and Mr. -Adams has explained a mention, which had long puzzled me, of the Duke -of York’s men as ‘the Prince’s Players of Whitechapel’ in 1608 by the -suggestion that they succeeded to the vacant theatre.[1326] If this is -so, I think it affords further evidence for the theory that the Boar’s -Head, although it may have taken its name from the Aldgate inn, was -not itself that inn, and probably not a converted inn at all, but lay -just outside and not just inside the City bars. For, although part of -the street between Aldgate and Whitechapel is sometimes called, as in -Ogilby’s map of 1677 and Rocque’s of 1746, ‘Whitechapel Street’, yet -Whitechapel proper lay outside the liberties, farther to the east -along the Mile End Road.[1327] The only other contemporary record of -the Boar’s Head is a letter to Edward Alleyn from his wife Joan on 21 -October 1603, in which she says, ‘All the companyes be come hoame & -well for ought we knowe, but that Browne of the Boares head is dead -& dyed very pore, he went not into the countrye at all’.[1328] This -Browne cannot be identified, and it is perhaps idle to conjecture -that he may have been related to Robert Browne, and that it may have -been at the Boar’s Head that the latter played with Derby’s men in -1599–1601. The Boar’s Head seems to have been generally forgotten by -the Restoration, but is recalled by the Marquis of Newcastle _c._ -1660.[1329] - - - xiv. THE RED BULL - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The records of the suit of _Woodford - v. Holland_ (1613) were printed by J. Greenstreet in the - _Athenaeum_ for 28 Nov. 1885 from _Court of Requests Books_, - xxvi, ff. 780, 890, and cxxviii, and therefrom by Fleay, 194; - and more fully with those of the later suit of 1619 (misdated - 1620) by C. W. Wallace in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix. 291 - (cited as _W. v. H._). Collier, i. 374, mentions evidence on the - same transactions as ‘in the Audit Office’, and misnames the - complainant John Woodward.] - -Our chief knowledge of the early history of the Red Bull is derived -from disputes before the Court of Requests in 1613 and 1619 between -Thomas Woodford and Aaron Holland. It appears that Holland held a -lease of the site, which was at the upper end of St. John Street in -the parish of St. James, Clerkenwell, from Anne, widow and executrix -of Christopher Bedingfield, and had there built a play-house. The -indication of a Red Bull Yard in Ogilby and Morgan’s map of 1677 to -the west of St. John Street, and just north of the angle which it -forms with Clerkenwell Green, no doubt defines the locality with some -precision.[1330] In _3 Jac. I_, that is, at some date between 24 March -1605 and 23 March 1606, he assigned one-seventh of the house to Thomas -Swynnerton, ‘with a gatherers place thereto belonging’. This Swynnerton -transferred for £50 to Philip Stone.[1331] It was subject to a rent -of £2 10_s._, and Holland gave Stone an indenture in February 1609, -which was alleged not to constitute a proper lease. In 1612–13 Stone -sold his seventh for £50 to Woodford, who took profits for a quarter, -and then entrusted his interest to Holland, instructing his servant -Anthony Payne to pay the rent. He alleged that Holland persuaded Payne -to be behindhand with the rent, and withheld the profits, estimated -at £30 a year. He therefore brought his action a little before May -1613. The Court called upon Holland to show cause why he should not -account for the arrears of profits, and for 1_s._ 6_d._ a week due -to the gatherer’s place.[1332] Holland replied, and the issues were -referred to the arbitration of counsel, including Woodford’s ‘demaund -of the eighteenth penny and the eighteenth part of such moneys & other -comodities as should be collected or receaued ... for the profittes of -the galleries or other places in or belonging to the play howse’.[1333] -Counsel made an arrangement, but did not agree in their reports of its -terms, and the Court ordered Holland to give Woodford an indenture -similar to that given to Stone.[1334] Holland got a writ of prohibition -from the King’s Bench, always jealous of the jurisdiction of the Court -of Requests, on 6 November 1613, and Woodford began a suit against -Holland in Stone’s name for not making a proper indenture in 1609. -This, he says, Stone conspired with Holland to withdraw. In 1619 he -brought another action for his profits before the Court of Requests, -in which Holland describes him as ‘Woodford, _alias_ Simball’, but the -result is unknown. - -The Red Bull, then, was built not later and probably not much earlier -than 1606, a little before the first recorded mention of it in the -following passage from _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_, which was -almost certainly produced in the winter of 1607: - - _‘Citizen._ Why so sir, go and fetch me him then, and let - the Sophy of Persia come and christen him a childe. - - _‘Boy._ Beleeue me sir, that will not doe so well, ’tis - stale, it has beene had before at the red Bull.’[1335] - -The allusion is to an incident in the last scene of Day, Rowley, and -Wilkins’ _Travels of the Three Brothers_.[1336] This, according to the -entry in the Stationers’ Register on 29 June 1607, was played at the -Curtain, and according to its title-page of 1607 by the Queen’s men. -But there is no reason why it should not also have been played at the -Red Bull, since both houses are specified as occupied by the Queen’s -men in their patent of 15 April 1609. In their earlier draft patent of -about 1603–4, the Boar’s Head and Curtain are named, and in a Privy -Council letter of 9 April 1604 the Curtain only. Presumably, therefore, -the Red Bull was taken into use by the Queen’s men, of whom Swynnerton -was one, as soon as it was built at some date between 1604 and 1606. -The Red Bull is one of the three houses whose contention is predicted -in Dekker’s _Raven’s Almanack_ of 1608, and Dekker refers to it again -in his _Work for Armourers_, written during the plague of 1609, when -the bear garden was open and the theatres closed. He says, ‘The pide -_Bul_ heere keepes a tossing and a roaring, when the _Red Bull_ dares -not stir’.[1337] Its existence caused trouble from time to time to the -Middlesex justices. At the end of May 1610, William Tedcastle, yeoman, -and John Fryne, Edward Brian, Edward Purfett, and Thomas Williams, -felt-makers, were called upon to give recognisances to answer for a -‘notable outrage at the play-house called the Red Bull’; and on 3 -March 1614 Alexander Fulsis was bailed out on a charge of picking -Robert Sweet’s pocket of a purse and £3 at this theatre.[1338] Further -references to it are to be found in Wither’s _Abuses Stript and Whipt_ -(1613), in Tomkis’s _Albumazar_ (1615), and in Gayton’s _Pleasant Notes -on Don Quixot_ (1654).[1339] - -An entry in Alleyn’s _Diary_ for 1617 has been supposed to indicate -that he had an interest in the Red Bull. To me it only suggests that he -sold the actors there a play.[1340] - -The Queen’s men most likely occupied the Red Bull at least until 1617 -when, as shown by the lawsuit of 1623, they were on the point of moving -to the Cockpit in Drury Lane. Plays of theirs were printed as acted -there in 1608, 1611, 1612, and 1615. _Swetnam the Woman Hater Arraigned -by Women_, printed in 1620, was also played there, before Anne’s -death in 1619. In 1637 Thomas Heywood, formerly one of the Queen’s -men, included in his _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_, a Prologue and -Epilogue, to which he prefixed the note ‘A young witty lad playing the -part of Richard the third: at the Red Bull: the Author because hee -was interessed in the play to incourage him, wrot him this Prologue -and Epilogue’.[1341] This was probably, and certainly if the play -was Shakespeare’s, some quite exceptional performance. Similarly the -‘companie of young men of this citie’, who are stated on the title-page -of Wentworth Smith’s _Hector of Germany_ (1615) to have acted it at the -Red Bull and Curtain, must be supposed to have used these theatres by -some arrangement with the Queen’s men. - -The Red Bull afterwards passed to other companies, continued in use up -to, and even occasionally during, the Commonwealth, and had a revived -life after the Restoration to 1663.[1342] Before 1633, and probably -before 1625, it had been re-edified and enlarged.[1343] Mr. Lawrence -suggests that at this time it became a roofed house, which it seems -certainly to have been after the Restoration.[1344] But it is difficult -to get away from Wright’s explicit statement that it ‘lay partly open -to the weather, and there they always acted by daylight’.[1345] Nor -need the quite modern identification of it with the roofed interior -depicted in _The Wits_ rest upon anything but an incidental reference -to the house in the text of the pamphlet.[1346] Nothing is known as to -the shape or galleries of the Red Bull. - - - xv. THE HOPE - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The Dulwich papers relating to the - connexion of Henslowe and Alleyn with the bear-baiting and the - Hope are to be found with a commentary in Greg, _Henslowe’s - Diary_ and _Henslowe Papers_. Valuable material on the Bankside - localities is in W. Rendle, _The Bankside, Southwark, and the - Globe_, 1877 (Appendix I to Furnivall, _Harrison’s Description - of England_, Part II, with a reconstructed map of the Bankside - and a 1627 plan of Paris Garden), _Old Southwark and its - People_ (1878), _The Play-houses at Bankside in the Time of - Shakespeare_ (1885, _Walford’s Antiquarian_, vii. 207, 274; - viii. 55), _Paris Garden and Blackfriars_ (1887, _7 N. Q._ iii. - 241, 343, 442). Some notes of Eu. Hood [Joseph Haslewood] in - 1813 and A. J. K[empe] in 1833 are reprinted in _The Gentleman’s - Magazine Library_, xv (1904), 74, 117. Other writings on Paris - Garden are by W. H. Overall (1869) in _Proc. Soc. Antiq._ 2nd - series, iv. 195, J. Meymott, _The Manor of Old Paris Garden_ - (1881), P. Norman, _The Accounts of the Overseers of the Poor - of Paris Garden, Southwark, 1608–1671_ (1901) in _Surrey Arch. - Colls._ xvi. 55. Since I wrote this chapter, C. L. Kingsford - (1920, _Arch._ lxx. 155) has added valuable material.] - -It is convenient, in connexion with the Hope, to deal with the -whole rather troublesome question of the Bankside Bear Gardens. The -_ursarius_ or bearward was a recognized type of mediaeval _mimus_, and -the rewards in which his welcome found expression are a recurring item -in many a series of municipal or domestic accounts. Thus, to take one -example only, the corporation of Shrewsbury entertained between 1483 -and 1542 the _ursinarii_, _ursuarii_, or _ursiatores_ of the King, the -Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, the Marquises of Dorset and Exeter, the -Earl of Derby, and the town of Norwich.[1347] On more than one occasion -the payment is said to be _pro agitacione bestiarum suarum_. The phrase -is perhaps not free from ambiguity. The dancing bear was, until quite -recently, a familiar sight in provincial England, and I have seen one -even on the sophisticated slopes of Notting Hill. And illuminations -dating back as far as the tenth century bear evidence to the antiquity -of his somewhat grotesque _tripudium_.[1348] But in the robust days -of our forefathers there was an even more attractive way of agitating -bears. The traditional victim of an English baiting was no doubt the -bull. A Southwark map of 1542 shows a ‘Bolrynge’ in the middle of the -High Street and a neighbouring alley still bore the name in 1561.[1349] -The maps of Höfnagel (_c._ 1560) and Agas (_c._ 1570) show another -ring, marked ‘The bolle bayting’ and with a very palpable bull inside -it, upon the Bankside, not far from where the Hope must afterwards -have stood.[1350] But the bear was also baited in London, at least -from the twelfth century.[1351] Erasmus is often cited as declaring -that in the reign of Henry VIII ‘herds’ of the animal were kept for -the purpose. This is an error. Erasmus wrote of dancing bears; but I -am afraid it must be assumed that the chief function of the bearward -attached to the Tudor Royal Household was to provide exhibitions of the -more brutal, noisy, and occasionally dangerous sport.[1352] A regular -office is traceable back to 1484, when Richard III in the first year -of his reign appointed his bearward John Browne to be ‘Maister, Guyder -and Ruler of all our Beres and Apes’.[1353] It was still a part of -the establishment of the Royal Household under Elizabeth. A patent -of 2 June 1573 to Ralph Bowes describes it as ‘the room or office of -Cheif Master Overseer and Ruler of all and singular our game pastymes -and sportes, that is to saie of all and everie our beares bulles and -mastyve dogges’, and names as Bowes’s predecessors Cuthbert Vaughan and -Sir Richard Long.[1354] The grant was of the nature of a commission, -authorizing the holder, personally or by deputy, to ‘take up’ or -press animals for the royal service, and giving him the sole right of -baiting the Queen’s bears, to the exclusion of any other officer or -under officer appertaining to the bears, not specially licensed or -appointed by him. The Master was presumably expected to make his profit -out of the privileges granted, for the patent did not assign him any -fee, such as the under officers, known as the Keepers of Bears and -Mastiffs, enjoyed at the hands of the Treasurer of the Chamber.[1355] -But he received a reward, similar to those given to players, of £5 -through the Treasurer on the Council’s warrant, when the baiting was -shown before the Queen. These rewards are generally expressed as ‘for -the Game of Paris Garden’ or ‘to the Master of her Majesty’s Game at -Paris Garden’; and Bowes must have joined sons or other relatives -with him as deputies, since Edward Bowes and Thomas Bowes were often -payees instead of Ralph Bowes during his term of office.[1356] Towards -the end of Bowes’s life it would seem that Henslowe and Alleyn, who -had been baiting bears on the Bankside as licensees since 1594, -were in negotiation to obtain the Mastership.[1357] Probably the -first idea was to buy a surrender of the office from Bowes, since -the Dulwich manuscripts contain an unexecuted draft of a patent to -Henslowe, following the terms of that to Bowes himself and reciting -such a surrender.[1358] I should suppose this negotiation to be that -in connexion with which Henslowe spent £2 15_s._ 6_d._ during 1597 -upon visits to Sir Julius Caesar, Master of Requests, and other Court -officials, and in a fee to the Clerk of the Signet. The expenditure -is entered in the diary as incurred ‘a bowt the changinge of ower -comysion’.[1359] But before a surrender was effected it would seem that -Henslowe had had to turn his thoughts to a succession. In this he was -disappointed. On 4 June 1598 he wrote to Alleyn that Bowes was very -sick and expected to die, and that he much feared he should lose all. -Neither Caesar nor the Lord Admiral had done anything for him, and -although he had received help from Lady Edmondes and Mr. Langworth, he -now learnt that the reversion of the Mastership was already promised -by the Queen to one Mr. Dorrington, a pensioner.[1360] Bowes did in -effect die very shortly after, and on 11 August 1598 John Dorrington -received his patent for the Mastership.[1361] To this was joined the -office of Keeper of the Bandogs and Mastiffs, with a fee of 10_d._ a -day for exercising this office and keeping twenty mastiff bitches, and -a further fee of 4_d._ for a deputy.[1362] It is not unlikely that John -Dorrington was related to the Richard Darrington who had held this -keepership with the same fees, amounting to £21 5_s._ 10_d._ a year, -in 1571. Another keepership, that of the Bears, was held in 1599 by -Jacob Meade, who was closely associated with Henslowe and Alleyn in the -management of the Bear garden.[1363] Dorrington’s grant was confirmed -by James I on 14 July 1603, and on 23 July he was knighted.[1364] About -this time Henslowe and Alleyn, who were paying Dorrington £40 a year -for licence to bait,[1365] must have contemplated fresh negotiations -for a transfer of the patent, for the draft in the Dulwich manuscripts, -originally drawn up about 1597, has been altered by Henslowe so as -to adapt it to the new reign and to a surrender by Dorrington.[1366] -But once again they were unsuccessful, for Dorrington died, and on 20 -July 1604 the Mastership was granted to one of the invading Scots, -Sir William Stuart.[1367] From him, however, Henslowe and Alleyn did -succeed in obtaining an assignment, and a draft patent as joint Masters -and Keepers, with the fees of 10_d._ and 4_d._, is dated 24 November -1604. They had, indeed, been rather in Stuart’s hands, for he had -refused either to give them a licence or to take over their house and -bears, and they had to pay for the surrender at what they considered -the high rate of £450.[1368] This we learn from a petition of about -1607, in which they appealed to the King for an increase in the daily -fee by 2_s._ 8_d._, in view of their losses through restraints and -the deaths of bears, and of their heavy expenses, amounting to £200 -a month, whereby their privilege, which was once worth £100 a year, -could now not be let at all.[1369] It is doubtful whether they got any -relief. They had a new patent on 24 November 1608;[1370] but about 1612 -they sent up another petition in very similar terms. A grant of £42 -10_s._ and 12_d._ a day had, indeed, been made them in March 1611 for -keeping a lion and two white bears. But this was probably menagerie -work and quite apart from the baiting. They continued as joint Masters -until Henslowe’s death in 1616, when the whole office passed to Alleyn -in survivorship.[1371] - -When baiting seemed desirable to the soul of the sovereign, the ‘game’ -was generally brought to the Court, wherever the Court might happen to -be.[1372] The rewards of the Treasurer of the Chamber were most often -for attendances in the Christmas holidays or at Whitsuntide. But the -game might be called for at any time to add lustre to the entertainment -of an ambassador or other distinguished visitor to Court. Thus on 25 -May 1559 French ambassadors dined with Elizabeth, ‘and after dener to -bear and bull baytyng, and the Quens grace and the embassadurs stod in -the galere lokyng of the pastym tyll vj at nyght’.[1373] Later French -embassies of 1561, 1572, 1581, and 1599, and a Danish embassy of 1586 -were similarly honoured.[1374] The custom continued during the next -reign. On 19 August 1604 there was a grand banquet at Whitehall for -Juan Fernandez de Velasco, Constable of Castile, on the completion of -peace between England and Spain, and thereafter a ball, and after the -ball ‘all then took their places at the windows of the room which -looked out upon a square, where a platform was raised, and a vast -crowd had assembled to see the King’s bears fight with greyhounds. -This afforded great amusement. Presently a bull, tied to the end of a -rope, was fiercely baited by dogs.’[1375] James had introduced a new -and dangerous element into the sport by using the lions which were -kept in the Tower, and this also became the scene of baitings. On 5 -March 1607 the Treasurer of the Chamber paid Henslowe and Alleyn no -less than £30, partly for attendances with the game at Greenwich during -the visit of the King of Denmark and at Whitehall during that of the -Prince de Joinville, and partly for baiting of the lions in the Tower -on three several occasions.[1376] Stowe gives detailed descriptions -of lion-baitings in 1604, 1605, 1609, and 1610, of which the first -is interesting, because it was under the personal superintendence of -Edward Alleyn, ‘now sworne the Princes man and Maister of the Beare -Garden’.[1377] - -But the profit of the thing, from the point of view of the Master of -the Game, was not so much in the attendances at Court, as in the public -baitings, which he and those holding licences from him were privileged -to give with the bears and dogs, ‘taken up’ by virtue of the commission -or bought at their own expense, during such times as these were not -required for the royal service. These public spectacles were held at -what was known as the Bear Garden, under conditions much resembling -those of a theatre. They played a considerable part in the life of -London; literature is full of allusions to them; and they are described -with more or less detail in the narratives of many travellers from -abroad. An early account is that from the Spanish of a secretary to -the Duke of Najera, who visited Henry VIII in 1544.[1378] He describes -the bears as baited daily, with three or four dogs to each bear, in an -enclosure where they were tied with ropes, and adds: - - ‘Into the same place they brought a pony with an ape fastened on - its back, and to see the animal kicking amongst the dogs, with - the screams of the ape, beholding the curs hanging from the ears - and neck of the pony, is very laughable.’ - -In 1559 the same French ambassadors, who saw the baiting at Whitehall, -were taken on the following day to Paris Garden, and ‘ther was boyth -bare and bull baytyng, and the capten with a c. of the gard to kepe -rowme for them to see the baytyng’.[1379] The next notice of any -value is that of Lupold von Wedel, who was at Southwark on 23 August -1584.[1380] - - ‘There is a round building three stories high, in which are - kept about a hundred large English dogs, with separate wooden - kennels for each of them. These dogs were made to fight singly - with three bears, the second bear being larger than the first - and the third larger than the second. After this a horse was - brought in and chased by the dogs, and at last a bull, who - defended himself bravely. The next was that a number of men - and women came forward from a separate compartment, dancing, - conversing and fighting with each other: also a man who threw - some white bread among the crowd, that scrambled for it. Right - over the middle of the place a rose was fixed, this rose being - set on fire by a rocket: suddenly lots of apples and pears fell - out of it down upon the people standing below. Whilst the people - were scrambling for the apples, some rockets were made to fall - down upon them out of the rose, which caused a great fright but - amused the spectators. After this, rockets and other fireworks - came flying out of all corners, and that was the end of the - play.’ - -It is interesting to observe that the baiting proper was supplemented -with fireworks and an entertainment, which must have been of the nature -of a jig.[1381] The visit of Frederick, Duke of Württemberg, on 1 -September 1592, is also recorded by his secretary, who says:[1382] - - ‘His Highness was shown in London the English dogs, of which - there were about 120, all kept in the same enclosure, but each - in a 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, 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, so that one is - obliged to pull them back by their 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 butting at them.’ - -De Witt briefly notices the ‘amphitheatrum’ of the Bear Garden in 1596. -He says:[1383] - - ‘Est etiam quintum sed dispari [vsu?] et structura, bestiarum - concertationi destinatum, in quo multi vrsi, tauri, et stupendae - magnitudinis canes discretis caueis et septis aluntur, qui - ad pugnam adseruantur, iocundissimum hominibus spectaculum - praebentes.’ - -Hentzner, who visited London in the autumn of 1598, says:[1384] - - ‘Est et alius postea locus Theatri quoque formam habens, - Ursorum & Taurorum venationibus destinatus, qui à postica parte - alligati à magnis illis canibus & molossis Anglicis, quos lingua - vernacula Docken appellant, mire exagitantur, ita tamen, ut - saepe canes isti ab Ursis vel Tauris, dentibus arrepti, vel - cornibus impetiti, de vita periclitari, aliquando etiam animam - exhalare soleant, quibus sic vel sauciis vel lassis statim - substituuntur alii recentes & magis alacres. Accedit aliquando - in fine hujus spectaculi Ursi plane excaecati flagellatio, ubi - quinque, vel sex, in circulo constituti, Ursum flagellis misere - excipiunt, qui licet alligatus auffugere nequeat, alacriter - tamen se defendit, circumstantes, & nimium appropinquantes, nisi - recte & provide sibi caveant, prosternit, ac flagella e manibus - cadentium eripit atque confringit.’ - -To 1599 belongs the account of Thomas Platter of Basle:[1385] - - ‘The London bearbaitings usually take place every Sunday and - Wednesday, across the water. The play house is built in circular - form; above are a number of seated galleries; the ground space - under the open sky is unoccupied. In the midst of this a great - bear is fastened to a stake by a long rope. When we came down - the stairs, we went behind the play house, and saw the English - dogs, of which there were about 120 chained up, each in his - separate kennel, in a yard.’ - -Platter also describes the actual baiting of the bull and bear and -of the blind bear, much as did his predecessors. On 7 September 1601 -the Duc de Biron was taken to the Bear Garden, as one of the sights -of London, by no less a cicerone than Sir Walter Raleigh.[1386] A -visit of 16 September 1602 is described in the diary of Philip Julius, -Duke of Stettin in Pomerania.[1387] The vogue of the Bear Garden -amongst foreigners evidently lasted into James’s reign, but the -notices are briefer. Lewis Frederick of Württemberg, saw on 26 April -1610 the baiting both of bears and bulls ‘and monkeys that ride on -horseback’;[1388] and Justus Zingerling of Thuringia, who was in London -about the same year, mentions the ‘_theatra comoedorum_, in which bears -and bulls fight with dogs’.[1389] Even more summary is the reference -in an itinerary of Prince Otto von Hesse-Cassel in 1611.[1390] But -the extracts given sufficiently describe the nature of the sport, and -show that bulls continued to be baited up to a late date, as well as -bears, and that the serious business of the spectacle was diversified -by regular humorous episodes, such as the monkey on horseback and the -whipping of the blind bear. He, by the way, was called Harry Hunks, -and is named by Sir John Davies in his _Epigrams_[1391] of _c._ 1594, -in company with the Sackerson who gave rise to a boast on the part of -Master Slender,[1392] and at a later date by Dekker[1393] and Henry -Peacham.[1394] Two other famous bears were Ned Whiting and George -Stone. Both are alluded to in Ben Jonson’s _Epicoene_ (1609),[1395] -and the latter also in _The Puritan_ (1607).[1396] The death of the -‘goodlye beare’ George Stone at a baiting before the King of Denmark -in 1606 is lamented in the petition of Henslowe and Alleyn to the King -for increased fees already described. One other interesting notice of -the sport may be added from the Dulwich collection, and that is an -advertisement or ‘bill’ of the entertainment, which runs as follows: - - ‘Tomorrowe beinge Thursdaie shalbe seen at the Beargardin on the - banckside a greate mach plaid by the gamstirs of Essex who hath - chalenged all comers what soeuer to plaie v dogges at the single - beare for v pounds and also to wearie a bull dead at the stake - and for your better content shall haue plasant sport with the - horse and ape and whiping of the blind beare. Viuat Rex.’[1397] - -Where then was the Bear Garden? This is a point upon which the foreign -visitors are not very explicit. From them we could infer little more -than that it was transpontine. It has already been pointed out that -in official documents, at any rate those of a less formal character -than a patent under the great seal, the Mastership is described -as the Mastership of the Game of, or at, Paris Garden. With this -common parlance agrees.[1398] In the allusions of the pamphleteers -and poets, from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the -seventeenth century, Paris or Parish Garden is regularly the place of -baiting.[1399] ‘The Beare-garden, commonly called Paris Garden’, says -Stowe, speaking of 1583.[1400] At Paris Garden, or as it is sometimes -corruptly spelt, ‘Pallas Garden’, Henslowe and Alleyn have their office -as Masters[1401] in 1607, and near it Alleyn is living in 1609. Now -the Liberty and Manor of Paris Garden is a quite well defined part of -the Bankside. It lay at the extreme west end, bordering upon Lambeth -Marsh, with the Clink upon its east. In it stood from about 1595 the -most westerly of the theatres, the Swan.[1402] Historians of Southwark -are fond of suggesting that it had been the abode of the bears from -an almost immemorial antiquity, and follow a late edition of Blount’s -seventeenth-century _Glossographia_ in connecting it with the _domus_ -of a certain Robert de Parys, near which the butchers of London were -ordered to throw their garbage in 1393.[1403] I think the idea is that -the garbage was found useful for feeding the bears. This theory I -believe to be as much a myth as Taylor the water-poet’s derivation of -the name from Paris, son of Priam. Parish, rather than Paris Garden, -seems, in fact, to be the earlier form, although there is nothing in -the history of the place that very particularly explains it.[1404] -Many residents in London were of course ‘de Parys’ in the fourteenth -century, and the _domus_ of the Robert in question, who lived some -time after the first mention of ‘Parish’ Garden, was pretty clearly on -the City and not the Surrey side of the river.[1405] It is, however, -the case that before the Civil War the Butchers’ Company had been -accustomed to send their offal by a beadle to ‘two barrow houses, -conveniently placed on the river side, for the provision and feeding -of the King’s Game of Bears’, and were directed to resume the practice -after the Restoration; and possibly this is what misled Blount.[1406] -Obviously, however, what the butchers did in the seventeenth century -is no proof of what they did in the fourteenth. And, in fact, the -ordinance of 1393 is explicit in its direction that the offal is -ultimately to be, not devoured by bears, but cast into mid-stream. - -There is in fact nothing, so far as I know, to locate the royal Game on -the Bankside at all until the middle of the sixteenth century, when it -was already hard by the stews in the Liberty of the Clink, and still -less, except the persistence of the name, to locate it definitely in -the Liberty of Paris Garden.[1407] The notice which brings Paris Garden -nearest is in Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, which contains an account of an -adventure of one Ralph Morice, secretary to Cranmer, who was foolish -enough to take a book of his master’s, containing criticisms of the -Six Articles, in a wherry from Westminster Bridge to Paul’s Wharf. It -chanced that Henry VIII ‘was then in his barge with a great number of -barges and boats about him, then baiting of bears in the water, over -against the Bank’. The waterman stopped to see the fun, and the bear -broke loose, and climbed into the wherry, which upset. The dangerous -book fell into the Thames and was picked up by the bearward, who was -the Lady Elizabeth’s bearward and ‘an arrant Papist’. It was only -through the good offices of Cromwell that Morice escaped serious -trouble. This was about July 1539.[1408] Certainly it was the custom -from an early date to moor the King’s barge off Paris Garden.[1409] -The spot was marked later by the Old Barge Stairs, which stood at -the west end of that part of the Bank lying in front of the Garden, -just as Paris Garden Stairs stood at its east end. But the barge was -not necessarily at its moorings when Henry was baiting from it. Mr. -Ordish suggests that it was the common use of Paris Garden Stairs by -visitors to the baiting, which led to the name being transferred to -the Bear Garden itself, without any one troubling to inquire very -minutely whether it stood a little to the east or a little to the -west of the landing.[1410] On the whole, however, I regard it as -reasonably probable that there was at one time a Bear Garden in the -Liberty, which fixed the traditional name for the sport, even after it -had been transferred farther along the Bank.[1411] It may, perhaps, -be a slight confirmation of this view that the 1627 survey of Paris -Garden shows a space, apparently laid out as a garden and arranged as a -circle within a square, which may represent the site. It stands nearly -opposite Paris Garden Stairs in a triangular bit of ground between -Holland Street and the lane leading to Copt Hall. This seems to have -been rather a desolate region in Elizabeth’s reign, at any rate when -you got beyond the row of houses which lined the bank.[1412] If there -was a Bear Garden there, it had clearly been abandoned some little time -before 1546, as the Stews were then ‘the accustomed place’. Somewhat -later, the maps of Höfnagel (_c._ 1560) and Agas (_c._ 1570) show, in -addition to the Bull ring already mentioned, another ring marked ‘The -Beare bayting’, standing immediately west of it, and like it in the -Clink.[1413] The animals at the stake are discernible in the rings, and -to the south of each stretches a yard with a pond in the middle and -kennelled dogs along the sides. It is in the Clink, too, that Norden -in 1593 shows ‘The Beare howse’, a little west and north of ‘The play -howse’, which is the Rose. This evidence is consistent with what little -is upon written record about the locality of the Bear Gardens. The most -important document is a deposition of John Taylor, not the water-poet, -in a suit of 1620:[1414] - - ‘He saith that he remembreth that the game of bear-bayting hath - been kept in fower severall places (vizt.) at Mason Steares on - the bankside; neere Maid-lane by the corner of the Pyke Garden; - at the beare garden which was parcell of the possession of - William Payne; and the place where they are now kept.’ - -Taylor was then an old man of seventy-seven and his memory would easily -go back to the time of the early maps. To his testimony may be added -that of Stowe, who says in his _Survey of London_ (1598):[1415] - - ‘Now to returne to the West banke, there be two Beare gardens, - the olde and new places, wherein be kept Beares, Buls and other - beastes to be bayted. As also Mastiues in severall kenels, - nourished to baite them. These Beares and other Beasts are there - bayted in plottes of ground, scaffolded about for the Beholders - to stand safe. Next on this banke was sometime the Bordello or - stewes.’ - -In his _Annales_ Stowe records the fall of ‘the old and under -propped scaffolds round about the Beare-garden, commonly called -Paris garden’, and the consequent death of eight persons, at 4 p.m. -on Sunday, 13 January 1583. It was, he says, ‘a friendly warning to -such as more delight themselves in the cruelty of beasts, than in the -works of mercy, the fruits of a true professed faith, which ought to -be the Sabbath day’s exercise’.[1416] Dr. Dee also noted the accident -in his diary, and it was reported to Burghley on the next day by the -Lord Mayor and on 19 January by Recorder Fleetwood.[1417] Both of -these adopt the view expressed by Stowe that it must be regarded as -divine punishment for the violation of the Sabbath, and Fleetwood -refers to ‘a booke sett downe vpon the same matter’, which may be -John Field’s _Godly Exhortation by Occasion of the late Judgment of -God showed at Paris Garden_. The shrewd irony of Sir Thomas More, -upon a similar event, when it was the church that fell, many years -before at Beverley, found little echo in the mind of the Elizabethan -Puritan.[1418] A further letter from the Lord Mayor to the Privy -Council on 3 July 1583 states that by then the Paris Garden scaffolds -were ‘new builded’.[1419] - -I find it very difficult to say which of the numerous bear gardens -mentioned by Taylor and Stowe was in use at any given time. Mr. Rendle -thought that Taylor’s first two, that at Mason Stairs and that at the -corner of the Pike Garden, were the two shown as ‘The bolle bayting’ -and ‘The Bearebayting’ by Agas.[1420] If so, they are quite out of -scale. This is likely, since they are drawn large enough to show the -animals. They are shown east and west of each other. Rendle puts the -Pike Garden due south of Mason Stairs, but it clearly extended more to -the east in 1587. In any case both these earlier sites were farther -to the west of the Clink than the Hope. Where then was the place on -William Payne’s ground? Mr. Rendle, after a careful comparison of -Rocque’s map of 1746 and other later maps, puts it at ‘the north -courtelage in the lane known as the Bear Garden’ and the Hope at the -south courtelage in the same lane.[1421] I take him to mean that the -Bear Garden on Payne’s ground was that in use until 1613, and that the -Hope was built a little to the south of it. The terms of the contract -with Katherens, however, suggest that the same or practically the same -site was used. Mr. Rendle adds that ‘William Payne’s place next the -Thames can be traced back into the possession of John Allen, until it -came down to Edward Alleyn, and was sold by him at a large profit to -Henslowe; the same for which Morgan Pope in 1586 paid to the Vestry -of St. Saviour’s “6_s._ 8_d._ by the year for tithes”.’[1422] This I -cannot quite follow. There seem to have been two properties standing -respectively next and next but one on the west to the ‘little Rose’. -Next the Rose stood messuages called The Barge, Bell and Cock. They -were leased by the Bishop of Winchester to William Payne in 1540. His -widow Joan Payne assigned them to John White and John Malthouse on 1 -August 1582, and White’s moiety was assigned to Malthouse on 5 February -1589.[1423] From him Henslowe bought the lease in 1593–4.[1424] The -tenements upon it were in his hands as ‘Mr. Malthowes rentes’ in -1603 and Alleyn was living in one of them.[1425] And the lease of -the Barge, Bell and Cock passed to Alleyn and was assigned by his -will towards the settlement of his second or third wife, Constance, -daughter of Dean Donne.’[1426] To the west of this property in 1540 -was a tenement once held by the prioress of Stratford. This passed to -the Crown, and then to Thomas and Isabella Keyes under a Crown lease -which was in Henslowe’s hands by 1597. Some notes of deeds--leases, -deputations, bonds--concerning the Bear Garden were left by Alleyn. -Four of the deeds have since been found by Mr. Kingsford in the Record -Office. It appears that, before Henslowe, both Pope and Burnaby had -some of the Keyes land on a sub-lease, and that Burnaby probably had -the Keyes lease itself. Payne carried on baiting in a ring just south -of the Barge. The site was called Orchard Court in 1620, and stood -north of the Hope. This agrees with the relation suggested by Mr. -Rendle between the two courtelages’. The object of the suit of 1620 -was to determine whether the Hope also stood upon episcopal, or upon -Crown land. Taylor’s testimony was ambiguous. But it follows that the -transfer southwards must have been due to a tenant who held under -both leases. It was suggested in 1620 that Pope rebuilt the scaffold -standings round the ring as galleries with a larger circuit. This was -doubtless after the ruin of 1583. Nothing is said of a change of site -at this time. Moreover, both Pope and Burnaby seem to have used the -site of the Hope and its bull-house as a dog-yard. Probably, therefore, -the change was made by Henslowe and Alleyn. Alleyn left a record of -‘what the Bear garden cost me for my owne part in December 1594’. He -paid £200 to Burnaby, perhaps only for a joint interest with Henslowe -or Jacob Meade, and £250 for the ‘patten’, that is, I suppose, the -Mastership bought from Sir William Stuart in 1604. He held his interest -for sixteen years and received £60 a year, and then sold it to ‘my -father Hinchloe’ for £580 in February 1611.[1427] There must have been -considerable outgoings on the structure during this period. Another -memorandum in Alleyn’s hand shows an expenditure of £486 4_s._ 10_d._ -during 1602–5, and a further expenditure during 1606–8 of £360 ‘p^d. -for ye building of the howses’.[1428] This last doubtless refers in -part, not to the baiting ring itself, but to a tavern and office built -on ‘the foreside of the messuage or tenemente called the Beare garden, -next the river of Thames in the parish of St. Saviors’, for which there -exists a contract of 2 June 1606 between Henslowe and Alleyn and Peter -Street the carpenter.[1429] But this only cost £65, and it seems to -me most likely that the Bear Garden was rebuilt on the southern site -at the same time. Further light is thrown on the profits of the Bear -Garden by a note in Henslowe’s diary that the receipts at it for the -three days next after Christmas 1608 were £4, £6, and £3 14_s._, which -may be compared with the average of £1 18_s._ 3_d._ received from the -Fortune during the same three days.[1430] It may be added that Crowley -notes the ‘bearwardes vaile’ somewhat ambiguously as ½_d._, 1_d._, or -2_d._,[1431] and that Lambarde in 1596 includes Paris Garden with the -Theatre and Bel Savage as a place where you must pay ‘one pennie at -the gate, another at the entrie of the scaffolde, and the thirde for a -quiet standinge’.[1432] - -Yet another building enterprise was undertaken in 1613, by which time -an interest in the property had certainly been leased to Jacob Meade. -On 29 August a contract was entered into between Henslowe and Meade and -Gilbert Katherens, carpenter, for the pulling down of the Bear Garden -and the erection before the following 30 November on or near the same -site of a play-house on the model of the Swan, but with a movable -stage, so as to enable the building to be used also for baitings. I -reproduce the document here from Dr. Greg’s text:[1433] - - Articles, Covenauntes, grauntes, and agreementes, Concluded and - agreed vppon this Nyne and Twenteithe daie of Auguste, Anno - Domini 1613, Betwene Phillipe Henslowe of the parishe of S^t - Saviour in Sowthworke within the countye of Surrey, Esquire, - and Jacobe Maide of the parishe of S^t Olaves in Sowthworke - aforesaide, waterman, of thone partie, And Gilbert Katherens of - the saide parishe of S^t Saviour in Sowthworke, Carpenter, on - thother partie, As followeth, That is to saie-- - - Inprimis the saide Gilbert Katherens for him, his executours, - administratours, and assignes, dothe convenaunt, promise, and - graunt to and with the saide Phillipe Henslowe and Jacobe Maide - and either of them, thexecutors, administratours, & assigns of - them and either of them, by theise presentes in manner and forme - following: That he the saied Gilbert Katherens, his executours, - administratours, or assignes shall and will, at his or theire - owne proper costes and charges, vppon or before the last daie of - November next ensuinge the daie of the date of theise presentes - above written, not onlie take downe or pull downe all that same - place or house wherin Beares and Bulls haue been heretofore - vsuallie bayted, and also one other house or staple wherin Bulls - and horsses did vsuallie stande, sett, lyinge, and beinge vppon - or neere the Banksyde in the saide parishe of S^t Saviour in - Sowthworke, comonlie called or knowne by the name of the Beare - garden, but shall also at his or theire owne proper costes and - charges vppon or before the saide laste daie of November newly - erect, builde, and sett vpp one other same place or Plaiehouse - fitt & convenient in all thinges, bothe for players to playe - in, and for the game of Beares and Bulls to be bayted in the - same, and also a fitt and convenient Tyre house and a stage to - be carryed or taken awaie, and to stande vppon tressells good, - substanciall, and sufficient for the carryinge and bearinge of - suche a stage; And shall new builde, erect, and sett vp againe - the saide plaie house or game place neere or vppon the saide - place, where the saide game place did heretofore stande; And to - builde the same of suche large compasse, fforme, widenes, and - height as the Plaie house called the Swan in the libertie of - Parris garden in the saide parishe of S^t Saviour now is; And - shall also builde two stearecasses without and adioyninge to the - saide Playe house in suche convenient places, as shalbe moste - fitt and convenient for the same to stande vppon, and of such - largnes and height as the stearecasses of the saide playehouse - called the Swan nowe are or bee; And shall also builde the - Heavens all over the saide stage, to be borne or carryed without - any postes or supporters to be fixed or sett vppon the saide - stage, and all gutters of leade needfull for the carryage of - all suche raine water as shall fall vppon the same; And shall - also make two Boxes in the lowermost storie fitt and decent for - gentlemen to sitt in; And shall make the particions betwne the - Rommes as they are at the saide Plaie house called the Swan; - And to make turned cullumes vppon and over the stage; And shall - make the principalls and fore fronte of the saide Plaie house of - good and sufficient oken tymber, and no furr tymber to be putt - or vsed in the lower most, or midell stories, except the vpright - postes on the backparte of the saide stories (all the byndinge - joystes to be of oken tymber); The inner principall postes of - the first storie to be twelve footes in height and tenn ynches - square, the inner principall postes in the midell storie to be - eight ynches square, the inner most postes in the vpper storie - to be seaven ynches square; The prick postes in the first storie - to be eight ynches square, in the seconde storie seaven ynches - square, and in the vpper most storie six ynches square; Also - the brest sommers in the lower moste storie to be nyne ynches - depe, and seaven ynches in thicknes, and in the midell storie to - be eight ynches depe and six ynches in thicknes; The byndinge - jostes of the firste storie to be nyne and eight ynches in - depthe and thicknes, and in the midell storie to be viij and - vij ynches in depthe and thicknes. Item to make a good, sure, - and sufficient foundacion of brickes for the saide Play house - or game place, and to make it xiij^{teene} ynches at the leaste - above the grounde. Item to new builde, erect, and sett vpp the - saide Bull house and stable with good and sufficient scantlinge - tymber, plankes, and bordes, and particions of that largnes and - fittnes as shalbe sufficient to kepe and holde six bulls and - three horsses or geldinges, with rackes and mangers to the same, - and also a lofte or storie over the saide house as nowe it is. - And shall also at his & theire owne proper costes and charges - new tyle with Englishe tyles all the vpper rooffe of the saide - Plaie house, game place, and Bull house or stable, and shall - fynde and paie for at his like proper costes and charges for - all the lyme, heare, sande, brickes, tyles, lathes, nayles, - workemanshipe and all other thinges needfull and necessarie for - the full finishinge of the saide Plaie house, Bull house, and - stable; And the saide Plaiehouse or game place to be made in - althinges and in suche forme and fashion, as the saide plaie - house called the Swan (the scantling of the tymbers, tyles, - and foundacion as ys aforesaide without fraude or coven). And - the saide Phillipe Henslow and Jacobe Maide and either of - them for them, thexecutors, administratours, and assignes of - them and either of them, doe covenant and graunt to and with - the saide Gilbert Katherens, his executours, administratours, - and assignes in manner and forme followinge (That is to saie) - That he the saide Gilbert or his assignes shall or maie haue, - and take to his or theire vse and behoofe, not onlie all the - tymber, benches, seates, slates, tyles, brickes, and all other - thinges belonginge to the saide Game place & Bull house or - stable, and also all suche olde tymber whiche the saide Phillipe - Henslow hathe latelie bought, beinge of an old house in Thames - street, London, whereof moste parte is now lyinge in the yarde - or backsyde of the saide Beare-garden; And also to satisfie - and paie vnto the saide Gilbert Katherens, his executors, - administratours, or assignes for the doinge and finishinges of - the workes and buildinges aforesaid the somme of Three Hundered - and three score poundes of good and lawffull monie of England, - in manner and forme followinge (That is to saie) In hande at - thensealinge and delivery hereof, Three score pounds which - the saide Gilbert acknowlegeth him selfe by theise presentes - to haue receaued; And more over to paie every weeke weeklie, - duringe the firste six weekes, vnto the saide Gilbert or his - assignes, when he shall sett workemen to worke vppon or about - the buildinge of the premisses the somme of Tenne poundes of - lawffull monie of Englande to paie them there wages (yf theire - wages dothe amount vnto somuche monie); And when the saide plaie - house, Bull house, and stable are reared, then to make vpp the - saide wages one hundered poundes of lawffull monie of England, - and to be paide to the saide Gilbert or his assignes; And when - the saide Plaie house, Bull house, and stable are Reared, - tyled, walled, then to paie vnto the saide Gilbert Katherens - or his assignes one other hundered poundes of lawffull monie - of England; And when the saide Plaie house, Bull house, and - stable are fullie finished, builded, and done in manner and - forme aforesaide, then to paie vnto the saide Gilbert Katherens - or his assignes one other hundred Poundes of lawffull monie of - England in full satisfacion and payment of the saide somme of - CCClx^{li}. And to all and singuler the covenantes, grauntes, - articles, and agreementes above in theise presentes contayned, - whiche on the parte and behalfe of the saide Gilbert Katherens, - his executours, administratours, or assignes are ought to be - observed, performed, fulfilled, and done, the saide Gilbert - Katherens byndeth himselfe, his executours, administratours, and - assignes vnto the saide Phillipe Henslowe and Jacob Maide and to - either of them, thexecutours, administratours, and assignes of - them or either of them, by theise presentes. In witnes whereof - the saide Gilbert Katherens hath herevnto sett his hande and - seale, the daie and yere firste above written - - The mark G K of Gilbert Katherens - - Sealed and Delivered in the presence of - witnes Moyses Bowler - Edwarde Griffin - -The execution of the contract must have been delayed, for the rebuilt -Bear Garden is fairly to be identified with the Hope, of which no -mention is made in the petition of the spring of 1614 described by -Taylor in _The True Cause of the Watermen’s Suit_, although it had -certainly come into use by the following autumn.[1434] Here was -arranged for 7 October a trial of wit between this same Taylor and the -shifty rhymer William Fennor.[1435] The latter failed to turn up, and -Taylor, who, according to his own account, had advertised ‘this Bear -Garden banquet of dainty conceits’ and collected a great audience, was -left ‘in a greater puzzell then the blinde beare in the midst of all -her whip-broth’. After acting part of what he had intended, he resigned -the stage to the regular company: - - Then came the players, and they play’d an act, - Which greatly from my action did detract, - For ’tis not possible for any one - To play against a company alone, - And such a company (I’ll boldly say) - That better (nor the like) e’r played a play. - -This company was no doubt the Lady Elizabeth’s, as reconstituted in -the previous March under an agreement with Nathaniel Field on their -behalf, of which a mutilated copy exists. To it Meade was a party, and -there is nothing to establish a connexion between Meade and any other -theatre than the Hope.[1436] Jonson names the Lady Elizabeth’s men as -the actors of _Bartholomew Fair_, and in the Induction thereto, after -a dialogue between the Stage-keeper, who is taunted with ‘gathering -up the broken apples for the beares within’, and the Book-holder, -a Scrivener reads ‘Articles of Agreement, indented, between the -Spectators or Hearers, at the Hope on the Bankeside, in the County of -Surrey on the one party; and the Author of Bartholmew Fayre in the -said place, and County on the other party: the one and thirtieth day -of Octob. 1614’. According to Jonson the locality was suitable for a -play on Bartholomew Fair, for it was ‘as durty as _Smithfield_, and -as stinking euery whit’.[1437] There were disputes between Henslowe -and the company, partly arising out of an arrangement that they should -‘lie still’ one day a fortnight for the baiting, and the combination -broke up. Some of its members, apparently then Prince Charles’s men, -are found after Henslowe’s death signing an agreement with Alleyn and -Meade to play at the Hope, and to set aside a fourth of the gallery -takings towards a sum of £200 to be accepted in discharge of their debt -to Henslowe. Alleyn had of course resumed his part proprietorship of -the house as executor and ultimate heir to Henslowe. Meade probably -took actual charge of the theatre, and there is an undated letter from -Prince Charles’s men to Alleyn, written possibly in 1617, in which -they explain their removal from the Bankside as due to the intemperate -action of his partner in taking from them the day which by course was -theirs. I suppose that this dispute also was due to the competition -of baiting with the plays. In 1619 some disputes between Alleyn and -Meade had to be settled by arbitration, and from Alleyn’s memoranda in -connexion with these it appears that Meade was his deputy under his -patent as Master of the Game, and had also a lease from him of the -house at £100 a year.[1438] The Hope is mentioned from time to time, -chiefly as a place of baiting, up to the civil wars.[1439] It is one of -the three Bankside theatres alluded to in _Holland’s Leaguer_ (1632), -where it is described as ‘a building of excellent hope’ for players, -wild beasts, and gladiators. Bear-baiting was suppressed by the House -of Commons in 1642,[1440] and the house was dismantled in 1656. The -manuscript continuation of Stowe’s _Annales_ describes its end and the -slaughter of the bears, but gives the date of its erection erroneously -as 1610 instead of 1613.[1441] - -After the Restoration the Bear Garden was restored, and a lane called -Bear Gardens, running from Bankside to New Park Street, and a sign -therein of The White Bear still mark its name.[1442] Its site is pretty -well defined in the seventeenth-century maps as to the west of the -Globe and, where that is shown, the Rose, and generally as a little -nearer Maid Lane than the latter. This is consistent with a notice in -the Sewers records for 5 December 1595 of a sewer which ran to the Bear -Garden from a garden known to have lain a little farther east along -Maid Lane than the Globe.[1443] - -The traditional day for baiting was Sunday. Crowley in 1550 describes -it as taking place on ‘euerye Sondaye’.[1444] Naturally this did not -pass without Puritan comment, to which point was given by the fall -of Paris Garden on a Sunday in 1583.[1445] A general prohibition of -shows on Sunday seems to have followed, from which it is not likely -that bear-baiting was excepted. It may be inferred that Thursday -was substituted, for a Privy Council order of 25 July 1591 called -attention, not only to a neglect of the rule as to Sunday, but also -to the fact that every day ‘the players do use to recite their plays -to the great hurt and destruction of the game of bear-baiting and -like pastimes, which are maintained for Her Majesty’s pleasure if -occasion require’, and forbade plays both on Sunday and on Thursday, -on which day ‘those other games usually have been always accustomed -and practised’.[1446] Henslowe’s diary seems to show that up to 1597 -he kept the Sunday prohibition and disregarded the Thursday one, -which is a little odd, as he was interested in the Bear Garden. -But a proclamation of 7 May 1603 on the accession of James repeats -the warning that there was neglect of the Sabbath, and renews the -prohibition both for baiting and for plays.[1447] Henslowe and Alleyn -in their petition of about 1607 for increased fees lay stress on this -restraint as a main factor in their alleged loss.[1448] It seems from -the notes of Stowe’s manuscript _continuator_ that during the first -half of the seventeenth century Tuesday and Thursday became the regular -baiting days.[1449] But the agreements made by Henslowe and Meade with -the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1614 profess only to reserve one day in -fourteen for this purpose, of which apparently notice was to be given -on the previous Monday.[1450] - - - xvi. PORTER’S HALL - -Authority was given for the erection of a new theatre by the following -patent of 3 June 1615:[1451] - -[Sidenote: De concessione regard Phillippo Rosseter et aliis.] - - Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Maiors, Sheriffes, - Iustices of peace, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes, and - to all other our Officers, Ministers, and loving Subiectes, - to whome these presentes shall come, greeting. Whereas wee by - our letteres Patentes sealed with our great seale of England - bearing date the ffourth day of Ianuary in the seaventh yeare - of our Raigne of England Fraunce and Ireland and of Scotland - the three and ffortieth for the consideracions in the same - letteres patentes expressed did appoint and authorise Phillipp - Rosseter and certaine others from tyme to tyme to provide, - keepe, and bring vppe a convenient nomber of children, and them - to practise and exercise in the quallitie of playing by the - name of the children of the Revelles to the Queene, within the - white ffryers in the Suburbs of our Cittie of London, or in any - other convenient place where they the said Phillipp Rosseter - and the rest of his partners should thinke fitting for that - purpose, As in and by the said letteres patentes more at large - appeareth, And whereas the said Phillipp Rosseter and the rest - of his said partners have ever since trayned vppe and practised - a convenient nomber of children of the Revelles for the purpose - aforesaid in a Messuage or mansion house being parcell of - the late dissolved Monastery called the white ffryers neere - Fleetestreete in London, which the said Phillipp Rosseter did - lately hold for terme of certaine yeres expired, And whereas the - said Phillipp Rosseter, together with Phillipp Kingman, Robert - Iones, and Raphe Reeve, to continue the said service for the - keeping and bringing vppe of the children for the solace and - pleasure of our said most deere wife, and the better to practise - and exercise them in the quallitie of playing by the name of - children of the Revelles to the Queene, have latelie taken in - lease and farme divers buildinges, Cellers, sollars, chambers, - and yardes for the building of a Play-house therevpon for the - better practising and exercise of the said children of the - Revelles, All which premisses are scituate and being within the - Precinct of the Blacke ffryers neere Puddlewharfe in the Suburbs - of London, called by the name of the lady Saunders house, or - otherwise Porters hall, and now in the occupation of the said - Robert Iones. Nowe knowe yee that wee of our especiall grace, - certaine knowledge, and meere mocion have given and graunted, - And by theise presentes for vs, our heires, and successors, - doe give and graunte lycense and authoritie vnto the said - Phillipp Rosseter, Phillipp Kingman, Robert Iones, and Raphe - Reeve, at their proper costes and charges to erect, build, and - sett vppe in and vppon the said premisses before mencioned one - convenient Play-house for the said children of the Revelles, - the same Play-house to be vsed by the Children of the Revelles - for the tyme being of the Queenes Maiestie, and for the Princes - Players, and for the ladie Elizabeths Players, soe tollerated or - lawfully lycensed to play exercise and practise them therein, - Any lawe, Statute, Act of Parliament, restraint, or other matter - or thing whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. Willing and - commaunding you and every of you our said Maiors, Sheriffes, - Iustices of peace, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes and - all other our officers and ministers for the tyme being, as - yee tender our pleasure, to permitt and suffer them therein, - without any your lettes, hinderance, molestacion, or disturbance - whatsoever. In witnes whereof, &c. Witnes our selfe at - Westminster the third day of Iune. - per breve de priuato sigillo &c. - -The statements made in the patent as to the objects of the promoters -can be confirmed from other sources. We know that the lease of the -Whitefriars expired at the end of 1614, that there had been an -amalgamation of the Queen’s Revels and the Lady Elizabeth’s men in -1613, and that in all probability this arrangement was extended to -bring in Prince Charles’s men during 1615. Unfortunately for Rosseter -and his associates, the patent had hardly been granted before it was -called in question. Presumably the inhabitants of the Blackfriars, -who had already one theatre in their midst, thought that that one was -enough. At any rate the Corporation approached the Privy Council, and -alleged divers inconveniences, in particular the fact that the theatre, -which was described as ‘in Puddle Wharfe’, would ‘adjoine so neere -vnto’ the church of St. Anne’s as to disturb the congregation.[1452] -The Council referred the patent to the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edward -Coke, no friend of players, or of the royal prerogative which expressed -itself in patents; and when he found a technical flaw, in that the -Blackfriars, having been brought within the City jurisdiction by the -charter of 1608, was not strictly within ‘the suburbs’, ordered on -26 September 1615 that the building, which had already been begun, -should be discontinued. Nevertheless, the work must have gone so -far as to permit of the production of plays, for the title-page of -Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (1618) testifies that it was acted ‘at the -Blacke-Fryers both by the Princes Servants and the Lady Elizabeths’. -Moreover, on 27 January 1617 the Privy Council wrote again to the Lord -Mayor, enjoining him to see to the suppression of a play-house in the -Blackfriars ‘neere vnto his Majestyes Wardrobe’, which is said to be -‘allmost if not fully finished’.[1453] - -It does not appear possible to say exactly where in the Blackfriars’ -precinct the Porter’s Hall once occupied by Lady Saunders stood. It -was certainly not the porter’s lodge at the north-west corner of the -great cloister, for this was still in 1615, as it had been since 1554, -part of the Cobham house. One Ninian Sawnders, a vintner, took a lease -of the chancel of the old conventual church from Sir Thomas Cawarden -in 1553, and this would have been close to St. Anne’s, which stood at -the north-east corner of the great cloister. But Ninian died in 1553 -and never got knighted. On the other hand, the rooms on the south -side of the great cloister, generally described as Lygon’s lodgings, -had been in the tenure of one Nicholas Saunders shortly before their -sale by Sir George More to John Freeman and others in 1609. Nicholas -Saunders is said to have been knighted in 1603.[1454] These lodgings -adjoined More’s own mansion house, and might at some time have served -as a lodge for his porter.[1455] But I do not feel that they would very -naturally be described either as ‘near’ or ‘in’ Puddle Wharf, or as -‘near’ the Wardrobe. These indications suggest some building approached -either from Puddle Wharf proper or from the hill, afterwards known as -St. Andrew’s Hill, which ran up from it to the Wardrobe, outside the -eastern wall of the Priory precinct. The Cawarden estate did not extend -to this wall, and the Saunders family may quite well, in addition to -Lygon’s lodgings, have had a house, either on the site of the old -convent gardens, or higher up the hill on the Blackwell estate, near -where Shakespeare’s house stood, and near also to St. Anne’s. Perhaps -there had been a porter’s lodge on the east of the old prior’s house. - - - - - XVII - - THE PRIVATE THEATRES - - - i. THE BLACKFRIARS - - [_Bibliographical Note._--Many documents bearing upon the - history of the theatre are preserved at Loseley, and the most - important are collected by Professor A. Feuillerat in vol. ii - of the _Malone Society’s Collections_ (1913). A few had been - already printed or described by A. J. Kempe in _The Loseley - Manuscripts_ (1835), by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps in _Outlines_, - i. 299, by J. C. Jeaffreson in the 7th _Report of the Hist. - MSS. Commission_ (1879), by Professor Feuillerat himself in - _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xlviii (1912), 81, and by C. W. Wallace, - with extracts from others, in _The Evolution of the English - Drama up to Shakespeare_ (1912, cited as Wallace, i). In the - same book and in _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_ - (1908, cited as Wallace, ii), Professor Wallace prints or - extracts documents from other sources, chiefly lawsuits in - the Court of Requests and elsewhere, which supplement those - discovered by J. Greenstreet and printed in F. G. Fleay, - _Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (1890). The references - to the theatre in J. P. Collier, _History of English Dramatic - Poetry_ (1837 and 1879), are seriously contaminated by - forgeries. Some material for the general history of the precinct - is furnished in the various editions of John Stowe, _Survey of - London_ (1598, 1603, ed. Munday, 1618, ed. Strype, 1720, ed. - Kingsford, 1908), in W. Dugdale, _Monasticon_ (1817–30), by M. - Reddan in the _Victoria History of London_, i. 498, and in the - _Athenaeum_ (1886), ii. 91. A. W. Clapham, _On the Topography - of the Dominican Priory of London_ (_Archaeologia_, lxiii. - 57), gives a valuable account of the history and church of - the convent, but had not the advantage of knowing the Loseley - documents, and completely distorts the plan of the domestic - buildings and the theatre. An account by J. Q. Adams is in _S. - P._ xiv (1917), 64. The status of the liberty is discussed by - V. C. Gildersleeve, _Government Regulation of the Elizabethan - Drama_, 143.] - -The Dominicans, also called the ‘preaching’ or ‘black’ friars, came -to England in 1221. Their first house was in Holborn.[1456] In 1275 -they acquired a site on the sloping ground between St. Paul’s and the -river, just to the east of Fleet ditch, and obtained leave to divert -the walls of the City so as to furnish a north and north-west boundary -to their precinct. Here grew up a very famous convent, the motherhouse -of all the Dominican settlements in the country. It received favours -from several sovereigns, notably from Edward I and his Queen Eleanor, -who were regarded as its founders; and in return held its great -buildings available for national purposes. In 1322–3 it furnished a -depository for state records. It housed divers parliaments, at first -in its church and later in a great chamber which will be of singular -interest to us, and from as early as 1311 was often found a convenient -meeting-place for the Privy Council. In 1522 it was the lodging of the -Emperor Charles V, and a wooden bridge and gallery were carried over -the Fleet, to facilitate communications with his train in Bridewell -palace. In 1529 its parliament chamber was the scene of the legatine -sittings which tried the case of divorce between the same Emperor’s -niece Katharine and the conscience-stricken Henry VIII.[1457] - -By this time the friars had ceased to be a power in the land. Those -of the convent had numbered seventy in 1315; there were no more than -sixteen or seventeen in 1538.[1458] Parts of the buildings, now -all too spacious, were let out as residences. It was, perhaps, the -neighbourhood of the Wardrobe, whose Master had an official residence -contiguous to the east wall of the precinct, which made the Blackfriars -a favourite locality for those about the Court. A list of ‘them that -hath lodgings within the Blak Freers’, which was drawn up in 1522, -probably in connexion with the imperial visit, contains the names of -Lord Zouch of Harringworth, Lord Cobham, Sir William Kingston, then -carver and afterwards comptroller of the household, Sir Henry Wyatt, -afterwards treasurer of the chamber, Sir William Parr, Sir Thomas -Cheyne, afterwards warden of the Cinque ports and treasurer of the -household, Jane, widow of Sir Richard Guildford, formerly master of -the horse, and Christopher More, a clerk of the exchequer.[1459] -It is to be feared that some of these tenants cast a covetous eye -upon the fee-simple of their dwellings, and that it was not all zeal -for church reform which made Lord Cobham, for example, write to Sir -Thomas Wyatt, the poet and son of Sir Henry, on 7 October 1538, ‘No -news, but I trust there shall not be a friar left in England before -you return’.[1460] Cobham and his friends had not long to wait. The -deed by which the friars surrendered their property into the hands -of the King is dated 12 November 1538. The annual income, derived -from the rented premises, was reckoned as £104 15_s._ 5_d._, but of -course this in no way represents the capital value of the site and -buildings.[1461] The partition of spoils, under the supervision of -the Court of Augmentations, followed in due course. Cobham got his -house, although not immediately, at nine years’ purchase; and between -1540 and 1550 some sixteen other parcels of the estate, many of them -very substantial, were similarly alienated.[1462] Finally, on 12 March -1550, during the liberal distribution of crown lands for which the -authority of Henry VIII was alleged by his executors in the Privy -Council, a comprehensive grant was made of all that still remained -unalienated in the precinct to Sir Thomas Cawarden, the Master of the -Revels, whose office had for some years past been established within -its walls. Apparently Cawarden paid nothing for it, but on the other -hand the King owed him a good deal for moneys spent in the service of -the Revels.[1463] - -The Blackfriars long remained an anomaly in the local government of -London. Like all monastic establishments, the friars had maintained -extensive privileges within their own precinct. Nightly their porter -had shut their four gates upon the city. They had done their own -paving. The Lord Mayor had claimed a jurisdiction, but if this was -admitted, it was only in cases of felony. The ordinary functions of -civil magistracy had been exercised, when called for, by Sir William -Kingston and other important tenants.[1464] Naturally there had been -friction from time to time with the Corporation, and on the surrender -the latter, like the tenants, hoped that their opportunity was come. -They addressed a petition to Henry, in which they expressed their -gratification that he had ‘extirped and extinct the orders of Freers -to the great exaltacion of Crystes doctryne and the abolucion of -Antecriste theyr first founder and begynner’, and asked for a grant of -the church and the whole precinct of the Blackfriars, together with -those of the three other London friaries, to be used for the special -benefit of non-parishioners and of those infected by pestilence.[1465] -Henry, however, had not gone to the trouble of obtaining a surrender -merely to inflate the powers and the revenues of a municipality. He -is reported to have replied that ‘he was as well hable to keep the -liberties as the Friers were’, and to have handed the keys to Sir -John Portinari, one of his gentlemen pensioners, who dwelt in the -precinct.[1466] The Blackfriars, therefore, continued to be an exempt -place or ‘liberty’, an enclave within the walls of the City, but not -part of it, and with a somewhat loose and ill-defined organization -of its own. The inhabitants agreed together and appointed a porter -and a scavenger. A constable was appointed for them by the justices -of the verge.[1467] The precinct was constituted an ecclesiastical -parish, known as St. Anne’s after a chapel which had once served its -inhabitants; and was provided with a church.[1468] Petty offences -were tried, and any exceptional affairs managed, as might have been -done in a rural parish, by the justices, and it was to these that -any administrative orders thought necessary by the Privy Council -were ordinarily addressed.[1469] It perhaps goes without saying that -the City were not content with a single rebuff. They attempted to -interfere at the time of a riot in 1551, and were snubbed by the Privy -Council.[1470] Under Mary they promoted legislation with a view to -annexing the liberties, but without success.[1471] In 1562 a sheriff, -who entered the liberty to enforce a proclamation, was shut in by the -prompt action of the constable, and faced with an inhibition which -one of the justices hurried to obtain from a privy councillor.[1472] -The city remained persistent. In 1574 the Council had again to -intervene.[1473] In 1578 a controversy arose as to the right of the -City to dispose of the goods of felons and other escheats. It was -referred to two chief justices, who made a report to the effect that, -while the inhabitants of both the Blackfriars and the Whitefriars -enjoyed certain immunities from civic levies and liabilities, -nevertheless the soil of the precincts lay within the City, and the -City was entitled to exercise jurisdiction therein. It may be doubted -whether effect was given to this opinion.[1474] - -In 1587 the Council ordered another inquiry, in order to ascertain -the precise nature of the Queen’s title in the Blackfriars.[1475] -There had been a petition for redress of inconveniences from the -inhabitants.[1476] About the same time the chief landowner, Sir William -More, appears to have suggested that the liberty should be converted -into a manor, and manorial rights conferred upon him.[1477] These are -signs that residence in a liberty hard by a thronging population had -disclosed a seamy side. Undesirable persons were bound to throng to a -district where the Lord Mayor’s writ did not run. An open space, for -example, filled with immemorial trees planted by the friars, had been -ruined to house alleys for bowling and other unlawful games.[1478] -Doubtless there were those who resented the fact that the attempt of -the City to discourage interludes had been met by the establishment of -a Blackfriars theatre in 1576, which lasted until 1584. It appears to -have been a protest from the inhabitants which led the Privy Council -to forbid the public theatre contemplated by James Burbage in 1596, -although some years later they winked at the opening of the building -as a private house. In 1596 the church fell down, and in appointing a -commission to apportion the responsibility for repairs, the council -also instructed them to consider the government of the liberty, ‘which -being grown more populus than heretofore and without any certaine and -knowen officer to keepe good orders there, needeth to be reformed in -that behalfe’.[1479] The nature of the commission’s findings is not -upon record, but that the ultimate solution lay in the incorporation -of the liberty in the City could hardly be doubtful. As far back as -1589 the Council had found it convenient to use the Lord Mayor as -an agent for securing a proper contribution from the Blackfriars -towards a levy. From 1597 onwards they showed an increased tendency to -make similar use of an administrative machinery far more completely -organized than that of the justices of the peace. In that year the Lord -Mayor was instructed to make a collection in aid of the Blackfriars -church repairs. In 1600 it again fell to him to assess the share of -the liberty in a levy of men and money. In 1601 it is he who is called -upon to suppress plays in Blackfriars during Lent.[1480] The final step -was, however, deferred until 20 September 1608, when the new Jacobean -charter formally extended the jurisdiction of the city to various -liberties, including both the Blackfriars and the Whitefriars, with -certain exemptions as regards assessments and the tenure of offices, -but with none as regards responsibility for petty offences and the -keeping of the peace.[1481] - -I have anticipated, in order to get the question of jurisdiction out -of the way. I must now return to the topography. Sir Thomas Cawarden -died on 29 August 1559. He had no son, and his executors, Lady Cawarden -and Sir William More, personally took over the Blackfriars estate in -survivorship, as part of the settlement of his affairs.[1482] Lady -Cawarden’s death on 20 February 1560 left More sole owner. He retained -the property until his own death in 1601, and the muniment room of his -house at Loseley near Guildford contains innumerable documents relating -to the business transactions in which it involved him, together with -some of earlier date which he inherited from Cawarden. The researches -of Professor Feuillerat in these archives render it possible to -reconstruct with some minuteness the arrangement of the Blackfriars -and its buildings at the time of the surrender, to trace many of the -changes of the next half-century, and, as part of the process, to -indicate pretty definitely the locality and nature of the structures -which were turned to theatrical uses. - -The precinct covered a space of about five acres.[1483] In shape it was -a rough parallelogram, wider at the north than at the south. The great -gate was towards the east end of the north boundary. It was reached -by a short entry on the south of Bowier Row, now Ludgate Hill, just -east of Ludgate. This seems to have been called Gate Street. It is now -the north end of Pilgrim Street.[1484] From here the boundary was the -city wall, westwards for about 450 ft. to the Fleet ditch, and then -southwards for about 800 ft. along the east side of the ditch. There -were towers at intervals. One of these stood about 200 ft. down from -the angle, and immediately south of this was the bridge over the Fleet -towards Bridewell. The south and east boundaries were also walled. -Between the south wall and the river ran Castle Lane, which was not -within the precinct.[1485] A gate in the south wall gave access across -the lane to the Blackfriars ‘bridge’ or ‘stairs’, a common landing -place, originally built by the Prior of St. John’s, from whom, in some -way not clear to me, the Friars held their estate.[1486] The south-east -angle of the precinct was near Puddle Wharf, and from here the boundary -ran up the west side of St. Andrew’s Hill to Carter Lane, bending out -eastwards near the top, where the buildings of the Wardrobe joined it -by an arch over the roadway, was then driven in sharply westwards by -the end of Carter Lane, which was butt up against a turngate in the -friars’ wall, and finally ran in an irregularly diagonal line from the -junction of Creed and Carter Lanes north-west to the great gate again. -Internally the precinct was unequally divided by an irregular highway -which ran north and south, from the great gate to the Blackfriars -stairs. This started out of Gate Street as High Street, and lower down -became Water Lane.[1487] All the conventual buildings lay on the east -of the highway. Here was the larger division of the precinct, measuring -about 450 ft. from east to west. The western division, measuring about -150 ft., contained only a few houses and gardens. Across it ran from -Bridewell Bridge to Water Lane a strip of unoccupied land, containing -nothing but a ruined gallery, probably part of the provision made -for the accommodation of Charles V in 1522. One of Cawarden’s first -acts, when he got his property, was to make a new road, with tenements -and gardens to the south of it, along this strip. It became known as -Bridewell Lane, and is represented by the present Union Street.[1488] -It must have joined Water Lane just south of a little place or -_parvis_ which lay in front of the west porch of the church and the -adjoining entrance to the cloister. The _parvis_ contained one or -two houses and shops, and formed part of the continuous thoroughfare -from north to south, communicating by gateways with High Street and -Water Lane.[1489] The conventual church itself divided the eastern -portion of the precinct from west to east, extending not quite so -far east as the present Friar Street. It was 220 ft. long and 66 ft. -wide, and had two aisles and a chancel, which, as usual in conventual -churches, was as long as the nave. There was a square porch tower over -the west end. Over the junction of nave and chancel stood a belfry, -visible in Wyngaerde’s drawing of _c._ 1543–50, and to the north of -the chancel a chapel, probably the quasi-parochial chapel of St. Anne, -and a vestry.[1490] Beyond these was the churchyard.[1491] This was -300 ft. long by 90 ft. deep, and occupied about two-thirds of the -space between the High Street on the west, the church on the south, -and the north-eastern boundary of the precinct. A group of houses -stood between it and the great gate towards Ludgate, and three others -separated it from the High Street at the south west corner.[1492] One -of these, built up against the church and the High Street gateway, was -a recluse’s cell or Ankerhouse.[1493] Cawarden cut a new road across -the churchyard, 20 ft. north of the site of the chancel and just north -of the Ankerhouse and the High Street gate. This continued Carter Lane, -the turngate at the end of which was converted into a gate practicable -for carts, and with Bridewell Lane provided a thoroughfare across the -Blackfriars from east to west in addition to that from north to south. -That part of the existing Carter Lane, west of Creed Lane, which was -formerly known as Shoemakers’ Row, doubtless represents Cawarden’s new -way.[1494] - -On the south of the nave stood the great cloister, entered by a -porter’s lodge in its north-west corner. It was 110 ft. square. Its -eastern alley was probably in a line with a way across the church under -the belfry to a door into the churchyard, and this line, preserved by -Cawarden in order to provide access to the cloister from his new way, -is represented by the existing Church Entry.[1495] The north side of -the cloister was formed by the wall of the nave. Behind the other three -sides were ranged the domestic buildings of the convent. On the east -were the ample Prior’s lodging, which stretched back over the space -south of the chancel, and farther to the south the Convent garden, -covering an acre. Over part of this lodging and over the cloister alley -itself was the east dorter of the friars, communicating direct with -the church by a stairway.[1496] The east side of the cloister also -contained the Chapter-house, which probably stood in the middle, and to -the south of this a school-house.[1497] Behind the south-east corner -were the provincial’s lodging, a store-house, the common jakes, and -another garden, known as the hill garden.[1498] Another dorter stood -over the south cloister alley and over some ground-floor buildings of -uncertain use, which divided this alley from an inner cloister, flanked -on the east by the library, and in part on the west by the infirmary, -behind which were the bakehouse, brewhouse, and stables. The western -end of the south alley of the main cloister formed a lavabo, and was -apparently sunk to a lower level than the rest.[1499] Down the western -side of both cloisters extended a continuous range of buildings, the -details of which will require subsequent examination. These formed two -main blocks. The northern, flanking the main cloister, contained the -buttery and parts of the guest-house and porter’s lodge; the southern, -flanking the inner cloister, was devoted to the refectory, the lower -end of which, owing to the slope of the hill, seems to have stood over -the infirmary. The irregular outline of Water Lane, jutting a good deal -to the west after it emerged from the _parvis_ in front of the church -porch, left a space of some 84 ft. at its widest between this range -of buildings and the lane itself. The guest-house and porter’s lodge -extended back into this space; it also held the convent kitchen and -other subsidiary buildings.[1500] - -When Cawarden got his grant in 1550, a great deal of the property had -already been disposed of.[1501] Except for the strip where he laid -out Bridewell Lane and two small garden plots, nothing was left for -him in the western division of the precinct. To the north the group -of houses between the churchyard and the great gate had gone. To -the south, Cobham had taken the rooms over the porter’s lodge, with -a closet window looking into the church, and he and one Sir George -Harper had divided the rest of the guest-house block--‘fayer great -edifices’, says Cawarden--that lay behind.[1502] Sir Francis Bryan had -taken the Prior’s lodging and the convent garden, and from him they -had passed to the Bishop of Ely and then to one William Blackwell. -Lady Kingston had taken the inner cloister, with part of the south -dorter and the rooms beneath it, the library, the infirmary, the -brewhouse, bakehouse, and stables. Others had taken the school-house, -some more of the south dorter, the provincial’s lodging, the jakes, -the store-house, and the hill garden, and these ultimately passed to -Lady Grey. Sir Thomas Cheyne, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, had -taken some of the buildings west of the frater. Everything farther -south, down towards the river, had also been alienated. What was left -for Cawarden consisted mainly of the church itself and the churchyard, -the ankerhouse, the great cloister, the chapter-house, the east dorter, -the porter’s lodge and buttery block, with all the rooms over these -except Cobham’s, the frater, the kitchen, and such buildings standing -between the frater and Water Lane, as did not belong to Cheyne.[1503] -Much trouble was caused to Cawarden’s successors by uncertainty as to -the extent of Cheyne’s claim.[1504] No doubt the grant constituted -Cawarden the chief landowner in the district, but he complained that -hardly any of his property was ‘mansionable’, and even at the time of -his death he had only brought the annual value up to £70.[1505] The -survey taken for the purposes of the grant puts it at no more than -£19. On the other hand, the value of the stone and timber and other -material of the buildings is estimated in the same survey at £879 -3_s._ 4_d._, including an item of £709 11_s._ 0_d._ for lead alone. -Evidently it was from the site-value and the judicious erection of new -buildings and conversion of old ones, with the aid of this material, -into ‘mansionable’ property, that Cawarden’s profit was to come. A -convinced Protestant, he looked upon the church as a quarry. He pulled -it down, with the exception of the south wall of the nave, which was -to serve him as a garden wall, and the porch which he turned into a -tenement. Other tenements were built on the site, and the rest of it, -with so much of the churchyard as was not required for the new road, -was let off. One of the tenants appears to have made tennis-courts on -the site of the chancel. The demolition included St. Anne’s Chapel. -This had been closed during Henry’s reign and used as a store-house -for the Offices of Tents and Revels. For a while the inhabitants were -allowed to worship in a room under an old gallery, presumably that -which became the site of Bridewell Lane; but now this passed into -Cawarden’s hands and he evicted them. When they plucked up heart, under -Mary, to protest, he first offered them a site in the churchyard and -a roof if they would be at the expense of building, and ultimately -gave them an upper room, apparently at the north end of the east -dorter. This fell down in 1597, and was rebuilt by the parishioners, -who finally bought it, with a piece of the site of the old conventual -church as a churchyard, from Sir George More in 1607–8.[1506] Cawarden -effected an adjustment of boundaries on the east of the cloister with -the Bishop of Ely.[1507] He then proceeded to build dwelling rooms -along the south and east sides of the cloister.[1508] They must have -been fairly shallow, for they left him a great square garden, but -no doubt the recess of the chapter-house permitted increased depth -towards the east. Under the west wing of the new building, adjoining -the buttery, was a great vaulted room, 57 ft. by 25, which must, I -think, have been the lavabo of the friars.[1509] East of this was a -set of rooms capable of use as a separate dwelling, which came to be -known as Lygon’s lodgings.[1510] The rest formed the capital mansion -of the property, the ‘great house’, and was clearly intended for -Cawarden’s own residence. It seems to have been sometimes let and -sometimes occupied by Sir William More.[1511] The great garden must -have been pleasant enough, with the north and west cloister alleys -left standing, and a tinkling conduit in the west end, filled by a pipe -from Clerkenwell.[1512] - -The important part of the Blackfriars, from the point of view of -theatrical topography, is the range of buildings on the western side of -the two cloisters, parallel to Water Lane. The two blocks constituting -this range, or so much of them as passed to Cawarden, are referred to -in the surveys of 1548 and 1550 as the ‘olde butterie’ and the ‘vpper -ffrater’.[1513] From the details given in these surveys and in the -leases and other documents preserved at Loseley, it is possible to form -a very fair notion of their structure and uses. The chief rooms in -both blocks were upon an upper floor. The northern block was 110 ft. -in length from north to south and 36 ft. in width. The upper rooms, -however, were only 26 ft. wide, as 10 ft. was taken up by a high stone -gallery which ran along the west of the building, and was perhaps -connected with the wooden gallery leading to the Fleet.[1514] These -rooms were four in number. That to the north, 21 ft. long, belonged to -Cobham, and had a closet window looking into the church upon the south -wall of which, for 20 ft. of its width, the block abutted.[1515] Then -came two central rooms, a large and a small one, measuring together 52 -ft. in length, and then a southern one, which with an entry measured -47 ft.[1516] The surveys treat the three rooms which fell to Cawarden -as a single ‘hall place’. All four rooms had probably formed part of -the guest-house of the convent, and had lodged Charles V. The ground -floor held low rooms pierced at intervals by entries and with cellars -underneath them. The chief entry or gate-house was at the southern -end and served Cawarden’s mansion house when that was built.[1517] -North of this came the buttery proper and a pantry, occupying with a -small entry connecting them 29 ft.;[1518] then another stepped entry -into the cloister serving afterwards as Cawarden’s garden gate;[1519] -then probably more rooms under the two central upper rooms; then a -staircase to Cobham’s upper room;[1520] and finally rooms belonging to -the porter’s lodge, which were 21 ft. in length. This lodge extended -backwards towards Water Lane, and over and around it were other -rooms of Cobham’s and yet others forming the house of Sir George -Harper.[1521] Some or all of these had also probably been part of the -guest-house. Together with a garden of Cobham’s, they occupied rather -less than half the space between the northern block and Water Lane. -South of them, and included in Cawarden’s grant, were the convent -kitchen with a room over it, and the kitchen yard, forming a space 84 -ft. wide, and in length 74 ft. at the buttery end and 68 ft. at the -lane end. - -The northern block, being 110 ft. long, extended right down to the -southern line of the cloister, which was 110 ft. square. Here it -abutted upon the southern block. This was 52 ft. wide. The length -of the upper frater is given in the surveys as 107 ft., and in two -of More’s leases as 110 ft.[1522] The latter figure is probably the -right one.[1523] The north end of this block contained a ‘great -stair’, which gave access both to the frater and to the guest-house, -and was itself convenient of approach both from the gate-house entry -and from the lavabo at the south-west angle of the cloister. Probably -this end was built in the form of a tower, as there were rooms on -and over the staircase and over the adjoining Duchy Chamber, and -garrets over those.[1524] There was a garret also over the south end -of the northern block.[1525] It is doubtful whether anything stood -over the main portion of the southern block.[1526] This had a flat -leaded roof, whereas the northern block, as its lead is not mentioned -in the survey, probably had a gabled and tiled roof. Apart from the -staircase tower, the upper floor of the southern block consisted of -the ‘upper’ frater or refectory, a spacious apartment, which had been -used for Parliaments and the legatine trial of Henry VIII’s divorce -case, and was sometimes known as ‘the Parliament chamber’.[1527] The -ground floor is a little more difficult. The survey of 1548 assigns to -it a ‘blind’, that is, I suppose, a windowless, or at any rate dark, -parlour, which came next the buttery block, and a hall, to which the -parlour served as an entry.[1528] These are said to be ‘vnder the seide -frater of the same lengethe and breddethe’. This might naturally be -taken to mean that they were, together, of the same size as the frater -above. In fact it must, I think, mean that they were of the same size -as each other, for we know from another source that the south end of -the frater was over a room not belonging to Cawarden at all but to -Lady Kingston, and itself standing over the infirmary, which, owing -to the fall of the ground, formed at that end a lower story of the -block.[1529] The survey does not say what the sizes of the parlour and -hall were, but a later document suggests that together they underlay -over two-thirds of the frater and occupied a space of 74 ft. from north -to south and 52 ft. from east to west.[1530] Under Cawarden’s part of -the southern block were cellars. To the west lay what was known as the -Duchy Chamber, probably from some official use in connexion with the -Duchy of Lancaster. This was a two-story building, 50 ft. long by 16 -ft. wide, jutting out at right angles to the extreme north end of the -frater. South of it was a house, apparently belonging to Sir Thomas -Cheyne and occupied by Sir John Portinari, which touched the frater -at one end, and at the other had a parlour, interposed between the -end of the Duchy Chamber and Water Lane, and bounded on the north, as -the Duchy Chamber itself must have been, by the kitchen yard. South -of this again were a little chamber and a kitchen, with an entry from -Water Lane, probably between Portinari’s parlour and another house -belonging to Cheyne.[1531] The little chamber and kitchen were used -in conjunction with the hall under the upper frater. This hall, which -was paved and stood ‘handsome to’ the buttery, had also been a frater, -serving as a breakfast room for the friars, and in the little chamber -had lived their butler.[1532] Now it is noted in the surveys that Sir -Thomas Cheyne had laid claim to the paved hall, the ‘blind’ parlour, -the little chamber, and the kitchen, and it seems very doubtful whether -they were covered by the specifications of Cawarden’s grant.[1533] He -succeeded, however, in occupying them; and the inevitable lawsuit was -left for his successor. - -Cawarden had had the buttery, frater, kitchen, and Duchy chamber -on lease since 4 April 1548.[1534] Some of these, as well as other -conventual buildings, he had occupied from a still earlier date in -his capacity as Master of the Tents and Revels. For these offices the -propinquity of the Wardrobe rendered the Blackfriars very convenient. -Already in 1511 temporary use had been made of some room in the -precinct to prepare a pageant in for a joust at Westminster.[1535] -Before Cawarden became Master, the regular store-house of the Revels -office had been at Warwick Inn.[1536] The transfer to Blackfriars -was not completed until February 1547, but it perhaps began earlier, -since the papers of the Court of Augmentations contain receipts by -John Barnard, for sums spent by the King’s surveyor on ‘the reparayng -and amendyng of the Blacke Fryers in London store howse for the seyd -tentes and revelles’ during 1545.[1537] The Chapel of St. Anne had -been requisitioned with other houses ‘to laye in tentes, maskes and -revels’ before the end of Henry VIII’s reign.[1538] As to the exact -location of the Tents there is some interesting, although conflicting, -evidence. An order of the Augmentations in 1550 allowed Sir Thomas -Cheyne £5 a year for the use of his great room by the Tents from -25 March 1545 onwards.[1539] The room intended was undeniably the -paved hall or breakfast room under the frater, but Sir William More -maintained in 1572 that the payment by the Augmentations was an -irregular one, and that the paved hall had never been used for the -Revels and was never in fact Cheyne’s.[1540] Sir John Portinari gave -evidence that for some time after the surrender of the convent it had -remained empty, and that he had himself kept the keys until Cawarden -took possession of it in 1550. Cawarden then invited him to a supper -and a play in the hall.[1541] The Revels seem to have had the use of -the upper frater or parliament chamber during Henry VIII’s reign.[1542] -But the surveys of 1548 and 1550 locate them to the north of this, in -the southernmost of the four halls of the old guest-house. The two -central halls, together with the convent kitchen, had been tenanted as -far back as 1539 by successive Lords Cobham, to whose house they were -adjacent.[1543] In 1554, however, Cawarden sold the two rooms to George -Lord Cobham, together with the porter’s lodge, which underlay his -original holding, and received as part of his consideration a release -from any claim which Cobham may have had to the kitchen yard and to -the property granted to Cawarden on the west side of Water Lane.[1544] -With the upper rooms transferred to Cobham went ‘appurtenances’, which -probably included the corresponding ground-floor rooms, as these are -not traceable in More’s possession and apparently formed part of the -Cobham estate when that was disposed of in the next century.[1545] -The porter’s lodge was all on the ground floor. It had a frontage of -21 ft. on the cloister and ran back for 47 ft. towards Water Lane. -At the time of Cawarden’s grant in 1550 it had been occupied by John -Barnard, clerk comptroller of the Tents and Revels, but he had died in -the same year.[1546] Naturally it was convenient for the officers of -the Revels to live in the Blackfriars. John Holt, the yeoman, had a -house to the north of the churchyard. Thomas Philipps, the clerk, had -the ‘little chamber’ west of the frater. The paved hall served him as -a wood store, and from time to time some of Cawarden’s servants lay -there. About 1552 Cawarden moved Philipps to the Ankerhouse, and put -into the little chamber the deputy clerk, Thomas Blagrave, who found -it too small, and rented an adjoining chamber from Cheyne.[1547] The -paved hall was then let, with other neighbouring rooms on more than -one floor, to one Woodman, who kept an ordinary in the hall and did a -good deal of damage to the property.[1548] Meanwhile, the Revels had -apparently been moved from this first-floor hall where they lay in -1550, for when this hall is recited as the south boundary of Cobham’s -purchase in 1554, it is described as a house in the tenure of Sir John -Cheke or his assigns.[1549] So long as the Tents and Revels continued -to be housed in Crown property, the offices had of course nothing -to pay for rent. But after 1550 Cawarden, as naturally, claimed an -allowance for rent, and in 1555 he was permitted to charge six years’ -arrears from Michaelmas 1549 at the rate of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ a year each -for the official residences of the comptroller, clerk, and yeoman, £6 -13_s._ 4_d._ for his own, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for the office of the tents, -and £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for the ‘store and woorke howses of the revelles’. -In the accounts for 1555–9 similar charges recur annually, but the -allowance for Cawarden’s own house is raised to £10 and that for the -houses of the other officers to £5 each; and the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for -the Revels office is specified as being ‘for the rente of fyve greate -roomes within the Blackefryers for the woorke and store howses of the -Revelles’.[1550] About 1560 the store-house was certainly not the hall -over the buttery, but the great vaulted room in the south-west corner -of the cloister, which had been the lavabo of the friars.[1551] On the -other hand, Sir John Cheke’s tenure of his house had ceased and the -vacated rooms had become available for workhouses. This is evident -from the terms of a lease of the same rooms to Sir Henry Neville, -executed on 10 June 1560, just after the Revels had been removed to -St. John’s.[1552] Cawarden had died on the previous 29 August, and the -lease was one of the first dealings of William More with the property. -The principal rooms leased were precisely four in number. They had -been ‘lately called or knowen by the name of Mr. Chekes lodginge and -sythence vsed by Sir Thomas Cawarden knight deceased for the office -of the Quenes Maiesties Revelles’. They were bounded on the north by -Lord Cobham’s house, on the east by the houses of More and of Sir -Henry Jerningham, who was Lady Kingston’s son and heir, and on the -west by another house of More’s in the occupation of Richard Frith, -and by the way leading to More’s house and garden and a piece of void -ground. Under them and leased with them were the buttery and pantry; -and the lease also covered a cellar and a ‘greate rome in manner of a -grete seller having a chimpney’ which I suppose to have been the late -Revels store-house. The upstairs rooms were approximately 157 ft. long, -27 ft. wide at the north end, and 22 ft. wide at the south end.[1553] -The length agrees approximately with the sum of the lengths of the -upper frater and of the hall over the buttery not included in Cobham’s -purchase of 1554; and it was evidently from these that Neville’s -holding was taken. But the head of the staircase must have interfered -with his width in the middle, and it will be observed that, while he -had the full width of the northern block, he had less than half the -full width (52 ft.) of the frater. Evidently Cawarden had partitioned -the frater to make it ‘mansionable’, and in particular had divided it -into two tenements by a partition from north to south. Neville’s was -the eastern division. The western division and the rooms at the top of -the staircase tower were in the tenure of Richard Frith, who had taken -a twenty-four years’ lease from Cawarden in April 1555 and had obtained -a renewal from More on 24 December 1559. Here, in 1561, Frith kept a -dancing-school.[1554] Neville’s lease also gave him a share in More’s -water-supply, a strip of the void ground, formerly the convent kitchen -yard, between the northern block and Water Lane, and a right of way -to the buttery and pantry through the rest of that ground, which was -reserved to More. Neville’s strip lay just south of Cobham’s garden -wall. That reserved by More was partly taken up by ways to his garden -and gate-house entries. In the space between these was erected in 1561 -a public conduit, which received the water-supply after it left More’s -tap, and passed it on to the Earl of Pembroke’s house at Baynard’s -Castle. Here also stood a tennis ground, tenanted with a cellar under -the northern block by Frith.[1555] The gate-house entry, or at least -the way to it, served Frith’s house, as well as More’s own. Near it -were certain rooms, reserved for More’s use or that of his servant John -Horley, which may have been constructed out of the ‘blind’ parlour. -The great stairs in the tower between the two blocks were probably -assigned to Frith. They were not included in Neville’s lease, and he -was specifically debarred from any right of access through More’s -house or garden except by More’s licence. It was probably contemplated -that he would build stairs to the upper floor for himself, and this is -perhaps why More exacted no fine on the execution of the lease.[1556] -At any rate Neville did build stairs on the west of the house, placing -them not in his own strip of yard but in More’s, with his water-cock in -a little room at the stair foot. The pale of Frith’s tennis court was -altered to allow of access between it and Neville’s stairs from More’s -garden entry to his gate-house entry.[1557] In his own strip Neville -built a kitchen and another set of stairs behind it which must have led -into the extreme north end of his house, as the site of the kitchen -underlay, not Neville’s own rooms, but those purchased by Cobham in -1554. The rest of the strip served as a woodyard, and had a privy -in it. Presumably the original convent kitchen acquired by Cawarden -had been pulled down. Within the house Neville put up partitions, -turning his four rooms into six, of which it may be inferred that -two lay in the northern block and four in the southern, and adorning -one of these latter with wainscoting most of the way round, and with -a great round portal.[1558] About Lady Day 1568 More bought back -the lease from Neville for £100, doubtless in consideration of the -improvements.[1559] For a time it seems to have been occupied by the -Silk Dyers Company.[1560] On 6 February 1571 it was let to William Lord -Cobham, the terms of whose lease closely resemble those of Neville’s, -but record the changes made during his predecessor’s tenancy.[1561] -Cobham gave up the house in 1576, and on 27 August of that year Neville -wrote to More to recommend a new applicant for the tenancy, his friend -Richard Farrant. With it came an application from Farrant himself. -Apparently his tenancy entailed the removal of an Italian, who may have -been one of the silk dyers, and he desired to be allowed to take down -one of the partitions. On 17 September he wrote to ask that a small -room, 6 ft. by 4½ ft., occupied by More’s man Bradshaw might be added -to his holding.[1562] His lease was executed on 20 December.[1563] It -gives him all the rooms which Neville had had, with the exception of -the former Revels store-house, which is now described as ‘that great -rome nowe vsed for a wasshynge howse’; and it adds the little room -specially asked for, which had been contrived by throwing together a -privy and a coal-house. Richard Farrant was Master of the Children of -Windsor Chapel, and deputy to William Hunnis as Master of the Children -of the Chapel Royal, and his object in taking the house was to have a -room in which the children could give public representations for profit -of the plays which they were afterwards to perform at Court. He carried -out his plan, and so the old frater of the friars, once the parliament -chamber of the realm, became the first Blackfriars theatre.[1564] - -More, according to his own account, was not best pleased at the use -made of his house. He complained that Farrant, after pretending that -he only meant to teach the children in it, had made it a ‘continuall -howse for plays’ to the offence of the precinct, and to fit it for -the purpose had pulled down and defaced Neville’s partitions, spoiled -the windows, and brought the house to great ruin. He had also sublet -certain portions, and, as he was not entitled to do this under his -lease without licence, More claimed the forfeiture of the lease. At -this moment, on 30 November 1580, Farrant died, leaving the house to -his widow Anne. For some months there were no plays in the theatre. -Then Hunnis resolved to carry on Farrant’s enterprise himself, and on -a recommendation from the Earl of Leicester More appears to have given -at least a tacit consent to a sub-letting by Anne to Hunnis and one -John Newman on 20 December 1581. They were to do repairs and pay her -£6 13_s._ 4_d._ in rent more than the £14 due to More. An unfortunate -slip of the scrivener’s pen cut Mrs. Farrant’s profit down to £6 6_s._ -8_d._ They also gave bonds of £100 each for the due fulfilment of -their covenants, and according to Newman’s statement to More, paid -£30 down. According to Mrs. Farrant they neglected their repairs and -were extremely irregular with their rent, so that she was put to great -shifts in order to satisfy Sir William More, disposing of a small -reversion given her by the Queen, pawning her plate and jewels, selling -a dozen of gold buttons here and a set of viols there, and borrowing of -powerful friends such as Lord Cobham or Henry Sackford, the Master of -the Tents. Meanwhile Hunnis and Newman disposed of their interest to -one Henry Evans, a scrivener, and More, incensed at this, took definite -steps in the spring of 1583 to recover his house by executing a fresh -lease to one of his men, Thomas Smallpiece, and setting Smallpiece to -sue for the ejectment of Evans. The latter tried to elude him by a -further transfer of the sub-lease to the Earl of Oxford, who passed it -on to John Lyly, the poet; and thus, says More, the title was ‘posted -over from one to another from me’ contrary to the conditions of the -original lease. Doubtless Hunnis, Lyly, and Evans were all working -together under the Earl’s patronage, for a company under Oxford’s name -was taken to Court by Lyly in the winter of 1583–4 and by Evans in the -winter of 1584–5, and it seems pretty clear that in 1583–4, at any -rate, it was in fact made up of boys from the Chapel and Paul’s.[1565] -More, however, pursued his point, and about Easter 1584 recovered legal -possession of his house. Some months before, Anne Farrant, in despair, -had appealed to Sir Francis Walsingham, and had also brought actions at -common law against Hunnis and Newman for the forfeiture of their bonds. -They applied to the Court of Requests to take over the case, and there -is no formal record of the outcome. But in January 1587 Mrs. Farrant -was again complaining to the Privy Council, and Sir John Wolley was -asked to bring about a settlement between her and More, who was his -father-in-law.[1566] - -So ends the story of the first Blackfriars theatre. The premises which -it had occupied came into the hands of Henry Lord Hunsdon, who was also -about the same time tenant of More’s mansion house and garden.[1567] -It would seem that Lord Oxford and Lyly had passed on to Hunsdon their -sub-leases from the Farrants and that, even when he recovered legal -possession from the court, More did not care to interfere with this -arrangement. But there was evidently some friction. The sub-leases were -due to expire in 1590 or 1591, and in April 1586 More refused to renew -them. His excuse was that ‘The howses yow had of Lyllye I determyne -that assone as theye bothe shall cum into my handes to kepe them to the -onelye vse of me and mye chylderne’. In acknowledging this decision, -Hunsdon complained that the pipe of water belonging to one of the -houses had been diverted to serve that of Lord Cobham. In 1590 he made -a fresh attempt to secure a renewal. More at first drafted a letter of -consent, but then changed his mind and told Hunsdon that he needed the -houses for his daughter Lady Wolley and for himself on his visits to -London. Hunsdon had suffered annoyance because the tenant of the next -house ‘having the vse of the leades, either by negligence or otherwise, -suffereth the boyes to cutt upp the lead with knifes or to boore yt -through with bodkyns wherby the rayne cometh throwghe’.[1568] This -allusion, together with that to the pipe of water, makes it clear that -Hunsdon’s houses included the rooms covered by Neville’s lease of 1560, -in which the right of dancing-master Frith to use the leads over the -southern block is expressly safeguarded. I think it is probable that -the two houses are merely the southern and northern sections of the -Farrant holding, separately sublet to Hunsdon. It is known that Farrant -himself, while in occupation of the theatre, had let off certain rooms. -More’s wish to retain the property for family reasons did not long -outlast its immediate purpose of decently covering a refusal to the -Lord Chamberlain. Frith’s tenancy also came to an end, and for some -period between 1590 and 1596 the rooms formerly constituting the upper -frater were reunited in the occupation of William de Laune, a doctor -of physic. The rooms to the north of them, after his appointment as -Chamberlain of the Exchequer on 23 November 1591, were used by More for -the purposes of the Pipe Office.[1569] The buttery and pantry beneath -were probably also relet in 1591.[1570] - -I must now turn to the history of the ‘paved hall’ and ‘blind parlour’ -under the upper frater and the little chamber and kitchen to the west -of these, all of which, when Cawarden obtained possession in 1550, -were under the shadow of a claim by Sir Thomas Cheyne. Blagrave’s -occupation of the little chamber terminated when the Revels Office -moved to St. John’s in 1560, and on 10 December 1564 More drafted a -lease of it to one Laurence Bywater, who had in fact been in occupation -since 1560.[1571] It is described as consisting of a hall, a chamber -above, a little room below, a kitchen, a yard, ‘a long entrie coming -in ouer the yard bourded and railed’, and a vault or cellar. The -paved hall had been let by 1572 to William Joyner, who used it as a -fencing-school. In this year Cheyne’s claim was renewed by one Henry -Pole and his wife Margaret, who was the widow of Cheyne’s eldest son. -The rooms chiefly in dispute were the paved hall and Bywater’s house, -but the Poles seem also to have claimed rooms in the tenures of Richard -Frith and Thomas Hale.[1572] It may be conjectured that these were the -rooms constructed out of the blind parlour. On the other hand More -made a counter-claim, probably not very serious, to Pole tenements in -the occupation of Christopher Fenton, Thomas Austen, and John Lewes. -Incidentally, it appears that Cawarden had not succeeded in removing -all signs of papistry from the Blackfriars, for Bywater’s house is -throughout described in the interrogatories taken as the little house -having chalices and singing cakes painted in the window. The matter -was referred to arbitration.[1573] Pole’s case rested entirely on the -question of fact as to what the holding of Cheyne and his predecessors -actually comprised in 1540, since the grant named no boundaries but -merely gave Cheyne the houses and lands then in his own occupation and -formerly in those of Jasper Fylole and of Thomas Ferebye and William -Lylgrave. Pole produced some witnesses who declared that before the -surrender by the friars one Purpointe had dwelt in Bywater’s house and -kept a tavern in the fencing-school, and that subsequently Ferebye and -Lylgrave had occupied these premises. They could not say that Cheyne -himself had ever had possession of them, but Pole was able to cite the -order of the Court of Augmentation in 1550 allowing Cheyne rent for his -large room as a store-house for the tents. In More’s view this rent -was paid under a misunderstanding, and he seems to have suggested -that the only houses occupied by Cheyne and his predecessors were -that afterwards occupied by Portinari and one ‘new built’ by Cheyne, -in which apparently Lord Henry Seymour was living at the time of the -suit. Moreover, he produced a number of witnesses, including Bywater, -Blagrave, Thomas Hale, groom of the Tents, Portinari himself, and -Elizabeth Baxter, widow of the former porter of the friars, who agreed -in deposing that the friars had never let these rooms, which were -essential as a breakfast room and a butler’s lodging to their daily -life, and gave a perfectly consistent account of the various uses of -them after the surrender by Cawarden, Woodman, Phillips, Blagrave, and -Bywater, which have already been indicated in this narrative. It does -not transpire that More confided to the arbitrators the suspicious -references to Cheyne’s claim in the surveys of 1548 and 1550. However -this may be, their decision was in his favour on the substantial issue. -The Poles were required to acknowledge his right to Bywater’s house and -the paved hall, as well as to the tenements of Frith and Hale. More, on -the other hand, was to abandon his claim to the tenements of Fenton, -Austen, and Lewes, and by way of compromise was to execute a lease of -Bywater’s house to the Poles at a nominal rent for fifty years or the -term of their lives. This he accordingly did. Nothing more is heard -of any of the premises involved until July 1584, just after More had -succeeded in putting an end to Lyly’s theatrical enterprise. By this -date both Bywater and Joyner had gone, and their places had been taken -by another fencing-master, an Italian, Rocco Bonetti by name.[1574] -Bonetti had acquired from Margaret Pole, now a widow, her life-interest -in the butler’s lodging. He had also taken over from Lyly two leases, -one of the fencing-school, the other of a house, the property of -More, immediately west of the butler’s lodging.[1575] The latter he -had repaired at some cost. He had even been rash enough to put up -additional buildings on More’s land. And he had not paid his workmen, -to whom he owed £200. The butler’s lodging is described as being in -great decay. But this also, or its site, he appears to have enlarged, -at the expense of his neighbouring tenement on the west. He feared the -expiration of his interests, and got his friends, of whom were Lord -Willoughby, Sir John North, and Sir Walter Raleigh, to approach More -for an extension of tenure. As regards the western house, More seems to -have consented, after much reluctance in view of Bonetti’s indebted -condition, to a lease for seven years in 1586.[1576] As regards the -butler’s lodging, he was mainly interested in the reversion after Mrs. -Pole’s death, and of this reversion he granted Bonetti a ten years’ -term by a lease of 20 March 1585.[1577] The holding is described in -much the same terms as those used in Bywater’s lease of 1564. The -measurements, however, are also given. The length from north to south -was 25 ft. 2 in., and the width from east to west 22 ft. 6 in. But 4 -ft. 6 in. of the length and 2 ft. of the width were not covered by Mrs. -Pole’s lease, and were taken, probably by an encroachment which the -lease was intended to regularize, from More’s tenement to the west. -For the sake of greater accuracy, the measurements and boundaries of -this western tenement are given. It was 33 ft. from north to south and -39 ft. 8 in. from east to west. It was bounded on the north by More’s -yard, on the south and west by a house of Mrs. Pole’s, on the south by -the way to Sir George Carey’s house, and on the east by More’s house in -Bonetti’s tenure, that is to say the house which is the subject of the -lease.[1578] - -Sir George Carey was the eldest son of Lord Hunsdon, and himself -became Lord Hunsdon on 22 July 1596.[1579] He is not traceable in the -Blackfriars before 1585, but continued to reside there until his death -in 1603. The way to his house corresponds in position with the way to -Lady Kingston’s house of the 1548 survey, and he had pretty clearly -acquired some or all of her property, including the infirmary under -the upper frater.[1580] The way must have followed a line from Water -Lane, much the same as that of the present Printing House Lane. The -fencing-school was accessible from it by a door next to Carey’s.[1581] -Certain other data of the early surveys are a little difficult to -reconcile with those of the later documents. The surveys indicate three -parallel rows of buildings, of a comparatively insignificant character, -extending over a space roughly 80 ft. square between the frater block -and Water Lane. The north row consisted of the two-storied Duchy -Chamber, a narrow building 50 ft. by 17 ft., and the parlour of Sir -John Portinari’s house. These had a frontage on the kitchen yard. -South of them came the rest of Portinari’s house, and south of this -the little chamber, 26 ft. long by 10 ft. wide, the little kitchen, 23 -ft. long by 22 ft. wide, and an entry to the latter, 30 ft. long by -17 ft. wide, which I suppose to have debouched upon Water Lane. The -little chamber and kitchen had their frontage on the way leading to -Lady Kingston’s. The house referred to as Cheyne’s in the 1550 survey -is probably that occupied by Portinari. But Cheyne must also have had -other property in the same neighbourhood, which the surveys do not -mention. There was the house, probably that described as ‘new built’ in -1572, which he occupied himself, and which afterwards passed to Lord -Henry Seymour.[1582] And there were the three tenements which More -claimed, but did not secure in 1572. These premises were leased as a -whole by the Poles to Christopher Fenton on 31 May 1571, and appear to -have been gradually cut up into smaller holdings. By 1610 there were -four tenants and by 1614 five. They bounded More’s property, and must -have lain in the angle of Water Lane and the way to Lady Kingston’s, -just south of the entry to the little kitchen.[1583] - -The little chamber of 1548 is undoubtedly the butler’s lodging leased -to Bywater in 1564 and to Bonetti in 1585, which was a subject of the -lawsuit in 1572. But whereas it measured 26 ft. by 10 ft. in 1548, it -measured 22 ft. 6 in. by 25 ft. 2 in. in 1585, and the enumeration of -rooms in the two leases show that, although Bonetti may have built a -small additional room upon a bit of land filched from More, there had -been no substantial change since 1564. Further, while in 1548 it was -bounded on the north by Portinari’s holding, it was reached in 1564 by -a railed and boarded entry across its yard, and documents of 1596 and -1601 make it clear that this entry terminated in a small porch opening -on the kitchen yard.[1584] Similarly the little kitchen, 23 ft. by 22 -ft., of 1548 had been replaced in 1584 by a house 33 ft. by 39 ft. 8 -in., and of this also Portinari’s house had ceased to be the boundary, -and a yard of More’s had been substituted. Finally, More’s successor, -Sir George More, was in a position in 1603 to sell to one John Tice a -strip of land bounded by Tice’s house on the south, Water Lane on the -west, and the kitchen yard on the north and east, which must have been -just about where Portinari’s parlour stood at the time of the 1548 -survey.[1585] I am now approaching the region of conjecture, but there -is only one way of accounting for the facts. More must have acquired -and pulled down Portinari’s house, and thus not only let light and -air into the somewhat congested district west of the frater, but also -left room for extensions in the rear of the little houses fronting on -the way to Lady Kingston’s. The extension of the little chamber he had -probably himself undertaken before 1564. It did not interfere with the -chalices and singing cakes in the window, or prevent the house from -being in decay in 1585. In 1572 it could be seen that the house had -been covered with lead, but presumably was so no longer.[1586] The -extension of the little kitchen seems to have been an enterprise of -Bonetti, of which More reaped the profits. The rest of the space gained -was utilized for the fencing-school kitchen, for a staircase behind the -Duchy Chamber, and for certain yards, all of which were in existence in -1596.[1587] It is just possible that More also pulled down the west end -of the Duchy Chamber. - -By 1596 both the fencing-school and the butler’s lodging had passed -from the occupation of Bonetti. One Thomas Bruskett had the former and -one John Favour the latter. This is the year of James Burbadge’s great -enterprise of the second Blackfriars theatre. Our first intimation of -it is from Lord Hunsdon, in a letter to More of 9 January 1596.[1588] -He has heard that More has parted with part of his house for a -play-house, and makes an offer for ‘your other howse, which once I had -also’. The deed of sale by More to James Burbadge is dated 4 February -1596.[1589] The purchase money was £600. The rooms transferred are -carefully described, but only a few of the measurements and boundaries -are given. There were seven great upper rooms, ‘sometyme being one -greate and entire room’, enclosed with great stone walls, and reached -by a great pair of winding stairs from the great yard next the Pipe -Office. Other stone stairs reached leads above. These rooms had been -lately in the tenure of William de Laune, doctor of physic. Beneath -them, or beneath an entry between them and the Pipe Office, lay a -vault, of which Burbadge was to have the use only, by a ‘stoole and -tonnell’ contrived in the thickness of his north wall.[1590] Under some -part of De Laune’s seven rooms, and included in the sale, lay also -rooms 52 ft. long and 37 ft. wide, known as the ‘midle romes’ or ‘midle -stories’. These extended south to Sir George Carey’s house, and were -reached from a lane leading thereto, by a door next to Carey’s gate. -They had been in the tenure of Rocco Bonetti and were now in that of -Thomas Bruskett, together with a kitchen adjoining, and two cellars -reached by stairs from the kitchen, and lying under the north end of -the middle rooms. Bruskett had one of these, and the other was occupied -by John Favor, who dwelt in the house held for the term of her life by -Mrs. Pole. This house did not go to Burbadge, but he had one of two -small yards of which Favor had the other, between Mrs. Pole’s house and -the cellars. This yard was occupied by Peter Johnson, and Burbadge also -took four rooms tenanted by Johnson, and surrounded by his yard on the -south, Mrs. Pole’s entry on the west, and the great yard next the Pipe -Office on the north. Two of these were under De Laune’s late rooms. The -other two were under rooms, to the west of the north end of De Laune’s, -which were occupied by Charles Bradshaw, possibly the Bradshaw whose -room was begged by Farrant in 1576. Bradshaw also occupied a little -buttery, an entry and passage from the seven rooms, and a little room -for wood and coals. This lay over the buttery, on the west side of a -staircase leading to two rooms or lofts, one of which was over the east -and north of Bradshaw’s rooms and the other over the entry between the -seven rooms and the Pipe Office. These were in the occupation of Edward -Merry, who also had a room or garret over them reached by a further -staircase. A staircase also led from Peter Johnson’s yard to Bradshaw’s -rooms. Both Bradshaw’s and Merry’s rooms were included in Burbadge’s -purchase, which was completed by a small yard and privy on the north -side of Pipe Office yard, east of Water Lane, south of Cobham’s house, -and west of a house of More’s also occupied by Cobham. Burbadge was -also to have the right of depositing coal and other goods for a -reasonable time in the old kitchen yard, now called ‘the greate yarde -next the Pipe Office’, provided he did not interfere with access to the -Pipe Office itself, or to More’s garden or other parts of his premises. -The description seems complicated, as one reads the deed, but I think -that the disposition of the rooms is fairly intelligible.[1591] The -seven upper rooms, once a single great room, can only represent the -whole of the old parliament chamber or upper frater, formerly divided -into two distinct holdings. This, as we know, abutted across the -staircase upon the hall in the northern block which had formed part of -Farrant’s holding and which More had converted into the Pipe Office -in 1591.[1592] The middle rooms, together with the two easternmost of -Johnson’s rooms, must together represent the space of the paved hall -and blind parlour. There is no reason to suppose that Burbadge bought -from More, or that More ever possessed, anything beyond this space -on the ground floor of the frater block; and if the hall and parlour -were, as I have suggested, of equal size, the total space passing to -Burbadge on this floor was 74 ft. from north to south and 52 ft. from -east to west. The rest of the floor had been Lady Kingston’s and passed -to Sir George Carey.[1593] Johnson’s other two rooms and Bradshaw’s -rooms above them, lying to the west of the north end of the seven great -rooms, must be the two floors of the Duchy Chamber. The yards behind -them were rendered possible by the clearance of Portinari’s house. -Bradshaw’s two smaller rooms were on the staircase tower, and Merry’s -rooms and garret were partly at the top of this staircase and partly -above the Duchy Chamber. - - DIAGRAMS OF BLACKFRIARS - - 1596 - - [Illustration: A. LOWER STORY] - - [Illustration: B. UPPER STORY] - -The property purchased by Burbadge was extended at various dates after -his death in February 1597 by his sons Cuthbert and Richard. On 26 June -1601 they bought for £95 from Sir George More the reversion of the -butler’s lodging, subject to the life-interest of Mrs. Pole and to the -ten years’ lease after her death, which had in the interval since 1585 -passed from Rocco Bonetti to Thomas Bruskett.[1594] On 30 May 1610 they -purchased two-thirds of the interests of the heirs of Mrs. Pole and of -a mortgagee in the houses formerly held by Christopher Fenton, and on -7 July 1614 also purchased the remaining interest. These houses cost -them in all £170.[1595] If, as is not unlikely, they also purchased -at some time the house which in 1585 stood on the site of the little -kitchen of 1548, and the bit of land sold to John Tice in 1603, the -whole of the plot between the frater on the east, Water Lane on the -west, the kitchen yard on the north, and the way to Lord Hunsdon’s -house on the south, will have passed into their hands. There is no -indication that they ever acquired any part of Lord Hunsdon’s house. -This was apparently occupied by the French ambassador in 1623, when -one of its upper rooms, used as a chapel, fell, and many persons were -killed. Camden in his notes for Jacobean annals confused this room with -the theatre.[1596] About 1629 the King’s printers, Robert Barker and -John Bill, secured Hunsdon House for their press, and it remained the -King’s printing house until the Great Fire.[1597] On 19 December 1612 -the Burbadges obtained from the Cobham estate a piece of land for the -enlargement of the yard near the Pipe Office, which was serving twenty -years later to turn coaches in.[1598] - -To make an end for the present of topography, the fortunes of the -property to the north of the Burbadge purchases may be briefly traced. -Sir William More died in 1601 and his son and successor, Sir George, -had no need for a Pipe Office. The rooms were therefore leased, with -others, on 23 April 1601 to Sir Jerome Bowes at a rent of £14 6_s._ -8_d._ ‘and certein glasses’.[1599] I think that the other rooms -included the old lavatory of the friars, once a Revels store-house and -thereafter a wash-house for More’s mansion, and that it was in this -room that Bowes established the glass-house which became an important -industry of the Blackfriars.[1600] On 19 June 1609 Sir George More sold -this property, subject to Bowes’s lease, together with the mansion -house, the great garden and all that remained to him within the great -cloister, to a syndicate, whose members in 1611 divided the purchase -amongst themselves.[1601] The former Pipe Office, now called the -gate-house, with its yard, part of the glass-house, and a strip of the -garden 23 ft. 10 in. wide passed to William Banister. Banister’s son -Thomas sold them in 1616 to Gideon De Laune and De Laune in 1617 to -Jacob Hardratt. Then Hardratt rebuilt the property and in 1619 sold -back to De Laune a tenement which extended 43 ft. from north to south, -and 24 ft. westwards from ‘the great gate near the play-house’ to the -tenement occupied by a widow Basil. It had a small garden on the east, -lying south of another garden belonging to De Laune.[1602] The length -of 43 ft. exceeds by 6 ft., the width of an entry, that of the Pipe -Office rooms, the site of which De Laune’s tenement no doubt occupied. - -The big sale of 1609 did not include the kitchen and kitchen stairs -built by Sir Henry Neville about 1560, or the wood yard which enclosed -them. A bit of this yard had been included in Burbadge’s purchase of -1596. The rest of the property, with the water supply, had been bought -on 11 March 1601, by Henry Lord Cobham, whose house it underlay.[1603] -It had in fact been held by his father as far back as 1596.[1604] In -1603 Cobham was attainted. His Blackfriars property was forfeited to -the Crown, but regranted to his widow, Lady Kildare, and for some -years remained in the hands of trustees for her and her daughter Lady -Howard.[1605] In 1612 an additional bit of the wood yard was sold, -as already stated, to the Burbadges. Finally, in 1632 the estate was -conveyed to the Company of Apothecaries, in whose hands it has since -remained.[1606] They must also have acquired the house of Gideon De -Laune, who was one of their founders, and therefore their present -premises, in their extent of 116 ft. from north to south, exactly -replace the ‘northern block’ of buildings which stood to the west of -the main Blackfriars cloister, when Sir Thomas Cawarden took possession -of it in 1550. - -James Burbadge was not destined to see the success of his adventure. -After all, he was prevented from establishing his theatre in 1596. -Play-houses had just been suppressed in the City, and a number of the -more important inhabitants of the Blackfriars disliked the idea of one -being opened in their select residential precinct, where no common -play-house had yet been seen. Farrant’s theatre, nominally intended -for the private practice of the Chapel boys, was presumably regarded -as not falling within the category of common play-houses. A petition -was sent to the Privy Council, amongst the signatories to which were -Burbadge’s neighbour, Sir George Carey, now Lord Hunsdon, Elizabeth -Lady Russell, who lived a little farther up Water Lane, and Richard -Field, the printer of Shakespeare’s poems.[1607] The extant copy of -the petition is not dated, but later references assign it to November -1596, and inform us that as a result the Privy Council forbade the use -of the house.[1608] On James Burbadge’s death in February 1597 the -Blackfriars property passed to his son Richard.[1609] It is not known -what use he made of it before 1600, but in that year the resumption -of plays by the Chapel children under Nathaniel Giles gave him an -opportunity of following Farrant’s example, and letting the theatre for -what were practically public performances ‘vnder the name of a private -howse’.[1610] With Giles were associated one James Robinson and Henry -Evans, who had already been concerned in the enterprise of John Lyly -and the Earl of Oxford; and it was to Evans that, on 2 September 1600, -Burbadge leased ‘the great hall or roome, with the roomes over the -same, scituate within the precinct of the black Friours’, for a term -of twenty-one years from Michaelmas 1600, at a rent of £40,[1611] while -Evans and his son-in-law Alexander Hawkins gave a joint bond in £400 -as collateral security for due payment. Evans set up a company, which -under various names, and throughout shifting financial managements, -maintained a substantial continuity of existence, and occupied the -Blackfriars for a period of eight years. Its fortunes are dealt with -in detail elsewhere.[1612] Only those points directly bearing upon -the theatre as such need now be noted. In October 1601, when Evans -was negotiating a partnership with Edward Kirkham, William Rastall, -and Thomas Kendall, he apparently undertook to transfer his lease to -Hawkins in trust to reassign a moiety of the interest under it to -these partners.[1613] No reassignment, however, was in fact made. -Evans carried out some repairs in December 1603, and trouble arose -with his partners because he severed the school-house and chamber over -the same from the great hall and used them as private apartments to -dine and sup in.[1614] When the playing companies were hard hit by the -plague of 1603–4, Evans began to treat with Burbadge for a surrender -of the lease.[1615] This came to nothing at the time, but in August -1608, when the Revels company was in disgrace for playing Chapman’s -_Byron_ and Kirkham had declared a desire to make an end of the -speculation, the suggestion was revived, and the surrender, probably -with the assent of Hawkins, actually took place.[1616] As part of his -consideration, Evans, through a nominee, was admitted by Burbadge into -a new syndicate, of which the other members were Burbadge himself and -his brother Cuthbert, and some of the leading players of the King’s -company, by whom it was intended that the Blackfriars should now be -used.[1617] The King’s men probably entered upon their occupation of -the theatre in the autumn of 1609, and thereafter used it alternatively -with the Globe, as their winter house, up to the end of their career -in 1642.[1618] The new syndicate consisted of seven partners, who may -be called ‘housekeepers’, in accordance with the terminology found in -use in 1635, in order to distinguish them from the ‘sharers’ in the -acting profits of the company.[1619] On 9 August 1608 Richard Burbadge -executed six leases, each conveying a seventh part of the play-house -for a term of twenty-one years from the previous midsummer, and -entailing the payment of a seventh part of the rent of £40. The six -lessees were his brother Cuthbert, John Heminges, William Shakespeare, -Henry Condell, William Sly, and Thomas Evans. The remaining interest -he no doubt retained himself. Sly, however, died five days later, and -his share was surrendered by his executrix, and divided amongst the -other partners. On 25 August 1611 it was transferred to William Ostler. -After his death on 16 December 1614 it should have passed to his widow, -Thomasina, but her father John Heminges retained it, and in 1629 she -estimated that he had thus defrauded her of profits at the rate of £20 -a year.[1620] At some date later than 1611 John Underwood must have -been admitted to a share, for he owned one at his death in 1624. The -original leases terminated in 1629. Probably new ones were then entered -into, for by 1633 we find that the rent had been increased to £50, and -in 1635 that the interest of the housekeepers had still four years to -run, and that it was divided not into seven, but into eight parts. -Cuthbert Burbadge and the widows of Richard Burbadge and Henry Condell -still represented the original holders. Two parts had been bought in -1633 and 1634 from Heminges’s son by John Shank. One part was still -held in the name of Underwood, but a third of it was apparently in -the hands of Eillart Swanston. John Lowin and Joseph Taylor had each -a part. As a result of the dispute the Lord Chamberlain ordered a new -partition under which Shank resigned one share to be divided between -Swanston, Thomas Pollard, and Robert Benfield.[1621] - -The occupation of the Blackfriars by the King’s men was not wholly -peaceful. The beginning of their tenure almost exactly coincided with -the grant of the new charter by which the jurisdiction of the City was -extended to the precinct.[1622] It was not, however, until 1619 that -an attempt was made to invoke this jurisdiction against them. In that -year the officials of the precinct and the church of St. Anne’s, backed -up by a few of the inhabitants, sent a petition to the Corporation, -in which they recited the inconveniences due to a play-house in their -midst, recalled the action taken by the Privy Council in 1596, as well -as the Star Chamber order of 1600 limiting the London play-houses to -two, and begged that conformity to the wishes of the Council might be -enforced. The Corporation made an order for the suppression of the -Blackfriars on 21 January 1619.[1623] It clearly remained inoperative, -but explains why the King’s men thought it desirable to obtain a fresh -patent, dated on 27 March 1619, in which their right to play at ‘their -private house scituate in the precinctes of the Blackfriers’, as well -as at the Globe, was explicitly stated.[1624] They had to face another -attack in 1631. Their opponents on this occasion approached Laud, then -Bishop of London.[1625] After some delay Laud seems to have brought the -matter before the Privy Council. The idea was mooted of buying the -players out and on 9 October 1633 a commission of Middlesex justices -was appointed to report as to the value of their interests.[1626] These -were estimated by the players at £21,990, and by the commissioners at -£2,900. The only offer towards a compensation fund was one of £100 from -the parish of St. Anne’s.[1627] Evidently the proposal was allowed to -drop. On 20 November 1633, the Privy Council made an order forbidding -coaches to stand in Ludgate or St. Paul’s Churchyard while the -performances were going on, but even this regulation was practically -cancelled by an amending order made at a meeting presided over by the -King in person on 29 December.[1628] - -It is rather disappointing that the numerous documents bearing upon -the occupation of the Blackfriars between 1600 and 1608 should throw -so little light upon the way in which James Burbadge adapted his -purchase ‘with great charge and troble’ to the purposes of a theatre. -The lease of 1600 did not cover the whole of the property, but only a -‘great hall or roome, with the roomes over the same’. Presumably this -was the case also with the leases of 1608, since the rent was the same -as in 1600. The rest of the premises, with those purchased later by -the younger Burbadges, may be represented by the four tenements valued -at £75 a year in 1633, and the ‘piece of void ground to turn coaches’ -valued at £6 was doubtless the fragment of the old kitchen yard north -of the approach. The Kirkham lawsuits tell us that one or two rooms -were reserved for the residence of Evans in 1602 and that during the -early part of 1604 ‘a certen rome, called the Scholehouse, and a certen -chamber over the same’ had been ‘seuered from the said great hall, and -made fitt by’ Evans ‘at his owne proper cost and chardges, to dyne and -supp in’.[1629] Professor Wallace has a number of additional lawsuits, -still unpublished.[1630] But the extracts from these given by him in -1908 add only a few details to those formerly known. They seem to -amount to this. The hall was 66 ft. from north to south and 46 ft. from -east to west. It was paved, and had a stage, galleries, and seats of -which a schedule was attached to the lease. The stage was at one end -of the hall. The school-house was at the north end of the hall.[1631] -At this end also must have been the entrance, as one of the petitions -of 1619 locates it near the way used from part of the precinct in -going to church.[1632] It was doubtless by the gate-house entry to -the cloister, just beyond where the coaches turned. Unfortunately one -is left quite in doubt upon the critical question as to which of the -rooms known to us from earlier records were used for the theatre. It -might have been the upper frater with the partitions removed; it might -have been constructed out of the paved hall and blind parlour beneath, -which appear to be represented by the ‘midle romes’ and two of the -rooms in the occupation of Peter Johnson enumerated in the conveyance -to Burbadge. _A priori_ one would have thought the upper frater the -most likely. It may very well have been paved, like the hall beneath -it, and a chamber which had held parliaments and a legatine trial -could amply suffice to hold a theatre. On this supposition the rooms -‘above’ the hall which were conveyed by the lease of 1600, and one of -which Evans converted into a dining-room can only have been the room -over the staircase and the garret over that. These, indeed, may have -extended over the north end of the frater proper, although in the main -that building appears, down to the time when Burbadge bought it, to -have had nothing over it but leads.[1633] There is a serious difficulty -in the way of the alternative theory, which would identify the theatre -with the ‘midle romes’ on the ground floor. This is that these would -most likely only be low rooms, vaulted to carry the heavy floor of the -parliament chamber above. On the whole, the balance of probability -appears to be strongly in favour of the upper frater. - -Professor Wallace’s account of the matter is categorical. ‘The south -section’, he says, ‘underwent a thorough transformation. The two -stories were converted into the auditorium called “the great Hall or -Room”.... The roof was changed, and rooms, probably of the usual dormer -sort, were built above the Great Hall.’[1634] I do not know whether -there is any evidence for this theory, which disregards a good many -structural difficulties, in those parts of his recently discovered -documents which Professor Wallace has not published; there is certainly -none in those which he has. If not, I do not think we must assume -that Burbadge undertook expensive building operations, when he had -all the facilities for planning an admirable auditorium without them. -Professor Wallace seems to have been led into his conjecture by an -assumed necessity for providing space for three tiers of galleries. -There is no such necessity, and in fact no evidence for more than one -tier, although I dare say that the upper frater taken by itself was -high enough for two. Professor Wallace cites a reference to ‘porticibus -_anglice_ galleryes’, and points out that ‘galleryes’ is a plural. -This is so, but the ‘galleryes’ were not necessarily superimposed; if -one ran along the east side of the hall and the other along the west, -they would still constitute a plural. Professor Wallace takes the step -from his plural to three with the aid of Cockledemoy’s address to ‘my -very fine Heliconian gallants, and you, my worshipful friends in the -middle region’.[1635] Obviously the ‘middle region’ is not bound to be -the middle one of three galleries; it may just as well be the space -between the stage and the galleries. - -It is beyond the scope of this inquiry to trace the detailed fortunes -of the Blackfriars during its later years. By Caroline times it took -place of the Globe as the principal and most profitable house of -the King’s men.[1636] In 1653, when like the rest of the theatres -it was closed, Richard Flecknoe recalled its origin and wrote its -epitaph.[1637] It was pulled down on 6 August 1655.[1638] This site -was used for tenements, which in course of time were replaced by _The -Times_ office which now occupies the site.[1639] - - - ii. THE WHITEFRIARS - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The relevant dissertations are - P. Cunningham, _The Whitefriars, the Salisbury Court, and - the Duke’s Theatres_ (1849, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 89), J. - Greenstreet, _The Whitefriars Theatre in the Time of Shakspere_ - (1888, _N. S. S. Trans._ 269), with text of the Bill and Answer - in the Chancery suit of _Androwes v. Slater_ (1609), and A. W. - Clapham, _The Topography of the Carmelite Priory of London_ - (1910, _Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journal_, n. s. xvi. 15), with - seventeenth-century plan of the precinct, reproduced by Adams, - 312.] - -The only suggestion of a sixteenth-century play-house in the -Whitefriars is to be found in the statement of Richard Rawlidge in 1628 -that one was suppressed there at a date under Elizabeth which he does -not specify, but which may most plausibly be put at 1596 (cf. p. 359). -It is not improbable that Rawlidge wrote ‘Whitefriars’ when he should -have written ‘Blackfriars’, but Malone (_Var._ iii. 46, 52) accepted -the statement and assigned the suppression to 1580. I do not suppose -that Collier had any other basis than this for the ‘more then 30 -yeares’ of the following description which he alleged to be an extract -from ‘an original survey of some part of the precinct, made in March -1616’ in his possession, and printed in his _New Facts_ (1835), 44: - - ‘The Theater is situate near vnto the Bishopps House, and was - in former times a hall or refectorie belonging to the dissolved - Monastery. It hath beene vsed as a place for the presentation - of playes and enterludes for more then 30 yeares, last by the - Children of her Majestie. It hath little or no furniture for a - play-house, saving an old tottered curten, some decayed benches, - and a few worne out properties and peeces of Arras for hangings - to the stage and tire house. The raine hath made its way in and - if it bee not repaired, it must soone be plucked downe or it - will fall.’ - -The earliest record, therefore, on which reliance can be placed is -the lawsuit of _Androwes v. Slater_ in 1609,[1640] which recites -the lease by Robert Lord Buckhurst to Michael Drayton and Thomas -Woodford for six years eight months and twenty days from March 1608 of -‘a messuage or mansion howse parcell of the late dissolved monastery -called the Whitefriars, in Fleete streete, in the subvrbs of London’, -while the articles of agreement between the sharers of the King’s -Revels syndicate (cf. ch. xii), of the same date, assign lodgings in -the house to Martin Slater, and add - - ‘The roomes of which howse are thirteene in number, three belowe - and tenne above, that is to saie, the greate hall, the kitchin - by the yard, and a cellar, with all the roomes from the east - ende of the howse to the Master of the revells’ office, as the - same are now severed and devided.’[1641] - -The precinct of the former priory of the Carmelites or White Friars lay -between Fleet Street and the river, to the east of Serjeants’ Inn and -to the west of Water Lane, which divided it from Salisbury Court, the -old inn of the bishops of Salisbury, which had passed to the Sackvilles -in the sixteenth century, and ultimately became known as Dorset House -(Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 45). The precinct was a liberty, and its history, -from the point of view of local government, had been closely analogous -to that of the Blackfriars. Like the Blackfriars, it came under -complete civic control in this very year of 1608 (cf. p. 480). The -Whitefriars mansion itself the Sackvilles probably acquired from the -family of Thomas Lord De La Warr, to whom a grant of priory property -was made in 1544 (Dugdale, vi. 1572). - -From the King’s Revels the Whitefriars passed to the occupation of -the Queen’s Revels (cf. ch. xii) in 1609, and continued in their use -both before and after their amalgamation with the Lady Elizabeth’s in -March 1613. It is named on the title-pages of _Woman a Weathercock_ -(1612) and _The Insatiate Countess_ (1613), and a reference in the -prologue to ‘daughters of Whitefriars’ shows that it was also the -locality of _Epicoene_ (1609). In February 1613 it was ‘taken up’ -by some London apprentices for an invitation performance of Robert -Tailor’s _The Hog Hath Lost His Pearl_ (q.v.). From March 1613 the -amalgamated companies had Bankside theatres available, first the Swan -and afterwards the Hope, but it is clear from the Watermen’s petition -(cf. p. 370) that, at any rate before the Hope was built, they mainly -used the Whitefriars. Daborne in a letter to Henslowe of 5 June 1613 -speaks of the company ‘comming over’, presumably from the Whitefriars -to Bankside, and on 9 Dec. 1613 suggests that a play of his would be -suitable for Henslowe’s ‘publique howse’, from which it may perhaps be -inferred that Henslowe had also an interest in a ‘private’ house at the -time (_Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79). Apparently conversion into a public -theatre was then contemplated, for on 13 July 1613 the Master of the -Revels received a fee of £20 ‘for a license to erect a new play-house -in the White-friers, &c.’ (_Var._ iii. 52). But this scheme was stopped -by the Privy Council.[1642] On 3 June 1615 Rosseter and others obtained -their patent for the Porter’s Hall theatre in Blackfriars (cf. p. -472), which contemplated its use by the Revels, the Prince’s, and the -Lady Elizabeth’s, and incidentally recited that the Revels Children -had been trained and exercised in the Whitefriars ‘ever since’ 1610. -The amalgamation was dissolved in the spring of 1616, and the Lady -Elizabeth’s and the Revels probably disappeared from London. If, -therefore, the Whitefriars continued in use, it was probably by Prince -Charles’s men, who would have been left homeless by the demolition -of Porter’s Hall early in 1617. That it did continue in use and that -a renewed lease was still held by some of the parties interested in -the house in 1608 is indicated by the suit of _Trevell v. Woodford_ -before the Court of Requests in 1642, from which it appears, according -to Peter Cunningham, that Sir Anthony Ashley, the then landlord of -the house, entered the theatre in 1621, and turned out the players, -on the pretence that half a year’s rent was due to him. In 1629 the -Whitefriars was replaced by the Salisbury Court theatre, built on the -site of an old barn just on the other side of Water Lane. - - - - - XVIII - - THE STRUCTURE AND CONDUCT OF THEATRES - - [_Bibliographical Note._--The only Restoration treatises which - throw any light on the pre-Restoration theatre are R. Flecknoe, - _A Short Discourse of the English Stage_ (1664), and J. Wright, - _Historia Histrionica_ (1699), extracts from which are in - Appendix I. - - Archaeological material was brought together by E. Malone in - _Variorum_ iii. 51, and J. P. Collier in _H. E. D. P._ - iii. 140. - - Modern investigation may be said to begin with the discovery of - the Swan drawing in 1888. The principal dissertations up to 1916 - are: - - K. T. Gaedertz, _Zur Kenntnis der altenglischen Bühne_ (1888); - H. B. Wheatley, _On a contemporary Drawing of the interior of - the Swan Theatre_, 1596 (1888, _N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92_, 215); - W. Archer, _A Sixteenth-Century Play-house_ (1888, _Universal - Review_), _The Stage of Shakespeare_ (10 Aug. 1907, _Tribune_), - _The Fortune Theatre_, 1600 (12 Oct. 1907, _Tribune_, repr. - _Jahrbuch_, xliv. 159), _The Swan Drawing_ (11 Jan. 1908, - _Tribune_), _The Elizabethan Stage_ (1908, _Quarterly Review_, - ccviii. 442), _The Play-house_ (1916, _Shakespeare’s England_, - ii. 283); R. Genée, _Ueber die scenischen Formen Shakespeare’s - in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Bühne seiner Zeit_ (1891, _Jahrbuch_, - xxvi. 131); E. Kilian, _Die scenischen Formen Shakespeares - in ihrer Beziehung zu der Aufführung seiner Dramen auf der - modernen Bühne_ (1893, _Jahrbuch_, xxviii. 90), _Shakespeare - auf der modernen Bühne_ (1900, _Jahrbuch_, xxxvi. 228); H. - Logeman, _Johannes de Witt’s Visit to the Swan Theatre_ (1897, - _Anglia_, xix. 117); C. Grabau, _Zur englischen Bühne um - 1600_ (1902, _Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 232); W. J. Lawrence, _Some - Characteristics of the Elizabethan-Stuart Stage_ (1902, _E. - S._ xxxii. 36), _The Elizabethan Play-house_ (1912, 1913), - _Night Performances in the Elizabethan Theatres_ (1915, _E. - S._ xlviii. 213), _New Light on the Elizabethan Theatre_ (May - 1916, _Fortnightly Review_), _A Forgotten Play-house Custom of - Shakespeare’s Day_ (1916, _Book of Homage_, 207), _Horses on - the Elizabethan Stage_ (_T. L. S._ 5 June 1919), _He’s for a - Jig or ---- _ (_T. L. S._ 3 July 1919); K. Mantzius, _History - of Theatrical Art_ (1903–9); E. E. Hale, _The Influence of - Theatrical Conditions on Shakespeare_ (1904, _M. P._ i. 171); - E. Koeppel, _Die unkritische Behandlung dramaturgischer Angaben - in den Shakespeare-Ausgaben_ (1904, _E. S._ xxxiv. 1); W. Bang, - _Zur Bühne Shakespeares_ (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 223); W. Keller, - _Nochmals zur Bühne Shakespeares_ (1904, _Jahrbuch_, xl. 225); - A. H. Tolman, _Shakespeare’s Stage and Modern Adaptations_ - (1904, _Views about Hamlet_, 115), _Alternation in the Staging - of Shakespeare’s Plays_ (1909, _M. P._ vi. 517); C. Brodmeier, - _Die Shakespeare-Bühne nach den alten Bühnenanweisungen_ (1904); - R. Prölss, _Von den ältesten Drucken der Dramen Shakespeares_ - (1905); P. Monkemeyer, _Prolegomena zu einer Darstellung der - englischen Volksbühne_ (1905); G. P. Baker, _Hamlet on an - Elizabethan Stage_ (1905, _Jahrbuch_, xli. 296), _Elizabethan - Stage Theories_ (3 Nov. 1905, _The Times Literary Supplement_); - C. H. Kaulfuss-Diesch, _Die Inszenierung des deutschen Dramas an - der Wende des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts_ (1905); G. F. Reynolds, - _Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging_ (1905, _M. P._ i. 581, - ii. 69), _Trees on the Stage of Shakespeare_ (1907, _M. P._ v. - 153), _What we know of the Elizabethan Stage_ (1911, _M. P._ ix. - 47), _William Percy and his Plays_ (1914, _M. P._ xii. 109); - J. Corbin, _Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage_ (1906, _Atlantic - Monthly_, xcvii. 369), _Shakespeare his Own Stage Manager_ - (1911, _Century_, lxxxiii. 260); R. Bridges, _On the Influence - of the Audience_ (1907, _Stratford Town Shakespeare_, x. 321); - E. K. Chambers, _On the Stage of the Globe_ (1907, _Stratford - Town Shakespeare_, x. 351); C. C. Stopes, _Elizabethan Stage - Scenery_ (June 1907, _Fortnightly Review_); R. Wegener, _Die - Bühneneinrichtung des Shakespeareschen Theaters_ (1907); W. - H. Godfrey, _An Elizabethan Play-house_ (1908, _Architectural - Review_, xxiii. 239; cf. xxxi. 53); C. W. Wallace, _The - Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_ (1908); F. Schelling, - _The Elizabethan Play-house_ (1908, _Proc. of Philadelphia - Num. and Antiq. Soc._); A. A. Helmholtz-Phelan, _The Staging - of Court Dramas before 1595_ (1909, _M. L. A._ xxiv. 185); V. - E. Albright, _The Shaksperian Stage_ (1909), _Percy’s Plays as - Proof of the Elizabethan Stage_ (1913, _M. P._ xi. 237); A. - R. Skemp, _Some Characteristics of the English Stage before - the Restoration_ (1909, _Jahrbuch_, xlv. 101); W. Creizenach, - _Bühnenwasen und Schauspielkunst_ (1909, _Gesch. des neueren - Dramas_, iv. 401); B. Neuendorff, _Die englische Volksbühne im - Zeitalter Shakespeares nach den Bühnenanweisungen_ (1910); H. - H. Child, _The Elizabethan Theatre_ (1910, _C. H._ vi. 241); H. - Conrad, _Bemerkungen zu Lawrence’ Title and Locality Boards_ - (1910, _Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 106); C. R. Baskervill, _The Custom - of Sitting on the Elizabethan Stage_ (1911, _M. P._ viii. - 581); J. Q. Adams, _The Four Pictorial Representations of the - Elizabethan Stage_ (April 1911, _J. G. P._); F. A. Foster, - _Dumb Show in Elizabethan Drama before 1620_ (1911, _E. S._ - xliv. 8); A. Forestier, _The Fortune Theatre Reconstructed_ (12 - Aug. 1911, _Illustrated London News_); M. B. Evans, _An Early - Type of Stage_ (1912, _M. P._ ix. 421); T. S. Graves, _A Note - on the Swan Theatre_ (1912, _M. P._ ix. 431), _Night Scenes in - the Elizabethan Theatres_ (1913, _E. S._ xlvii. 63), _The Court - and the London Theaters during the Reign of Elizabeth_ (1913), - _The Origin of the Custom of Sitting upon the Stage_ (1914, _J. - E. G. P._ xiii. 104), _The Act Time in Elizabethan Theatres_ - (1915, _Univ. of Carolina, Studies in Philology_, xii. 3), _The - Ass as Actor_ (1916, _S. Atlantic Quarterly_, xv. 175); G. H. - Cowling, _Music on the Shakespearian Stage_ (1913); H. Bell, - _Contributions to the History of the English Play-house_ (1913, - _Architectural Record_, 262, 359); W. G. Keith, _The Designs - for the first Movable Scenery on the English Stage_ (1914, - _Burlington Magazine_, xxv. 29, 85); W. Poel, _Shakespeare in - the Theatre_ (1915), _Some Notes on Shakespeare’s Stage and - Plays_ (1916); J. Le G. Brereton, _De Witt at the Swan_ (1916, - _Book of Homage_, 204); A. H. Thorndike, _Shakespeare’s Theater_ - (1916); T. H. Dickinson, _Some Principles of Shakespeare - Staging_ (1916, _Wisconsin Shakespeare Studies_, 125). More - recent papers are noted in the _Bulletin_ of the English - Association. R. C. Rhodes’ _The Stagery of Shakespeare_ (1922) - deserves consideration. - - It remains to give some account of the iconographical material - available. Of four representations of the interiors of - play-houses, the only one of early date (_c._ 1596) is (_a_) - Arend van Buchell’s copy of a drawing by Johannes de Witt of - the Swan, published in 1888 by Gaedertz and in more accurate - facsimile by Wheatley (_vide supra_). The other three are - Caroline. (_b_) A small engraving in a compartment of the - title-page of W. Alabaster, _Roxana_ (1632), may be taken as - representing a type of academic stage, as the play was at - Trinity, Cambridge, _c._ 1592. (_c_) A very similar engraving - in the title-page of N. Richards, _Messallina_ (1640), if it - represents a specific stage at all, is less likely to represent - the second Fortune, as suggested by Skemp in his edition of - the play, or the Red Bull, as suggested by Albright, 45, - than Salisbury Court, where it is clear from Murray, i. 279, - that most of the career of the Revels company, by whom it - was produced, was spent. (_d_) An engraved frontispiece to - Francis Kirkman’s editions (1672, 1673) of _The Wits, or Sport - upon Sport_ (originally published by Marsh, 1662) has been - shown by Albright, 40, to have been erroneously regarded as a - representation of the Red Bull, to which there is an incidental - reference in the preface to Part II, and must be taken to show - the type of stage on which the ‘drolls’ contained in the book - were given ‘when the publique Theatres were shut up’. - - A Court interlude, with performers and spectators, might be - supposed to be represented in (_e_) a woodcut prefixed to - Wilson’s _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_ (1590), but - the subject is not that of the play, and the cut is shown by A. - W. Pollard (_English Miracle Plays_, ed. 6, 1914) to be taken - from S. Batman, _The Travayled Pylgrime_ (1569), and ultimately - from a fifteenth-century illustration to O. de la Marche’s - _Chevalier Délibéré_. - - Of the exteriors of theatres there are (_f_) a small engraving - of _Theatrum_ in a compartment of the title-page of Jonson’s - _Works_ (1616), which may be merely a bit of classical - archaeology, but appears to have the characteristic Elizabethan - hut, and (_g_) a series of representations, or perhaps only - cartographical symbols, in the various maps detailed in the - bibliographical note to ch. xvi. Doubtfully authentic is (_h_) a - façade of the Blackfriars, reproduced by Baker, 78, from a print - in the collection of Mr. Henry Gardiner, with a note (44) that - the owner and various antiquarians ‘believe it genuine’; and - almost certainly misnamed (_i_) a façade engraved as a relic of - the second Fortune in R. Wilkinson, _Londina Illustrata_ (1819), - ii. 141, and elsewhere, which is plausibly assigned by W. J. - Lawrence, _Restoration Stage Nurseries_, in _Archiv_ (1914), - 301, to a post-Restoration training-school for young actors. - - A small ground-plan (_k_) of the Swan appears upon a manor map - of Paris Garden in 1627, reproduced by W. Rendle in Harrison, - ii, App. I. - - A rough engraving (_l_) on the title-page of _Cornucopia, - Pasquils Nightcap_ (1612) shows a section of the orchestra of a - classical play-house as seen from the stage, and throws no light - on contemporary conditions; and (_m_) the design by Inigo Jones - described in ch. vii is of uncertain date, and intended for the - private Cockpit theatre at Whitehall. - - I know of no representation of an English provincial stage, - and unfortunately E. Mentzel, who describes (_Gesch. der - Schauspielkunst in Frankfurt am Main_, 38) a woodcut of a - play, with signboards, by English actors, probably at Frankfort, - Nuremberg, or Cassel, in 1597, does not reproduce it. Some - notion of the improvised stages used by travelling companies for - out-of-door performances may be obtained from the continental - engravings reproduced by Bapst, 153, by Rigal in _Petit de - Julleville_, iii. 264, 296, and by M. B. Evans, _An Early - Type of Stage_ (_M. P._ ix. 421). - - An engraving of the Restoration stage of the Theatre Royal, - Drury Lane (built 1663), from _Ariane, ou Le Mariage de - Bacchus_ (1674), and another of the same house as altered in - 1696, from _Unhappy Kindness_ (1697), are reproduced by - Lawrence, i. 169; ii. 140. Of the five engravings of the Duke’s - Theatre, Dorset Garden (built 1671), in E. Settle, _Empress - of Morocco_ (1673), one is reproduced by Albright, 47, and - another by Lawrence, ii. 160, and Thorndike, 110. - - Graphic attempts to reconstruct the plan and elevation of a - typical Elizabethan stage will be found in the dissertations - cited above of Brodmeier, Wegener, Archer, Godfrey, Albright, - Corbin (1911, by G. Varian and J. Hambridge), and Forestier, and - in the picture reproduced in W. N. Hills, _The Shakespearian - Stage_ (1919). - - Various revivals have also been carried out on Elizabethan - stages, with more or less of archaeological purism, notably - in London (W. Poel, _Shakespeare in the Theatre_), Paris - (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 383), Harvard (G. P. Baker in - _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xli. 296), and Munich (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlii. - 327).] - -A history of the theatres would not be complete without some account of -their general structure and economy in the disposition of auditorium -and stage. I propose to begin with the more assured or less important -points, as a clearing of the way for the difficult and controverted -problems of scenic setting, on some of which I am afraid that no very -secure conclusion can be reached. - - [Illustration] - -It is necessary, in the forefront, to appreciate the distinction -between the ‘common’ or ‘public’ play-houses and the ‘private’ houses, -which, so far as our period is concerned, were Paul’s, the Blackfriars, -and the Whitefriars. This distinction is in its origin somewhat a -technical one, for there is no reason to suppose that in the private -houses the performances were private, in the sense that access to them -could not be obtained, on payment, by members of the general public. -Probably it is to be explained in relation to the Elizabethan system -of State control of theatres, and represents an attempt to evade the -limitations on the location and the number of play-houses which had -been established through the action, first of the civic authorities -and later of the Privy Council itself. This view receives support from -the allegations made during the campaign for the suppression of the -Blackfriars in 1619 that the owner ‘doth vnder the name of a private -howse (respectinge indeed private comoditie only) convert the said -howse to a publique play-house’.[1643] - -It can hardly be supposed, however, that Burbadge could have hoodwinked -the Privy Council merely by calling the Blackfriars a ‘private’ -house, without finding any other means of differentiating it from -the ‘public’ houses, and it is quite possible that the technical -distinction, for which modern analogies could be found, consisted in -the fact that admission was paid for in advance and no money taken -at the doors.[1644] Mr. Lawrence has very appropriately quoted in -this connexion the Common Council regulations of 1574, in which -an exception is made for performances ‘withowte publique or comen -collection of money of the auditorie, or behoulders theareof’; and -though I do not suggest that the extension of this principle to -Paul’s or the Blackfriars fell within the intention of the order, -the evasion may have been allowed, within the gates of Paul’s or in -a liberty, and for a well-conducted house attended by a well-to-do -audience, to hold.[1645] If so, it is probable that Paul’s from the -beginning and the earlier Blackfriars were in effect private houses. -But the actual terminology does not emerge before the revival of the -boy companies in 1599 and 1600. For some years past the title-pages -of plays had vaunted them as ‘publikely acted’.[1646] A corresponding -‘priuately acted’ appears for Blackfriars in Jonson’s _Cynthia’s -Revels_ (1601) and _Poetaster_ (1602), and for Paul’s in Middleton’s -_Blurt Master Constable_ (1602), while the antithesis is complete in -Dekker’s _Satiromastix_ (1602), which was presented ‘publikely’ by -the Chamberlain’s and ‘priuately’ by Paul’s. Somewhat later we find -Field’s _Woman a Weathercock_ (1612) acted ‘priuately’, and Chapman’s -_Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois_ (1613) ‘at the priuate Play-house’ in the -Whitefriars.[1647] But by this time the distinction may be taken for -granted as well established in general use.[1648] - -From the point of view, however, of stage arrangements, the technical -_differentia_ of a private house is less important than certain -subsidiary characteristics.[1649] The private houses were all in -closed buildings, were occupied by boys, and charged higher prices -than the ordinary theatres. These facts entailed variations of -structure and method, which will require attention at more than one -point. They naturally became less fundamental, but did not entirely -disappear, after the transfer of the Blackfriars to the King’s men -in 1609, and probably passed still further into the background after -the introduction of roofed public houses in the Caroline age.[1650] -The title-pages generally describe the Blackfriars, the Cockpit, and -Salisbury Court as ‘private’ houses right up to the closing of the -theatres, but the term, in so far as it connotes anything different -from ‘public’, seems to have lost what little meaning it ever had.[1651] - -De Witt, about 1596, describes the Theatre, Curtain, Rose, and Swan -as ‘amphiteatra’, and Hentzner in 1598 adds that they were all -‘lignea’.[1652] The Globe and the Hope were built later on the same -structural model. The Fortune was also of wood, but square. Of the -shape and material of the Red Bull we know nothing. Prologues and -epilogues often refer to the internal appearance of the auditorium as -presenting a ‘round’, ‘ring’, ‘circuit’, ‘circumference’, or ‘O’.[1653] -If we can rely upon the draughtsmanship of the London maps, the -external outline was rather that of a polygon. This evidence must not -be pressed too far, for there is probably an element of cartographic -symbolism to be reckoned with. The same house may appear in one map as -a hexagon, in another as an octagon or decagon, and the late Hollar -group differs from its predecessors in using a completely circular -form. But there is confirmation in the Paris Garden manor map of -1627, which shows the ground-plan of the Swan decagonal, and in the -statement of Mrs. Thrale that the ruins of the Globe still visible in -the eighteenth century were hexagonal without and round within. This -was of course the later Globe built in 1613, and there is some reason -for thinking that the earlier Globe may have been of rather different -design. The verses on the fire by which it was destroyed speak of the -stage-house ‘as round as taylers clewe’, and the early Hondius map, -while it shows the Rose as polygonal, shows the Globe as circular, -with the upper half of less diameter than the lower. This construction -reappears in the Delaram drawings, and is so peculiar that the -representation may well be realistic. There was an obvious precedent -for the amphitheatrical form in the bear and bull rings which preceded -the public theatres, and I do not know that we need go back with Ordish -to a tradition of round mediaeval play-places, Cornish or English, -or to the remains of Roman occupation. A ring is the natural form in -which the maximum number of spectators can press about an object of -interest.[1654] - -There is nothing to show that, for the main fabric, any material but -timber was used, until the Fortune was rebuilt of brick in 1623. Timber -is provided for in the contracts for the earlier Fortune and the Hope, -and these were modelled on the Globe and Swan. Oak was to be mainly -used for the Hope; no fir in the lower or middle stories. Burbadge’s -lawsuits show that timber was the chief object of his expenditure on -the Theatre, although some ironwork was also employed, presumably to -tie the woodwork together. The dismantled fabric of the Theatre was -used for the Globe. Henslowe used a good deal of timber for the repairs -of the Rose in 1592–3, and did the house ‘about with ealme bordes’ in -1595. There was also some brickwork, and the Fortune and Hope were -to have brick foundations, a foot above the ground. The Fortune was -to be covered with lath, lime, and hair without. Henslowe also used -plaster, and I do not see anything inconsistent with a substantially -wooden structure in De Witt’s statement that the Swan was ‘constructum -ex coaceruato lapide pyrritide ... ligneis suffultum columnis’. This -has been regarded as an error which prejudices the reliability of De -Witt’s observations, but the description is too precise to be disproved -by Hentzner’s generalized ‘lignea’, and after all the strength of the -building was naturally in the columns, and the flints and mortar--a -common form of walling in the chalk districts of England--may well have -filled up the interstices between these. De Witt adds that the columns -might deceive the shrewdest ‘ob illitum marmoreum colorem’.[1655] - -De Witt has also been criticized for giving the seating capacity of -the Swan as 3,000. I dare say this is merely the exaggerated round -estimate of a casual visitor, but Wheatley calculates from the drawing -that the galleries might hold 2,000, and it would not be surprising -if our rude forefathers sat a bit closer than we care to do. Moryson -speaks even more largely of theatres ‘more remarkable for the number, -and the capacity, than for the building’, and ‘capable of many -thousands’, while no less than 2,000 got into Trinity College hall for -the academic plays of 1615.[1656] The frame of the Fortune was 80 ft. -square without and 55 ft. square within. This allows a depth of 12½ ft. -for the galleries, and Corbin calculates a seating capacity, allowing -18 in. for a seat and 18 in. square for a standing man, of 2,138 or -2,558 at a pinch.[1657] We do not know that the Swan was not larger -than the Fortune, and have therefore no right to assume that De Witt -was seriously out. Wright tells us that the Globe, Fortune, and Red -Bull were ‘large’ houses; he is comparing them with the private houses -of Caroline days.[1658] The allusion in _Old Fortunatus_ to the ‘small -circumference’ of the Rose perhaps hardly indicates that it was below -the average size. - -The Swan drawing is our one contemporary picture of the interior of -a public play-house, and it is a dangerous business to explain away -its evidence by an assumption of inaccurate observation on the part -of De Witt, merely because that evidence conflicts with subjective -interpretations of stage-directions, arrived at in the course of -the pursuit of a ‘typical’ stage. Still less can it be discredited -on the ground that it was merely made by Van Buchell on ‘hearsay -evidence’ from the instructions of De Witt.[1659] It is a copy, like -the accompanying description on the same piece of paper, of De Witt’s -original, which De Witt says he drew (‘adpinxi’) in order to bring -out an analogy which had struck him between the English and the Roman -theatres. It was for this reason also, no doubt, that he marked certain -features of the structure on the drawing with the names of what he -thought to be their classical prototypes. I do not, of course, suggest -that the drawing has the authority of a photographic record. De Witt is -more likely to have made it as an afterthought in his inn than during -the actual performance, and he may well have omitted or misrepresented -features. Certainly he can hardly have seen the trumpeter sounding -when the action had already begun. And the draughtsmanship is bad, and -may have been made worse by the copyist.[1660] The upper part is done, -with an attempt at perspective, as he may have seen it from a point -in the middle, or perhaps the upper, gallery somewhat to the right -of the centre; the lower part as from full face, so that the pillars -stand equidistant from the edges of the stage, as they would not have -appeared to him in perspective. His doors and the compartments of his -stage gallery are of uneven sizes.[1661] But, with all its faults, -the drawing is the inevitable basis of any comprehensive account of -the main structural features of a play-house, and I propose, leaving -aside for the present the question of the possible hangings which it -does not show, to take its parts one by one and illustrate them from -other sources, and in particular from Henslowe’s contracts for the -construction of the Fortune in 1600 and the Hope in 1614.[1662] - -The outline of the building is round, or slightly ovoid.[1663] The -floor, which shows no traces of seating, is marked ‘planities siue -arena’. This is the space ordinarily known as the ‘yard’, a name which -it may fairly be taken to have inherited from the inn-yards, surrounded -by galleries and open overhead, in which, in the days before the -building of the Theatre in 1576, more or less permanent play-houses -had grown up.[1664] Spectators in the yard always stood, and the more -unstable psychology of a standing, as compared with a seated, crowd -must always be taken into account in estimating the temperament of an -Elizabethan audience. These are the ‘groundlings’, and the poets take -their revenge for occasional scenes of turbulence in open or covert -sneers at their ‘understanding’.[1665] - -Well into the yard, leaving space for the groundlings on three sides of -it, projects a quadrangular stage, which is marked ‘proscaenium’.[1666] -The breadth is perhaps rather greater than the depth.[1667] This was -certainly the case at the Fortune, where the stage was 43 ft. wide, -and extended ‘to the middle of the yarde’, a distance of 27½ ft. The -level of the stage may be some 3 or 4 ft. above the ground. Two solid -trestles forming part of its supports are visible, but at the Fortune -it was paled in with oak, and in view of the common use of the space -below the stage to facilitate apparitions and other episodes requiring -traps, this was probably the normal arrangement.[1668] It has been -thought that the stage of the Swan, like that of the Hope, which was -in many respects modelled upon it, may have been removable. But this -is hardly consistent with the heavy pillars which, in this respect -certainly unlike the Hope, it carries. Moreover, the Hope had to be -available for bear-baiting, which entailed an open arena, and there -is no evidence, and very little likelihood, that baiting ever took -place at the Swan. Like other theatres, it sometimes accommodated -gymnasts and fencers, but these would use the stage.[1669] There are -no rails round the stage, such as we may infer the existence of at -the Globe.[1670] The only scenic apparatus visible is a large bench, -on which a lady sits, while another stands behind her in an attitude -of surprise, at the rapid approach from an outer corner of the stage -of a man in an affected attitude, with a hat on his head and a long -staff in his hand. You might take him for Malvolio cross-gartered, were -there any chance that _Twelfth Night_ could have been written when -the drawing was made, or produced at the Swan.[1671] Probably he is -a returning traveller or a messenger bringing news. The floor of the -stage is apparently bare. Sometimes rushes were laid down, at any rate -for interior scenes.[1672] The Globe produced _Henry VIII_ in 1613 -‘with many extraordinary circumstances of pomp and majesty, even to the -matting of the stage’. - -Circling the yard and raised above it are three tiers of galleries, -each containing three rows of seats. Beneath the first gallery De Witt -wrote ‘orchestra’, above its seats ‘sedilia’, and between the middle -and upper galleries ‘porticus’. In the classical theatre ‘porticus’ was -the name for a covered gallery, and the classical analogy also makes -it clear that by ‘orchestra’ De Witt meant to indicate the position -occupied by the spectators of highest rank, corresponding to the seats -of Roman senators, to which the name of the obsolete dancing place -immediately in front of them had been transferred. It was not until the -Restoration that the orchestra was allocated to the music.[1673] The -fronts of the galleries are supported by a number of turned posts. In -the Fortune all the chief supports, presumably both in the auditorium -and on the stage, were to be square and made ‘palasterwise, with carved -proporcions called Satiers’. Internal painting was contemplated, but -was not covered by the contract. Other references to painted theatres -suggest that the Elizabethan builders were not content with bare -scaffolds, but aimed at a decorative effect.[1674] Three seems to have -been the regular number of galleries. Kiechel bears witness to it for -the Theatre and Curtain in 1585; and there were three at the Fortune -and at the Hope. The lowest gallery at the Fortune was 12 ft. high, -the next 11 ft., and the uppermost 9 ft., and each of the two latter -jutted out 10 in. beyond that below. This gives a total height of 32 -ft., about three-fifths of the interior width of the house. The maps, -therefore, make the buildings rather disproportionately high. The -uppermost gallery has a roof, marked ‘tectum’. This in the earlier -Globe was of thatch, which caused the fire of 1613, and left the -unlucky King’s men with little but ‘wit to cover it with tiles’. I -think the Rose was also thatched; but the Fortune and Hope were tiled. -In view of the jetties, such a roof would give some protection to those -in the galleries, but the groundlings had none. Both the drawing and -the maps confirm the statement of Wright that the Globe, Fortune, and -Red Bull were ‘partly open to the weather’, and this was doubtless also -the case with their predecessors.[1675] - -De Witt does not indicate any internal gallery partitions, but the -Swan had these by 1614, for they were to be the model for ‘two boxes -in the lowermost storie fitt and decent for gentlemen to sitt in’, -which were to be constructed at the Hope. Similarly the Fortune was -to have ‘ffower convenient divisions for gentlemens roomes, and other -sufficient and convenient divisions for twoe pennie roomes, with -necessarie seates’. These were to be ceiled with lath and plaster. An -earlier example of the technical use of the term ‘room’ for a division -of the auditorium occurs in the draft Theatre lease of 1585, which -gave the landlord a right to sit or stand in ‘some one of the upper -romes’, if the places were not already taken up. If the clause, like -the rest of the draft, merely reproduced the covenants of the 1576 -lease, the term was of long standing. Probably the divisions were of -varying sizes. There would not have been much point in cutting up the -space available for ‘two-pennie roomes’ into very small sections, but -there were also ‘priuate roomes’, which are perhaps the same as the -‘gentlemens roomes’ of the contracts.[1676] If so, these were probably -to the right and left of the stage in the lowest gallery. But the whole -question of seating and prices is rather difficult, and it is further -complicated by obscurely discerned changes of fashion, which involved -the adoption of the very inconvenient custom of sitting on the stage, -and the consequent abandonment by the gentry of what was called the -lord’s room. Prices also, no doubt, tended to grow, at any rate for -the better seats; the ‘popular’ prices always remained low.[1677] I do -not know whether the professional actors ever contented themselves, -after their establishment in London, with merely sending round the -hat, or, in mediaeval phrase, making a ‘gatheryng’.[1678] Fixed prices -must certainly have been the rule by the time of Kiechel’s visit in -1585, for he tells us that, on the occasion of a new play, double -prices were charged. This practice helps to explain the fluctuating -receipts in Henslowe’s diary, and was still in force in the seventeenth -century.[1679] Spenser and his friends could have their laugh at a -play for 1_d._ or 2_d._ in 1579, and ten years later Martin Marprelate -could be seen for 2_d._ at the Theatre and 4_d._ at Paul’s.[1680] -Higher prices are already characteristic of the private houses. In -1596 Lambarde informs us of a regular scale, apparently applicable to -all public entertainments. None, he says, who ‘goe to Paris Gardein, -the Bell Savage or Theatre, to beholde beare baiting, enterludes or -fence play, can account of any pleasant spectacle unlesse they first -pay one pennie at the gate, another at the entrie of the scaffolde -and the thirde for a quiet standing’. Platter, in 1599, reports the -same scale and adds a distinction, not made by Lambarde, between -standings and seats. You paid 1_d._ to stand on the level, 1_d._ at -an inner door to sit, and 1_d._ at a third door for one of the best -places with a cushion.[1681] The two-penny galleries or rooms long -continued to be the resort of the ordinary playgoer, if he was not -satisfied to stand in the yard for a penny.[1682] He sat close, and -the insolent poets and pamphleteers classed him with the groundlings -as a ‘stinkard’.[1683] His domain certainly included the top gallery, -but about the other galleries I am not sure. There are some puzzling -allusions to penny galleries and rooms, but probably, these are not -distinct from the ‘two-penny’ ones, and the explanation is to be found -in the practice of paying the twopence in two instalments, one on -entrance, the other at the gallery door.[1684] It did not long remain -possible to get one of the best seats for the 3_d._ quoted by Platter, -even if there was not already in his time a higher charge for ‘the -priuate roomes of greater price’.[1685] There were both sixpenny -and twelve-penny rooms by 1604.[1686] These may have been the same -private rooms at varying prices, according as the play was old or -new. I take it that you only got a single seat, even in a ‘private’ -room, for your 6_d._ or 12_d._, and not the whole room. Overbury or -another gives 12_d._ as the price of the ‘best room’ as late as about -1614, but in the same year the ordinary scale of charges was greatly -exceeded throughout the house on the production of _Bartholomew Fair_ -at the Hope, where a speaker in the induction says, ‘it shall be -lawful to judge his six-penny-worth, his twelve-penny-worth, so to his -eighteen-pence, two shillings, half a crown, to the value of his place, -provided always his place get not above his wit’. This must have been -a quite exceptional occasion, not merely a new play, but a new play at -a new house. Similarly, when Richard Vennar brought the gulls to his -swindle of _England’s Joy_ in 1602, ‘the price at cumming in was two -shillings or eighteen-pence at least’. - -A special compartment in one of the galleries was not the only -privilege offered to the more fashionable playgoer. He might, at one -time or another, sit ‘over the stage’ and on the stage. De Witt’s -drawing shows, at the back of the stage, a raised gallery divided into -six small boxes, in each of which one or two spectators appear to be -placed.[1687] It is reasonable to suppose that these are sitting ‘over -the stage’.[1688] And some or all of those ‘over the stage’ again, -appear to have sat in ‘the lords room’ or ‘rooms’.[1689] Of such a -room we first hear in 1592, when Henslowe, repairing the Rose, paid -10_s._ ‘for sellynge of the Rome ouer the tyerhowsse’ and 13_s._ ‘for -sellinges my lords Rome’. The entry rather suggests that this was -not so much a room for ‘lords’, as a room primarily reserved for the -particular ‘lord’, under whose patronage the actors played; but however -this may be, it was probably available by courtesy for other persons of -distinction. The practice of sitting on the stage itself first emerges -about 1596.[1690] It was general by the seventeenth century, and was -apparently most encouraged at the Blackfriars, where it perhaps lent -itself best to the structural character of the building.[1691] It was -known at Paul’s, but was inconvenient on so small a stage.[1692] And, -as it certainly originated at the public houses, so it maintained -itself there, in spite of the grumbles of the ordinary spectators, -with whose view of the action the throng of feathered and restless -gallants necessarily interfered.[1693] It may have been profitable to -the actors as sharers, but as actors they resented the restriction -of the space available for their movements which it entailed.[1694] -The prologue to Jonson’s _The Devil is an Ass_ of 1616 contains a -vigorous protest.[1695] But the gallant liked to be seen as well as to -see, and liked to slip in and out of the tiring-house and hob-nob with -the players. It was not until Caroline times that the custom became -intolerable.[1696] On the stage stools were provided for those who -did not care to sit on the rushes, and for these they paid at least -sixpence and sometimes a shilling.[1697] One result of the introduction -of sitting on the stage appears to have been that the lord’s room -lost its attractiveness and consequently its status. It fell into the -background, and became the haunt of a rather disreputable class of -playgoer. The lords were now to be found either on the stage itself, -or in the private rooms of the lower gallery. Presumably the ‘grate’ -to which the courtier of Sir John Davies’ epigram relegated himself, -was in the lord’s room, perhaps fitted with a casement for scenic -purposes.[1698] The change is chronicled by Dekker in the passage of -_The Gull’s Horn Book_, in which the gull is instructed how to behave -himself in a play-house. He must by all means advance himself up to the -throne of the stage. - - ‘I meane not into the Lords roome (which is now but the - Stages Suburbs): no, those boxes, by the iniquity of custome, - conspiracy of waiting-women and Gentlemen-Ushers, that there - sweat together, and the couetousnes of Sharers, are contemptibly - thrust into the reare, and much new Satten is there dambd, by - being smothred to death in darknesse.’ - -I return to the guidance of De Witt. The boarding between the yard -and the lower gallery, which in the Fortune was overlaid with iron -pikes, presumably to prevent the groundlings from climbing over, shows -two apertures, to right and left of the stage, one of which is marked -‘ingressus’. From these steps lead to the lower gallery itself, and -we may infer the presence of a passage to staircases behind, by which -the upper galleries were reached. The contracts show that the Fortune, -like the Globe, and the Hope, like the Swan, were to have external -staircases.[1699] Perhaps this accounts for the greater diameter of the -lower part of the Globe in the London maps. Of external doors there -were only two at the Globe, which caused trouble at the time of the -fire, and two also at the Fortune, when Alleyn leased a share of it -to Henslowe in 1601. One of these would in each case have been a door -to the tiring-house, giving access to the stage and the lord’s room, -while the other served the body of the theatre.[1700] Those bound for -the galleries paid their pennies at the theatre door, passed through -the yard to the ‘ingressus’, and made additional payments there and -in the ‘rooms’, according to the places selected.[1701] The custom -explains itself by the arrangement between the sharers of companies -and the housekeepers of theatres, which gave the latter a proportion -of gallery takings in lieu of rent. ‘Gatherers’, appointed by the -persons interested, collected the money, and although this was put -into a locked box, whence the modern term ‘box-office’, there were -abundant opportunities for fraud. At need, the gatherers could serve as -supernumeraries on the stage.[1702] - -At the back of the stage, and forming a chord to an arc of the circular -structure of the play-house, runs a straight wall, pierced by two -pairs of folding doors, on which De Witt has written ‘mimorum aedes’. -Above it is the gallery or lord’s room already described. This wall -is the ‘scene’, in the primary sense; it is also the front of the -‘tire-house’, or in modern phrase ‘green-room’, a necessary adjunct -of every theatre. The Theatre depositions of 1592 speak of this as -‘the attyring housse or place where the players make them readye’. -The drawing indicates nothing in the way of hangings over either wall -or doors, but in some theatres these certainly existed. Thus Peacham, -in his _Thalia’s Banquet_ (1620) referring to much earlier days, -tells us that - - Tarlton when his head was onely seene, - The Tire-house doore and Tapistrie betweene, - Set all the multitude in such a laughter, - They could not hold for scarce an hour after.[1703] - -The front of the tiring-house is the ‘scene’ in the Renaissance -sense, and its characteristics will be of great concern in later -chapters.[1704] The Fortune tire-house was to be within the frame of -the theatre, and would not, therefore, unless it projected on to the -stage, have more depth than about 12 ft. Mr. Brereton, in a careful -analysis of the drawing, suggests that the Swan tire-house may not have -extended the full width of the stage, but may have left room to come -and go on either side of its front.[1705] If so, some projection is not -improbable, but one cannot rely much upon the hazardous interpretation -of bad draughtsmanship. The ground-plan of the Swan seems to show an -annexe at one point, and of course additional depth could easily be -obtained in this way. Moreover, there were at least three stories -available. The spectators in the lord’s room would not take up the -whole depth on the level of the middle gallery, and there must have -been a corresponding space on that of the top gallery. Henslowe ceiled -‘the rome ouer the tyerhowsse’ in 1592, and an inventory of the -Admiral’s men in 1598 includes effects ‘leaft above in the tier-house -in the cheast’. No doubt a fair amount of accommodation was needed. The -tire-house was not merely a dressing-room and a store-house. Here came -the author, to rail at the murdering of his lines, and the gallants -to gossip and patronize the players.[1706] Here were the book-holder, -who prompted the speeches, surveyed the entrances and exits, and saw -to the readiness of the properties;[1707] the tireman, who fitted the -dresses and the beards, furnished stools, and in the private theatres -took charge of the lights;[1708] the stage-keeper;[1709] the grooms -and ‘necessary attendants’, waiting to draw curtains, to thrust out -beds, and to carry benches and banquets on and off.[1710] Here, too, -was the head-quarters of the music, although in the public theatres the -music was largely incidental, and was often played on, or above, or -even below the stage, as might seem most appropriate to any particular -action.[1711] Music between the acts was not unknown, but we learn -from the induction to the _Malcontent_ that it was ‘not received’ by -the audience at the Globe in 1604.[1712] There was also, of course, the -final ‘jig’.[1713] For an overture, the public theatres seem to have -employed nothing beyond three soundings of a trumpet, the last of which -was the signal for the prologue to begin.[1714] Probably the musical -element tended to increase. A special music-room perhaps existed -already at the Swan in 1611, and, if so, may have been, as it was in -the later theatres, in the upper part of the tire-house.[1715] - -The Fortune tire-house was to have ‘convenient windowes and lightes -glazed’. Some of these may have looked into the auditorium, and have -been used for scenic purposes. But the maps show external windows here -and there in the walls, and these would be necessary to light both the -tire-house and the galleries. We have a picture of Burbadge leaning -out of an upper window to greet with abuse the disturbers of his peace -at the Theatre in 1590. The yard and the stage itself were, of course, -lit, in the absence of a roof, from above. Performances were ordinarily -by daylight; before the end of the sixteenth century the time for -beginning had been fixed at 2 o’clock.[1716] The stage-directions point -to a frequent enough use of lamps and tapers, but always to give the -illusion of scenic darkness. Plays, however, lasted at least two hours, -sometimes half an hour or even an hour longer, and there was the jig to -follow.[1717] It must therefore be doubtful whether, in the depth of -winter, daylight could have served quite to the end. Webster complains -that the ill-success of _The White Devil_ was due to its being -given ‘in so dull a time of winter, and presented in so open and black -a theatre’. Perhaps the shorter plays were chosen for the shorter days, -or the jig was omitted. But it is also possible that some primitive -illumination, in the form of cressets, or baskets of tarred and flaring -rope, was introduced.[1718] - -The actors themselves were not wholly without protection from the -elements. De Witt depicts two heavy classical columns, which stand -on square bases rather farther back than the middle of the stage and -a little way from each side of it. These support a pent-house roof, -which starts from the level of the eaves of the ‘tectum’ over the -top gallery, and descends in a steep slope to a level opposite to -the middle of the second gallery, where it slightly projects beyond -the supporting columns. Behind and above it rises a kind of hut, -conspicuous above the ‘tectum’ and forming a superstructure to the -tire-house. Its front has less width than that of the tire-house, and -its side is shown in clumsy perspective, which is apparently followed -round by the pent-house below it. The pent-house is the only thing -in the drawing, that can represent the ‘shadow’ or ‘heavens’, which -several allusions point to as a regular feature in the public theatres, -and which certainly existed at the Rose, the Fortune--and therefore -presumably the Globe--and the Hope.[1719] But it must be admitted that -this sharply sloping roof, coming down low and considerably impeding -the vision of the spectators at any rate in the top gallery, does not -agree very well with the notion of a heavens dominating the stage, -elaborately decorated, and serving for the display of spectacular -effects, which were surely meant to be visible to all. It is possible -that De Witt’s halting draughtsmanship has failed him in the attempt -to tackle the architectural perspective from a difficult angle in an -upper gallery. My impression is that, by giving too much height to the -bottom gallery, he has got the two other galleries out of line with -the stories of the tire-house to which they correspond, and that the -lower gallery should really be on the level of the stage, the middle -gallery on that of the gallery ‘over the stage’, and the top gallery -on that of the rather obscure story above. If so, the front of this -story would have been visible, and may have contained some aperture -of which account has not yet been taken in formulating theories of -staging.[1720] And I think that the columns were really higher and the -roof flatter than De Witt has drawn them. It is perhaps less easy to -suggest that the columns stood farther forward than De Witt has placed -them, but the roof may well have projected farther over them. They are -solid enough to bear a much greater weight than the drawing indicates. -However these things may have been at the Swan--I am not blind to -the dangers of attempting to convert what De Witt has shown into -something which he has not shown--one may, perhaps, infer that more -extensive roofing than the pent-house of the drawing would afford was -contemplated by the Fortune contract, which provides for ‘a shadowe or -cover over the saide stadge’, and the Hope contract, which is even more -precise in its specification of ‘the Heavens all over the saide stage’. -In both cases there were to be gutters to carry away rain-water. The -heavens at the Hope were ‘to be borne or carryed without any postes -or supporters to be fixed or sett uppon the saide stage’, and it has -been thought that other theatres of later date than the Swan may also -have dispensed with posts. But there is little ground for this theory, -other than the obvious obstruction which the posts would offer to -vision.[1721] Howes seems to refer to the arrangement at the Hope as -an innovation, and it can hardly be unrelated to the special need for -a removable stage at that house. On the other hand the posts may very -likely have been slighter than De Witt has shown them. At the Fortune -they were, like other ‘princypall and maine postes’, square and carved -‘palasterwise’ with satyrs. The posts are worked into the action of -several plays, and Kempe tells us that pickpockets were pilloried by -being tied to them.[1722] - -The hut has two windows in front, and a door in the visible side. It -has been suggested that it may really have stood rather more forward -than De Witt indicates, jutting out from the tire-house so as to be -directly over a part of the heavens.[1723] An analogous superstructure -is observable in most of the map-representations of theatres. That -of the later Globe in Visscher’s map of 1616 seems to have two bays, -one behind another, instead of the one bay of the Swan drawing, and -would have required more space. The ‘Theatrum’ of Jonson’s 1616 Folio -has an =L=-shaped superstructure. The object of a jut forward would -be to facilitate the descents and ascents from and to the heavens, -which formed popular features in many plays, and which must have been -contrived by some kind of machinery from above.[1724] From the roof of -this hut floats a flag, with the figure of a swan upon it, and at the -door stands a man, apparently blowing a trumpet, from which depends a -smaller flag also bearing a swan. There is abundant evidence that the -play-houses flew flags when they were open for performances, and took -them down when Lent or a plague rendered playing impossible.[1725] -The trumpeter is no doubt giving one of the three ‘soundings’ which -preluded the appearance of the prologue in his traditional long black -velvet cloak.[1726] Nor did the flag and the trumpet exhaust the -resources of the Elizabethan art of advertisement. The _vexillatores_ -of the miracle-play would perhaps have been out of keeping with -London conditions.[1727] But it was customary to announce after the -epilogue of each performance what the next was to be.[1728] And public -notification was given by means of play-bills, of which we hear from -as early a date as 1564, and which were set up on posts in conspicuous -places up and down the city and probably also at the play-house -doors.[1729] Copies seem also to have been available for circulation -from hand to hand.[1730] On 30 October 1587 John Charlwood entered in -the Stationers’ Register a licence for ‘the onely ympryntinge of all -manner of billes for players’. This passed from him to James Roberts, -and was transferred by Roberts to William Jaggard on 29 October -1615.[1731] No theatrical bill of the Elizabethan or Jacobean period is -preserved, although a manuscript bill for the Bear Garden is amongst -Alleyn’s papers at Dulwich.[1732] Four late seventeenth-century bills -are at Claydon; they are brief announcements, which give the names of -the plays, but not those of the authors or actors.[1733] There is no -evidence of anything corresponding to the modern programme, with its -cast and synopsis of scenes.[1734] The audience gathered early, as -there were few, if any, reserved seats.[1735] The period of waiting -was spent in consuming fruit or sweatmeats and liquid refreshment, and -in expressing impatience if the actors failed to make an appearance in -good time.[1736] Tobacco was freely used, especially by the gallants -on the stage.[1737] Books were also hawked up and down, and a game -of cards might beguile the tedium of waiting.[1738] The galleries -were full of light women, who found them a profitable haunt, but -whose presence did not altogether prevent that of ladies of position, -probably in the private rooms, and possibly masked.[1739] - -If the audience liked a play, the actors expected a _Plaudite_ of -hand-clapping; if otherwise, they took their chance of hissing -and ‘mewing’, or of a pointed withdrawal of spectators from the -stage.[1740] The device of a _claque_ was not unknown.[1741] The -applause was often invited in the closing speech or in a formal -epilogue, on the same lines as the prologue, which it seems to have -replaced in favour about the end of the sixteenth century.[1742] -This might also lead up to or perhaps represent the prayer for the -sovereign, of which there are traces up to a late date, and which -was analogous to the modern use of ‘God Save the King’.[1743] The -accompanying prayer for the ‘lord’ of the players, on the other hand, -cannot be shown to have been adopted into the public theatres.[1744] -Finally, the epilogue might indicate a coming dance.[1745] Of this a -little more needs to be said. The players have amongst other elements -in their ancestry the mediaeval mimes, and they inherit the familiar -mimic tradition of multifarious entertainment. The ‘legitimate’ drama -was not as yet on its pedestal. The companies of the ’eighties and even -the early ’nineties were composed of men ready at need to eke out their -plays by musical performances and even the ‘activities’ of acrobats. -This is perhaps most obvious in the continental companies, which had -to face the obstacles to a complete intelligence between stage and -audience introduced at the tower of Babel. Such a cosmopolitan mingling -of drama and ‘activities’ as we may suppose _The Labours of Hercules_ -to have been was a valuable resource.[1746] But at home also we find -Strange’s and the Admiral’s men showing their ‘activities’ at court, -and Symons the acrobat becoming a leader amongst the Queen’s, and -even so late as 1601 Henslowe fitting out the Admiral’s boy Nick to -tumble in the presence of royalty. The country tours of the Queen’s -were for some time accompanied by a Turkish rope dancer.[1747] In -the theatres themselves Italian players made their success and their -scandal, with the help of tumbling women.[1748] Whether English players -did the same we do not know. But we do know that the dance by way of -afterpiece was a regular and enduring custom.[1749] It was known as -the jig.[1750] At first, perhaps, nothing more than such dancing, with -the help of a variety of foreign costumes, as was also an element in -the early masks, it developed into a farcical dialogue, with a musical -and Terpsichorean accompaniment, for which popular tunes, such as -_Fading_, were utilized.[1751] This transformation was perhaps due to -the initiative of Tarlton, to whom several jigs are attributed.[1752] -But he was followed by Kempe and others, and in the last decade of -the sixteenth century the jig may be inferred from the Stationers’ -Register to have become almost a literary type.[1753] Nashe in 1596 -threatens Gabriel Harvey with an interlude, and ‘a Jigge at the latter -end in English Hexameters of _O neighbour Gabriell, and his wooing of -Kate Cotton_’.[1754] In 1597 Henslowe bought two jigs from two young -men for the Admiral’s at a cost of 6_s._ 8_d._[1755] In 1598 ‘Kemps -Jigge’ was being sung in the streets.[1756] The Middlesex justices -made a special order against the lewd jigs, songs, and dances at the -Fortune in 1612.[1757] Unfortunately few jigs have survived except from -a late date or in German adaptations.[1758] Two or three, however, -appear amongst collections of ballads to which they are cognate in -metrical form, notably one ascribed to ‘M^r Attowel’, whom we should, -I think, identify with the sixteenth-century George, rather than the -seventeenth-century Hugh, of that name.[1759] Another, _Rowland’s -Godson_, seems to be the surviving member of a well-known cycle.[1760] - -Nor was the jig the only form of afterpiece which had its savour in -an Elizabethan play-house. Tarlton again, and after Tarlton Wilson, -won reputation in the handling of ‘themes’, which appear to have been -improvisations in verse, strung together on some motive supplied by -a member of the audience.[1761] It has been suggested that complete -plays were also sometimes given by the method of improvised dialogue -on a concerted plot which was followed in the Italian _commedie -dell’ arte_.[1762] This must remain very doubtful. The Italian -practice and the stock characters, pantaloon, zany, and harlequin, of -the _commedie dell’ arte_ were certainly known in England; but we -have the clear evidence of _The Case is Altered_ that by 1597 at -any rate they had not been naturalized.[1763] If improvisation went -beyond the gagging of a clown, it was probably only in some exceptional -experiment or _tour de force_.[1764] As exceptional also we may -regard Vennar’s spectacular _Englands Joy_ of 1602 and the wager -plays, in which actors or even amateurs challenged each other to -compete in rendering some ‘part’ of traditional repute.[1765] One would -like to know more about the play, apparently a monologue, ‘set out al -by one virgin’, at the Theatre in 1583.[1766] - -Many of the characteristics of the public theatres naturally repeated -themselves at the Blackfriars, the Whitefriars, and Paul’s. The -distinctive features of these, as already indicated, arose from the -structure of the buildings, from the higher prices charged, and in the -beginning at least from the employment of singing boys as actors. Some -assimilation of ‘public’ and ‘private’ methods was bound to follow -upon the acquisition of the Blackfriars by men actors in 1609, but the -period during which this was the principal house of the King’s company -lies outside the scope of this survey. - -The exact location of Paul’s is obscure, but we know that its -auditorium was round and its stage small.[1767] Whitefriars and both -the earlier and the later Blackfriars were in rooms which had formed -part of mediaeval conventual buildings, rectangular, roofed, and more -analogous to courtly halls than to popular rings. No room at Farrant’s -disposal would have given him a stage of a greater width than 27 ft. -Burbadge’s theatre was 66 ft. from north to south, and 46 ft. from -east to west. It was on the second story of his purchase that he could -have best constructed it. The stage, which stood on a paved floor, was -probably towards the south end, and as the whole space available was -something like 100 ft. long by 52 wide, we may guess that partitions -had been put up to screen off a tiring-house behind it and a passage -by which the tiring-house could be reached.[1768] The entrance would -be at the north end, where a great flight of stairs led up from a -yard large enough for coaches to turn in. There were galleries, but -not necessarily three distinct tiers of galleries, as in the public -theatres, for which, indeed, there would hardly have been height -enough.[1769] And there was a ‘middle region’ in which the spectators -sat, instead of standing as they did in the public ‘yards’.[1770] This, -which was a feature also of the later private houses, came to be known -as the ‘pit’, but as the derivation of this term is from ‘cockpit’, -it may not be of earlier origin than the building of the Cockpit or -Phoenix theatre in Drury Lane about 1617.[1771] A roofed theatre would -not require a specially constructed ‘heavens’, as descents could -be worked through the ceiling from a room above. There is no clear -evidence for a lord’s room at any of the private houses.[1772] But -there were ‘boxes’, at any rate at the Whitefriars.[1773] Evidence -for seats on the stage has already been furnished. There is much to -suggest that the audience was a more select one than that of the public -theatres.[1774] Elizabeth cannot be shown to have ever attended the -Blackfriars, but Anne certainly did.[1775] And the price of the seats, -which ranged from 6_d._ to 2_s._ 6_d._, was of itself sufficient -to keep out persons of the ‘groundling’ or ‘stinkard’ type.[1776] -Performances did not necessarily take place every day, and they could -begin rather later and go on rather longer than those out of doors, -since they were not dependent on daylight.[1777] Windows were certainly -used, for we hear of them being clapped down to give the illusion of -night scenes.[1778] But candles and torches supplied an artificial -lighting.[1779] As both the Paul’s boys and those of the Chapel -were primarily choristers, it is not surprising that music played a -considerable part in the entertainment provided. Musical interludes -were given between the acts, and Gerschow records a preliminary concert -of an hour in length before the play began at the Blackfriars in -1602.[1780] Sometimes also a boy came forward and danced between the -acts.[1781] At Paul’s there was at the back of the stage a ‘musick -tree’, which apparently rose out of a ‘canopie’ and bore a ‘musick -house’ on either side of it.[1782] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] E. J. L. Scott, _Letter Book of Gabriel Harvey_ (Camden Soc.), 67. - -[2] Cf. App. D, No. lxxviii. - -[3] Cf. ch. xi. - -[4] G. Dugdale, _Time Triumphant_ (1604), sig. B, ‘Nay, see the beauty -of our all kinde soveraigne! not onely to the indifferent of worth, -and the worthy of honor, did he freely deale about thiese causes, but -to the meane gave grace, as taking to him the late Lord Chamberlaines -servants, now the Kings acters; the Queene taking to her the Earle -of Worsters servants, that are now her acters; and the Prince, their -sonne, Henry, Prince of Wales full of hope, tooke to him the Earle of -Nottingham his servants, who are now his acters.’ - -[5] Cf. ch. xvi, introd., and App. C, No. lviii. - -[6] Flecknoe (App. I) perhaps exaggerates the share of moral sentiment -in bringing to an end the formal connexion of the choirs with plays -(cf. p. 52). - -[7] De la Boderie, in 1608 (cf. vol. i, p. 327), speaks of five -companies in London. These would be the King’s, Queen’s, Prince’s, -Revels, and King’s Revels. - -[8] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 216, from statutes collected in the -decanate of Ralph of Baldock (1294–1304), ‘Cantoris officium est ... -pueros introducendos in chorum et ad cantum intitulatos examinare ... -Magistrum Scolae Cantus in ecclesia Sancti Gregorii, salva Decano et -Capitulo ipsius collacione, preficere’; Dugdale, _St. Paul’s_ (1818), -347, from fifteenth-or early sixteenth-century manuscript of statutes, -‘Magistrum Scholae Cantus constituit Cantor. Ad eum pertinet eos qui -canere nequeunt instruere, pueros diligenter docere, eis non solum -magistrum Cantus, sed etiam bonorum morum esse.’ - -[9] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 215, from statutes collected in decanate -of Ralph de Diceto (1181–99), ‘Cotidie pascat ... duos pueros -elemosinarios ... et secum ad Ecclesiam media nocte panem et cervisiam -pro iunioribus chorum frequentantibus defer[r]i faciat, et quolibet -quarterio semel vel bis post matutinas iunioribus gentaculum unum in -domo sua faciat’. A thirteenth-century statute required the _pueri -de elemosinaria_ to sit humbly upon the ground when feeding in the -house of a canon. Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 355, for Diceto’s statute -about the Boy Bishop, with its mention of the return of the boys ‘ad -Elemosinariam’, and the reforming statute of 1263. - -[10] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 220. - -[11] Ibid. 217, 220 (_c._ 1263; _c._ 1310) ‘Elemosinarius ... -habeat insuper continuo secum octo pueros ad Ecclesiae ministerium -ydoneos, quos per seipsum vel alium magistrum in spectantibus ad -ministerium ecclesiae et litteratura ac bonis moribus diligenter faciat -informari.... Quociens vero dicti pueri ad scolas vel spaciatum ire -debent....’; Dugdale, 349 [Elemosinarius] ‘octo pueros bonae indolis et -honestae parentelae habeat; quos alat et educat in morum disciplina; -videat etiam instruantur in cantu et literatura, ut in omnibus apti ad -ministerium Dei in Choro esse possent’. - -[12] There was a bequest to the almoner to maintain boys, apparently at -the University, after they had changed their voices, as early as 1315 -(_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 219–22). - -[13] Hennessy, 61; W. S. Simpson, _Charter and Statutes of the College -of Minor Canons in St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (_Archaeologia_, xliii. 165; -cf. _Trans. of London and Midd. Arch. Soc._ (1st series), iv. 231). -The statutes of _c._ 1521 note a dispensation of that year for Thomas -Hikeman ‘peticanon and amner’ and for ‘all and euery peticanon which -shalbe Amneur hear-after’ to bring a stranger to meals. - -[14] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 19; cf. the Hollar engraving in Baker, 95. - -[15] Stowe, i. 327; _Archaeologia_, xliii. 171. By c. 14 of the -statutes the college gates were shut at meals. - -[16] Leach, _Journal of Education_ (1909), 506, cites the _Registrum -Elemosinariae_ (ed. M. Hacket from _Harl. MS._ 1080), ‘If the almoner -does not keep a clerk to teach the choristers grammar, the schoolmaster -of St. Paul’s claims 5_s._ a year for teaching them, though he ought -to demand nothing for them, because he keeps the school for them, as -the Treasurer of St. Paul’s once alleged before the Dean and Chapter -is to be found in ancient deeds’. Mr. Leach adds, ‘It is to be feared -the Treasurer invented or misrepresented the ancient deed’. William de -Tolleshunt, almoner, appears from his will of 1329 in the same register -to have taught his boys himself (_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 220), ‘Item -lego pueris ecclesiae quos ego educavi senioribus in Elemosinaria -existentibus cuilibet xij^d et iunioribus cuilibet vj^d’. He also left -his grammar books ‘et omnes quaternos sermonum de Festo Sanctorum -Innocencium, quos tempore meo solebant Episcopi Puerorum pronuntiare, -ad remanendum in Elemosinaria praedicta imperpetuum, ad usum fructum -puerorum in eadem degencium’. His logic and physic books are to be lent -out ‘pueris aptis ad scolatizandum, cum ab elemosinaria recesserint’. - -[17] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 356. The sermon written by Erasmus is -headed _Concio ... pronunciata ... in nova schola Iohannis Coleti_, -but Erasmus may not have known the exact procedure at St. Paul’s. The -earlier sermon printed by Wynkyn de Worde has ‘whyche often times I -radde whan I was Querester, in the Marteloge of Poulis’. - -[18] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 380. - -[19] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196, 215, 219. Wallace, i. 88, points out -that the performers of the _Menaechmi_ before Wolsey in 1527 were not -the Paul’s boys, but the Cardinal’s gentlemen. - -[20] _Chamber Accounts_ (1545). - -[21] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. xxxv, ‘By Sebastian, scolemaister of Powles, a -boke of ditties, written’. - -[22] _Household Accounts of Princess Elizabeth, 1551–2_ (_Camden Misc._ -ii), 37, ‘Paid in rewarde to the Kinges Maiesties drommer and phipher, -the xiij^{th} of Februarye, xx^s; M^r. Heywoodde, xxx^s; and to -Sebastian, towardes the charge of the children with the carriage of the -plaiers garmentes iiij^{li}, xix^s. In thole as by warraunte appereth, -vij^{li}, ix^s’. - -[23] F. Madden, _Expenses of Lady Mary_, 62 (March 1538), ‘Item geuen -to Heywood playeng an enterlude with his children bifore my lades -grace, xl^s’. - -[24] Wallace, i. 77, goes against the evidence when he asserts that -Heywood wrote for the Chapel. Why he asserts that Heywood ‘had grown -up in the Chapel under Cornish’, to whom, by the way, he wantonly -transfers the authorship of _The Four P. P._, _The Pardoner and the -Frere_, and _Johan Johan_, I do not know. There is nothing to show that -Heywood was a Chapel boy, and the absence of his name from the Chapel -list of 1509 (cf. p. 27), when he would have been about twelve, may be -taken as disposing of the notion. He is first discoverable at Court in -December 1514, for which month he received wages at the rate of viij^d -a day in some undefined capacity (_Chamber Account_ in _Addl. MS._ -21481, f. 178), which was shared by one John Mason, who was a Yeoman -of the Crown by March 1516 (Brewer, ii. 475). By 1520 Heywood himself -was a Yeoman of the Crown (Brewer, iii. 1. 499), and during 1519–21 the -_Chamber Accounts_ show him as also a ‘singer’ at £5 a quarter. Later -he became player of the virginals, and has 50_s._ a quarter as such -in the _Accounts_ for 1529–31, 1538–41, and 1547–9. He was Sewer of -the Chamber at the funeral of Edward in 1553. It occurs to me as just -possible that Heywood’s ‘children’ may have been neither the Chapel nor -the Paul’s boys, but the boys taken up by Philip Van Wilder for the -musical establishment of the Household; cf. p. 31. But I think it is -more likely that Heywood wrote for the Paul’s boys throughout, as he -almost certainly did in 1559. There is another hint of his connexion -with them in the fact that at the coronation of Mary in 1553 he sat -under a vine against the grammar school and made speeches (Holinshed -(1808), iv. 6). A. W. Reed (1917, _3 Library_, viii. 247) adds facts, -and thinks the Yeoman was distinct. - -[25] _Addl. MS._ 15233; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 454. Thomas Tusser, -in the _Autobiography_ printed with the 1573 edition of his _Points of -Good Husbandry_, is the authority for placing Redford at Paul’s: - - But mark the chance, myself to ’vance, - By friendship’s lot, to Paul’s I got. - So found I grace a certain space - Still to remain - With Redford there, the like nowhere - For cunning such and virtue much - By whom some part of musicke art - So did I gain. - -From Paul’s Tusser passed to Eton, before he matriculated at Cambridge -in 1543. In other manuscripts compositions by Redford and Thomas -Mulliner are associated, and one of these, _Addl. MS._ 30513, is -inscribed ‘Sum liber Thomae Mullineri, Johanne Heywoode teste’. -Stafford Smith, on what authority is unknown, stated (cf. _D. N. B._) -that Mulliner was Master of St. Paul’s School. If so, he may have -come between Redford and Westcott. On 3 March 1564 he was admitted as -organist in Corpus Christi College, Oxford (Fowler, _Hist. of C.C.C._ -426). - -[26] Feuillerat, _E. and M._ 145; Wallace, i. 84. The mention of ‘xij -cottes for the boyes in Heywoodes play’ does not justify the assumption -that the players were the Chapel. The ten established boys of the St. -Paul’s choir could be supplemented by probationers or the grammar -school. - -[27] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196. - -[28] Machyn, 206. ‘M^r Philip’ was organist of Paul’s in 1557 (Nichols, -_Illustrations_, iii). Fleay, 57, guesses that the play was _Nice -Wanton_, which is not likely, if Heywood had a hand in it. - -[29] Hennessy, 61. - -[30] Flood cites a Vatican record of 1561 from _Catholic Record Soc._ -i. 21, ‘Sebastianus, qui organa pulsabat apud D. Paulum Londini, -cum vellet eiici, tamen tum ita charus Elizabethae fuit, ut nihil -schismatice agens locum suum in ea ecclesia retineat’; also Grindal’s -letter of 1563 to Dudley in Strype, _Grindal_ (ed. 1821), 113. -Hillebrand adds from _Libri Vicarii Generalis_ (_Huick 1561–74_), -iii, f. 77, that in July 1563 Westcott failed to appear before the -Consistory Court and was excommunicated as ‘contumacem’, and from St. -Paul’s records (_A. Box 77_, 2059) that on 8 Nov. 1564 he gave a bond -to conform or resign by the following Easter. Gee, 230, gives a list -of deprived clergy from N. Sanders, _De Visibili Monarchia_ (1571), -688, which includes among _Magistri Musices_ ‘Sebastianus in Cathedrali -ecclesia Londinensi’. - -[31] Fleay, 15, 60, has some inaccuracies in these dates, and -conjectures that among the early Paul’s plays were a revival of Udall’s -_Ralph Roister Doister_ and Ulpian Fulwell’s _Like Will to Like_, and -that these contained satire of Richard Edwards and the Chapel. - -[32] Dasent, ix. 56. - -[33] Hillebrand from _Repertory_, xix, f. 18, ‘For asmoche as this -Court ys enformed that one Sebastian that wyll not communicate with the -Church of England kepe the playes and resorte of the people to great -gaine and peryll of the coruptinge of the Chyldren wyth papistrie And -therefore master Morten ys appoynted to goe to the Deane of Powles and -to gyve him notyce of that dysorder, and to praye him to gyve suche -remeadye therein, within his iurysdyccion, as he shall see meete, for -Christian Relygion and good order’. - -[34] Dasent, x. 127. _Cath. Record Soc._ i. 70 gives the date of -Westcott’s committal ‘for papistry’ from _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxl. 40, as -21 Dec. 1577, and that of release as 19 March 1578. According to _S. P. -D. Eliz._ cxviii. 73, Westcott was Master of the Children in 1577 and -valued at £100 in goods. - -[35] Gosson, _P. C._ 188. - -[36] Flood (_Mus. Ant._ iv. 187) gives an abstract of his will, dated -on 3 April and proved on 14 April 1582. He describes himself as -almoner of St. Paul’s, dwelling in the almonry and born at Chimley in -Devonshire; appoints Henry Evans overseer and Justinian Kyd executor, -and leaves legacies to relatives (apparently he had no children or -wife), to members of the Redford family, to ‘Gyles Clothier’, to -the ten choristers, to ‘sometimes children of the said almenerey’, -by name Bromeham, Richard Huse, Robert Knight, Nicholas Carleton, -Baylye, Nasion, and Gregory Bowringe, to ‘Shepard that keepeth the -door at playes’, and to Pole ‘the keper of the gate’. Wallace, i. 171, -cites the will from _P. C. C._ 14 and 31, Tirwhite, giving the date -of confirmation as 3 July 1582. One name may be added to Westcott’s -list of boys from a Court Minute of Christ’s Hospital on 5 March -1580 (_Musical Times_, 1 Jan. 1907), ‘M^r. Sebastian, of Paulls, is -appointed to have Hallawaie the younger out of this House to be one of -the singing children of the Cathedral Church of Paulls in this Citie’. - -[37] Gosson (1582) speaks of the plays as ‘at Paules’; and Rawlidge -(1628) mentions a house ‘nigh Pauls’ as one of those pulled down by -the City, apparently in 1596 (cf. ch. xvi). The Paul’s boys, however, -can hardly have been playing for some years before that date. Howes -(1629) definitely specifies the singing school (cf. ch. xvi). On -the other hand, Flecknoe, a late authority and in a passage dealing -(inaccurately) with Jacobean rather than Elizabethan conditions, -assigns the plays to ‘behinde the Convocation-house in Paul’s’ (App. -I). This is expanded by Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 46) into ‘in S^t. -Paul’s school-room, behind the Convocation-house’, and Baker, 45, -suggests that they used a small yard or cloister before the doors -of the Convocation House and shut off by a high wall from the main -churchyard (cf. Hollar’s prints in Baker, 95, 115). But I doubt if -Flecknoe had anything in mind except St. Gregory’s, which stood just -west of the Convocation House. The hall of the College of Minor Canons -is perhaps also a possibility; but neither this nor the church is -likely to have afforded a circular auditorium (cf. ch. xviii). Can they -have used the Convocation House itself? - -[38] McDonnell, 27, argues for the participation of the grammar school -in the plays. Obviously the phrase ‘children of Paul’s’, ordinarily -used of the playing-boys, proves nothing one way or the other. That the -plays were mainly an affair of the choir is a fair inference from the -fact that they were presented at Court by the song-school masters. But -there is no reason to doubt that the mediaeval give and take between -the two schools continued through the sixteenth century. Hunter, -_Chorus Vatum_, v. 542, quotes a manuscript life of Sir Thomas Offley, -‘This Thomas Offley became a good grammarian under Mr. [William] -Lillie and understood the Latin tongue perfectly; and because he had -a sweet voice he was put to learn prick-song among the choristers of -St. Paul’s, for that learned Mr. Lillie knew full well that knowledge -in music was a help and a furtherance to all arts’. On the other hand, -Dean Nowell (Churton, _Life of A. Nowell_, 190) instructed Thomas Giles -in 1584 to teach the choristers catechism, writing, and music, and then -to ‘suffer them to resort to Paul’s School that they may learn the -principles of Grammar’. Some seventeenth-century performances by the -grammar school, after the regular Paul’s plays ceased, are upon record. - -[39] Cf. _infra_ (Chapel, Oxford’s); ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[40] R. Churton, _Life of Alexander Nowell_, 190, from _Reg. Nowell_, -ii, f. 189; Nichols, _Eliz._ ii. 432; Collier, i. 258; Hazlitt, 33; -Wallace, ii. 67, from original warrant under the Signet in _Sloane MS._ -2035^b, f. 73: - ‘By the Queene, - Elizabeth. - -‘Whereas we haue authorysed our servaunte Thomas Gyles M^r. of the -children of the Cathedrall Churche of S^t. Pauls within our Cittie of -London to take vpp suche apte and meete Children as are most fitt to be -instructed and framed in the arte and science of musicke and singinge -as may be had and founde out within anie place of this our Realme of -England or Wales, to be by his education and bringinge vp made meete -and hable to serve vs in that behalf when our pleasure is to call for -them. Wee therefore by the tenour of these presentes will and require -you that ye permitt and suffer from henceforthe our saide servaunte -Thomas Gyles and his deputie or deputies and every of them to take vp -in anye Cathedral or Collegiate Churche or Churches and in everye other -place or places of this our Realme of England and Wales, suche Childe -and Children as he or they or anye of them shall finde and like of and -the same Childe and Children by vertue hereof for the vse and service -afouresaide, with them or anye of them to bringe awaye, withoute anye -your lettes contradiccions staye or interruptions to the contrarie -Charginge and commaundinge you and everie of you to be aydinge helpinge -and assisting vnto the aboue named Thomas Gyles and his deputie and -deputies in and aboute the due execucion of the premisses for the more -spedie effectuall & bettar accomplisshing thereof from tyme to tyme -as you and everie of you doe tendar our will and pleasure and will -aunswere for doinge the contrarye at your perilles. Youen vnder our -Signet at our Manour of Grenewich the 26^{th} Day of Aprill in the -27^{th} yere of our reign. - -To all and singuler Deanes, Provostes, Maisters and Wardens of -Collegies and all Ecclesiasticall persons and mynisters and to all -other our officers mynisters and subiectes to whome in this case it -shall apperteyne and to everye of them greetinge.’ - -No other commission for the Paul’s choir is extant, but their rights -are reserved in the commission for Windsor (q.v.) of 8 March 1560. - -[41] Harvey, _Advertisement for Pap-Hatchet_ (_Works_, ii. 212). Lyly -was still Oxford’s man but writing for Paul’s, _c._ Aug. 1585 (_M. L. -R._ xv. 82.). - -[42] Cf. ch. ix and App. C, No. xl, especially _Pappe with an Hatchet_ -(Oct. 1589). - -[43] _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (_Works_, iii. 46). I do not -think the reference to a twelvemonth’s silence, due to envy, in the -prologue to Nashe’s _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_ (_c._ Oct. 1592) -affords any justification for ascribing that play to the Paul’s boys. -Murray, i. 330; ii. 284, records a payment at Gloucester in 1590–1 -‘to the children of powles’. I am sceptical about this, especially as -I observe in the next year a payment for a breakfast to the Queen’s -men ‘at M^r. Powelles’. Murray’s only other municipal record for the -company, at Hedon, Yorkshire, on some quite unknown date, ‘Item, payd -to the ---- pawll plaiers’ (ii. 286), is even less satisfactory. But if -the boys did travel on their suppression, they may well have gone to -Croydon. - -[44] Rimbault, 4. Giles must have resigned, if he was the Thomas Giles -who, on 18 April 1606, was paid 100 marks a year as instructor to Henry -in music (Devon, 35). He was instructor to Charles in 1613 (Reyher, 78) -and figures in masks (cf. ch. vi). Fellowes, 184, 190, has two songs -set by Pearce, one from _Blurt Master Constable_. - -[45] _1 A. and M._ IV. i. 30, ‘Enter Andrugio, Lucio, Cole, and -Norwood’. Bullen thinks that the two boys played the parts named, but -the action requires at least one page, who sings. - -[46] Wallace, ii. 153, says he has evidence of playing at Paul’s in -1598, but he does not give it. It is perhaps rash to assume that Pearce -originated the revival, as there is no proof that he came to Paul’s -before 1600. - -[47] Cf. ch. xi. - -[48] V. i. 102. - -[49] Collier, iii. 181. On the light thrown on the Paul’s stage by -these plays, cf. ch. xxi. It is conceivable that some of them may have -been originally written before 1590 (cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Percy). - -[50] Cf. ch. xxiv. - -[51] Cf. _infra_ (Queen’s Revels). - -[52] Nichols, _James_, iv. 1073, from _The King of Denmark’s Welcome_ -(1606), ‘the Youthes of Paules, commonlye cald the Children of Paules, -plaide before the two Kings, a playe called _Abuses_: containing both a -Comedie and a Tragedie, at which the Kinges seemed to take delight and -be much pleased’. The play is lost. Fleay, ii. 80, has no justification -for identifying it with _The Insatiate Countess_. _Wily Beguiled_ (ch. -xxiv) might be a Paul’s play. - -[53] C. W. Wallace, _Nebraska University Studies_ (1910), x. 355; cf. -_infra_ (Queen’s Revels), ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[54] _Constitutio Domus Regis_ (_c._ 1135) in Hearne, _Liber Niger -Scaccarii_, i. 342, ‘Capellani, custos capellae et reliquiarum. -Corridium duorum hominum, et quatuor servientes capellae unusquisque -duplicem cibum, et duo summarii capellae unusquisque 1^d in die et -1^d ad ferrandum in mense’; cf. _R. O. Ld. Steward’s Misc._ 298 -(1279); Tout, 278, 311 (1318); _H. O._ 3, 10 (1344–8); _Life Records -of Chaucer_ (Chaucer Soc.), iv. 171 (1369); Nicolas, _P. C._ vi. 223 -(1454). - -[55] _H. O._ 10. In 1318 he was ‘chief chapellain’. - -[56] J. H. Wylie, _Henry IV_, iv. 208, from _Household Accounts_, ‘John -Bugby our chaplain retained 3 years ago pur apprendre et enformer -les enfants de notre chapelle en la science de gramaire at 100/-p. -a. nothing yet paid, £15 due’. A grant to John Tilbery, a boy of the -King’s chapel, was made on 12 Nov. 1405 (_C. P. R._, _Hen. IV_, iii. -96). - -[57] Wallace, i. 12, 21, from _P. R._ The commission of 1420 was to -John Pyamour ‘uni clericorum Capellae hospicii nostri’; another of 1440 -was to John Croucher, Dean. When regular Masters were instituted, the -commissions seem to have been made direct to them. - -[58] Wallace, i. 14, quotes laudatory accounts of the singing of the -chapel by two members of the suite of Leo von Ro[vz]mital, a Bohemian -who visited the English Court in 1466. - -[59] _H. O._ 49. There is nothing about plays, but ‘Memorandum, -that the King hathe a songe before hym in his hall or chambre uppon -All-hallowen day at the latter graces, by some of these clerkes and -children of chappel in remembrance of Christmasse; and soe of men and -children in Christmasse thorowoute. But after the songe on All-hallowen -day is done, the Steward and Thesaurere of houshold shall be warned -where it liketh the King to kepe his Christmasse’. - -[60] At the coronation of James in 1603 (Rimbault, 127) there were -a Sub-dean, 7 Ministers, the Master of the Children, an Organist, -22 ordinary Gentlemen, and a Clerk of the Check; also a Sergeant, 2 -Yeomen, and a Groom of the Vestry. This agrees with the Elizabethan fee -lists, which give the total number of Gentlemen as 32. The coronation -list does not name Epistolers; but it is clear from the notices of -appointments in Rimbault, 1, that a Gospeller and Epistoler were -appointed, as next in succession to the Gentlemen’s places, although it -does not appear that they were necessarily ex-Children. There were also -Extraordinary Gentlemen (Rimbault, 31). - -[61] Cf. ch. ii. - -[62] _H. O._ 160. The hall and chapel are to be kept ‘at all times -when his Highnesse shall lye in his castle of Windsor, his mannors of -Bewlye, Richmond, Hampton Court, Greenwich, Eltham, or Woodstock’; but -‘in rideing journeys and progresses’, only the Master of the Children, -six men, six children, and some officers of the vestry are to attend. -In the seventeenth century ‘all removinge weekes’ were amongst the -‘auntient tymes of lyberty and playinge weekes’ (Rimbault, 73). But the -practice may have varied. Stopes, 252, gives a Stable warrant of 1554 -for a wagon ‘for the necessarie conveying and cariage of the Children -of our Chapel and their man from place to place, at such seasons, as -they by our commandment shall remove to serve where wee shall appointe -them’. - -[63] A chapel of St. Stephen existed in 1205. It was rebuilt and made -a free collegiate chapel in 1348, and dissolved in 1547, and the -building assigned as a chamber for the House of Commons (J. T. Smith, -_Antiquities of Westminster_, 72; _V. H. London_, i. 566). It may have -originated as a domestic chapel, but seems to be quite distinct from -the Household Chapel by the sixteenth century. Thus its St. Nicholas -Bishop had an old annual reward of £1 from the Exchequer (Devon, -_Issues of Exchequer_, 222; R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. -459; Brewer, iv. 869), while the Household boys got their reward of -£6 12_s._ 4_d._ from the Treasurer of the Chamber. Wallace, i. 22, -notes that the Masters of the Children ‘all lived’ at Greenwich, which -suggests that this was the Tudor head-quarters of the Chapel. - -[64] Wallace, i. 22, 23, 26, 61, from patents of Masters; _Fee List_ -(_passim_). - -[65] R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. 457; Brewer, ii. 873; -iii. 364; iv. 868; _Fee Lists_ (_passim_); Wallace, i. 21, 23, 24, 26, -33, 61, from patents and _Exchequer of Receipt, Auditor’s Privy Seal -Books_. The Elizabethan fee for a Gentleman was only £30 (cf. p. 41, n. -3), but it was increased again to £40 by James in 1604 (Rimbault, 61). - -[66] _H. O._ 169, 212. The _Chamber Accounts_ for Aug. 1520 include -a special payment to the Master for the diets of the boys when they -accompanied the King to Calais, at 2_d._ a day each. - -[67] The allowance was 6_d._ in 1575 (Collier, i. 175; Nagel, 29; from -_Harl. MS._ 589, f. 220), but Hunnis’s petition of 1583 (cf. p. 37) -implies that this rate was customary before Elizabeth’s reign. - -[68] _Chamber Accounts_ (_passim_); cf. p. 24, n. 6. For the feast of -the Boy Bishop on St. Nicholas Day, cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 336, 359, -369. - -[69] Stopes, 15, ‘40 surplices for the gentlemen and 16 for the -children of the Chapel’ (Wardrobe warrant of 7 Oct. 1533); ‘for 10 -children of the Kings Chapell, for gownes of Tawney Chamblett lined -with black satin of Bruges, and Milan bonnettes for the said children, -as in the same boke of apparel is declared xliii^{li}. iii^s. iiii^d. -For two children of the Kings Chapell, for 2 gownes of Black Chamblett, -lined with black satin of Bruges 2 cotes of yellow saten of Bruges -lined with Coton, and 2 Millan bonnettes, and for making and lining -of said gownes and cotes as in the said boke at large it duly apperes -x^{li} xviii^s ... Item for twenty gentlemen of the King’s chapel, for -20 gownes of Black Damask for the said gentlemen, cxxvii^{li}. x^s.’ -(_Queen’s Remembrancia, Wardrobe Expenses_, _Hen. VIII_, 52/10 A). - -[70] _Chamber Accounts_ (_passim_). From 1510 to 1513 Robert Fairfax -had 2s. a week for the diet of William Alderson and Arthur Lovekyn, -the King’s scholars, and £2 13_s._ 4_d._ for their teaching. In 1513 -William Max, late a Child of the Chapel, had 40_s._ In 1514 Cornish was -finding and apparelling Robert Philip and another Child of the Chapel, -for £1 13_s._ 4_d._ a quarter, and in 1517 finding and teaching William -Saunders, late Child of the Chapel, for the same sum, with 2_d._ a week -for board ‘when the king keepeth no household’. In 1529–30 Crane had -3_d._ a day wages and 20_d._ a week board wages for Robert Pery, and -in 1530 also for William Pery. In 1531 Robert Pery was paid direct. -Cunningham, xx, gives a late seventeenth-century example of a similar -arrangement. In 1546 a royal letter was written for the appointment -of William Bretten, late a Chapel boy, to be singing-man at Lichfield -(Brewer, xxi. 1. 142). Some of the above names appear in a list of -Chapel Children, William Colman, William Maxe, William Alderson, Henry -Meryell, John Williams, John Graunger, Arthur Lovekyn, Henry Andrewe, -Nicholas Ivy, Edward Cooke, and James Curteys, receiving liveries -at the funeral of Henry VII in 1509 (Lafontaine, 3, from _Ld. Ch. -Records_, 550, f. 131). Some amusing correspondence of 1518 relates to -a boy Robin, whom Henry VIII wished to transfer from Wolsey’s chapel -to his own. It was stipulated that Cornish should treat him honestly, -‘otherwise than he doth his own’, and later Cornish wrote praising the -clean singing and descant of the recruit (Brewer, ii. 1246–50). - -[71] J. M. Manly in _C. H._ vi. 279; C. Johnson, _John Plummer_ (1921, -_Antiquaries Journal_, i. 52); Wallace, i. 21, from patents and -Exchequer payments. Wallace does not include Melyonek although (ii. 62) -he gives the following commission, already printed by Collier, i. 41, -and Rimbault, vii, from _Harl. MS._ 433, f. 189: - -‘Mellenek, Ric. etc. To all and every our subgiettes aswele spirituell -as temporell thise our lettres hering or seeing greeting, We let you -wite that for the confidence & trust that we haue in our trusty and -welbeloued seruant John Melyonek oon of ye gentilmen of our Chapell and -knowing also his expert habilitie and connyng in ye science of Musique -haue licenced him and by thise presentes licence and geue him auctorite -that within all places in this our realme aswele Cathedral churges -coliges chappells houses of relegion and al oyer franchised & exempt -places as elliswhere our colege roial at Wyndesor reserued & except may -take and sease for vs and in our name al suche singing men & childre -being expart in the said science of Musique as he can finde and think -sufficient and able to do vs seruice. Wherfor &c. Yeuen &c. at Nottingham -the xvj^{th} day of September A^o secundo [1484].’ - -Banaster did not die until 1487, but I think Melyonek must have -replaced him, perhaps without a patent, under Richard III.] - -[72] Cf. _D. N. B._ Songs by Banaster and Newark are in _Addl. MS._ -5465 (Chambers and Sidgwick, _Early English Lyrics_, 299). - -[73] Collier, i. 46; cf. Wallace, i. 12. I am not sure that Collier -meant 1485. - -[74] Reyher, 504, from _Harl. MS._ 69, f. 34^v. Wallace, i. 13; ii. 69, -citing the same MS., misdates ‘1490’, and says that eight children took -part. Four singing children who had appeared in another disguising a -day or two before were probably also from the Chapel. - -[75] _Chamber Accounts_ in Wallace, i. 28, 38; Bernard Andrew, _Annales -Hen. VII_ (Gairdner, _Memorials of Hen. VII_), 104; Halle, i. 25; -Professor Wallace seems to think that the annual Christmas rewards -paid by the Treasurer of the Chamber to the Gentlemen, which went on -to the end of the reign, were for plays. But these were of £13 6_s._ -8_d._, whereas the reward for a play was £6 13_s._ 4_d._ They were -paid on Twelfth Night, and are sometimes said to be for ‘payne taking’ -during Christmas. In 1510 they had an extra £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for praying -for the Queen’s good deliverance. The ‘payne taking’ was no doubt as -singers. An order of Henry VII’s time (_H. O._ 121) for the wassail -on Twelfth Night has, ‘Item, the chappell to stand on the one side -of the hall, and when the steward cometh in at the hall doore with -the wassell, he must crie three tymes, Wassell, wassell, wassell; and -then the chappell to answere with a good songe’. The Gentlemen also -had 40_s._ annually from the Treasurer of the Chamber ‘to drink with -their bucks’ given them for a summer feast, which was still held in the -seventeenth century (Rimbault, 122). - -[76] Stopes, _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 238; Feuillerat, _Ed. and -Mary_, 149, 289. Professor Feuillerat says that one of the documents -relating to the play refers to the ‘Children of the Chapel’, and doubts -whether there is a real distinction between the ‘Gentlemen’ and the -‘Children’ as actors. - -[77] Feuillerat, _Ed. and Mary_, 3, 255. The conjecture is supported by -the fact that garments belonging to the Revels were in possession of -two Gentlemen of the Chapel in April 1547 (ibid., 12, 13). - -[78] _Chamber Accounts_ in Wallace, i. 38, 65, 70; Brewer, xiv. 2. -284; Kempe, 69; Collier, i. 78; Feuillerat, _Ed. and Mary_, 266, 288. -The ‘iiij Children y^t played afore y^e king’ on 14 Jan. 1508 were not -necessarily of the Chapel. - -[79] Cf. ch. viii and _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 192, 215. - -[80] Wallace, i. 33. No patent is cited, but the privy seal for the -payment to Cornish of the Exchequer annuity was dated 1 April 1510, and -he was shortly afterwards paid for the Christmas and Easter quarters. -Newark had died in Nov. 1509. It is therefore a little puzzling to find -in a list of Exchequer fees payable during the year ended Michaelmas -1508 (R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. 457) the item -‘Willelmo Cornysshe magistro puerorum capellae regis pro excubitione -eorundem puerorum 26^{li}. 13^s. 4^d.’ Probably the list was prepared -retrospectively in Henry VIII’s reign (cf. the analogous list in -Brewer, ii. 873), and the name rather than the date is an error. - -[81] The data are: (a) _Exchequer Payments_ (Wallace, i. 34), Mich. -1493, ‘Willelmo Cornysshe de Rege’, 100_s._; (b) _T. C. Accounts_, -‘to one Cornysshe for a prophecy in rewarde’, 13_s._ 4_d._ (12 Nov. -1493); ‘to Cornishe of the Kings Chapell’, 26_s._ 8_d._ (1 Sept. 1496); -‘to Cornysshe for 3 pagents’ (26 Oct. 1501); ‘m^r kyte Cornisshe and -other of the Chapell y^t played affore ye king at Richemounte’, £6 -13_s._ 4_d._ (25 Dec. 1508); (c) _Household Book of Q. Elizabeth_, -25 Dec. 1502, ‘to Cornisshe for setting of a Carrall vpon Cristmas -Day in reward’, 13_s._ 4_d._; (d) John Cornysh in list of Gent. of -Chapel 23 Feb. 1504, and William Cornysh in similar lists _c._ 1509 -and 22 Feb. 1511 (Lafontaine, 2, from _Ld. Ch. Records_); (e) Songs -by ‘W. Cornishe, jun.’ in _Addl. MS._ 5465, by ‘John Cornish’ in -_Addl. MS._ 5665, by ‘W. Cornish’ in _Addl. MS._ 31922 (_Early English -Lyrics_, 299); (f) _A Treatise betweene Trouthe and Enformacon_, by -‘William Cornysshe otherwise called Nyssewhete Chapelman with ... -Henry the VII^{th} his raigne the xix^{th} yere the moneth of July’ -[1504], doubtless the satirical ballad on Empson referred to by Stowe, -_Annales_, 816 (_B. M. Royal MS._ 18, D. 11). I think they yield an -older William and a John Cornish, of whom one, probably John, arranged -the three pageants at Arthur’s wedding, and a William ‘jun.’ who -must have joined the Chapel in 1503 or 1504 and became Master of the -Children. The older William may be identical with the Westminster -(q.v.) choir-master of 1479–80. A Christopher or ‘Kit’ Cornish, -referred to by Stopes, 17, and elsewhere, had no existence. This is a -ghost-name, due to the juxtaposition of ‘kyte’, i.e. Sir John Kite, -afterwards Archbishop of Armagh, and ‘Cornisshe’ in the 1508 record -above. - -[82] Cf. ch. v and _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 400. - -[83] The _T. C. Accounts_ show a reward of £200 to Cornish on 30 Nov. -1516, of which the occasion is not specified, and a payment of £18 -2_s._ 11½_d._ for ‘ij pagentes’ on 6 July 1517. With these possible -exceptions, no expenditure on the disguisings or the interludes which -formed part of them as distinct from the independent interludes by -the Children, for which Cornish received £6 13_s._ 4_d._ each, seems -to have passed through these accounts. Any remuneration received by -Cornish or his fellows or children for their personal services probably -passed through the _Revels Accounts_. - -[84] Wallace, i. 16, 50. He light-heartedly accuses my friend Mr. -Pollard, me, and others of perpetuating an old mis-ascription on the -strength of Bale, ‘generally without consulting the _Scriptores_’, in -the first edition of which (1548) Bale says that Rastell ‘reliquit’, -and in the second that he ‘edidit’ _The Four Elements_. This Professor -Wallace regards as revision by Bale of an incorrect assertion that -Rastell was the author into an assertion that he was the publisher. -But Bale elsewhere uses ‘edidit’ to indicate authorship, as Professor -Wallace might have learnt from the notice of Heywood which he quotes on -p. 80. As to _The Four P. P._ there are three early editions by three -different publishers, and they all assign it to Heywood. - -[85] Wallace, i. 61, 69; ii. 63, from patents and Exchequer payments. -The Elizabethan patent is in Rymer, xv. 517. - -[86] Rimbault, viii, quoting only the words ‘in anie churches or -chappells within England to take to the King’s use, such and so many -singing children and choristers, as he or his deputy should think -good’. Stopes, 12, gives _Lansd. MS._ 171, and _Stowe MS._ 371, f. -31^v, as references, but the commission is not in either of them. - -[87] Matthew Welder appears as a lute and viol at Court in 1516 and -1517. Peter Welder was appointed in 1519 and is traceable to 1559, as -a lute, viol, or flute. Henry van Wilder was a ‘musician’, 1553–8. -Philip Welder or van Wilder himself is first noted as a ‘minstrel’ in -1526. Later he was a lute up to 1554. In 1547 he was also ‘of the Privy -Chamber’ and keeper of the King’s musical instruments (Nagel, 6, 13, -15, 16, 18, 22, 24, 27; Lafontaine, 8, 9, 12; Brewer, i, cxi). He died -24 Jan. 1554, leaving a son, Henry, probably the one noted above (Fry, -_London Inquisitions_, i. 117). The _Chamber Accounts_ for 1538–41 show -an allowance to him of £70 ‘for six singing children’ (Stopes, 12). -Several references to ‘Philippe and his fellows yong mynstrels’ and -to ‘the children that be in the keeping of Philip and Edmund Harmon’ -appear in Green Cloth documents from 30 June 1538 to 1544 (_H. O._ 166, -172, 191, 208; _Genealogist_, xxx. 23). Edmund Harmon was one of the -royal Barbers. Finally, livery lists of 1547 show nine singing men and -children under ‘M^r. Phelips’ (Lafontaine, 7). An earlier company of -‘the King’s young minstrels’ than this of 1538–50 seems to have been -lodged at court _c._ 1526 (Brewer, iv. 1. 865), and there were ‘troyes -autres nos ioesnes ministralx’ as far back as 1369 (_Life Records of -Chaucer_, iv. 174). Elizabethan fee lists continue to make provision -for ‘six children for singing’, but there is no indication that the -posts were filled up. - -[88] Wallace, ii. 63, from docquet in _B. M. Royal MS._ 18, C. xxiv, f. -232. By an obvious error, the name is written by the clerk as ‘Gowre’. - -[89] Wallace, i. 77. - -[90] Cf. p. 12. - -[91] It is possible that the Treasurer of the Chamber did not pay all -the rewards for plays during the earlier years of the reign; but the -suggestion of Wallace, i. 108, that, if we had the _Books of Queen’s -Payments_, more information might be available, seems to show a failure -to realize the identity of the Tudor _Books of King’s Payments_ with -the _T. of C. Accounts_. There might, however, be rewards in a book -subsidiary to the _Privy Purse Accounts_. I do not think that much can -be made of the recital of ‘playes’ as well as ‘maskes’ in the preamble -of the _Revels Accounts_ for 1558–9, during which the T. of C. paid no -rewards, since this may be merely ‘common form’. - -[92] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 34; cf. Appendix A. Naturally no ‘reward’ -would be paid in such circumstances. Fleay, 16, 32, 60, conjectures -that the play was _Misogonus_. - -[93] Strype, _Survey of London_ (App. i. 92), gives the date from -Bower’s tombstone at Greenwich, and as his death is recited in -Edwardes’ patent (Stopes, _Hunnis_, 146) and his will of 18 June 1561 -was proved on 25 Aug. 1561 (Wallace, i. 106), it is clear that the -entry of Rimbault, 1, ‘1563. Rich. Bower died, M^r of the children, A^o -5^{to}’, must be an error. - -[94] Wallace, _Blackfriars_, 65, from Privy Seal in P. R. O. The patent -dated 10 Jan. 1562 is on _Patent Rolls, 4 Eliz._ p. 6, m. 14 _dorso_. - -[95] This is recorded in a Revels document, and seems a clear case of a -play given by the Chapel and not paid for by the T. of C. - -[96] Cf. ch. vii, p. 223. - -[97] Rimbault, 2. On Hunnis, cf. ch. xxiii. - -[98] Stopes, 295, translates the patent of appointment from _Auditors -Patent Books_, ix, f. 144^v; the Privy Seal is in _Privy Seals_, -Series iii, 1175. Stopes also prints the patent and Wallace, ii. 66, -the Signet Bill (misdescribing it as a Privy Seal) for the commission; -it is enrolled on _Patent Rolls, 9 Eliz._ p. 10, m. 16 _dorso_. It is -varied from the model of 1562 by the inclusion of power to the Master -to take up lodging for the children in transit, and to fix ‘reasonable -prises’ for carriage and necessaries at his discretion. - -[99] Hazlitt-Warton, iv. 217, citing f. xii of the pamphlet. I know -of no copy. One is catalogued among Bishop Tanner’s books in the -Bodleian, but Stopes, 226, ‘went to Oxford on purpose to see it, but -found that it had utterly vanished’. Macray, _Annals of the Bodleian_, -211, thinks that it may have been destroyed when Tanner’s books fell -into a river during their transit from Norwich to Oxford in Dec. 1731. -The pamphlet is also cited for an example of the use of the term ‘spur -money’ (Bumpus, 29, with date ‘1598’). F. T. Hibgame (_10 N. Q._ i. -458) describes a collection of pamphlets seen by him in New York under -the general title of _The Sad Decay of Discipline in our Schools_ -(1830), which included _Some Account of the Stripping and Whipping of -the Children of the Chapel_, containing a ‘realistic account of the -treatment of the boys at one of the royal chapels’, of which he thought -the author might be George Colman. - -[100] Cf. ch. vii. - -[101] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 244, ‘Holly, Ivye, firr poles & Mosse for the -Rock ... Hornes iij, Collers iij, Leashes iij & dogghookes iij with -Bawdrickes for the hornes in Hvnnyes playe’. - -[102] _Variorum_, iii. 439. - -[103] Cf. ch. xxiii (Gascoigne). - -[104] W. Creizenach (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, liv. 73) points out that the -source must have been Livy, xxvi. 50. - -[105] Cf. _infra_ (Windsor). - -[106] Rimbault, 2. - -[107] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). The bare fact of this early use of -the Blackfriars has, of course, long been known from the reference to -comedies at the Blackfriars in Gosson, _P. C._ 188 (App. C, No. xxx), -and the prologues to Lyly’s _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and Phao_. Fleay, -36, 39, 40, guessed that the early Blackfriars performances were at an -inn, and by the Paul’s boys, and that the euphuistic prose plays at the -Bel Savage mentioned by Gosson, _S. A._ 39 (App. C, No. xxii), in 1579 -were early Chapel versions of Lyly’s above-named plays. But there is no -evidence that either of the boy companies ever used an inn. - -[108] Cf. p. 38. - -[109] Cf. ch. vii, p. 223. - -[110] Rimbault, 3. The Blackfriars correspondence shows that the date -1581 given in Rimbault, 56, is wrong. A warrant of 1582 for a lease in -reversion to his widow Anne is in _Hatfield MSS._ ii. 539. - -[111] App. C, No. xlv. - -[112] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[113] Wallace, i. 156; Stopes, _Hunnis_, 252; from _S. P. D. Eliz._ -clxiii. 88. - -[114] Cf. p. 50, which suggests that the boys occasionally ate in hall -at festival times. - -[115] The _Chamber Accounts_ show no renewal of the payments. - -[116] Cf. ch. xxiii (Hunnis). - -[117] Cf. ch. xiii (Oxford’s), ch. xxiii (Lyly). - -[118] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 470. _Sapho and Phao_ might, however, have -been the unnamed Chapel play of Shrove Tuesday (27 Feb.) 1582. - -[119] Perhaps Lyly was still associated with him. F. S. Boas (_M. L. -R._ vi. 92) records payments in connexion with a visit by Leicester to -Christ Church, Oxford, to Mr. Lyly and his man for the loan of apparel, -as well as one of £5 to one Tipslowe ‘for the Revels’ (January 1585). - -[120] Cf. _supra_ (Paul’s). - -[121] I have no means of dating ‘The order of the show to be done at -the Turret, entring into the parke at Grenewich, the musick being -within the turrett’, which is preserved in _Egerton MS._ 2877, f. 182, -as ‘acted before Q. Elizabeth’. A speech of forty lines beginning ‘He -Jove himselfe, that guides the golden spheare’, was delivered by ‘one -of the biggest children of her Ma^{tes} Chappell’ as Goodwill, and was -followed by a song beginning ‘Ye Helicon muses’. - -[122] Rimbault, 4. A note of Anthony Wood’s (cf. _D. N. B._) suggests -that Bull joined the Chapel about 1572. - -[123] Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berks_ (ed. 1723), iii. 172, from -tombstone at St. George’s, Windsor. The inscription gives him 49 years -as Master at Windsor, in error for 39. A second stone described as also -his by Ashmole is clearly his wife’s. - -[124] Wallace, ii. 59, prints both from the Privy Seals of 2 and 3 July -in the R. O. The appointment is enrolled in _Patent Rolls, 39 Eliz._ p. -12, and the commission in _Patent Rolls, 39 Eliz._ p. 9, m. 7 _dorso_. -The appointment is for life, the commission not so specified, and -therefore during pleasure only. - -[125] The operative words of the appointment are ‘pro nobis heredibus -et successoribus nostris damus et concedimus dilecto seruienti nostro -Nathanieli Giles officium Magistri puerorum Capellae nostrae Regiae -... habendum ... durante vita sua naturali Damus etiam ... praefato -Nathanieli Giles vada siue feoda quadraginta librarum sterling -percipienda annuatim ... pro eruditione duodecem puerorum eiusdem -Capellae nostrae ac pro eorum conveniente exhibitione vestiturae et -lectuarii ... vnacum omnibus et omnimodis aliis vadis feodis proficubus -iurisdiccionibus aucthoritate priuilegiis commoditatibus regardis et -aduantagiis quibuscunque eodem officio quoquo modo debitis ... ac ... -praedicto Nathanieli Giles locum siue officium illud vnius generosorum -nostrorum dictae Capellae nostrae Regiae ... vnacum feodo seu annuali -redditu triginta librarum ...’ - -[126] _E. v. K._ 211; _K. v. P._ 224, 230, 233 (misdated 44 Eliz. -for 42 Eliz.), 239. These are only short recitals in the lawsuits. -Apparently the fragmentary descriptions of the theatre in Wallace, ii. -39, 40, 41, 43, 49, are from a fuller Latin text of the terms of the -lease, possibly recited in a common-law suit, which he has not printed -in full. - -[127] _K. v. P._ 230, 234. - -[128] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317. - -[129] Fleay, 124, 153; Wallace, ii. 56; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 156. An -initial date for the enterprise in 1600 fits in exactly with the seven -years during which there had been plays at the house where _K. B. P._ -was produced and the ten years’ training of Keysar’s company up to 1610 -(cf. p. 57). - -[130] Cf. ch. xi. - -[131] Fleay, 127. Burn, 152, notes from _Bodl. Tanner MS._ 300 that -among the misdemeanours punished in the Star Chamber was ‘Taking up a -gentleman’s son to be a stage player’. - -[132] Wallace, ii. 84, gives the endorsed date omitted by Greenstreet -and Fleay, as ‘Marti decimo quinto Decembris Anno xliiij Elizabeth -Regine’; the date set down for trial is indicated as ‘p Octab Hillar’. -This agrees with the time indication of the offence in the complaint -itself as ‘about one yere last past, and since your maiesties last free -and generall pardon’. The pardon referred to must be that of 1597–8 -(_39 Eliz._ c. 28; cf. _R. O. Statutes_, iv. 952). There was another -passed by the Parliament of 1601 (_43 Eliz._ c. 19; cf. _Statutes_, -iv. 1010) for all offences prior to 7 Aug. 1601, but presumably this -was not yet law when the complaint was drawn. The Parliament sat to 19 -December. Clifton, however, was only just in time. - -[133] _K. v. P._ 248. The date is recited as ‘in or about the three -and ffortieth yeare’ of Elizabeth, i.e. 1600–1, which is not exact. -The reference can hardly be to any other than the Clifton affair. No -Chancery documents in the case, other than the complaint, are known. -It may be presumed that censure fell on Giles and Robinson, as well -as Evans, but they were not concerned in _K. v. P._ Evans, of course, -was technically acting as deputy to Giles under his commission, and -Wallace, ii. 71, is not justified in citing the case as evidence that -‘These powers to Giles were supplemented by official concessions to -Henry Evans that enabled him to rent the Blackfriars theatre and train -the Queen’s Children of the Chapel there, with remunerative privileges’. - -[134] _K. v. P._ 224, 230, 236, 242, 244, 248, 250. - -[135] _E. v. K._ 211, 216; _K. v. P._ 237, 240, 245. These are -recitals. Wallace, ii. 91, says that he has found two copies of the -original bond, but the text he prints adds nothing to _K. v. P._ 240. -Clearly he is wrong in describing it as ‘containing the Articles -of Agreement’. That was a much more detailed document, which Evans -unfortunately thought so ‘long and tedious’ that he did not insert -it at large in his Answer in _K. v. P._ It was doubtless analogous -to the King’s Revels Articles of 1608 (cf. _infra_). It provided for -the rights of the partners to the use of rooms (_E. v. K._ 211) and -presumably for the division of profits (_K. v. P._ 237). - -[136] _K. v. P._ 244. Wallace, ii. 102, adds the actual terms of the -bond. He takes Evans’s explanation to mean that hitherto Evans had -maintained the boys and the plays out of official funds supplied -through Kirkham as Yeoman of the Revels, but that now Evans’s name was -to be kept out of the business, and disbursements made by his partners, -who were to pay him 8_s._ a week as a kind of steward. I cannot -suppose that Kirkham had been the channel of any official subvention, -and, on the whole, think it probable that the second ‘compl^t’ in the -extract from the pleading is an error for ‘def^t’. This leaves it not -wholly clear why Evans should allege his relief from great weekly -disbursements as a reason for receiving 8_s._ a week; but if we had -the Articles of Agreement, the point would probably be clear. Possibly -Evans had in the past made the equivalent of a weekly sum of 8_s._ out -of board-wages passed on to him by Giles. - -[137] Wallace, ii. 88. - -[138] _E. v. K._ 213, 217, 220. - -[139] G. von Bülow and W. Powell in _R. H. S. Trans._ vi. 26; Wallace, -ii. 105; with translations. - -[140] Wallace, ii. 126, summarizes his theory; cf. my review in _M. L. -R._ v. 224. - -[141] Wallace, ii. 99. - -[142] _E. v. K._ 217; _K. v. P._ 224, 227, 229, 231, 236, 248. - -[143] Wallace, ii. 73. - -[144] Wallace, ii. 75, shows that the Blackfriars repertory would -require twenty or twenty-five actors. - -[145] Gawdy, 117. - -[146] Wallace, ii. 95. Dudley Carleton wrote to John Chamberlain on -29 Dec. 1601 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxxii. 48), ‘The Q: dined this day -priuatly at my L^d Chamberlains; I came euen now from the blackfriers -where I saw her at the play with all her candidae auditrices’; cf. _M. -L. R._ ii. 12. - -[147] _K. v. P._ 235. - -[148] Wallace, ii. 89, says that Evans paid £11 0_s._ 2_d._ for repairs -on 8 Dec. 1603. - -[149] _M. S. C._ i. 267, from _Patent Roll, 1 Jac. I_, pt. 8. Collier, -i. 340, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 40, print the signet bill, the former -dating it 30 Jan. and the latter 31 Jan., and misdescribe it as a privy -seal. Collier, _N. F._ 48, printed a forged letter from Daniel to Sir -T. Egerton (cf. Ingleby, 244, 247) intended to suggest that Drayton, -and perhaps also Shakespeare, had coveted his post. - -[150] Wallace, ii. 80, mentions a case of the employment of a boy at -the Blackfriars during James’s reign under a contract with his mother. - -[151] _M. S. C._ i. 359. On 7 Oct. 1605 the Wardrobe provided holland -for shirts for the 12 children and ‘for James Cutler, a Chappell boy -gone off’ (Lafontaine, 46, from _L. C._ 804). - -[152] Rimbault, 60; Stowe, _Annales_ (ed. Howes), 1037. An order of -17 July 1604 (_H. O._ 301) continued the allowance of an increase of -meat at festival times which the children had presumably enjoyed under -Elizabeth. - -[153] Middleton, _Father Hubbard’s Tales_ (_Works_, viii. 64, 77). A -reference in the same book to an ant as ‘this small actor in less than -decimo sexto’ recalls the jest in the Induction to the _Malcontent_ at -the boys who played _Jeronimo_ ‘in decimo sexto’. - -[154] Cf. ch. xi. - -[155] _K. v. B._ 340. - -[156] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. plays named. - -[157] Kirkham and Kendall were still associated in Aug. 1605, when -apparel and properties were obtained from them for the plays at -James’s visit to Oxford (_M. S. C._ i. 247). There was a performance -at the Blackfriars as late as 16 June 1605 (Wallace, ii. 125), a date -connected with a dispute in settlement of which Kirkham’s bond of £50 -to Evans was exchanged for a new one to Hawkins (_K. v. P._ 244). - -[158] Cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 159. The t.p. of _Sophonisba_ only specifies -performance ‘at the Blackfriars’; those of _The Fleir_ and _The Isle of -Gulls_ ‘by the Children of the Revels at the Blackfriars’. Probably the -‘Children of the Revels’ of the t.p. of Day’s _Law Tricks_ (1608) is -also the Blackfriars company. No theatre is named, but the play is too -early for the King’s Revels, who, moreover, do not seem to be described -on other t.ps. as ‘Children of the Revels’ pure and simple. I take it -that these t.p. descriptions follow the designations of the companies -in use when the plays were last on the stage before publication, rather -than those in use at the times of first production. - -[159] Cf. ch. x. - -[160] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Day. - -[161] Keysar was certainly associated with Kendall by the Christmas of -1606–7, when they supplied apparel and properties for the Westminster -plays; cf. Murray, ii. 169. - -[162] _K. v. P._ 249. - -[163] _M. S. C._ i. 362, from _P. R. O., Patent Roll, 4 James I_, p. -18, _dorso_. Collier, i. 446, long ago noted the existence of a similar -clause in a Caroline commission to Giles of 1626. It was probably the -choristers who assisted in a quasi-dramatic performance on 16 July -1607, when James dined with the Merchant Taylors, and Giles received -the freedom of the company in reward; cf. ch. iv. - -[164] Cf. App. I. - -[165] _E. v. K._ 221; _K. v. P._ 246. ‘The Children of the Revells’ -who appeared at Leicester on 21 Aug. 1608 (Kelly, 248) might have been -these boys, but might also have been the King’s Revels, if the King’s -Revels were still in existence under that name, which is very doubtful. - -[166] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Chapman. - -[167] _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxxi. 73. The mine was no doubt the silver -mine discovered at Hilderston near Linlithgow in 1607, and worked as a -royal enterprise with little success; cf. R. W. Cochran-Patrick, _Early -Records relating to Mining in Scotland_ (1878), xxxvii. 116. - -[168] Cf. ch. xxiii. - -[169] _K. v. B._ 342. - -[170] _E. v. K._ 222; _K. v. P._ 225, 231, 235, 246. - -[171] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[172] _K. v. P._ 225, 249. - -[173] _E. v. K._ 221; _K. v. P._ 245. In the earlier suit Evans says -that the royal prohibition was ‘vpon some misdemeanors committed in or -about the plaies there, and specially vpon the defendants [Kirkham’s] -acts and doings thereabout’. Unless Kirkham was more directly concerned -in the management during 1608 than appears probable, Evans must be -reflecting upon the whole series of misdemeanours since 1604. - -[174] On 9 May John Browne, ‘one of the playe boyes’, was buried at St. -Anne’s. - -[175] _K. v. B._ 347, gives the date of surrender in 1610 as ‘about the -tenth of August last past’. Probably a year’s sub-tenancy under the -King’s men explains the discrepancy with the ‘about August in the sixt -year of his Majesties raigne’ of _K. v. P._ 235, and the confirmatory -date of the King’s men’s leases. - -[176] Cf. ch. _supra_ (Paul’s). _K. v. B._ 355 tells us that Rosseter -was in partnership with Keysar. - -[177] _M. S. C._ i. 271, from _P. R., 7 Jac. I_, p. 13. Ingleby, 254, -gave the material part in discussing a forged draft by Collier (_N. F._ -41), in which the names of the patentees are given as ‘Robert Daiborne, -William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field and Edward Kirkham’. A genuine -note of the patent is in Sir Thomas Egerton’s note-book (_N. F._ 40). -Ingleby adds that the signet office records (cf. Phillimore, 103) show -that the warrant was obtained in Dec. 1609 by the influence of Monson. -He was Anne’s household Chancellor and to him Rosseter and Campion -dedicated their _Book of Airs_ (1601) and Campion his _Third Book of -Airs_ (1617). - -[178] _K. v. B._ 343. - -[179] _K. v. B._ 343, 350. - -[180] Evans, Mrs. Evans, Field, Underwood, Ostler, Baxstead, Rosseter, -Marston, and Mrs. Hawkins were to be examined for the King’s men. - -[181] _E. v. K._ 213. I presume that some of these are amongst the -‘twelve additional suits’ which Wallace, ii. 36, claims to have found. - -[182] _E. v. K._ 218. In _K. v. P._ 225, he put the total annual -profits during 1608–12 at £160. - -[183] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317; cf. _Hist. Hist._ 416 (App. I), -‘Some of the chapel boys, when they grew men, became actors at the -Blackfriars; such were Nathan Field and John Underwood’. - -[184] The _Chamber Accounts_ record no payment to the company (cf. App. -B, introd.). - -[185] Cf. ch. xvi. - -[186] Murray, i. 361. - -[187] E. Ashmole, _Institution of the Garter_ (1672), 127; R. R. -Tighe and J. E. Davis, _Annals of Windsor_, i. 426, 477; _Report of -Cathedrals Commission_ (1854), App. 467; _V. H. Berks_, ii. 106; _H. M. -C. Various MSS._ vii. 10. - -[188] Tighe-Davis, ii. 45, from Stowe’s account ‘of the Castell of -Wyndsore’ (_Harl. MS._ 367, f. 13). - -[189] Nichols, i. 81, and Collier, i. 170, print a copy in _Ashm. MS._ -1113, f. 252, from the Elizabethan commission preserved at Windsor, as -follows: - -‘Elizabeth R. - -Whereas our castle of Windsor hath of old been well furnished with -singing men and children, We, willing it should not be of less -reputation in our days, but rather augmented and increased, declare, -that no singing men or boys be taken out of the said chapel by virtue -of any commission, not even for our household chapel: and we give power -to the bearer of this to take any singing men and boys from any chapel, -our own household and St. Paul’s only excepted. Given at Westminster, -this 8^{th} of March in the second year of our reign.’ - -A further copy from _Ashm. MS._ 1113 is in _Addl. MS._ 4847, f. 117. -Copies or notes of the three earlier commissions are in this MS. and in -_Ashm. MS._ 1124. In _Ashm. MS._ 1132, f. 169, is a letter of 18 April -1599 from the Chapter to Sir R. Cecil defending their conduct in taking -a singing man from Westminster. - -[190] Gee, 230, in a list of deprived clergy from N. Sanders, _De -Visibili Monarchia_ (1571), 688, ‘_Magistri Musices_ ... Prestonus in -oppido Vindelisoriensi’. Can this Preston be the playwright (cf. ch. -xxiii)? - -[191] Rimbault, 1; Stopes, _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 243. - -[192] _Ashm. MS._ 1132, f. 165^a. - -[193] Rimbault, 2. - -[194] _M. L. R._ (1906), ii. 6. - -[195] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[196] Cf. App. B. - -[197] Rimbault, 3; _H. M. C., Hatfield MSS._ ii. 539. - -[198] Rimbault, 182; _Musical Antiquary_, i. 30; _10 N. Q._ v. 341. -A Christ Church, Oxford, MS., dated 1581, assigns to Farrant (cf. -ch. xxiii) a possibly dramatic lament of Panthea for the death of -Abradates, beginning ‘Ah, ah, alas ye salt sea Gods’. This is assigned -to Robert Parsons by _Addl. MSS._ 17786–91, which assign to Farrant a -song which may come from a play in which Altages is a character. The -writer in the _Musical Antiquary_ thinks that a lament for Guichardo -(not from either of the known Gismund texts) in the _Ch. Ch. MS._ is -much in Farrant’s style. - -[199] Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berks_ (ed. 1723), iii. 172; cf. p. 41. - -[200] _Ashm. MS._ 1125, f. 41^v. - -[201] Cf. ch. xiii (Chamberlain’s). - -[202] Presumably, however, the ‘Gerry’ buried out of the Whitefriars -play-house (q.v.) on 29 Sept. 1607 was of the company. - -[203] Phillimore, 140; cf. App. A. - -[204] _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxxi. 12. - -[205] _M. S. C._ i. 279, from _P. R. 13 Jac. I_, pt. 20. - -[206] _Variorum_, iii. 426; Collier, i. 394; Hazlitt,_ E. D. S._ 49; -from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xcvii. 140. - -[207] Collier, i. 396, not, as he says, from the _P. C. Register_, but -from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xcvii. 140. - -[208] Clode, ii. 269; Nicholl, _Ironmongers_, 84; cf. ch. iv. - -[209] Warton, iii. 313; Stowe, _Survey_, ed. Strype, v. 231. - -[210] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ (1903), i. 220, from _S. P. D. -Eliz._ xxxvi. 22; Murray, ii. 168. - -[211] _Observer._ Other payments in this or another year were for ‘a -haddocke occupied in the plaie’, ‘a thondre barrell’, ‘drawing the -tytle of the comedee’. - -[212] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ (1896), i. 95; (1903) ii. 220; -Murray, ii. 168; _Observer_. - -[213] Heywood-Wright, 632; Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 308. - -[214] Collins, 215 (1566), ‘M^r Scholemaster towards his charges about -the playes laste Christmas, 20/-’; Maxwell-Lyte,^4 154 (1566–7) ‘To -M^r Scholemaster for his charge setting furthe ij playes 19^o Martii, -iii^l, xiij^s, viij^d’, (1568–9) ‘For ij dossen of links at iij^d the -linke for the childrens showes at Christmass, vj^s’, (1572–3) ‘For vj -poundes of candles at the playes in the Halle, ix^d’. - -[215] J. W. Hales in _Englische Studien_, xviii. 408 (cf. _Mediaeval -Stage_, ii. 452), made the date of 1553–4 seem plausible, but his -conjecture that the play was written for the Westminster boys -is disposed of by A. F. Leach, who gives Udall’s appointment to -Westminster from the Chapter Act Book as 16 Dec. 1555 (_Encycl. Brit._ -s.v. Udall). It might be a Court play of 1553–4, but the parody of the -_Requiem_ would have been an indiscretion on Udall’s part at that date. - -[216] G. C. Moore Smith (_M. L. R._ viii. 368) has an ingenious -identification of him with the Wrenock of Spenser’s _Shepheards -Kalendar_, xii. 41. - -[217] Clode, _Hist. of Merchant Taylors Company_, i. 235, from Master’s -_Accounts_. Before they opened their own school the Company had plays -by the Westminster boys (q.v.). - -[218] Clode, i. 234. - -[219] The subject may have been Perseus and Andromeda, as the Revels -prepared a picture of Andromeda this year. If so, it was probably the -same play as that of 23 Feb. 1574. - -[220] Whitelocke, _Liber Famelicus_ (Camden Soc.), 12. - -[221] Clode, i. 264, 280, 390. - -[222] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 256. - -[223] The documents in W. Campbell, _Materials for a History of the -Reign of Henry VII_, are full for the period 1485–90. There is nothing -of King’s players, but certain ‘stuffures’ paid for by a warrant of 25 -Nov. 1485 (Campbell, i. 178) included goods delivered to John English, -apparently a royal tailor or valet, ‘servant unto my said sovereign’. - -[224] Collier, i. 44, from a book of Exchequer payments, beginning -Michaelmas 1493, in the Chapter-house (probably _Misc. Books of the -Treasury of the Receipt of the Exchequer_, 131), ‘xvij Die Maij -[1494] John Englissh, Edwardo Maye, Rico Gibbeson, & John Hammond, -Lusoribus Regis, alias, in lingua Anglicana, _les_ pleyars of the -kyngs enterluds, de feodis suis V mrc. ꝓ Ann: le home, per lre Regis -de privato Sigillo dormant de termino Michaelis alt: pte rec: denar: -separatim ꝓ manus proprias, x mrc.’. The payment was continued -half-yearly. Collier adds that Mr. Ouvry owned an original receipt -signed by May and English for the salaries of the same four men. It is -now _Egerton MS._ 2623 (3), f. 1, and appears to be a slip cut from -some Exchequer record. F. Devon, _Issues of the Exchequer_, 516, gives -similar payments for Michaelmas 1494 and Michaelmas 1503; it is in -the latter that the names of William Rutter and John Scott appear. An -Exchequer declaration of 1505–6 in _Lansd. MS._ 156, f. 135, has ‘To -Richard Gibson, and other the kings plaiers, for their annuity for one -yere, £13 6_s._ 8_d._’. Henry, _History of Britain_, xii. 456, gives -from an Exchequer annuity list of 1507–8, ‘Ricardo Gybson et aliis -lusoribus dom. reg. £13 6_s._ 8_d._’. - -[225] Collier, i. 49, quotes: (a) _Account_ of Robert Fowler (1501–2), -‘Oct. 26 [1501], Itm to John Englishe for his pagent, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ -... Jan. 1 [1502] Itm, to the Kinges players, over 40^s paid by Thomas -Trollop, 20^s’; (b) _Household Book of Henry VII_ (1492–1505, more -correctly from _Addl. MS._ 7099 in Bentley, _Excerpta Historica_, 85), -‘Jan. 6 [1494] To the Kings Pleyers for a rewarde, £2 13_s._ 4_d._ ... -Jan. 7 [1502] To John Englishe the Pleyer, 10_s._’; (c) _The Kings Boke -of Payments_ (1506–9, apparently _Misc. Books of the Treasury of the -Receipt of the Exchequer_, 214), ‘Jan. 7 [1509] To the kings players in -rewarde, £2’. Both (b) and (c) are _Chamber Accounts_. - -[226] Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv. 265. - -[227] _Lansd. MS._ 171, cited by Collier, i. 72, is in fact an -Elizabethan document, but a list of fees and annuities (1516) in -Brewer, ii. 874 has, amongst those granted by Henry VII, ‘John -Englisshe and other players £13 6_s._ 8_d._’, and amongst those -recently granted, ‘John Englisshe and other players, in addition to the -old annuity, £13 6_s._ 8_d._’. - -[228] Collier, i. 97, 115, gives an Exchequer payment of 1525–6, ‘Rico -Hole et Georgio Mayler, et aliis lusoribus Dom. Regis, de foedis suis -inter se ad x marcos per ann. sibi debit: pro festo Michaelis, anno -xvij Regis nunc Henrici VIII recept. denar. per manus proprias, per -litt. curr. 66_s._ 8_d._’, and was informed by Mr. Devon of a similar -payment of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1530, in which John Roll, Richard Hole, -and Thomas Sudbury are named. A household list of _c._ 1526 (Brewer, -iv. 869) gives as on yearly wages ‘Ric. Hole and other players, £6 -13_s._ 4_d._’. One later than March 1544 (Collier, i. 133) gives 8 -players at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ each. - -[229] _Chamber Accounts_ (Brewer, v. 303; xiii. 2. 524; xiv. 2. 303; -xvi. 178, 698; xvii. 474; xx. 2. 515; Nicolas, xxviii; Collier, i. 79, -96, 113, 116, 117; _Trevelyan Papers_, i. 149, 157, 170, 177, 195, 203) -give John English (1521–31) at half-yearly ‘fee’ or ‘wages’ of £3 6_s._ -8_d._, John Slye or Slee (1539–40) at £1 13_s._ 4_d._ half-yearly, -and Richard Parrowe or Parlowe (1540–5, appointed Christmas 1538), -George Birch (1538–45), Robert Hinstock (1538–45), and George Maylour -(1538–40), at 16_s._ 8_d._ or 11_s._ 1_d._ quarterly. - -[230] _Chamber Accounts_ (Brewer, ii. 1441; iii. 1533, &c.; Nicolas, -xxviii; Collier, i. 76, 116). The reward for 1509–10 was £2 13_s._ -4_d._; during 1510–13, £3 6_s._ 8_d._; during 1513–21, £3 6_s._ 8_d._ -to the ‘players’ and ‘£4’ to the ‘olde players’; and during 1529–41, £6 -13_s._ 4_d._ - -[231] Collier, i. 69, from a ‘paper, folded up in the roll [of the -_Revels Account_ for 1513–14] and in a different handwriting’, -‘Inglyshe, and the oothers of the Kynges pleyers, after pleyed an -Interluyt, whiche was wryten by Mayster Midwell, but yt was so long yt -was not lykyd: yt was of the fyndyng of Troth, who was caryed away by -ygnoraunce and ypocresy. The foolys part was the best, but the kyng -departyd before the end to hys chambre.’ According to Collier, the -paper is signed by William Cornish and also contains a description of a -Chapel interlude. But Brewer, who calendars the _Revels Account_ fully, -does not notice it, and according to A. W. Reed in T. L. S. (3 April -1919) it cannot be traced at the R. O. - -[232] Cf. ch. iii; _Tudor Revels_, 6. - -[233] Brewer, ii. 1493. In 1546–7 they had 5_s._ for the loan of -garments to the Revels (Kempe, 71). - -[234] _Grey Friars Chronicle_ (C. S.), 34, ‘Also this same yere John -Scotte, that was one of the kynges playeres, was put in Newgate for -rebukynge of the shreffes, and was there a sennet, and at the last was -ledde betwene two of the offecers from Newgate thorrow London and soe -to Newgat agayne, and then was delyveryd home to hys howse; but he toke -such a thowte that he dyde, for he went in hys shurte’. - -[235] John Slye and John Yonge, mercer, had been players to Queen Jane -before her death in 1537, and were concerned about 1538 in a Chancery -suit about a horse hired ‘to beare there playing garmentes’ (Stopes, -_Shakespeare’s Environment_, 235). Perhaps this explains the annuity of -£1 10_s._ 5_d._ (1_d._ a day) which Young drew from the Chamber during -1540–2. But he obtained a patent as King’s player, with an annual fee -of £3 6_s._ 8_d._, on the death of Roo in 1539 (Brewer, xiv. 1. 423), -and an ‘annuity’ of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ on the death of Sudbury in 1546 -(Brewer, xxi. 2. 156). Collier, i. 134, cites a description of him in a -fee list amongst the _Fairfax MSS._ as ‘Maker of Interludes, Comedies, -and Playes’. - -[236] Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 183. - -[237] G. H. Overend in _N. S. S. Trans._ (1877–9), 425. - -[238] Collier, i. 93; Madden, _Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess -Mary_, 104, 140; _Rutland MSS._ iv. 270; Brewer, iv. 340. - -[239] Cf. Murray, _passim_, and _Mediaeval Stage_, App. E. - -[240] _Royal MS._ 7, C. xvi, f. 97 (cited Collier, i. 137). The names -are in a list of servants ‘nuely in ordinary of the Chamber’, and some -illegible names of players are in an accompanying list of ‘Offycers in -ordynary of the Chamber of the late Kynges Majestie now discharged’. - -[241] _Lord Chamberlain’s Records_, _Misc._ v. 127, f. 23 (also with -the error ‘E. and P.’ in Sullivan, 249), ‘three broade yerdes of redd -wollen clothe for a liuery coate of suche prices as the yeomen officers -of oure howseholde are accustomed to haue and iij^s and iiij^d vnto -euery of them for the Enbrauderinge of theire saide coates withe the -lettres E and R on the backe and on the breste’. - -[242] _Chamber Accounts_ in _Trevelyan Papers_, i. 195–205; ii. 17–31, -and Collier, i. 136, 138, 148. - -[243] _S. P. D. Edw. VI_, xiv. - -[244] _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 27^v; _Harl. MS._ 240, f. 13. - -[245] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 89, 90, 97, 98, 119; cf. _Mediaeval -Stage_, i. 406, where I think I was in error in taking John Smith as a -name assumed by Will Somers. - -[246] _Hist. MSS._ iii. 230, from book of annuities at Penshurst. - -[247] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 31, 39, 57, 86. - -[248] Collier, i. 149. The reference to Ferrers’ ‘divine’ and -‘astronomer’ (cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 407) fixes the date. - -[249] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 201, from _Lansd. MS._ 824, f. 24. - -[250] Fee-list in collection of Soc. of Antiquaries, cited by Collier, -i. 161. - -[251] _Chamber Accounts_ in Collier, i. 161; _Declared Accounts (Pipe -Office)_, 541, m. 2^v. - -[252] Reading was a London player in 1550 (App. D, No. v). The Chamber -Accounts for the first few years of Elizabeth show an annuity to a -George Birch under a warrant of 7 Jan. 1560. - -[253] Eight players of interludes at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ each are in the -fee-lists (cf. vol. i, p. 29), _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 148 (_c._ 1575–80), -_Sloane MS._ 3194, f. 38 (1585), _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 168 (_c._ -1587–90), _Lansd. MS._ 171, f. 250 (_c._ 1587–91), _S. P. D. Eliz._ -ccxxi, f. 16 (_c._ 1588–93), _H. O._ 256 (_c._ 1598), and with the -error of £3 6_s._ in _Hargreave MS._ 215, f. 21^v (_c._ 1592–5), _Lord -Chamberlain’s Records_, v. 33, f. 19^v (1593), _Stowe MS._ 572, f. 35^v -(_c._ 1592–6), _Harl. MS._ 2078, f. 18^v (_c._ 1592–6). The inaccurate -_Cott. MS. Titus_, B. iii, f. 176 (_c._ 1585–93) gives two ‘Plaiers -on Interludes’ at £3 6_s._ The normal entry recurs in the Jacobean -_Lansd. MS._ 272, f. 27 (1614) and _Stowe MS._ 575, f. 24 (1616), but -a group of the early part of the reign (_Addl. MS._ 35848, f. 19; -_Addl. MS._ 38008, f. 58^v; _Soc. Antiq. MSS._ 74, 75) have ‘Plaiers -on the In lute’ or ‘on in Lutes’, at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ or £3 6_s._, which -looks like an attempt to rationalize the _Cotton MS._ entry. And -_Stowe MS._ 574, f. 16^v, has ‘Players on Lute’ at £3 6_s._ 8_d._, -which some one has corrected by inserting the normal entry. All this -suggests that many copyists of fee-lists in the seventeenth century -confused the post of interlude player with that of a lute player, and -the former was therefore probably obsolete, and its fee no longer paid -to the royal players of the day (cf. ch. x). I cannot agree with E. -Law, _Shakespeare a Groom, of the Chamber_, 26, 64, that the interlude -players survived under James as ‘mummers, who, perhaps, sang in a sort -of recitative at masques and anti-masques’. - -[254] _Chamber Declared Accounts_ (_Pipe Office_), 541, _passim_, 542, -m. 3; Collier, i. 236; Cunningham, xxvii. I do not know how long John -Young continued to draw his Exchequer ‘annuity’, but presumably he had -retired on it. - -[255] Fleay, 43, says, ‘There was no specific company called the -Queen’s players till 1583; it was a generic title applied to any -company who prepared plays for the Queen’s amusement. In 1561 the -players probably were the Earl of Leicester’s servants.’ I need -hardly say that I do not accept this, which would not explain the -disappearance of the ‘Queen’s’ from provincial records between 1573 and -1583. For another use of the same improvised theory by Mr. Fleay, cf. -App. D, No. lxxv. - -[256] Murray, i. 19, adds records from other towns, and A. Clark (10 -_N. Q._ xi. 41) for Saffron Walden. - -[257] App. D, No. xi. - -[258] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 280, ‘To my L. of Leyester’s men for a -reward, 2_s._ 6_d._’. Fleay, 18, says that the amount is too small to -favour the supposition that these were players. But Elizabeth was at -Saffron Walden at the time, and a present was made to the Master of the -Revels of a podd of oysters costing no more than 3_s._ 6_d._ Probably -Saffron Walden was an economical place, or the payment was only for -some speech. - -[259] Murray, i. 41. - -[260] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 348, from _MS._ F. 10 (213) in the -Marquis of Bath’s collection at Longleat; also in _3 N. Q._ xi. 350. -The letter is undated but followed _Procl._ 663, on which cf. ch. viii -and App. D, No. xix. - -[261] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 406; Kempe, 47. The garments provided for -Ferrers by the Revels included fools’ coats for ‘Children, John Smyth, -Ayer apparent ... Seame 2, Parkins 3, Elderton 4’. - -[262] App. D, No. xviii. - -[263] Cf. ch. ix. The patent is printed from the Patent Roll in _M. S. -C._ i. 262; also from a copy of the entry on the Patent Roll preserved -amongst Rymer’s papers in _Sloane MS._ 4625 by Steevens, _Shakespeare_ -(1773), ii. 156, and therefrom in _Variorum_, iii. 47. This text omits -the words ‘oure Citie of London and liberties of the same as also -within’. Collier, i. 203, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 25, printed the -Signet Bill, erroneously describing it as the Privy Seal, from the -State Paper Office. This has the omitted words, and Collier correctly -explains the omission in Steevens’s text as due to an inaccurate -copyist, pointing in proof to the words ‘in oure _said_ Citye of -London’. This did not, however, prevent Fleay, 45, from asserting -that in the Patent ‘an alteration had been made from the Privy Seal’, -on the ground that its terms ‘infringed on the powers of the City -authorities’. Such an alteration not merely did not take place, but -would have been a diplomatic impossibility, as the Patent Roll was made -up, not from the Letters Patent, but from the Privy Seals on which -these were based. - -[264] Probably they occupied the Theatre, at any rate in summer, until -1583. A letter of Gabriel Harvey’s in the summer of 1579 mentions -‘Lycesters’, the ‘Theater’, and ‘Wylson’, but in no very definite -connexion with each other (cf. p. 4). The Privy Council letter of 23 -Dec. 1579, for their toleration at the Blackfriars, printed by Collier, -_New Facts_, 9, is a forgery (cf. ch. xvii). - -[265] I should think the ‘Myngs’ of Murray, ii. 214, and Collier, -_Northbrooke_, viii, more likely to be palaeographically accurate than -the ‘Myngo’ of J. Latimer in _9 N. Q._ xi. 444 and his _Sixteenth -Century Bristol_. But a song of ‘Monsieur Mingo’ exists in a setting by -Orlando de Lassus (cf. _E. H. R._ xxxiii. 83), and is quoted in _2 Hen. -IV_, v. iii. 78, and _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, 968. - -[266] Cf. App. D, No. xl. - -[267] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Baylye. - -[268] Murray, i. 41, gives additional provincial records for 1576–82. - -[269] Stowe, _Annales_, 717, from a description by William Segar. - -[270] The show itself was perhaps of Italian origin, for on 17 June -1572 the Earl of Lincoln was entertained at Paris by the Duke of Anjou -(2 Ellis, iii. 12, from _Cott. MS. Vesp._ F. vi, f. 93) with ‘an -Italian comedie, which eandid, vaulting with notable supersaltes and -through hoopes, and last of all the Antiques, of carying of men one -uppon an other which som men call _labores Herculis_’. - -[271] J. Bruce from _Harl. MS._ 287, f. 1, in _Who was Will, my Lord of -Leicester’s jesting player?_ (_Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 88). Bruce thinks -that ‘Will’ might be Johnson, Kempe, or Sly, but not Shakespeare, -whose ‘earliest works bear upon them the stamp of a mind far too -contemplative and refined’ for Sidney to call him ‘knave’ and ‘jesting -player’. I do not subscribe to the reasoning. W. J. Thoms, _Three -Notelets on Shakespeare_, 120, upholds the Shakespeare theory, and -attempts to support it by evidence of military knowledge in the plays. - -[272] Wright, _Eliz._ ii. 268, from _Cott. MS. Galba_ C. viii; cf. _M. -L. R._ iv. 88. - -[273] Fleay, 82; but cf. Lee, 36, and pp. 124, 272. The thing is -complicated by the influence of Malone’s suggestion (_Variorum_, ii. -166) that Shakespeare might have left Stratford with Leicester’s men -on a visit to the town. This assumes its most fantastic form in the -suggestion of Lee^1, 33, that Shakespeare was already in London, but -‘Shakespeare’s friends may have called the attention of the strolling -players to the homeless youth, rumours of whose search for employment -about the London theatres had doubtless reached Stratford’. - -[274] At Exeter they are called the Lord Steward’s, certainly not the -Marquis of Winchester’s, as Murray, ii. 95, suggests, for he was never -Steward of Elizabeth’s household. - -[275] _Norfolk Archaeology_, xiii. 11. - -[276] J. M. Cowper, in _1 R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ i. 218, records a -performance by ‘my Lord of Leicester’s men’ at Faversham in 1589–90; -but I think this must be an error. - -[277] J. D. Walker, _The Black Books of Lincoln’s Inn_, i. 374, gives -the name as ‘Lord Roche’, but this is probably a mistake. Viscount -Roche of Fermoy in Ireland is not likely to have had players in London. - -[278] J. de Perott (_Rev. Germ._ Feb. 1914) suggests that _Portio and -Demorantes_ may be the Lamorat and Porcia of the French version (1548) -of _Amadis de Grecia_ (1542), viii. 56. - -[279] Murray, i. 307, and A. Clark (_10 N. Q._ xii. 41) add records for -1573–83. - -[280] Murray, i. 307, has additional provincial records for 1585–91. - -[281] I do not agree with Fleay, _Sh._ 18, 184, that Sussex’s were -satirized in _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_; cf. _infra_, s.v. Hertford’s. - -[282] Dasent, xxiv. 209. - -[283] Cf. App. C, No. lvii. - -[284] Dasent, viii. 71, dating the warrant on 29 Feb. - -[285] _Ancaster MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._) 466. - -[286] _Hist. MSS._ ix. 1. 156. The payment is given as to the Earl of -‘Waffyts’ men. - -[287] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 531. - -[288] Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 122, from _Harl. -MS._ 7392, f. 97; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 5. - -[289] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 222. - -[290] Cf. ch. viii. - -[291] Ellis, i. 3, 32; Cooper, ii. 379; from _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxxxix. -26. The Privy Council letter of 30 Oct. 1575 (_M. S. C._ i. 195) -forbids ‘open shewes’ and ‘assemblies in open places of multitudes of -people’ within five miles of Cambridge. - -[292] Murray, i. 348. I add Maldon (1581). - -[293] Murray, i. 348. I add Stratford (1583–4). Dr. Boas kindly informs -me that the Oxford City Accounts for 1584–5 have a payment to Oxford’s -‘musytions’. - -[294] Cf. ch. xii (Chapel). - -[295] The payment was made to Richard Woderam, but he is more likely to -have been an agent of the Corporation than a member of the company. - -[296] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 256. The 1469 entry has been since -published by A. Clark in _10 N. Q._ vii. 181, ‘Et solut. lusoribus -domini comitis Essex ludentibus coram burgensibus infra burgum hoc -anno, v_s_.’ - -[297] _Variorum_, ii. 150. The ‘lord Cartleyes players’ recorded by B. -S. Penley, _The Bath Stage_, 12, in 1580–1, 1582–3, and 1583–4 were -perhaps Lord Berkeley’s. Murray, ii. 27, adds other provincial notices. - -[298] This did not prevent Chalmers from giving the date 1581 and being -set right by Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 442). Collier, i. 247, gives -1583, but misdates Tilney’s commission of 1581, and takes it for the -instrument constituting the company. - -[299] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 359. - -[300] Nicolas, _Hatton_, 271. - -[301] Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 697, (1631), 698. - -[302] Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 79, citing _Addl. MS._ 5750, f. 113. - -[303] Cf. ch. x. - -[304] Halliwell, _Affray at Norwich in 1583 in which Queen Elizabeth’s -Players were involved_ (1864), and in _Illustrations of the Life of -Shakespeare_, 118. - -[305] Murray, i. 20, and A. Clark in _10 N. Q._ xii. 41 (Saffron -Walden) give other provincial records throughout. An Ipswich one for -1581–2 must be misplaced. - -[306] Cf. App. D, No. lxxv. - -[307] Fleay, 83. - -[308] _Variorum_, ii. 166. - -[309] _M. S. C._ i. 354. from _P. R. O. Lay Subsidies, Household_, -69/97. - -[310] Fleay, 34. - -[311] The illustration of Mr. Fleay’s methods of constructing stage -history is delightful. In _The True Tragedie of Richard the Third_, -a Queen’s play, the murderers of the princes in the Tower are Will -Slawter or Sluter, ‘yet the most part calles him blacke Will’ (Hazlitt, -_Sh. L._ v. 95), and Jack Denten or Douton. On this Mr. Fleay (ii. -316) comments, ‘One of the actors in it, Sc. 11, is called Will -Slaughter, “yet the most part calls him Black Will”, _i.e._ the Black -Will of _Arden of Faversham_, q.v., which had no doubt been acted by -the same man. Another actor is called Jack Donton (Dutton) or Denten, -an accommodation of the Dighton of history to the actor’s real name.’ -Obviously there is no need to suppose that the characters in _The True -Tragedie_ bore the names of their actors. John Dutton is not very -likely to have taken a part of four speeches, and Will Slawter is -evidently added to the John Dighton of Holinshed, to give Edward V the -‘irony’ of a pun upon ‘slaughter’. As for _Arden of Faversham_, it is -not known to have been a Queen’s play at all, and its ‘Black Will’ is -taken from Holinshed. Having gone so far, I do not know why Mr. Fleay -stopped short of identifying Black Will’s colleague ‘Shakebag’ with -the name of an actor. Of course, Mr. Fleay’s blundering conjectures -must be distinguished from the deliberate fabrications of Collier, -who published in his _New Facts_, 11, from a forged document amongst -the _Bridgewater MSS._, a certificate to the Privy Council under the -date ‘Nov. 1589’, from ‘her Ma^{ts} poore playeres James Burbidge -Richard Burbidge John Laneham Thomas Greene Robert Wilson John Taylor -Anth. Wadeson Thomas Pope George Peele Augustine Phillippes Nicholas -Towley William Shakespeare William Kempe William Johnson Baptiste -Goodale and Robert Armyn being all of them sharers in the blacke Fryers -playehouse’. On this cf. ch. xvii, and Ingleby, 249. - -[312] Tarlton, 12, 13, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, ‘while the queenes -players lay in Worcester’, ‘when the queenes players were restrained -in summer, they travelled downe to S. James his fair at Bristow’, ‘in -the country where the queenes plaiers were accepted into a gentlemans -house’, ‘at Salisbury, Tarlton and his fellowes were to play before the -maior and his brethren’, ‘the queenes players travelling into the west -country to play, and lodging in a little village some ten miles from -Bristow’. - -[313] Tarlton, 16, ‘one in mockage threw him in this theame, he playing -then at the Curtaine’. - -[314] Tarlton, 24, ‘Tarlton then, with his fellowes, playing at the Bel -by ... the Crosse-keyes in Gracious streete’. - -[315] Tarlton, 13, ‘at the Bull in Bishops-gate-street, where the -queenes players oftentimes played’. It was here (Tarlton, 24) that -Tarlton and Knell played _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_. - -[316] Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (_Works_, i. 197; cf. i. 308). - -[317] Arber, ii. 526, ‘A sorowfull newe sonnette intituled Tarltons -Recantacon uppon this theame gyven him by a gentleman at the Bel savage -without Ludgate (nowe or ells never) beinge the laste theame he songe’. -The tract is not extant. - -[318] App. C, No. lvii. He names Knell, Bentley, Mills, Wilson, and -Laneham. - -[319] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Alleyn, and ch. xviii. - -[320] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 21 Jan. 1882. - -[321] Cf. ch. xviii. - -[322] Murray, ii. 398 (Southampton), ‘the Queenes maiesties & the -Earle of Sussex players, xxx^s’; 240 (Coventry), ‘the Quenes players -& the Erle of Sussex players, xv^s’; 284 (Gloucester), ‘the Queenes -and the Earle of Sussex players, xxx^s’. At Faversham (Murray, ii. -274) separate payments of 1590–1 for the Queen’s (20_s._) and Essex’s -(10_s._) are followed by ‘to the Queen’s Players and to the Earl of -Essex’s Players’ (20_s._). It is conceivable that in this last entry -‘Essex’s’ may be a slip for ‘Sussex’s’. - -[323] App. D, No. lxxxv. - -[324] Nashe, _Works_, iii. 244. - -[325] _M. S. C._ i. 190, from _Lansd. MSS._ 71, 75. The letters are -both dated 18 Sept. 1592, and that to Burghley contained copies of the -charters of Henry III and Elizabeth, of a Privy Council letter of 30 -Oct. 1575 (cf. Dasent, ix. 39) forbidding shows within five miles of -the University, and of the warrant of the Vice-Chancellor and other -justices to the constables of Chesterton, dated 1 Sept. 1592. - -[326] University Letter of 17 July 1593 in _M. S. C._ i. 200, from -_Lansd. MS._ 75; Privy Council Act of 29 July 1593 in Dasent, xxiv. 427. - -[327] _M. S. C._ i. 198, from _Lansd. MS._ 71. - -[328] Henslowe, i. 4. The date in the diary is ‘8 of Maye 1593’, but -I am prepared to accept Dr. Greg’s view (ii. 80) that as Francis was -pawnbroking for his uncle all through 1593, this must be an error of -Henslowe’s for ‘1594’. He seems to have actually left London on 18 May -1594. - -[329] Henslowe, i. 6. - -[330] W. H. Stevenson, _Nottingham Records_, iv. 244. - -[331] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 251. - -[332] _Sh. Homage_, 154. - -[333] Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 184. - -[334] Collier, i. 259. - -[335] Murray, i. 294. I add Maldon (1564–5). There is no proof that -‘Beeston and his fellowes’ at Barnstaple in 1560–1 were Strange’s. - -[336] The Revels account for 1587–9 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 390) includes -‘a paire of fflanell hose for Symmons the Tumbler’, which is not in the -separate account for 1587–8 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 380). - -[337] App. D, No. lxxxii. The forged list of Queen’s men (q.v.) in 1589 -is sometimes, by a further error, whose I do not know, assigned to -Strange’s. - -[338] I had better give the complicated and in some cases uncertain -notices in full; the unspecified references are to Murray: Cambridge -(1591–2), ‘my Lord Stranges plaiers’ (Cooper, ii. 518), and so also -(ii. 229, 284) Canterbury (13 July 1592) and Gloucester (1591–2); Bath -(1591–10 June 1592), ‘my Lord Admiralls players’ ... ‘my L. Stranges -plaiers’ (ii. 202); Aldeburgh (1591–2), ‘my Lord Admirals players’ -(Stopes, _Hunnis_, 314); Shrewsbury (30 Sept. 1591–29 Sept. 1592), ‘my -L. Admeralls players’ ... ‘my l. Stranges and my l. Admyralls players’ -(ii. 392, s. a. 1592–3, but the entries for the two years seem to be -transposed; _vide infra_); Coventry (10 Dec. 1591–29 Nov. 1592), ‘the -Lord Strange players’ (ii. 240); Leicester (19 Dec. 1592), ‘the Lorde -Admiralls Playars’ (ii. 305); Shrewsbury (30 Sept. 1592–29 Sept. 1593), -‘The iii of Feb: 1592. Bestowed vppon the players of my Lorde Admyrall’ -... ‘my L. Darbyes men being players’ (ii. 392, s. a. 1591–2, but the -detailed date and the name Derby make an error palpable); Bath (11 -June 1592–10 Sept. 1593), ‘my L. Stranges plaiers’ (ii. 203); Coventry -(30 Nov. 1592–26 Nov. 1593), ‘the Lo Admiralls players’ (ii. 240); -York (April 1593), ‘the Lord Admerall & Lord Mordens players’ (ii. -412); Newcastle (May 1593), ‘my Lord Admiralls plaiers, and my Lord -Morleis plaiers being all in one companye’ (G. B. Richardson, _Extracts -from Municipal Accounts of N._); Southampton (1592–3), ‘my L. Morleys -players and the Earle of Darbyes’ (ii. 398, ‘_c._ 18 May’, but Strange -became Derby on 25 Sept.); Leicester (Oct.–Dec. 1593), ‘the Erle of -Darbyes playors’ (ii. 306); Coventry (2 Dec. 1593), ‘the Lo: of Darbyes -players’ (ii. 240); Bath (11 Sept. 1593–1594), ‘the L. Admiralls, the -L. Norris players’ (ii. 203); Ipswich (7 March 1594), ‘vnto therlle of -Darbys players and to the Lorde Admirals players, the ij amongste’ (ii. -293, s. a. 1591–2, but on 7 March 1592 Strange was not yet Derby, and -his men were playing for Henslowe). - -[339] App. D, No. xcii. - -[340] Henslowe, i. 13. The account is headed, ‘Jn the name of god Amen -1591 beginge the 19 of febreary my lord stranges mene a ffoloweth 1591’. - -[341] Cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _1 Jeronimo_. Some marginal notes of sums of -money are not clearly intelligible, but may represent sums advanced by -Henslowe for the company. - -[342] Henslowe, i. 15. - -[343] Dasent, xxiv. 212. - -[344] Cf. W. W. Greg in Henslowe, ii. 70. - -[345] _Dulwich MSS._ i. 9–15 (_Henslowe Papers_, 34); cf. Henslowe, i. -3. - -[346] Their patron was Edward Parker, Lord Morley (Murray, ii. 54). I -suspect the Morden of the York entry and the Norris of the Bath entry -of being both transcriber’s errors for Morley. No players of Lord -Norris are on record, and those of Lord Mordaunt (Murray, ii. 90) only -recur in 1585–6 and 1602. - -[347] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 130; on the nature of a ‘plott’, cf. -App. N. - -[348] The following rather hazardous identifications have been -attempted by Greg (_loc. cit._) and Fleay, 84: ‘Harry’ = Henry Condell -(Fleay, Greg); ‘Kit’ = Christopher Beeston (Fleay, Greg); ‘Saunder’ = -Alexander Cooke (Fleay, Greg); ‘Nick’ = Nicholas Tooley (Fleay, Greg); -‘Ro.’ or ‘R. Go.’ = Robert Gough (Fleay, Greg); ‘Ned’ = Edward Alleyn -or Edmund Shakespeare (Fleay); ‘Will’ = William Tawyer (Fleay), William -Tawler (Greg). The object is, of course, to establish the connexion -between Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s men. Both writers assign two of -the unallocated parts to Heminges and Shakespeare. - -[349] For speculation as to Shakespeare’s early career, cf. s.v. -Pembroke’s. - -[350] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 155. - -[351] George Fanner to H. Galdelli and G. Tusinga in _S. P. Dom. Eliz._ -cclxxi. 34, 35. I do not accept Mr. James Greenstreet’s theory that W. -Stanley was the real W. Shakespeare. - -[352] _Hatfield MSS._ xiii. 609. - -[353] Murray, i. 295. - -[354] Taylor, _Penniless Pilgrimage_ (ed. Hindley), 67. - -[355] _Dulwich MS._ i. 14, in _Henslowe Papers_, 40. - -[356] _Outlines_, i. 122; ii. 329. - -[357] Fleay, 136, ‘Pembroke’s men continued to act at the Curtain from -1589 to 1597’ is guesswork. - -[358] Henslowe, i. 131; cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Fulwell. - -[359] Cf. _infra_ (Chamberlain’s). Shank (cf. ch. xv) was once in -Pembroke’s. - -[360] The Council Register assigns this performance to the -Chamberlain’s; cf. App. B. - -[361] Fleay, _Sh._ 286, supposed Howard to be both Admiral and -Chamberlain at this date, but this view was refuted by -Halliwell-Phillipps in the _Athenaeum_ for 24 April 1886, and resigned -by Fleay, 31; cf. Greg, ii. 81. - -[362] I. H. Jeayes, _Letters of Philip Gawdy_ (Roxburghe Club), 23. - -[363] Stopes, _Hunnis_, 322, names payees in error. - -[364] Henslowe, ii. 83. - -[365] _Henslowe Papers_, 31. - -[366] _Alleyn Papers_, 11, 12; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 32. - -[367] _Alleyn Papers_, 1, 5. - -[368] Ibid. 54. - -[369] Henslowe, ii. 127. - -[370] Henslowe, i. 17. - -[371] Ibid. 198. - -[372] Ibid. 17. - -[373] Cf. the petitions assigned to 1592 (App. D, No. xcii). - -[374] They may represent n[ew] e[nterlude], or merely ne[w]. - -[375] Fleay, 140; Henslowe, ii. 84. - -[376] Henslowe, ii. 324. - -[377] Ibid. ii. 133. - -[378] Ibid. i. 126. - -[379] Ibid. i. 44. - -[380] Henslowe, i. 51; cf. Dr. Greg’s explanation in ii. 129 and my -criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 409. Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 361) has a -third explanation, that the figures represent the sharers’ takings. -But (_a_) these would not all pass through Henslowe’s hands, (_b_) the -amounts are often less than half the galleries, and (_c_) the columns -are blank for some days of playing. - -[381] I include _Belin Dun_, produced just before the separation of -the Admiral’s and the Chamberlain’s, in the fifty-five; but I do not -follow Dr. Greg in taking the sign ‘j’, which Henslowe attaches to -_Tamburlaine_ (30 Aug. 1594) and _Long Meg of Westminster_ (14 Feb. -1595) as equivalent to ‘ne’. Were it so, these would furnish two, and -the only two, examples of a second new production in a single week. -Probably ‘j’ indicates in both instances the _First Part_ of a two-part -play. This view is confirmed by Henslowe’s note on 10 March 1595, ‘17 -p[laies] frome hence lycensed’; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 408. - -[382] Variously entered as ‘olimpo’, ‘seleo & olempo’, ‘olempeo & -hengenyo’, &c.; but apparently only one play is meant. - -[383] _Alexander and Lodowick_ is actually entered for a second time as -‘ne’ on 11 Feb. 1597, but I have assumed this to be a mistake. - -[384] It has been chiefly played by Fleay and Dr. Greg. The relations -suggested are between _1 Caesar and Pompey_ and Chapman’s play of the -same name, _Disguises_ and Chapman’s _May-day_, _Godfrey of Bulloigne_ -and Heywood’s _Four Prentices of London_, _Olympo_, _1, 2 Hercules_, -and _Troy_ and Heywood’s _Golden_, _Silver_, _Brazen_, and _Iron Ages_ -respectively. _Five Plays in One_ and some of Heywood’s _Dialogues -and Dramas_, _The Wonder of a Woman_ and a supposed early version by -Heywood of W. Rowley’s _A New Wonder, or, A Woman Never Vexed_, _The -Venetian Comedy_ and both the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_ and -Dekker’s lost _Jew of Venice_, _Diocletian_ and Dekker’s _The Virgin -Martyr_, _A Set at Maw_ and Dekker’s _Match Me in London_, _The Mack_ -and Dekker’s _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, _Vortigern_ and Middleton’s -_The Mayor of Quinborough_, _Uther Pendragon_ and W. Rowley’s _Birth of -Merlin_, _Philipo and Hippolito_ and both Massinger’s lost _Philenzo -and Hypollita_ and the German _Julio und Hyppolita_. Full details will -be found in Henslowe, ii. 165 sqq. - -[385] Henslowe, i. 44, 128. - -[386] Possibly identical with _Mahomet_, if that was Peele’s play. Dr. -Greg’s identification with _The Love of an English Lady_ strikes me as -rather arbitrary. - -[387] I assume that ‘valy a for’ entered on 4 Jan. 1595 is the same -play. Conceivably it might be _Vallingford_, i. e. _Fair Em_, an old -Strange’s play. - -[388] An allusion in Field’s _Amends for Ladies_, ii. 1, shows that -_Long Meg_ still held the Fortune stage about 1611. - -[389] Possibly identical with _Longshanks_. - -[390] The relations suggested are between _The Love of a Grecian Lady_ -and the German _Tugend-und Liebesstreit_, _The French Doctor_ and both -Dekker’s _Jew of Venice_ and the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_, -_The Siege of London_ and Heywood’s _1 Edward IV_, _The Welshman_ and -R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_, _Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s_ and -Heywood’s _Timon_. For details cf. Henslowe, ii. 165 _sqq._ - -[391] This was on Whit-Tuesday 1596, and I rather suspect a mis-entry -of _iij_^s for _iij_^{li}, the exact amount taken for the plays of the -Monday and Wednesday in the same week. - -[392] Henslowe, i. 5. - -[393] Ibid. 44. - -[394] Ibid. 31, 45. - -[395] Henslowe, i. 29, 31, 43, 44, 199–201. - -[396] I see no reason to agree with Dr. Greg in identifying ‘Black -Dick’ with Jones, who would naturally have the ‘Mr.’; and the -suggestions that ‘Dick’ might be Dick Juby and that ‘Will’ might be -Will Barnes or Will Parr are mere guesses based on the occurrence of -these names in other ‘plots’. ‘Will’ might just as well be Will Kendall. - -[397] Henslowe, i. 45. - -[398] Henslowe’s entry is (i. 54), ‘Martin Slather went for the company -of my lord admeralles men the 18 of July 1597’. I think that ‘for’ must -be meant for ‘from’. Elsewhere (i. 66) Henslowe writes ‘for’ for ‘from’. - -[399] Henslowe, i. 47, 200. - -[400] Ibid. 201–4; _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 19 (a fragment from the -Diary). - -[401] Henslowe, ii. 89, 101. - -[402] Henslowe, i. 105, 131, 134. - -[403] Ibid. 40. - -[404] Ibid. 199–201. - -[405] App. D, No. cxii. - -[406] Henslowe, i. 54; _E. S._ xliii. 351. - -[407] Henslowe, i. 68–70. - -[408] Ibid. 82. - -[409] Ibid. ii. 91; cf. p. 200. - -[410] Henslowe, i. 69, 73; Wallace in _E. S._ xliii. 382. - -[411] Cf. p. 173. - -[412] Henslowe, i. 81, 122. - -[413] Ibid. 64, 67. - -[414] Ibid. 63, 79. - -[415] Henslowe, i. 72, ‘Lent W^m Borne to folowe the sewt agenste -Thomas Poope’; cf. i. 26, 38, 47–8, 56, 63–9, 71–8, 80, 201, 205; and -s.v. Pembroke’s. - -[416] Henslowe, i. 84. - -[417] During 1599–1602 Henslowe sometimes enters advances as made to -the company through ‘W^m’ Juby, and in two cases corrects the entry -by substituting ‘Edward’. As there is no other evidence for a William -Juby as an actor, not to speak of a sharer, either Henslowe must have -persistently mistaken the name, or William must have been a relative of -Edward, acting as his agent (cf. Henslowe, ii. 290). - -[418] _Henslowe Papers_, 48. - -[419] Henslowe, i. 26. - -[420] _Henslowe Papers_, 113. - -[421] Henslowe, i. 122. - -[422] Ibid. 122. - -[423] Ibid. 66, 68, 91, 108. - -[424] Ibid. 85. - -[425] Henslowe, i. 72. - -[426] Ibid. 63, 104. - -[427] Ibid. 118. - -[428] I find ‘Lorde Haywards’ men at Leicester during Oct.–Dec. 1599, -‘Lord Howardes’ at Bristol in 1599–1600, ‘Lord Heywardes’ at Bath in -the same year, ‘Lord Howards’ at Coventry on 28 Dec. 1599, and ‘Lord -Haywards’ in 1602–3. This must have been another company. The Admiral’s -were playing in London at the time of the Leicester and the earlier -Coventry visits, and Lord Howard of Effingham became Earl of Nottingham -on 22 Oct. 1596. They were at Canterbury in 1599–1600. - -[429] Henslowe, i. 120. - -[430] _Henslowe Papers_, 49; Henslowe, i. 113. - -[431] _Henslowe Papers_, 55; Henslowe, i. 122. - -[432] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135, 147. - -[433] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135. - -[434] _Henslowe Papers_, 56–8. - -[435] Henslowe, ii. 125. - -[436] Henslowe, i. 84–107. - -[437] Ibid. 103. - -[438] Henslowe, i. 83, 101, 119. - -[439] Ibid. ii. 124. - -[440] _Henslowe Papers_, 113, from Malone (1790), i. 2. 300; the -manuscript is now lost. The various sections of the document are -headed: (_a_) ‘The booke of the Inventary of the goods of my lord -Admeralles men, tacken the 10 of Marche in the yeare 1598’; (_b_) ‘The -Enventary of the Clownes sewtes and Hermetes Swetes, with dievers -others sewtes, as followeth, 1598, the 10 of March’; (_c_) ‘The -Enventary of all the aparell for my Lord Admiralles men, tacken the 10 -of Marche 1598--Leaft above in the tier-house in the cheast’; (_d_) -‘The Enventary tacken of all the properties for my Lord Admeralles men, -the 10 of Marche 1598’; (_e_) ‘The Enventorey of all the aparell of the -Lord Admeralles men, taken the 13^{th} of Marche 1598, as followeth’; -(_f_) ‘A Note of all suche bookes as belong to the Stocke, and such as -I have bought since the 3^d of Marche 1598’; (_g_) ‘A Note of all suche -goodes as I have bought for the Companey of my Lord Admirals men, sence -the 3 of Aprell, 1598, as followeth’. A comparison of the book-list -with the diary payments makes it clear that ‘1598’ is 1597/8 and not -1598/9. The last book entered was bought in Aug. 1598. An undated -inventory of Alleyn’s private theatrical wardrobe is in _Henslowe -Papers_, 52. - -[441] It should be borne in mind that these lists are based in part -upon a rather conjectural interpretation of evidence. Full details, for -which I have not space, will be found in Henslowe, ii. 186 _sqq._ I -have annotated a few points of interest. - -[442] So called in the book-inventory; in the diary it is _Triplicity -of Cuckolds_. - -[443] The first name appears in the inventory, the second in the diary. - -[444] Only £4 was paid ‘to by a boocke’, which is low for a new play -and high for an old one. Possibly Porter was in debt to the company. - -[445] Once described as ‘other wisse called worsse feared then hurte’, -whence Dr. Greg infers that the 1598–9 play of that name was a second -part of it. - -[446] So in the book-inventory; in the account it is only called _The -Cobler_. - -[447] Possibly _Strange Flattery_, but the manuscript is lost. - -[448] They had to buy _Mahomet_, _The Wise Man of West Chester_, -_Longshanks_, and _Vortigern_ from Alleyn in 1601 and 1602. - -[449] ‘the Mores lymes’, ‘iiij Turckes hedes’, ‘j Mores cotte’. - -[450] ‘iiij genesareys gownes’, ‘owld Mahemetes head’. - -[451] ‘Tamberlyne brydell’, ‘Tamberlynes cotte, with coper lace’, -‘Tamberlanes breches of crymson vellvet’. - -[452] ‘j cauderm for the Jewe’. - -[453] ‘j tree of gowlden apelles’. - -[454] ‘j whell and frame in the Sege of London’. - -[455] ‘Belendon stable’. - -[456] ‘Tasso picter’, ‘Tasoes robe’. - -[457] ‘senetores gowne’ and ‘capes’. - -[458] ‘Kents woden leage’. - -[459] ‘j mawe gowne of calleco for the quene’. - -[460] ‘j sewtte for Nepton’, ‘Nepun forcke & garland’. - -[461] ‘Harey the fyftes dublet’ and ‘vellet gowne’, ‘j payer of hosse -for the Dowlfyn’. - -[462] ‘j longe-shanckes sewte’. - -[463] ‘j great horse with his leages’. - -[464] ‘Vartemar sewtte’, ‘Valteger robe of rich tafitie’, ‘j payer of -hosse & a gercken for Valteger’, ‘ij Danes sewtes, and ij payer of -Danes hosse’. - -[465] ‘j tome of Guido’, ‘j cloth clocke of russete with coper lace, -called Guydoes clocke’. - -[466] ‘Merlen gowne, and cape’. - -[467] ‘my lord Caffes gercken & his hoose’. - -[468] These include ‘Argosse head’, ‘Andersones sewte’, ‘Will Sommers -sewtte’, ‘ij Orlates sewtes’, ‘Cathemer sewte’, ‘j Whittcomes dublett -poke’, ‘Nabesathe sewte’, ‘j Hell mought’, ‘the cloth of the Sone & -Mone’, ‘Tantelouse tre’, ‘Eves bodeyes’. Probably ‘Perowes sewte which -W^m Sley were’ dated back to the days of Strange’s men. After 3 April -1598 Henslowe bought, _inter alia_, ‘a gown for Nembia’ and ‘a robe for -to goo invisibell’. - -[469] It looks as if the book-inventory were not exhaustive; perhaps it -only includes books more or less in current use. - -[470] There is a self-contradictory entry, ‘to paye vnto M^r Willson -Monday & Deckers ... iiij^{ll} v^s in this maner Willson xxx^s -Cheattell xxx^s Mondy xxv^s’. - -[471] Regarded by Dr. Greg as _2 Hannibal and Hermes_. - -[472] I agree with Dr. Greg that this, for which Chapman had £4 in -1598–9, is probably identical with _The Isle of a Woman_, for which he -had had earnests of £4 or £4 10_s._ in 1597–8. - -[473] I think the play licensed as _Brute Grenshallde_ in March 1599 -was a second part written by Chettle to an old _1 Brute_ by Day, which -would not need re-licensing. - -[474] I do not see with what to identify the play licensed under this -name in March 1599 except the unnamed ‘playe boocke’ and ‘tragedie’, -for which Chapman had something under £9 in the previous Oct. and Jan. - -[475] The title _War without Blows and Love without Strife_ in one -entry is probably an error. - -[476] I agree with Dr. Greg that the entries point to two plays by -Chettle and Dekker rather than one. They are probably incomplete owing -to the hiatus in the manuscript. - -[477] Dr. Greg makes two plays of this, but the entry ‘his boocke -called the world rones a whelles & now all foolles but the foolle’ -seems unambiguous, and the total payments of £8 10_s._ are not too high -for a play by Chapman. - -[478] No importance can be attached to Mr. Fleay’s childish -identifications of _War without Blows and Love without Suit_, _Joan -as Good as my Lady_, and _The Four Kings_ with _The Thracian Wonder_, -Heywood’s _A Maidenhead well Lost_, and _Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_ -respectively. - -[479] So called in Drayton’s autograph receipt, but Henslowe calls it -_William Longbeard_. - -[480] Henslowe, i. 72, 78. - -[481] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Alleyn. - -[482] The only entry is of 15 July ‘to bye a boocke’, but the hiatus in -the manuscript probably conceals earlier payments. - -[483] Here also the hiatus has only left an entry of £2 ‘in full -payment’ on 1 Aug. Dr. Greg, however, would identify _Bear a Brain_ and -_The Gentle Craft_. - -[484] The entries are as follows: 2 Sept., ‘Thomas Deckers Bengemen -Johnson Hary Chettell & other Jentellman in earneste of a playe calle -Robart the second kinge of Scottes tragedie’; 15 Sept., ‘in earneste -of a boocke called the Scottes tragedi vnto Thomas Dickers & Harey -Chettell’; 16 Sept., ‘Hary Chettell ... in earneste of a boocke called -the Scottes tragedie’; 27 Sept., ‘Bengemen Johnsone in earneste of a -boocke called the Scottes tragedie’; 28 Sept., ‘vnto M^r Maxton the new -poete in earneste of a boocke called [blank]’. Dr. Greg resists the -fairly reasonable identification of ‘M^r Maxton the new poete’ with the -‘other Jentellman’. All the payments are called earnests, but the total -is £6 10_s._ and therefore the play probably existed. - -[485] ‘Lent vnto me W Birde the 9 of Februarye to paye for a new booke -to Will Boyle cald Jugurth xxx^s which if you dislike Ile repaye it -back.’ The price is the lowest ever entered for a ‘new’ book. Mr. -Fleay’s suggestion that Will Bird, who already had one alias in Will -Borne, was also himself Will Boyle, is one of those irresponsible -guesses by which he has done so much to make hay of theatrical history. - -[486] Both parts were entered on the Stationers’ Register, but no copy -of _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ is known. - -[487] _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 236, f. 77^v (_c._ 1600), has Forman’s note of -the ‘plai of Cox of Cullinton and his 3 sons, Henry Peter and Jhon’. - -[488] _Henslowe Papers_, 49. - -[489] This was taken up again in 1601, but still not finished. Dr. -Greg, however, thinks that it is identical with Day’s Italian tragedy, -and forms half of _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (1601), and that Chettle’s -work in 1601 may have been the effecting of the combination with -_Thomas Merry_. - -[490] Dr. Greg, following Mr. Fleay, identifies this with Dekker’s -_Whore of Babylon_, and as Time is a character in this play, cites the -purchase of ‘a Robe for tyme’ in April 1600 as a proof that it was then -performed. Time, however, might also have been a character in _The -Seven Wise Masters_. - -[491] Possibly finished later and identical with the pseudo-Marlowesque -_Lust’s Dominion_. - -[492] The payment-entry is cancelled. The play may have been finished -for another company, and be identical with the extant _Grim, the -Collier of Croydon_, or, _The Devil and his Dame_. - -[493] Possibly the basis of Bird and Rowley’s _Judas_ of 1601. - -[494] It seems to me a little arbitrary of Dr. Greg to assume that the -10_s._ entered as an earnest for this was really a bonus on _1 The -Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_. - -[495] _Henslowe Papers_, 51. I do not think that Dr. Greg recognizes -the full significance of this when he suggests (Henslowe, ii. 94) that -Alleyn was back on the stage by 1598; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ -iv. 410. Dr. Greg relies mainly on the appearance of his name in the -plot of _The Battle of Alcazar_, which, he says, ‘almost certainly -belongs to 1598’. But I can find no reason why it should not belong to -1600–2; cf. p. 175. - -[496] Henslowe, i. 56. - -[497] Ibid. 162. - -[498] Ibid. 141. - -[499] Ibid. 144, 165, 174. - -[500] Ibid. 134, 136, 140, 147. - -[501] Dr. Greg puts it in 1598, on the assumption that Alleyn returned -to the stage in that year. It might conceivably belong to 1597, between -18 Dec., when Bristow was bought, and 29 Dec., by which day Alleyn had -left. It cannot be later than Feb. 1602, by which month Jones and Shaw -had left. The prefix ‘M^r’ allotted to Charles and Sam is in favour -of a date after their agreements on 16 Nov. 1598. Dr. Greg’s argument -(_Henslowe Papers_, 138) that Kendall’s agreement expired 7 Dec. 1599 -is not convincing, as there was nothing in it to prevent him from -staying on, and the satire of the play in Jonson’s _Poetaster_ of 1601, -to which he refers, obviously tells in favour of a date nearer to 1601 -than 1598. - -[502] Henslowe, i. 38. - -[503] Ibid. 131, 134. - -[504] Ibid. 164. - -[505] Ibid. 205. - -[506] Cf. ch. x. - -[507] The entry is ‘Thomas Deckers for his boocke called the fortewn -tenes’. Collier read ‘forteion tenes’ and interpreted _Fortunatus_. Mr. -Fleay furnished the alternatives of _Fortune’s Tennis_ and _Hortenzo’s -Tennis_. I should add that Dr. Greg assigns the ‘plot’ to this play. - -[508] Dr. Greg thinks that this may be the same as Haughton’s _The -English Fugitives_ of the previous April. If so, it was probably -finished, as the payments amount to £6. - -[509] As the account of advances is continuous, I have drawn the line -between 1600–1 and 1601–2 at the beginning of Aug. 1601. - -[510] _The Life_ became _2 Cardinal Wolsey_, as _The Rising_, although -written later, was historically _1 Cardinal Wolsey_. The entries are -complicated. It is just possible that the playwrights were working -on an old play, for the property-inventories of 1598 include an -unexplained ‘Will Sommers sewtte’ (cf. p. 168). A ‘W^m Someres cotte’ -was, however, bought for _The Rising_ on 27 May 1602. - -[511] Possibly based on Haughton’s unfinished play of 1600. - -[512] A note preserved at Dulwich (_Henslowe Papers_, 58) indicates -that licensing fees were in arrear on 4 Aug. 1602 for ‘baxsters -tragedy, Tobias Comedy, Jepha Judg of Israel & the Cardinall, Loue -parts frendshipp’. But of course Warner’s identification of ‘baxsters -tragedy’ with _The Bristol Tragedy_ is conjectural. - -[513] There is no _1 Tom Dough_, unless this was an intended sequel to -_The Six Yeomen of the West_. - -[514] Already begun by Chettle in 1599. - -[515] This may be identical with _1 The Six Clothiers_, which is not -called by Henslowe a ‘first part’, if, as is possible, that was a -sequel to _The Six Yeomen of the West_. - -[516] Possibly finished later as Dekker and Rowley’s _The Noble -Spanish Soldier_. But it may have been an old play re-written, for C. -R. Baskervill (_M. P._ xiv. 16) quotes from the preface to H. O.’s -translation of Vasco Figueiro’s _Spaniard’s Monarchie_ (1592), ‘albeit -it hath no title fetched from the Bull within Bishopsgate, as a figge -for a Spaniard’. - -[517] I suppose this was unfinished. The only entry is on 22 June 1602, -‘vnto Bengemy Johnsone ... in earneste of a boocke called Richard -Crockbacke & for new adicyons for Jeronymo the some of x^{ll}’. Jonson -had already had £2 on 25 Sept. 1601 ‘vpon his writtinge of his adicians -in Geronymo’. Unless _Richard Crookback_ was nearly complete, his -prices must have risen a good deal. - -[518] Possibly finished later as _Hoffman_ (1631). - -[519] The £4 paid was cancelled and then reinstated, but the book was -evidently transferred to Worcester’s men (cf. p. 227). - -[520] Cf. p. 168. - -[521] Cf. vol. i, p. 323. _The Massacre_ was printed (N.D.) as an -Admiral’s play. - -[522] The conjectural rendering of Henslowe’s ‘ponesciones pillet’ -finds support from the presence of garments for ‘Caffes’ or Caiaphas in -the inventory of 1598; cf. p. 168. - -[523] A payment to ‘John Daye & his felowe poetes’ implies at least -three collaborators. - -[524] For _Samson_ cf. p. 367. - -[525] All four entries merely show the payments as made to ‘Antony the -poyete’. - -[526] Finished later and extant; probably identical with the _Danish -Tragedy_ of 1601–2. - -[527] I suppose that it was the play which Chettle ‘layd vnto pane’ to -Mr. Bromfield, and which had to be redeemed for £1 (Henslowe, i. 174). - -[528] The more so as I do not think that Dr. Greg’s survey in Henslowe. -ii. 135, is accurate. - -[529] Henslowe made the total £167 7_s._ 7_d._, but evidently the error -was detected, as only £166 17_s._ 7_d._ was carried forward. - -[530] Henslowe, ii. 133. Apparently Henslowe reverted to the plan of -deducting three-quarters only, at the beginning of 1599–1600, but only -for a fortnight, as the receipts from 20 Oct. are headed, ‘Heare I -begane to receue the gallereys agayne which they receued begynynge at -Myhellmas wecke being the 6 of October 1599’. - -[531] I have disregarded an error of 15_s._ made by Henslowe. - -[532] Henslowe, i. 85, 145. - -[533] Ibid. ii. 33. - -[534] Henslowe, i. 29, 47, 81, 96, 97, 118, 124, 136, 138, 144, 146, -148, 152, 153, 166, 172, &c. - -[535] The exact date is uncertain, as they do not appear to have had a -patent until 1606; but it must lie between their visit to Leicester as -the Admiral’s on 18 Aug. 1603 and the making out of a warrant to them -as the Prince’s men on 19 Feb. 1604 for their Christmas plays. - -[536] _N. Sh. Soc. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 17*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s -Books_, 58^a. - -[537] Cf. ch. xvi (Hope). - -[538] On the legend that he had developed moral scruples about the -stage, cf. s.v. Marlowe, _Dr. Faustus_. - -[539] _Henslowe Papers_, 18. - -[540] _Dulwich MS._ iii. 15. - -[541] _Henslowe Papers_, 13; cf. ch. xvi, s.v. _Fortune_. - -[542] _Henslowe Papers_, 63. - -[543] Ibid. 85. - -[544] _M. S. C._ i. 268, from _P. R. 4 Jac. I_, pt. 19; also printed by -T. E. Tomlins, and dated in error 1607, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 42. - -[545] Birch, _Life of Henry_, 455; Greg, _Gentleman’s Magazine_, ccc. -67, from _Harl. MS._ 252, f. 5, dated 1610. - -[546] Henslowe, i. 175. - -[547] Ibid. 214. - -[548] There may be an allusion to this play in H. Parrot, _Laquei -Ridiculosi, Springes for Woodcocks_ (1613), ii. 162: - - ’Tis said that _Whittington_ was rais’d of nought, - And by a cat hath divers wonders wrought: - But _Fortune_ (not his cat) makes it appear, - He may dispend a thousand marks a year. - -Dr. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 65) has dispersed Collier’s myth of one -Whittington ‘perhaps a sleeping partner in the speculation of the -Fortune’. - -[549] Most of the play-dates of 1605–12 are in Apps. A and B. - -[550] _A. for L._ II. i. In III. iv a drawer says, ‘all the gentlewomen -[from Bess Turnup’s] went to see a play at the Fortune, and are not -come in yet, and she believes they sup with the players’. - -[551] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Garlick. - -[552] Nichols, _James_, ii. 495. - -[553] _M. S. C._ i. 275, from _P. R. 10 Jac. I_, pt. 25; also from -signet bill in Collier, i. 366, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 44. Greg -(_Henslowe_, ii. 263) notes copies in _Addl. MS._ 24502, f. 60^v, and -_Lincoln’s Inn MS._ clviii. - -[554] _Henslowe Papers_, 106. - -[555] Ibid. 64. - -[556] _Fennor’s Defence, or I am Your First Man_ (Taylor’s _Works_, -1630, ed. _Spenser Soc._ 314). The 1659 print of the _Blind Beggar -of Bethnal Green_ has at l. 2177, ‘Enter ... Captain Westford, Sill -Clark’. The title-page professes to give the play as acted by the -Prince’s men, but whether Clark was an actor of 1603–12 or not must -remain doubtful. - -[557] Henslowe, i. 17; cf. p. 140. - -[558] Cf. App. D, No. ci. It is not ‘my newe companie’, as it is -sometimes misprinted. But I do not think that either term can be -interpreted as showing that the company had or had not a corporate -existence before it came under Hunsdon’s patronage. The use which the -company ‘have byn accustomed’ to make of the inn is only related to -‘this winter time’. - -[559] The dates here assigned to Shakespeare’s plays are mainly based -on the conclusions of my article on Shakespeare in the _Encyclopaedia -Britannica_. - -[560] Cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _Gesta Grayorum_ and _M. L. R._ ii. 11. - -[561] Cf. my paper on _The Occasion of A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_ in -_Shakespeare Homage_, 154, and App. A. - -[562] I have recently found confirmation of the date for _Rich. II_ in -a letter from Sir Edward Hoby inviting Sir R. Cecil to his house in -Canon Row on 9 Dec. 1595, ‘where, as late as shall please you, a gate -for your supper shall be open, and K. Richard present himself to your -view’ (_Hatfield MSS._ v. 487). - -[563] T. Lodge, _Wits Miserie_ (S. R. 5 May 1596), 56, ‘the Visard of -y^e ghost which cried so miserably at y^e Theator, like an oister wife, -Hamlet, revenge’. - -[564] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). There is a slight doubt as to the -authenticity of the text of the petition, which the inclusion of -Lord Hunsdon’s name can only emphasize. But the fact of the petition -and its result are vouched for by a City document of later date. The -counter-petition of the players published by Collier, i. 288, in which -they are misdescribed as the Lord Chamberlain’s men, is a forgery. -The names given are those of Pope, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, -Shakespeare, Kempe, Sly, and Tooley. There is nothing to connect Tooley -with the company before 1605. - -[565] Cf. App. D, No. cvi. - -[566] For the distinction between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ quartos, cf. ch. -xxii. - -[567] R. James (c. 1625), in the dedication to his manuscript _Legend -of Sir John Oldcastle_ (quoted by Ingleby, _Shakespeare’s Centurie -of Praise_, 165), says, ‘offence beinge worthily taken by Personages -descended from his title’. - -[568] Raleigh wrote to R. Cecil on 6 July 1597 that Essex was -‘wonderful merry at your conceit of Richard II’ (Edwardes, ii. 169); -for the later history of the play, _vide infra_. - -[569] Cf. ch. xvi (Curtain). - -[570] App. C, No. lii. - -[571] Aubrey, ii. 12. The same writer is obviously confused when he -says, on the authority of Sir Edward Shirburn, that Jonson ‘killed M^r -Marlow the poet, on Bunhill, comeing from the Green-Curtain play-house’. - -[572] Cf. ch. x. There is no reason to suppose that the Richard Hoope, -W^m Blackwage, Rafe Raye, and W^m Ferney, to whom Henslowe lent money -as ‘my lord chamberlenes men’ in 1595 (Henslowe, i. 5, 6), were actors. -In fact Raye was a ‘man’ of Hunsdon’s before the company was in -existence at all (Henslowe, ii. 305). - -[573] The order of the Shakespearian actors named in the 1623 Folio, -and the omission of the names of Duke and Beeston, rather suggests that -these two were hired men, and that there were ten original sharers, -Shakespeare, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Kempe, Pope, Bryan, Condell, -Sly, and Cowley. - -[574] App. C. No. xlviii. - -[575] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[576] Henslowe, i. 72. - -[577] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[578] Malone, _Variorum_, ii. 166; Fleay, _L. and W._ 8. - -[579] _Hen. V_, epil. 12. - -[580] That the _Famous Victories_ was reprinted in 1617 as a King’s -men’s play proves nothing. It was to pass as _Henry V_; obviously the -King’s men never acted it, _Henry V_ being in existence. - -[581] Henslowe, i. 72, 101. - -[582] For further details, cf. ch. xvi (Globe). - -[583] Cf. ch. xvi, introd. - -[584] Fleay, 138; cf. Murray, ii. 125; Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 108. A -loan of 21 Sept. 1600 by Henslowe (i. 132) to Duke is only slight -evidence, and the fact that Anne’s men chose to revive the already -printed _Edward II_, once a Pembroke’s play, even slighter. - -[585] Cf. ch. xv. - -[586] Cf. ch. vii. - -[587] Cf. ch. xxii. - -[588] _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxviii. 72, 78, 85. Accounts consistent -with this are given in depositions of Sir W. Constable and Sir Gilly -Meyrick (ibid.), Camden, _Annales_, 867, Cobbett, _State Trials_, i. -1445, and Bacon, _A Declaration of the Practices and Treasons attempted -and committed by Robert late Earl of Essex and his Complices_ (1601; -_Works_, ix. 289). - -[589] Fleay, 123, 136; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 12. - -[590] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland). - -[591] For the texts cf. ch. xi. - -[592] W. H. Griffin in _Academy_ for 25 April 1896, suggests that the -‘innovation’ of 1604 was the same as the ‘noveltie’ of 1603, i.e. -the setting up of child actors. But I am afraid that this leaves -‘inhibition’ without a meaning. - -[593] Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 552, prints, perhaps from a manuscript of -Lord De La Warr’s (_Hist. MSS._ iv. 300), a note by W. Lambarde of a -conversation with the Queen on 4 Aug. 1601, ‘Her Majestie fell upon the -reign of King Richard II, saying, I am Richard II, know ye not that? -_W. L._ Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a -most unkind Gent. the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie -made. _Her Majestie._ He that will forget God, will also forget his -benefactors; this tragedy was played 40^{tie} times in open streets and -houses’. The performances here referred to must have been in 1596–7, -not 1601. - -[594] Cf. ch. xi. - -[595] J. Manningham, _Diary_, 18. - -[596] Cf. App. A. - -[597] Collier, _New Particulars_, 57, and _Egerton Papers_, 343, ‘6 -August 1602 Rewardes ... x^{li} to Burbidges players for Othello’; cf. -Ingleby, 262. - -[598] Wallace, ii, 108; cf. p. 367. - -[599] Cf. ch. xv (Kempe). - -[600] Cf. ch. ii. - -[601] G. Dugdale, _Time Triumphant_ (1604), sig. B. - -[602] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 264, from _P. R. 1 Jac. I_, _pars 2_, -_membr. 4_; also in Rymer, xvi. 505, and Halliwell, _Illustr. 83_. -Halliwell also prints the practically identical texts of the Privy -Signet Bill, dated 17 May, and the Privy Seal, dated 18 May. The former -is also in Collier, i. 334, Hazlitt, 38, and Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. -82. - -[603] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland). - -[604] Except in one of Collier’s Blackfriars forgeries; cf. ch. xvi. - -[605] W. Cory (_Letters and Journals_, 168) was told on a visit to -Wilton in 1865 that a letter existed there, naming Shakespeare as -present and the play as _As You Like It_; but the letter cannot now be -found. - -[606] Marston, _Malcontent_, Ind. 82. - -[607] Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 36, ‘Give him leaue to see the Merry -Deuil of Edmonton or A Woman Killed with Kindness’. - -[608] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1877–9), 15*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s -Records_, vol. 58^a, now ix. 4 (5); cf. Law (_ut infra_), 10. Collier, -_Memoirs of Alleyn_, 68, printed a list headed ‘Ks Company’ from the -margin of the copy of the Privy Council order of 9 April 1604 at -Dulwich. This is a forgery. To the nine genuine names Collier added -those of Hostler and Day. The former joined the company some years -later, the latter never; cf. Ingleby, 269. - -[609] App. B; cf. E. Law, _Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber_ -(1910), and the Spanish narrative in _Colección de Documentos inéditos -para la historia de España_, lxxi. 467. - -[610] Cf. ch. x. - -[611] For the exact dates and the difficult critical questions raised -by the records, cf. App. B. - -[612] Cf. App. B. - -[613] Clode, _Early Hist. of Merchant Taylors_, i. 290, ‘To M^r -Hemmyngs for his direccion of his boy that made the speech to his -Maiestie 40^s, and 6^s given to John Rise the speaker’; cf. ch. iv. - -[614] Cf. ch. x. - -[615] App. C, No. lvii. - -[616] Cf. ch. xii (Queen’s Revels). - -[617] Fleay, 173, and Murray, i. 152, are wrong in saying that there -were no Court plays this year; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 154. - -[618] Rye, 61, from narrative of tour of Lewis Frederick, Duke of -Württemberg, ‘Lundi, 30 [Apr.] S. E. alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire -où l’on joue les Commedies, y fut representé l’histoire du More de -Venise’. Forman’s accounts of _Macbeth_ from _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, -f. 207, and of _Cymbeline_ from the preceding leaf, but undated, are -printed in _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 417. - -[619] Fleay, 190, says that Ecclestone came from the Queen’s Revels. I -think he must have confused him with Field. - -[620] Perhaps his place between Ostler and Underwood in the actor-list -of the 1623 Folio gives some confirmation to the statement of the -Burbadges; cf. p. 219. - -[621] Cf. ch. iv. - -[622] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 415, from Simon Forman’s notes in -_Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, f. 200. - -[623] For the precise dates and their difficulties, cf. App. B. - -[624] Clode, _Early Hist. of the Merchant Taylors_, i. 334. - -[625] Text in _M. S. C._ i. 280, from Signet Bill in _Exchequer, -Treasury of Receipt, Privy Seals, 17 Jac. I_, Bundle ix, No. 2; also in -Collier, i. 400, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 50. - -[626] Tawyer, a ‘man’ of Heminges’s, played in some revival of _M. N. -D._ before 1623, but not necessarily before 1619 (cf. ch. xv). - -[627] _M. L. R._ iv. 395. - -[628] Downes, 21, 24. Nevertheless, Taylor did not join the King’s men -until three years after Shakespeare’s death. - -[629] Murray, i. 56, adds 1563–83 records. - -[630] G. Le B. Smith, _Haddon Hall_, 121. - -[631] Kelly, 211, from _Leicester Hall Papers_, i, ff. 38, 42; _Hist. -MSS._ viii. 1, 431. The latter part of the record, from the Earl’s -licence onwards, was given by Halliwell in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 145, -but with the date 1586, due to a misprint of ‘28^o Eliz.’ for ‘25^o -Eliz.’ in the licence. This has misled Fleay, 86, and other writers. -Maas, 49, and M. Bateson, _Records of Leicester_, iii. 198, introduce -fresh errors of their own. - -[632] Gildersleeve, 53. - -[633] Cf. ch. ix and App. D, No. lvi. - -[634] Halliwell-Phillipps, _Notices of Players Acting at Ludlow_; B. S. -Penley, _The Bath Stage_, 12, from account for year ending 16 June 1584. - -[635] Lord Herbert was, of course, Worcester’s son; not, as Dr. Greg -(Henslowe, ii. 104) seems to think, one of the Pembroke family. - -[636] _Henslowe Papers_, 31; cf. _supra_ (Admiral’s). - -[637] Fleay, 87. - -[638] Murray, i. 58, adds 1589–94 records. - -[639] App. D, No. cxxx. - -[640] Henslowe, i. 179. As Henslowe paid 7_s._ ‘for my Lo^r Worsters -mens warant for playinge at the cort vnto the clarke of the cownselles -for geatynge the cownselles handes to yt’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 108), and -the only warrant to these men was dated 28 Feb. 1602, the connexion -with Henslowe probably began while they were still at the Boar’s Head. - -[641] Henslowe, i. 160, 190. - -[642] Cf. _supra_ (Chamberlain’s). - -[643] Henslowe, i. 132, 163. - -[644] Ibid. 177. - -[645] Ibid. 178, ‘Lent vnto Richard Perckens the 4 of September 1602 to -buy thinges for Thomas Hewode play & to lend vnto Dick Syferweste to -ride downe to his felowes’. This is, of course, a private loan, and not -in the company’s account. - -[646] Called in the earlier entries _The Two Brothers_. - -[647] The two names do not occur together, but almost certainly -indicate the same play. - -[648] Spelt ‘Burone’ and ‘Berowne’ in the entries. - -[649] Henslowe, i. 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190. - -[650] Cf. p. 7. A further notice of the transfer is given by Thomas -Heywood, Γυναικεῖον _or General History of Women_ (1624), who says that -he was one of Worcester’s men, who at James’s accession ‘bestowed me -upon the excellent princesse Queen Anne’. - -[651] _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 16*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s -Books_, 58^a. In August the company served as grooms of the chamber -(App. B). - -[652] In assigning Kempe to the Queen’s Revels in 1605, Dr. Greg -(Henslowe, ii. 108) has been tripped up by one of Collier’s forgeries; -cf. my review in _M. L. R._ iv. 408. - -[653] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 265, from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, ii. 100; -also by Collier, i. 336, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _Illustrations_, 106. -It is a rough draft full of deletions, marked by square brackets, and -of additions, printed in italics, in the text. The theory of Fleay, -191, that the document is a forgery is disposed of by Greg, _Henslowe’s -Diary_, ii. 107. - -[654] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 270, from _P. R. 7 Jac. I_, pt. 39; also -from _P. R._, but misdescribed as a Privy Seal, by T. E. Tomlins in -_Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 45. The Signet Bill is indexed under April 1609 -in Phillimore, 104. - -[655] Cf. App. B. - -[656] _Rutland MSS._ iv. 461. They stayed two days, and gave four -performances. - -[657] Kelly, 248, ‘Item the vj^{th} of June given to the Queenes -Players xl^s.... Item the xxj^{th} of Auguste given to the Children of -the Revells xx^s. Item the xxvj^{th} of September given to one other -Companye of the Queenes playors xx^s.’ - -[658] Murray, ii. 245, ‘paid to the Queenes players to Thomas Swinerton -xl^s’. - -[659] Murray, ii. 340, from Mayor’s Court Books (18 April 1614), -‘Swynnerton one of the Quenes players in the name of himselfe & the -rest of his company desyred leaue to play in the cytty accordinge to -his Maiesties Lettres patents shewed forth. And M^r Maior & Court moved -them to play onely on Wednesday, Thursday & Fryday in Easter weke.’ - -[660] Murray, ibid. (6 May 1615), ‘Thomas Swynnerton produced this day -Letters Patents dated the x^{th} [? xv^{th}] of Aprill Anno Septimo -Jacobi whereby hee & others are authorised to play as the Quenes men, -vidz. Thomas Grene, Christofer Breston [? Beeston], Thomas Haywood, -Richard Pyrkyns, Rob^t. Pallant, Tho. Swynnerton, John Duke, Robt. Lee, -James Hoult, & Robt. Breston [? Beeston].’ - -[661] Kelly, 252, ‘Item given to the Queenes Maiesties Highnes Playors -xl^s.... Item the xvj^{th} daye of October Given to the Queenes Playors -xl^s. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors xxx^s.’ - -[662] Murray, ii. 340 (30 March 1616), ‘A Patent was this day brought -into the Court by Thomas Swynerton made to Thomas Grene ... & Robert -Beeston Servants to Quene Anne & the rest of their associats bearing -Teste xv^o Aprilis Anno Septimo Jacobi. But the said Swynerton -confesseth that hee himselfe & Robert Lee only are here to play the -rest are absent....’; (29 May 1616), ‘Thomas Swynerton came this day -into the Court & affirmed himselfe to be one of the players to the -Quenes Maiestie & bringinge with him no patent desyred to haue leaue -to play here ... the same company had liberty to play here at Easter -last....’ Leave was refused on this occasion. - -[663] Kelly, 253, ‘Item the sixt of Februarye given to the Queenes -Playors. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors’. - -[664] _Hist. MSS._ xi. 3. 26. - -[665] App. D, No. clviii; cf. Murray, ii. 343. - -[666] Murray, i. 204. - -[667] Kelly, 254. - -[668] Collier, i. 397, from a manuscript at Bridgewater House. - -[669] Fleay, 192, guesses that her first husband was Robert Browne of -the 1583 Worcester’s company. As Queen Anne’s men played at the Boar’s -Head, he is very likely to have been the ‘Browne of the Boares head’ -who ‘dyed very pore’ in the plague of 1603 (_Henslowe Papers_, 59). - -[670] Murray, i. 193, appears to date this list _c._ 1612, and the -allegation in the Bill (Fleay, 275) that the pensions were paid for -five years supports this. But it cannot be earlier than 1613 as Read -was still with the Lady Elizabeth’s in that year. Nor does it include -Lee, who was payee for the Queen’s in 1614–16. It clearly belongs to -the 1616 settlement. - -[671] ‘Goodman Freshwater’ was furnishing stuffs to Worcester’s men in -1602–3 (Henslowe, i. 179, 187). - -[672] Sanderson may be the ‘Sands’ who played with ‘Ellis’ [Worth] in -Daborne’s _Poor Man’s Comfort_ (q.v.), about 1617. Or James Sands, -formerly a boy with the King’s men, may have come to the Queen’s. - -[673] Adams, 351. - -[674] _M. S. C._ i. 272, from _P. R. 8 Jac. I_, p. 8; also printed by -T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 47. - -[675] Fleay, 188. - -[676] Murray, i. 239, confuses the Duke’s with Lord Aubigny’s men. - -[677] A letter, probably originally from Dulwich, but now _Egerton -MS._ 2623, f. 25 (printed in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 18, and _Henslowe -Papers_, 126), is signed by William Rowley, as well as by Taylor and -Pallant, and must therefore be later than this amalgamation, and not, -as Dr. Greg suggests, from the Lady Elizabeth’s _c._ 1613. It confirms -a purchase of clothes from Henslowe for £55. - -[678] Text in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 127; abstract in _Henslowe -Papers_, 90. - -[679] _N. S. S. Trans. 1877–9_, 19*; cf. Fleay, 265. Collier, i. 406, -has an elegy by William Rowley on Hugh Attwell, servant to Prince -Charles, who died 25 Sept. 1621. - -[680] App. D, No. clviii. - -[681] _Henslowe Papers_, 93. - -[682] _M. S. C._ i. 274, from _P. R. 9 Jac. I_, p. 20. - -[683] _Henslowe Papers_, 18, 111. - -[684] Cf. App. B. - -[685] _Henslowe Papers_, 86, from _Dulwich MS._ i. 106; also printed in -_Variorum_, xxi. 416, and Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 78. - -[686] Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 58, 87, thinks that the ‘Baxter’ of the -Grievances was William Barksted or Backstede. It may be so. - -[687] Thorndike, 66, thinks that the list belongs to an earlier -production by the Queen’s Revels before 30 March 1610, when Taylor -joined the Duke of York’s. But there is no evidence that he was ever in -the Queen’s Revels. - -[688] _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 125; A. E. H. Swaen, _Robert Daborne’s -Plays_ (_Anglia_, xx. 153). The account in Fleay, i. 75, is full of -inaccuracies. The documents now form separate articles of _Dulwich MS._ -1. All, unless otherwise specified below, are letters or undertakings -from Daborne to Henslowe. Most of them are dated, and I think that the -following ordering, due to Dr. Greg, is reasonable: (i) Art. 70, 17 -Apr. 1613; (ii) Art. 71, 17 Apr. 1613; (iii) Art. 72, 25 Apr. 1613; -(iv) Art. 73, 3 May 1613; (v) Art. 74, 8 May 1613; (vi) Art. 75, 16 May -1613; (vii) Art. 77, 19 May 1613; (viii) Art. 78, 5 June 1613; (ix) -Art. 79, 10 June 1613; (xi) Art. 80, 18 June 1613; (xii) Art. 81, 25 -June 1613; (xiii)? Art. 100, Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xiv)? Art. 69, -Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xv)? Art. 68, Field, Daborne, and Massinger -to Henslowe, N.D.; (xvi) Art. 82, 16 July 1613; (xvii) Art. 83, 30 July -1613; (xviii)? Art. 76, N.D.; (xix)? Art. 99, Daborne to Edward Griffin -(Henslowe’s scrivener), N.D.; (xx). Art. 84, 23 Aug. 1613; (xxi) Art. -85, 14 Oct. 1613; (xxii) Art. 86, 29 Oct. 1613; (xxiii) Art. 87, 5 -Nov. 1613; (xxiv) Art. 88, 13 Nov. 1613; (xxv) Art. 89, 13 Nov. 1613; -(xxvi). Art. 90, 27 Nov. 1613; (xxvii) Art. 91, 9 Dec. 1613; (xxviii) -Art. 92, 10 Dec. 1613; (xxix) Art. 93, 24 Dec. 1613; (xxx)? Art. 95, -N.D.; (xxxi) Art. 94, 31 Dec. 1613; (xxxii) Art. 96, 11 Mar. 1614; -(xxxiii) Art. 97, 28 Mar. 1614; (xxxiv), Art. 98, 31 July 1614. - -[689] _Henslowe Papers_, 68. - -[690] _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 16; _Henslowe Papers_, 125, from _Egerton -MS._ 2623, f. 24. This document cannot be dated, but it has probably -been detached from the Dulwich series. - -[691] _Henslowe Papers_, 82. - -[692] Ibid. 71. I should suppose this, rather than, with Dr. Greg, -_Bartholomew Fair_, to be the ‘Johnsons play’ contemplated on 13 Nov. -(_Henslowe Papers_, 78), but others of Jonson’s plays may also have -been revived. - -[693] Ibid. 69, 70. - -[694] Ibid. 71, 103, 111. - -[695] Ibid. 76, 77, 78. - -[696] Ibid. 71. - -[697] Dr. Greg (_Henslowe Papers_, 75) makes them the same play, -founded on Dekker’s tracts, _The Bellman of London_ (1608) and -_Lanthorn and Candlelight, or the Bellman’s Second Night-walk_ (1609), -but _The Arraignment_ seems to have been too nearly finished on 5 June -for this identification (_Henslowe Papers_, 72). - -[698] Still more so the ascription (Fleay, i. 81) of _The Faithful -Friends_ to Daborne and the Lady Elizabeth’s men. - -[699] _Henslowe Papers_, 23; also in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 118. -A few additional lines, much mutilated, appear to have provided for the -allocation of half the daily takings of the galleries to the discharge -of a debt of £124 due to Henslowe and Meade and of any further -disbursements by them. This agrees with the Dawes articles _infra_, but -the Articles of Grievance refer to a debt of £126. - -[700] Fleay, 187; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 87, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. -138. - -[701] Cf. p. 240. - -[702] _Henslowe Papers_, 82. - -[703] Ibid. 123, from _Variorum_, xxi. 413; also in Collier, _Alleyn -Papers_, 75. The original, formerly at Dulwich, is now missing. - -[704] _Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79. - -[705] I agree with Dr. Greg that the ‘fower’ in Dawes’s articles is -probably a mistake for ‘fourteen’. - -[706] _Bartholomew Fair_, v. 3, ‘I thinke, one Taylor, would goe neere -to beat all this company, with a hand bound behinde him’. - -[707] Ibid. _Cokes._ Which is your Burbage now? - - _Lanterne._ What meane you by that, Sir? - - _Cokes._ Your best Actor. Your Field? - -[708] Murray, ii. 254. This, however, was probably Long’s company; v. -_infra_. - -[709] Robert Pallant, one of the company, is noted (Henslowe, ii. 20) -as visiting Henslowe on his death-bed. - -[710] _Variorum_, iii. 59. - -[711] App. D, No. clviii. - -[712] Murray, i. 263; ii. 4. I add Belvoir on 1 March 1614. - -[713] Cunningham, xliv. - -[714] Murray, ii. 344. - -[715] Lawrence, i. 128 (_Early French Players in England_). One can -hardly, I suppose, assume that the Turkish acrobat of 1589–90 (cf. ch. -xviii) was a real Turk. - -[716] J. A. Lester, _Italian Players in Scotland_ (_M. L. N._ xxiii. -240), traces _histriones_, whom he unjustifiably assumes to be actors, -and _tubicines_ in 1514–61. - -[717] _S. P. F._ (1569–71), 413. - -[718] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 302. - -[719] Murray, ii. 374. - -[720] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 225, 227, 458. - -[721] Furnivall, _Robert Laneham’s Letter_, 18. - -[722] Cf. App. B. - -[723] Smith, 148, makes him then head of the Gelosi, but the -authorities she cites do not bear her out. - -[724] Baschet, 18, 25, 34, 43; D’Ancona, ii. 455, 457, 459; Rennert, -28, 479. - -[725] R. B. M^cKerrow (_Nashe_, iv. 462) suggests that Tristano may -have been ‘that famous Francatrip Harlicken’ represented in the -dedication of _An Almond for a Parrat_ (1590) as asking questions at -Venice about Kempe. But Francatrippa seems to have been the stage name -of Gabriello Panzanini da Bologna of the Gelosi (D’Ancona, ii. 469, -511). - -[726] Is this ‘the nimble, tumbling Angelica’ of Marston’s _Scourge -of Villainy_ (1598), xi. 101? If so, a later visit may be suspected. -Drusiano Martinelli was comedian to the Duke of Mantua, to whose son -Angelica had been mistress, in 1595 (D’Ancona, ii. 518). - -[727] Baschet, 72, 82, 90, 194, 199; D’Ancona, ii. 464, 479, 504, 518, -523, 526; Smith, 147. The main body of the Gelosi passed about this -time under the leadership of Flaminio Scala, fifty of whose _scenarii_ -are printed in _Il Teatro delle Fauole rappresentatiue_ (1611). - -[728] Cf. ch. xviii as to traces of improvised comedy in England. - -[729] G. E. P. Arkwright, _Notes on the Ferrabosco Family (Musical -Antiquary_, iii. 221; iv. 42); G. Livi, _The Ferrabosco Family_ (ibid. -iv. 121). I may add that he was evidently the Bolognese groom of the -chamber, favoured by the Queen as a musician, who dropped a hint for a -Venetian embassy in 1575 (_V. P._ vii. 524). He left an illegitimate -son, Alfonso, in England, who also was a Court musician by 1603, and -was succeeded in turn by sons, Alfonso and Henry, in 1627 (Lafontaine, -45, 63). - -[730] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 159, 160. - -[731] Ibid. 160, 301. - -[732] Cunningham, 221; cf. _D. N. B._; _M. L. N._ xxii. 2, 129, 201. - -[733] _Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys MS._ ii. 663 (cf. _Hist. -MSS. Comm. Report_, 190). The letter is endorsed, ‘To Q. Elizabeth: -Ubaldino an Italian Musitian I suppose’. - -[734] Cf. my letter in _T.L.S._ for 12 May 1921. - -[735] Cf. ch. xiii (Interluders); _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 187. - -[736] _Variorum_, iii. 461; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 202. - -[737] Cf. p. 272. - -[738] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 21 Jan. 1882. I am sorry to say -that Mr. Scott suggests that Shakespeare was of the company. - -[739] J. Scott, _An Account of Perth_, in Sir J. Sinclair, _Statistical -Account of Scotland_, xviii (1796), 522. - -[740] J. C. Dibdin, _Annals of the Edinburgh Stage_ (1888), 20, from -_Accounts_ of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. _A True Accompt -of the Baptism of Prince Henry Frederick_, printed in 1594 (_Somers -Tracts_, ii. 171), records plays amongst other festivities, but does -not say that English actors took part. - -[741] _Scottish Papers_, ii. 676. I suppose that this document is -the authority on which P. F. Tytler, _Hist. of Scotland_, ix. 302, -describing the events of 1599, says of Fletcher, ‘He had been there -before, in 1594; and on his return to England, had suffered some -persecution from his popularity with James’. - -[742] D. H. Fleming, _St. Andrews Kirk Session Register_, ii. 870, ‘Ane -Jnglishman haveing desyrit libertie of the session to mak ane publik -play in this citie, it was voted and concludit that he suld nocht be -permitted to do the samin’. - -[743] Calderwood, _Historie of the Kirk of Scotland_ (Wodrow Soc.), v. -765. - -[744] _Acts of the Privy Council of Scotland_, vi. 39, 41. Calderwood -seems to have put the whole business a week too late. - -[745] Dibdin, 22. - -[746] Lee, 83, from _S. P. D. Scotland_ (R. O.), lxv. 64; cf. summary -in _Scottish Papers_, ii. 777, ‘Performances of English players, -Fletcher, Martin, and their company, by the King’s permission; -enactment of the [Fower] Sessions, and preaching of the ministers -against them. The bellows blowers say that they are sent by England to -sow dissension between the King and the Kirk’. - -[747] Dibdin, 24. - -[748] J. Stuart, _Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of -Aberdeen_ (_Spalding Club_), ii. xxi, xxii, 222. - -[749] Fleay, 136; cf. Furness, _Macbeth_, 407. Fleay goes so far as to -‘hazard the guess’ that the ‘speciall letter’ of recommendation from -James produced at Aberdeen was ‘the identical letter that James wrote -to Shakespeare with his own hand’, as recorded by Oldys. - -[750] Henslowe, i. 45 - -[751] App. C, No. lvii. - -[752] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311, ‘5 Thaler den englischen Spielleuten, -so ufm Rathaus ihr Spiel mit Springen und allerlei Kurzweil getrieben’. - -[753] The inevitable attempt to show that Shakespeare ‘must’ have been -of the party was made by J. Stefansson, _Shakespeare at Elsinore_, -in _Contemporary Review_, lxix. 20, and disposed of by H. Logeman, -_Shakespeare te Helsingör_ in _Mélanges Paul Fredericy_ (1904); cf. -_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xii. 241. - -[754] Fürstenau, 69; Cohn, xxiii; Bolte, _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 99. -Herz, 5, endeavours to show traces of a visit to Danzig by this company. - -[755] M. Röchell, _Chronik_, in J. Janssen, _Gesch. des Bisthums -Münster_ (1852), iii. 174; Cohn, cxxxiv (misdated 1599); -_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxvi. 274. - -[756] _Henslowe Papers_, 31. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 8, disposes of the -confusion between Robert Browne and Alleyn’s step-father, John Browne. - -[757] Cohn, xxxi. There seems nothing to connect the Andreas Röthsch -who appeared at Leipzig in July 1591 with Browne, or even to justify -the conjecture (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311) that he was English. - -[758] L. Ph. C. van den Bergh, _’s Gravenhaagsche Bijzonderheden_ -(1857), 51 from Hague Archives; Cohn, xxviii. A letter from R. Jones to -Alleyn (_Henslowe Papers_, 33), often assigned to this date, seems to -me probably to belong to 1615: cf. p. 287. - -[759] Another Admiral’s passport is printed in Rye, 47. - -[760] G. van Hasselt, _Arnhemsche Oudheden_, i (1803), 244, naming -Robert Bruyn, Johan Bradsdret, Thomas Saxwiell, Richardus Jonas, and -Everhart Sauss. - -[761] Bolte in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxiii. 104. - -[762] Mentzel, 23. - -[763] Cf. vol. i, p. 343. - -[764] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 247. - -[765] _Archiv_, xiv. 116. - -[766] Mentzel, 25. - -[767] Henslowe, i. 29. - -[768] Cohn, xxxiii, xxxviii; Goedeke, ii. 519; Herz, 8. A conventional -clown, variously called ‘Jahn Clam’, ‘Jahn Posset’, ‘Jahn der -Engelländische Narr’, &c., also appears in plays, from 1596 onwards, by -Jacob Ayrer of Nuremberg, who has other debts, including the ‘jig’, to -the English players (Cohn, lxi; Goedeke, ii. 545). - -[769] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 103. - -[770] _Archiv_, xii. 320; xiii. 316; xiv. 118; xv. 115; Mentzel, 26, -37. Herz, 34, points out that about this date the Duke of Brunswick’s -_Ehebrecherin_ and _Vincentius Ladislaus_ were played in Frankfort, -probably by these men. They are referred to at length by Marx Mangoldt, -_Markschiffs-Nachen_ (1597), in a passage beginning: - - Da war nun weiter mein Intent, - Zu sehen das Englische Spiel, - Dauon ich hab gehört so viel. - Wie der Narr drinnen, Jan genennt, - Mit Bossen wer so excellent. - -Herz, 34, also assigns to the company anonymous appearances at Ulm, -Munich, and Tübingen in 1597 (_Archiv_, xii. 319; xiii. 316; xv. 212). - -[771] Cohn, xxxiv. - -[772] Cf. p. 279. - -[773] Cohn, xxxiv. - -[774] Herz, 37; T. Coryat, _Crudities_, ii. 291. Cf. also _Ein Discurss -von der Frankfurter Messe_ (1615): - - Der Narr macht lachen, doch ich weht, - --Da ist keiner so gut wie Jahn begeht-- - Vor dieser Zeitt wol hat gethan, - Jetzt ist er ein reicher Handelsmann. - -[775] Cohn, xxxiv; _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xl. 342. - -[776] _Henslowe Papers_, 37. - -[777] Cohn, xviii, lvii; Goedeke, ii. 522; Duncker, _Landgrave Moritz -von Hessen und die Englischen Komödianten_ in _Deutsche Rundschau_, -xlviii. 260. - -[778] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 361. - -[779] Cohn, lviii; Herz, 13. - -[780] Könnecke in _Z. f. vergleichende Litteralurgeschichte_, N. F. i. -85. - -[781] _Hatfield MSS._ v. 174. Browne was also the agent for a similar -transaction licensed on 11 July 1597 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxiv). - -[782] _Archiv_, xiv. 117; xv. 114. - -[783] Rommel, vi. 390, from Cassel archives, ‘Robert Brown und John -Wobster begleiteten ihn’. The payment therefore on behalf of the -Admiral’s men about Oct. 1596 ‘to feache Browne’ (Henslowe, i. 45) is -not very likely to refer to Robert. - -[784] Cohn, lviii; Duncker, 265. - -[785] Mentzel, 41. - -[786] _Archiv_, xv. 115. Herz, 17, assigns to them, conjecturally, -performances by ‘Englishmen’ at Memmingen, Cologne, Munich, Ulm, and -Stuttgart during 1600. But the wording of the Strassburg documents -suggests a continuous stay. - -[787] On 21 Oct. 1603 Joan Alleyn wrote to Edward Alleyn (_Henslowe -Papers_, 59), ‘All the companyes be come hoame & well for ought we -knowe, but that Browne of the Boares head is dead & dyed very pore, -he went not into the countrye at all’. Obviously this is not Robert -Browne, who lived many years longer. But it may have been a relative, -as Lord Derby’s men are very likely to have preceded Worcester’s at the -Boar’s Head. There was at least one other actor of the name, Edward -Browne, and possibly more (cf. ch. xv). - -[788] Mentzel, 46. - -[789] Mentzel, 45, 48; _Archiv_, xiv. 119. A performance at Dresden in -Oct. 1600, assigned to them by Herz, 38, is anonymous. - -[790] Mentzel, 48. - -[791] Duncker, 267, from chronicle of Wilhelm Buch, ‘Anno 1602 hat er -die Engländer alle mit einander von sich gejagt und des springens und -tanzens müde geworden’. - -[792] Mentzel, 50. - -[793] Mentzel, 51; Bolte, _Das Danziger Theater_, 34. - -[794] _Archiv_, xv. 117. - -[795] Mentzel, 52. - -[796] Mentzel, 50; _Archiv_, xiv. 122. - -[797] The Frankfort archives call them ‘Thomas Blackreude’ and -‘Johannes Fheer’, which has prevented their identity with Worcester’s -men from being noticed. - -[798] Mentzel, 51. - -[799] Mentzel, 53; _Archiv_, xv. 117. Herz, 18, assigns to Browne -anonymous appearances by Englishmen at Strassburg in June 1601, Ulm in -Nov. 1602, Nördlingen in May 1605, and Ulm in May and June 1605. At -Nördlingen a play from the prophet Jonah, possibly Greene and Lodge’s -_Looking Glass for London and England_, was given. - -[800] _Archiv_, xv. 120. Coryat, ii. 183, saw him at Strassburg in 1608. - -[801] Mentzel, 53; Meissner in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 125; _Archiv_, -xiii. 320; Duncker, 268. The _Ottonium_ was named after Maurice’s son -Otto, the friend of Prince Henry Frederick, who paid a visit to England -in 1611 (Rye, 141). - -[802] _Archiv_, xiv. 124. - -[803] Cohn, lviii; R. P. Wülcker in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 360. - -[804] Mentzel, 53. - -[805] _Henslowe Papers_, 63. - -[806] Bolte, 35. - -[807] This might be Heywood’s _King Edward IV_. - -[808] F. von Hurter, _Gesch. Kaiser Ferdinands II_, v. 395. - -[809] _The Proud Woman of Antwerp_ might be the lost piece by Day and -Haughton. - -[810] Meissner, 74, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 128; cf. pp. 284–6. -The text of _Nobody and Somebody_ is printed from a manuscript at Rein -by F. Bischoff in _Mittheilungen des hist. Vereins für Steiermark_, -xlvii. 127. I think it is just possible that the companies of 1608 -and 1617 may have been Spencer’s. There seem to have been _Saxoni_, -as well as _Angli_, playing. These do not seem to have constituted a -distinct company, and are perhaps more likely to have been with Spencer -than with Green. Spencer, as well as Green, was in relations with the -imperial court in 1617; cf. p. 290. But I think that the evidence of -the Rein manuscript is fairly decisive in favour of Green. - -[811] This may have been Green himself. A drawing of a red-haired -actor, in the traditional get-up of Nobody, is on the Rein manuscript. - -[812] Mentzel, 54, 55, 56, 58. - -[813] _Archiv_, xiv. 125; xv. 215. Herz, 41, ascribes to them anonymous -appearances at Ulm, Nördlingen, and Augsburg. John Price, afterwards -well known as a musician at Dresden and Stuttgart, is said to be -recorded at Stuttgart in 1609 (Cohn, cxxxviii), and may have been with -the Hessian company. - -[814] Cohn, lix; Duncker, 272. - -[815] Meissner, 46; Duncker, 272. Herz, 41, ascribes to them anonymous -appearances at the wedding of the Margrave John George, brother of -the Elector of Brandenburg, and the Princess Christina of Saxony at -Jägerndorf in July, and at Nuremberg and Ulm in November. - -[816] Cohn, lix, without reference. Herz, 41, adds an anonymous -performance of _The Merchant of Venice_ at the Court of Margrave -Christian of Brandenburg at Halle. - -[817] _Archiv_, xiv. 126. - -[818] Duncker, 273. - -[819] _Archiv_, xiii. 319. If this is the company which, according -to Alvensleben, _Allgemeine Theaterchronik_ (1832), No. 158, played -_Daniel_, _The Chaste Susanna_, and _The Two Judges in Israel_ at Ulm -in 1602, the identification with the company found at Nördlingen and -Rothenburg is assisted. - -[820] Cohn, lxxvii, from Erhard Cellius, _Eques Auratus -Anglo-Wirtembergicus_ (1605); cf. Rye, cvii. - -[821] _Archiv_, xi. 625; xiii. 70. They also played _Daniel in the -Lions’ Den_, _Susanna_ (? by Henry Julius of Brunswick or another -version), _The Prodigal Son_, _A Disobedient Merchant’s Son_ (? _The -London Prodigal_), _Charles Duke of Burgundy_, _Annabella a Duke’s -Daughter of Ferrara_ (? Marston’s _Parasitaster_), _Botzarius an -Ancient Roman_, and _Vincentius Ladislaus_ (? by Henry Julius of -Brunswick). Three of these plays (_Romeo and Juliet_, _The Prodigal -Son_, and _Annabella_) are in the repertories of John Green; cf. p. 285. - -[822] _Archiv_, xiv. 122. - -[823] _Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, N. F. -vii. 61. They played in 1604 _Daniel in the Lions’ Den_, _Melone -of Dalmatia_, _Lewis King of Spain_, _Celinde and Sedea_, _Pyramus -and Thisbe_, _Annabella a Duke’s Daughter of Montferrat_; and in -1606 _Charles Duke of Burgundy_, _Susanna_, _The Prodigal Son_, -_A Disobedient Merchant’s Son_, _An Ancient Roman_, _Vincentius -Ladislaus_. The Nördlingen and Rothenburg companies must be the same. -_Celinde and Sedea_, however, is found in a repertory, not of Green, -but of Spencer; cf. p. 289. - -[824] Herz, 42, 65. - -[825] A. van Sorgen, _De Tooneelspeelkunst in Utrecht_. - -[826] Bolte, 41, 47. Herz, 27, conjectures that these may have been the -English players at Wolfenbüttel in May 1615; cf. p. 277. - -[827] Schlager, 168; Meissner in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 139. - -[828] Cohn, xciii; cf. p. 282 as to the inference that Green was at -Gräz in 1607–8. - -[829] _Archiv_, xiv. 129. - -[830] _Archiv_, xv. 120. - -[831] Mentzel, 60. - -[832] Bolte, 51. - -[833] Herz, 22, from Wolter, 97. - -[834] Mentzel, 61; Meissner, 65. - -[835] _Archiv_, xiv. 130; Mentzel, 61. - -[836] Herz, 30, from Wolter, 97; A. van Sorgen, _De Tooneelspeelkunst -in Utrecht_. - -[837] Herz, 30. - -[838] Goedeke, ii. 543, could find no copy of _Musarum Aoniarum tertia -Erato_ (Hamburg, 1611), the title-page of which claims ‘etlichen -Englischen Comedien’ as a source. - -[839] The last two plays have some kind of relation to Shakespeare’s -_Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and _Titus Andronicus_. _Sidonia and -Theagenes_ is a prose version of Gabriel Rollenhagen’s _Amantes -Amentes_ (1609). A supplement to the 1620 collection, with six other -plays and two jigs, appeared as _Liebeskampff oder Ander Theil der -Englischen Comödien und Tragödien_ (1630), but none of these are -traceable before the Thirty Years’ War. - -[840] Cf. pp. 279, 281, 283. The Dresden list is in Cohn, cxv. - -[841] Played at Nördlingen in 1604. Cohn, 309, prints a German version -from a Vienna manuscript. - -[842] Possibly Heywood’s _The Silver Age_. - -[843] Green played at Gräz in 1608 ‘Von ein Herzog von Florenz der sich -in eines Edelmann’s Tochter verliebt hat’. This seems too early for -Massinger’s _Great Duke of Florence_, but suggests the same story. - -[844] Possibly _1 Jeronimo_. - -[845] Possibly Dekker’s _Patient Grissel_. - -[846] Played at Nördlingen and Rothenburg in 1604. Bolte, 177, prints -from a Danzig manuscript a later German version based on Marston’s -_Parasitaster_. - -[847] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608, in a version extant in a Rein -manuscript; a later one is in the 1620 collection. Cf. p. 282. - -[848] Possibly _Clyomon and Clamydes_. - -[849] Cohn, 236, prints a German version from a late copy. - -[850] Possibly Robert Greene’s play. - -[851] Played by Browne at Cassel in 1607; a text is in the 1620 -collection. - -[852] Probably Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_, played by Browne at Frankfort -in 1601. - -[853] Printed in the 1620 collection. - -[854] Probably Dekker’s _Virgin Martyr_. - -[855] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608. - -[856] Possibly Robert Greene’s _Alphonsus_, _King of Arragon_ or -_Mucedorus_. - -[857] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608. A version, related to Dekker’s -_Old Fortunatus_, is in the 1620 collection. - -[858] Played by an anonymous company at Halle in 1611; cf. p. 283. _The -Jew_, played by Green at Passau and Gräz in 1607–8, might be either -this play or _The Jew of Malta_. Dekker wrote a _Jew of Venice_, now -lost; but a German version, printed by Meissner, 131, from a Vienna -manuscript, is in part based on _The Merchant of Venice_. - -[859] Could this be _The Winter’s Tale_? - -[860] Green played _The King of Cyprus and Duke of Venice_ at Gräz in -1608. - -[861] Played at Nördlingen in 1604 and Rothenburg in 1606 and by Green -at Passau and Gräz in 1607–8. A version is in the 1620 collection. - -[862] Green played _Dives and Lazarus_ at Gräz in 1608. - -[863] Fleay, _Sh._ 307. - -[864] _Henslowe Papers_, 33. - -[865] Ibid. 94. - -[866] Cf. ch. xvi, introd. - -[867] C. F. Meyer in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 208. - -[868] _D. N. B._ s.v. Giles Farnaby. - -[869] Cf. pp. 279, 283. - -[870] Cohn, lxxviii. - -[871] Fürstenau, i. 76. - -[872] Cf. p. 282. Herz, 44, identifies them with ‘English’ at The -Hague (June 1606), Cologne (Feb. 1607), The Hague (April), Ulm (May), -Nördlingen (June), and Munich (July). - -[873] Wolter, 93. - -[874] L. Schneider, _Geschichte der Oper in Berlin_, Beilage, lxx. 25; -Fürstenau, i. 77. - -[875] Cf. p. 283. - -[876] Cohn, lxxxiv. - -[877] Ibid. lxxxvii. - -[878] _Archiv_, xiv. 128. _Philole and Mariana_ may be Lewis Machin’s -_The Dumb Knight_, and _The Turk_ Mason’s play of that name. _Celinde -and Sedea_ had formed part of a repertory at Rothenburg in 1604 -apparently related to those of Green; cf. p. 284. Spencer is not -recorded to have played any other piece found in Green’s repertories. - -[879] _Archiv_, xii. 320; xiv. 128. - -[880] Schlager, 168; Elze in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 362; Meissner, 53, -and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 120. - -[881] _Archiv_, xiv. 129; _Zeitschrift für vergl. Litt._ vii. 64; -Mentzel, 58. - -[882] _Archiv_, xv. 118. - -[883] Ibid. xii. 320; xiii. 322. - -[884] Ibid. xv. 119. - -[885] Ibid. xv. 215; cf. Herz, 48. - -[886] Wolter, 96; Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 260; Cohn, xci, from -_Harl. MS._ 3888, _The Evangelic Fruict of the Seraphicall Franciscan -Order_. - -[887] _Archiv_, xv. 119. - -[888] Mentzel, 59. - -[889] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 261; Wolter, 96. - -[890] Meissner, 59, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 122. - -[891] Cohn, lxxxviii. - -[892] Ibid. lxxxiii; Mentzel, 54. - -[893] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 257; Wolter, 95. - -[894] _Archiv_, xiv. 124; Mentzel, 54; Schlager, 168; Herz, 53. - -[895] Cohn, xxxv; Bolte, 41. - -[896] Cohn, xcii. - -[897] Bolte, 51. - -[898] Cohn, xcii; Meissner, 38, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 122. - -[899] Cf. pp. 275, 285. - -[900] _Archiv_, xiv. 131. - -[901] Ibid., xiii. 316; xiv. 116; Heywood, 60. - -[902] Mentzel, 55. H. Chardon, _La Troupe du Roman comique_, 32, -notices Maurice of Nassau’s company at Nantes in 1618 and Paris in -1625, but does not say that they were English. - -[903] _Archiv_, xiii. 317; xiv. 121. - -[904] Cohn, lxxvii. - -[905] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311. - -[906] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 253. - -[907] Cf. p. 273. - -[908] Pellicer, i. 80, citing the records of the Madrid hospital, -‘en 11 de Enero de 1583 voltearon unos ingleses en el Corral de la -Pacheca’. The original record is probably lost, as it is not with -those of 1579–82, 1590, and 1601–2 published from the _Archivo de la -Diputacion provincial de Madrid_ by C. Pérez Pastor in the _Bulletin -Hispanique_ (1906) and reprinted by Rennert, 345. - -[909] E. Soulié, _Recherches sur Molière_, 153; cf. Rigal, 46; -Jusserand, _Shakespeare in France_, 51. - -[910] Henslowe, i. 114. - -[911] Soulié et de Barthélemy, _Journal de Jean Héroard_, i. 88, 91, 92. - -[912] H. C. Coote in _Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux_, ii. -105; cf. _5 N. Q._ ix. 42. The idea was that ‘Tiph, toph’ represented -a reminiscence of _2 Henry IV_, II. i. 205, ‘This is the right fencing -grace, my lord; tap for tap, and so part fair’. The phrase ‘tiff toff’ -occurs in brackets in a speech of Crapula while he beats Mendacio in -_Lingua_ (Dodsley,^4 ix. 434). Collier explains it as hiccups; Fleay, -ii. 261, on the authority of P. A. Daniel, as an Italian term for the -thwack of stage blows. - -[913] E. Fournier, _Chansons de Gaultier Garguille_, lix, and -_L’Espagne et ses Comédiens en France au xvii^e Siècle_ (_Revue -des Provinces_, iv. 496), cites H. Ternaux in _Revue Françoise et -Étrangère_, i. 78, for statements that the head of the English at -Fontainebleau was Ganassa, who in Spain had had a mixed company of -English, Italians, and Spanish, and on 11 Jan. 1583 had a share in the -receipts of a troupe of English _volteadores_. I have not been able to -see the work of M. Ternaux, who does not inspire confidence by calling -Ganassa Juan instead of Alberto. There seems to be nothing to connect -Ganassa with the _volteadores_ of 1583, except the fact that the Corral -de la Pacheca where they played was leased to him for nine or ten years -in 1574 (Rennert, 29), and they may therefore have paid him rent. -His troupe in 1581–2, as given by Rennert, 479, consisted entirely -of Italians, with two Spanish musicians. He is said to have been in -Spain in 1603 (Pellicer, i. 57, 72; Rennert, 30), but there is nothing -to show that, if so, he went on to France. But Héroard tells us that -there was a Spanish rope-dancer at Fontainebleau in 1604, and a very -obscure passage in his diary suggests that this Spaniard was really -an Irishman. Irish marauders (_voleurs_) were then giving trouble in -Paris, which led Louis to say ‘Ce voleur qui voloit sur la corde étoit -Irlandois?’ and Héroard comments, ‘Il étoit vrai; il accommoda le mot -de voleur à l’autre signification, il l’avoit vu voler à Fontainebleau’ -(_Journal_, i. 90, 126). - -[914] F. Bischoff in _Mittheilungen des hist. Vereins für Steiermark_, -xlvii. 127; cf. p. 282. - -[915] De Bry, _India Orientalis_ (1613), xii. 137, ‘Angli ludiones per -Germaniam et Galliam vagantur’. - -[916] Alleyn’s life is more fully dealt with than is here possible -in G. F. Warner and F. Bickley, _Catalogue of Dulwich MSS._ (1881, -1903); G. F. Warner in _D. N. B._ (1885); W. Young, _History of Dulwich -College_ (1889); W. W. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_ (1907), _Henslowe’s -Diary_, vol. ii (1908). An earlier treatment of the material is that -by J. P. Collier, _Memoirs of Edward Alleyn_ (1841), _Alleyn Papers_ -(1843). On an account by G. Steevens in _Theatrical Review_ (1763) with -a forged letter from Peele to Marlowe, cf. Lee, 646. - -[917] _Dulwich Muniments_, 106. - -[918] Cf. ch. xiv. - -[919] _Henslowe Papers_, 34, from _Dulwich MSS._, i. 9–15; Edward to -Joan Alleyn, 2 May 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, 5 July 1593; Edward -to Joan Alleyn, 1 August 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, _c._ August -1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, 14 August 1593; Henslowe to Edward -Alleyn, 28 September 1593; John Pyk (Alleyn’s ‘boy’) to Joan Alleyn, -_c._ 1593. Later letters of 4 June and 26 September 1598 from Henslowe -to Edward Alleyn and of 21 October 1603 from Joan to Edward Alleyn are -in _Henslowe Papers_, 47, 59, 97. - -[920] _Works_, i. 215, 296. - -[921] _Henslowe Papers_, 32. The verses on the same theme in Collier, -_Memoirs_, 13, are forged. - -[922] Dekker, _Plays_, i. 280. - -[923] _Epigrammes_ (1599), iv. 23: - - _In Ed: Allen._ - - _Rome_ had her _Roscius_ and her Theater, - Her _Terence_, _Plautus_,_Ennius_ and _Me_[n]_ander_, - The first to _Allen_, _Phoebus_ did transfer - The next, _Thames_ Swans receiu’d fore he coulde land her, - Of both more worthy we by _Phoebus_ doome, - Then t’ _Allen Roscius_ yeeld, to _London Rome_. - -[924] Heywood, _Apology_, 43. - -[925] Fuller, _Worthies_ (ed. 1840), ii. 385. - -[926] S. Rowland, _Knave of Clubs_ (1609), 29: - - The gull gets on a surplis - With a crosse upon his breast, - Like Allen playing Faustus, - In that manner he was drest. - -[927] Heywood, _Epistle_ to _The Jew of Malta_ (1633), ‘the part of the -Jew presented by so vnimitable an Actor as M^r Allin’; and _Prologue_, - - And He, then by the best of Actors [_in margin_ ‘Allin’] play’d: - ... in Tamberlaine, - This Jew, with others many, th’ other wan - The Attribute of peerelesse, being a man - Whom we may ranke with (doing no one wrong) - Proteus for shapes, and Roscius for a tongue, - So could he speake, so vary. - -[928] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), _Epig._ xliii, - - _Clodius_ me thinks lookes passing big of late, - With _Dunston’s_ browes, and _Allens Cutlacks_ gate. - -[929] _Henslowe Papers_, 155. - -[930] For this myth, cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Marlowe. - -[931] Tarlton, 22, ‘How Tarlton made Armin his adopted sonne, to -succeed him’. The earliest extant edition of _Tarlton’s Jests_ is that -of 1611, but the Second Part, here quoted, was entered in _S. R._ on 4 -Aug. 1600. - -[932] Extract in Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 321; the unique copy of this -edition is described in his _Calendar of Shakespeare Rarities_ (1887), -145. - -[933] Reprinted in the Shakespeare Society’s _Fools and Jesters_ (1842). - -[934] _Variorum_, iii. 159, 241, 242; _M. S. C._ i. 345. - -[935] Jeaffreson, ii. 107, 110, 114, 120, 128, 220. - -[936] Harleian Soc. _Registers_, ix. 62; xvii. 131. - -[937] Collier, _Actors_, xxxi. - -[938] _M. S. C._ i. 344. - -[939] McKerrow, _Nashe_, i. 255. - -[940] Collier, iii. 364. - -[941] The biographical material collected by C. C. Stopes, _Burbage and -Shakespeare’s Stage_ (1913), is supplemented by the lawsuit records -in C. W. Wallace, _The First London Theatre, Materials for a History_ -(1913, _Nebraska University Studies_, xiii. 1). - -[942] _Variorum_, iii. 199, 476; Collier, iii. 367; P. C. Carter, -_Hist. of St. Mary Aldermanbury_, 9, 11, 21, 58, 86, 87. - -[943] _Variorum_, iii. 200, from P. C. C.; Collier, iii. 376. - -[944] Collier, iii. 376, 380. - -[945] _Varioram_, iii. 211. - -[946] _Henslowe Papers_, 61. - -[947] Collier, iii. 406; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[948] _Variorum_, iii. 482, from P. C. C.; Collier, iii. 409. - -[949] Collier, iii. 389. - -[950] H. R. Plomer in _10 N. Q._ vi. 368, from _London Archdeaconry -Wills_, vi, f. 22. - -[951] Heywood, _Apology_, 43. - -[952] Fleay, 190; cf. _The Sharers Papers_. - -[953] Collier, iii. 457; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[954] _K. B. P._ i. 104, ‘Were you neuer none of Mr. Monkesters -schollars?’ - -[955] Collier, iii. 411. - -[956] Fleay, 85; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 133. - -[957] Collier, iii. 473; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvii. - -[958] _Variorum_, iii. 472; Chester, _London Marriage Licenses_. - -[959] _Variorum_, iii. 187. - -[960] Ibid. 188. - -[961] Ibid. 187. - -[962] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 31. - -[963] _Variorum_, iii. 198, 475; Collier, iii. 308; P. C. Carter, _St. -Mary, Aldermanbury_, 11, 58, 86, 87. Malone misread Beavis as Beatrice. -An earlier John (1598) and a Swynnerton (1613) died as infants. - -[964] _Variorum_, iii. 191. - -[965] _D. N. B._ s.v.; Wood, _Athenae_, iii. 277. - -[966] _O. v. H._ 16; cf. C. W. Wallace, in _The Times_ for 2 and 4 Oct. -1909. - -[967] _N. U. S._ x. 311. - -[968] _Kemps Nine Daies Wonder. Performed in a Daunce from London to -Norwich_ (1600) is reprinted with a biography by A. Dyce (1840, _Camden -Soc._) and in Arber, _English Garner_^2, ii (_Social England_), 139, -and E. Goldsmid, _Collectanea Adamantea_, ii (1884). Dissertations are -J. Bruce, _Who was ‘Will, my Lord of Leycester’s Jesting Player’?_ -(1844, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 88); B. Nicholson, _Kemp and the Play -of Hamlet_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1880–6_, 57); _Will Kemp_ (1887, -_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxii. 255). - -[969] Collier, iii. 391. - -[970] Ibid. 395. - -[971] Ibid. 396. - -[972] Ibid. 397; _Bodl._; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[973] Norman, 91. - -[974] For further details of his later career, cf. Collier and _D. N. -B._ - -[975] Downes, 24. - -[976] Wright, 10. - -[977] _Variorum_, iii. 211; Collier, iii. 403. - -[978] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317. - -[979] Collier, iii. 423. - -[980] Henslowe, ii. 302; _Henslowe Papers_, 36, 41. - -[981] Collier, iii. 322, 325; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxv. - -[982] _Variorum_, iii. 470. - -[983] S. Lee in _Nineteenth Century_ for May 1906, quoting a manuscript -by Smith in private hands, with the title _A Brief Discourse of y^e -causes of Discord amongst y^e Officers of arms and of the great abuses -and absurdities comitted by painters to the great prejudice and -hindrance of the same office_. Northampton did not get his title until -1604. - -[984] Collier, iii. 323. - -[985] _N. U. S._ x. 308, 312; cf. ch. xvi (Globe). - -[986] Henslowe, i. 72. - -[987] _Variorum_, iii. 506; Collier, iii. 363. - -[988] Collier, iii. 358; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[989] Henslowe, i. 178; ii. 303. - -[990] Cf. s.v. Phillips. - -[991] Collier, iii. 488; J. 348; _Bodl._ - -[992] _Variorum_, iii. 514; P. Cunningham in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, ii. 11; -Collier, iii. 478. - -[993] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 314. - -[994] Collier, iii. 482; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[995] Collier, iii. 483. - -[996] App. I (ii). - -[997] Collier, iii. 481. - -[998] Henslowe, i. 29. - -[999] _Henslowe Papers_, 120. - -[1000] Collier, iii. 381. - -[1001] _Variorum_, iii. 477; Collier, iii. 385. - -[1002] _N. U. S._ x. 317; _O. v. H._ 32. - -[1003] J. O. Halliwell, _Tarlton’s Jests ... With ... some Account of -the Life of Tarlton_ (1844, _Sh. Soc._; the Jests are reprinted with a -few additions in Hazlitt, _Jest-Books_, ii. 189) and _Papers respecting -Disputes which arose from Incidents at the Death-bed of Richard -Tarlton, the Actor_ (1866). - -[1004] Collier, iii. 460; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi. - -[1005] C. W. Wallace, _Globe Theatre Apparel_ (1909). - -[1006] _M. L. Review_, iv. 395, from _Hist. MSS._ iv. 299. - -[1007] Downes, 21. - -[1008] Wright, _Hist. Hist._ 405. - -[1009] _S. P. D._ 1637–8, p. 99. - -[1010] Cunningham, l.; _Variorum_, iii. 238. - -[1011] Cunningham, l.; Wright, _Hist. Hist._ 411. - -[1012] _Variorum_, iii. 484, from _P. C. C._ - -[1013] Collier, iii. 447. - -[1014] Henslowe, i. 152; _Henslowe Papers_, 61. - -[1015] Collier, iii. 451. - -[1016] _Variorum_, iii. 214. - -[1017] Collier, iii. 443. - -[1018] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 313. - -[1019] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 383; ii. 184, 190, 380. It is, of course, -doubtful whether the ‘theatrum nostrae civitatis’ at Exeter was -permanent. - -[1020] Ordish, 12, attempts to affiliate the ring type of baiting-place -and theatre to Roman amphitheatres, Cornish ‘rounds’, and other -circular places used for mediaeval entertainments. But a ring is so -obviously the form in which the maximum number of spectators can see an -object of interest, that too much stress must not be laid upon it as an -evidence of folk ‘tradition’. - -[1021] Cf. ch. xviii. - -[1022] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 221. - -[1023] G. Fothergill in _10 N. Q._ vi. 287, from _Guildhall MS._ 1454, -roll 70, ‘And wyth 22^s 2^d for money by them receyved for the hyer of -Tryntie Halle for playes, the warmanthe [ward-moot] inquest and other -assemblyes within the time of this accompt’. - -[1024] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Vennar. - -[1025] Several galleried inns are illustrated in W. Rendle and P. -Norman, _The Inns of Old Southwark_ (1888), and by Ordish, 119 -(Tabard), Baker, 200 (Four Swans), Adams, 4 (White Hart). Probably, -however, none of these are pre-Restoration. The only ones still extant -are the George in Southwark and a much later one in Theobalds Road (_V. -H. Surrey_, iv. 128). - -[1026] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 190, 223. - -[1027] Cf. ch. ix. - -[1028] Flecknoe tells us _c._ 1664 (App. I) that the actors, ‘about the -beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign ... set up Theaters, first in the -City (as in the Inn-yards of the Cross-Keyes, and Bull in Grace and -Bishops-Gate Street at this day is to be seen)’. - -[1029] Cf. App. C, No. xvii. - -[1030] App. C, Nos. xv, xvii; App. D, No. xxii. - -[1031] Cf. s.v. Hope. - -[1032] K. D. Hassler, _Die Reisen des Samuel Kiechel_ (1866) 29, -‘Werden auch täglichen commedien gehalten, sonderlichen ist lustig zu -zusehen, wann der Königen comedianten agiren, aber einem frembden, -der düe sprach nicht kan, verdrüslich, das ers nicht verstöth; es hat -öttliche sonderbare heüser, wölche dozu gemacht sein, das ettwann drey -genng ob ein ander sein, derowegen stöts ein grosse menge volckhs dohin -kompt, solcher kurzweil zuzusehen. Es begibt sich wol, das süe uf -einmal 50 in 60 dalr ufhöben; sonderlichen wann süe was neyes agiren, -so zuvor nicht gehalten worden, mues mann doppelt gelt gebenn, und -wehrt solchs vast alle tag durch düe wochen, onangesehen es freytag wüe -auch samstags zu halten verbotten, würt es doch nicht gehalten.’ Cf. -Rye, 87. Kiechel appears to have been in London from 12 Sept. to about -29 Oct. and from 14 to 17 Nov. 1585. - -[1033] Lambarde, _Perambulation of Kent_ (1596), 233. The passage is -not in the first edition of 1576. - -[1034] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 222; cf. ch. xiii (Oxford’s). - -[1035] P. 2. Malone, in _Variorum_, iii. 46, refers the event to a date -soon after 1580; but there is no justification for this in the text. - -[1036] Cf. p. 477. - -[1037] Rye, 216, from _Itinerarium_ in Beckmann, _Accessions Historiae -Anhaltinae_ (1716), 165: - - ‘Hier besieht man vier spielhäuser, - Darinnen man fürstelt die Fürsten, Könge, Keyser, - In rechter lebens gröss, in schöner kleider pracht, - Es wird der thaten auch, wie sie geschehn, gedacht.’ - -[1038] Text by H. B. Wheatley, _On a Contemporary Drawing of the -Interior of the Swan Theatre, 1596_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92_, 215), -from _Utrecht Univ. Library MS. Var._ 355, ff. 131^v, 132, with -facsimile reproduction of drawing. The passage was first made known -by K. T. Gaedertz, _Zur Kenntniss der altenglischen Bühne_ (1888). -The reproduction of the drawing published by Gaedertz and further -reproduced from him in many modern books is not an exact facsimile; -the only material difference is that the engraver has made the figure -at the door of the loft rather more obviously a man than it is in the -original. Letters of the early part of the seventeenth century from -de Witt to Buchell, who was his fellow-student at Leyden in 1583, are -also in the Utrecht Library (Gaedertz, 57). The last sentence of the -passage appears from ‘narrabat’ to be a report by Buchell either of -something not directly copied by him or of de Witt’s conversation; but -the rest is pretty clearly from ‘ea quae alio loco a me notata sunt’ a -verbatim extract from a manuscript of de Witt’s own. If so, ‘adpinxi’ -further shows that the eye-witness of de Witt and not the imagination -of Buchell is the source of the drawing. Gaedertz, 63, indeed suggests -that the drawing is an original given by de Witt to Buchell, but as -Wheatley, 219, points out, this is impossible, as the paper is the same -as that used in the rest of the volume. There remains the question of -date. De Witt is traceable at Amsterdam in Nov. 1594, at Utrecht in -the winters of 1595 and 1596, and in 1599, and at Amsterdam again in -March 1604 (Gaedertz, 58). His visit to London obviously falls between -Nov. 1594, when the Swan was still only an intention, and Dec. 1598, -when the Theatre was pulled down. Gaedertz, 55, puts it in the summer -of 1596, largely because Shakespeare, whom he thinks de Witt would -certainly have mentioned if he had met him, may have been in Stratford -about that time. This is hopeless. Nor does the further suggestion of -Gaedertz that a lameness from which de Witt was suffering in Dec. 1596 -was due to his travels carry much conviction. But he is not likely, -before that year, to have appended the words ‘A^o. 1596’ to his notice -of Sir John Burgh’s tomb. If this is intended to be the date, not of -his visit, but of the tomb, it is an error. Camden, _Reges ... in -Ecclesia ... West-monasterii sepulti_ (1600), gives the final words -of the inscription as ‘G. B. A. M. P. anno Dom. 1595’, and although -the tomb itself has disappeared since 1868 and some modern guides date -it 1594 or 1598, Camden is confirmed by J. C[rull], _Antiquities of -Westminster_ (1711), 198. Burgh’s death, also given on the monument, -was 7 March ‘1594’. On the whole 1596 is the most probable date for -de Witt’s visit. Arend van Buchell was himself a traveller, and his -_Diarium_ has been edited (1907) by G. Brom and L. A. van Langeraad. -But he did not visit England. - -[1039] The emendation is due to Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 356). Adams, -168, suggests that ‘cijn’ is Flemish for ‘swan’, but the dictionary -gives ‘zwaen’, which is perhaps what de Witt wrote. - -[1040] Cf. plan of the manor in Rendle, _Bankside_, i. - -[1041] Cf. p. 456. - -[1042] Hentzner, 196. - -[1043] _Survey_ (ed. Kingsford), i. 93. In 1603 the words ‘as the -Theater, the Curtine, &c.’ are omitted from the body of the passage. - -[1044] _Survey_, ii. 73. This passage was omitted altogether in 1603. -The early draft in _Harl. MS._ 538 (Kingsford, ii. 369) runs, ‘Neare -adjoyning are builded two houses for the shewe of Activities, Comedies, -tragedies and histories, for recreation. The one of them is named the -Curtayn in Holy Well, the other the Theatre.’ - -[1045] G. Binz in _Anglia_, xxii. 456 (from Platter’s narrative written -in 1604–5 of his travels in 1595–1600, now in the Basle University -Library): ‘Den 21 Septembris nach dem Imbissessen, etwan umb zwey -vhren, bin ich mitt meiner geselschaft [:v]ber dz wasser gefahren, -haben in dem streüwinen Dachhaus die Tragedy vom ersten Keyser Julio -Caesare mitt ohngefahr 15 personen sehen gar artlich agieren; zu -endt der Comedien dantzeten sie ihrem gebrauch nach gar [:v]berausz -zierlich, ye zwen in mannes vndt 2 in weiber kleideren angethan, -wunderbahrlich mitt einanderen. - -Auf ein andere Zeitt hab ich nicht weit von unserem wirdtshaus in -der Vorstadt, meines behaltens an der Bischofsgeet, auch nach essens -ein Comoedien gesehen, da presentierten sie allerhandt nationen, mit -welchen yeder zeit ein Engellender vmb ein tochter kempfete, vndt -vberwandt er sie alle, aussgenommen den teütschen, der gewan die -tochter mitt kempfen, satzet sich neben sie, trank ihme deszwegen -mit seinem diener ein starken rausch, also dasz sie beyde beweinet -wurden, vndt warfe der diener seinem Herren den schu an kopf, vnndt -entschliefen beyde. Hiezwischen stige der engellender in die Zelten, -vnndt entfuhret dem teütschen sein gewin, also [:v]berlistet er -den teütschen auch. Zu endt dantzeten sie auch auf Englisch vnndt -Irlendisch gar zierlich vnndt werden also alle tag vmb 2 vhren nach -mittag in der stadt London zwo biszweilen auch drey Comedien an -vnderscheidenen örteren gehalten, damitt einer den anderen lustig -mache, dann welche sich am besten verhalten, die haben auch zum meisten -Zuhörer. Die örter sindt dergestalt erbauwen, dasz sie auf einer -erhöchten brüge spilen, vnndt yederman alles woll sehen kan. Yedoch -sindt vnderscheidene gäng vnndt ständt da man lustiger vnndt basz -sitzet, bezahlet auch deszwegen mehr. Dann welcher vnden gleich stehn -beleibt, bezahlt nur 1 Englischen pfenning, so er aber sitzen will, -lasset man ihn noch zu einer thür hinein, da gibt er noch 1^d, begeret -er aber am lustigesten ort auf kissen ze sitzen, da er nicht allein -alles woll sihet, sondern auch gesehen kan werden, so gibt er bey einer -anderen thüren noch 1 Englischen pfenning. Vnndt tragt man in wehrender -Comedy zu essen vndt zu trinken vnder den Leüten herumb, mag einer vmb -sein gelt sich also auch erlaben. - -Die Comedienspiler sindt beim allerköstlichsten vnndt zierlichsten -bekleidet, dann der brauch in Engellandt, dasz wann fürnemme herren -oder Ritter absterben, sie ihren dieneren vast die schönesten kleider -verehren vndt vergaben, welche, weil es ihnen nicht gezimpt, solche -kleider nicht tragen, sondern nachmahlen, den Comoedienspileren vmb ein -ringen pfenning ze kaufen geben. - -Was für zeit sie also in dem Comoedien lustig alle tag können -zubringen, weisset yeglicher woll, der sie etwan hatt sehen agieren -oder spilen.... - -... Midt solchen vndt viel anderen kurtzweilen mehr vertreiben die -Engellender ihr zeit, erfahren in den Comedien, wasz sich in anderen -Landen zutraget, vndt gehendt ohne scheüchen, mann vndt weibs personen -an gemelte ort, weil mehrtheils Engellender nicht pflegen viel ze -reysen, sondern sich vergnügen zehausz frembde sachen ze erfahren vnndt -ihre kurtzweil ze nemmen.’ - -[1046] C. A. Mills in _The Times_ (11 April 1914) from the travels of -‘a foreign nobleman, to be published by J. A. F. Orbaan from a _Vatican -MS._’. Mills says that the visit was to the Globe, but the passage -quoted does not exclude the Rose or Swan. - -[1047] G. von Bülow in _2 R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ (1892), vi. 6, 10, from -MS. _penes_ Count von der Osten of Plathe, Pomerania; cf. Wallace, -_Blackfriars_, 105, who identifies the _Samson_ play, rightly, with -that of the Admiral’s men at the Fortune (cf. p. 180), and that at -the Blackfriars, wrongly I think, with Chapman’s _The Widow’s Tears_. -He assumes that the theatre visited on 13 Sept, was the Globe, but it -might have been the Rose. - -[1048] ‘13. Den 13 ward eine comedia agirt, wie Stuhl-Weissenburg -erstlich von den Türken, hernacher von den Christen wiederum erobert.... - -14. Auf den Nachmittag ward eine tragica comoedia von Samsone und dem -halben Stamm Benjamin agirt. Als wir zu dem Theatro gingen ...’. - -[1049] Cf. ch. xii (Chapel). - -[1050] Grosart, _Dekker_, iv. 210 (S. R. July 1608, printed 1609). The -‘two houses’ are, of course, those of York and Lancaster. Note the -final puns. - -[1051] Cf. ch. x. Fynes Moryson says in his _Itinerary_, iii. 2. 2 -(_c._ 1605–17), ‘The Theaters at London in England for Stage-plaies -are more remarkeable for the number, and for the capacity, than for -the building,’ and in the continuation (_c._ 1609–26, C. Hughes, -_Shakespeare’s Europe_, 476), ‘The Citty of London alone hath foure or -fiue Companyes of players with their peculiar Theaters capable of many -thousands, wherein they all play euery day in the weeke but Sunday.... -As there be, in my opinion, more Playes in London than in all the -partes of the worlde I haue seene, so doe these players or Comedians -excell all other in the worlde.’ - -[1052] _Epigram 39._ Both Curtain and Swan are named by W. Turner in -_Turners Dish of Stuffe, or a Gallimaufry_ (1662), but this cannot be -dated; cf. ch. xv (Shank): - - That’s the fat fool of the Curtain, - And the lean fool of the Bull: - Since Shancke did leave to sing his rhimes, - He is counted but a gull: - The players on the Bankside, - The round Globe and the Swan, - Will teach you idle tricks of love, - But the Bull will play the man. - -[1053] Jodocus Sincerus, _Itineris Anglici brevissima delineatio_ in -_Itinerarium Galliae_ (1617), 370; cf. Rye, 131, who gives the first -edition as 1616. - -[1054] K. Feyerabend in _E. S._ xiv. 440, from manuscript in Cassel -Library (cf. Rye, 143), ‘Zu Londen sind 7 theatra, da tägliche, die -sonntäge ausgenommen, comoedien gehalten werden, unter welchen die -vornehmste der glbs [_sic_, for _globus_], so über dem wasser liegt. -Das theatrum, da die kinder spielen, ist auf diesseit des wassers, -spielen um 3 uhr, aber nur von michaelis bis auf ostern; hier kostet -der eingang einen halben schilling nur, da an andern orten wohl eine -halbe kron. Diese [nämlich der Globus, _Ed._, but surely in error] -spielen nur bei lichtern und is die beste Cumpani in London.’ The -baiting is also mentioned; cf. p. 457. - -[1055] _Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79. - -[1056] Taylor, _The True Cause of the Watermen’s Suit concerning -Players,_ _and the reasons that their Playing on London side is their -extreame hindrances. With a Relation how farre that suit was proceeded -in, and the occasions that it was not effected_, reprinted by Hindley, -ii, No. 15, from Taylor’s _Works_ (1630), probably originally printed -in 1614. - -[1057] It cites Caesar’s promotion and describes the agitation by the -watermen as taking place in ‘January last, 1613’, i. e. 161¾. Probably -it was written in the winter of 1614, and touched up before 1630, since -it refers to Bacon and Somerset as ‘then’ Attorney-General and Lord -Chamberlain respectively. Bacon’s term of office was from 27 Oct. 1613 -to 7 March 1617, Somerset’s from 10 July 1614 to 2 Nov. 1615. - -[1058] There is, I suppose, no reason why Randolph’s _Muses Looking -Glass_, 1. i. 55, should not have been written before Salisbury Court -was built. Herein a ‘brother’ is said to pray-- - - That the Globe, - Wherein (quoth he) reigns a whole world of vice, - Had been consum’d: the Phoenix burnt to ashes: - The Fortune whipp’d for a blind whore: Blackfriars, - He wonders how it ’scaped demolishing - I’ th’ time of reformation: lastly, he wish’d - The Bull might cross the Thames to the Bear Garden, - And there be soundly baited. - -[1059] Stowe, _Annales_ (1631), 1004. In the extract in Harrison, ii. -49*, the period covered is given in error as 1553–1613. - -[1060] Cf. App. I. - -[1061] S. A. Strong, _Catalogue of Letters at Welbeck_, 226. - -[1062] Harrison, iv. 212, from _Phillipps MS._ 11613, f. 16, _penes_ J. -F. P. Fenwick, of Thirlestane House, Cheltenham, written about 1656–8. -The writer is not quite accurate in some of his earlier dates. - -[1063] Ward, iii. 280; Lawrence, ii. 138. - -[1064] Baker, 135, gives an enlarged reproduction under the name of the -Theatre; but that is an obvious mistake. - -[1065] Rendle, _Bankside_, 1. - -[1066] [Nicholas Goodman?] _Hollands Leaguer or an historical Discourse -of the Life and Actions of Dona Britanica Hollandia the Arch-Mistris -of the wicked women of Evtopia_ (1632), sig. F 2; cf. C. W. Wallace in -_Engl. Stud._ xliii. 392. - -[1067] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 52. - -[1068] I cannot agree with Dr. Martin (_Surrey Arch. Colls._ xxiii. -186), who sees, both in the Delaram and the ‘Hondius’ engravings, an -east to west highway running north of the cylindrical building, which -he takes for Maid Lane. - -[1069] The somewhat wanton suggestion of Dr. Martin (loc. cit. 188) -that the engraver mistook the Rose for the Globe is sufficiently -refuted by the fact that the Rose was extinct or at least long disused. - -[1070] I do not know on what ground Adams, 458, says that Visscher’s -view was drawn several years before it was printed, ‘and represents the -city as it was in or before 1613’. - -[1071] Martin, loc. cit. 192, again suggests that the houses are -misnamed. He thinks that the Rose has been called the Globe in error -and the Globe the Bear Garden, and that the unnamed house is the Globe. -I cannot follow him in thinking that Merian represents the western -house of the group as south of Maid Lane; all three are clearly to the -north. - -[1072] Adams, 458, thinks that Merian worked upon Visscher, ‘with -additions from some other earlier view not yet identified’. If so, this -might perhaps go back to 1605. - -[1073] Cf. p. 463. - -[1074] Rendle, _Bankside_, xxx. - -[1075] Cf. p. 433. - -[1076] B. Marsh, _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, -iii. 95. I have to thank Mr. Marsh for this reference. - -[1077] _Sloane MS._ 2530, f. 11 _et passim_. - -[1078] App. C, No. xviii. - -[1079] Gosson, _Schoole of Abuse_, 40. The date renders very hazardous -the identifications of _Ptolemy_ with the _Telomo_ shown at Court by -Leicester’s men on 10 Feb. 1583, and of _The Jew_ with R. W.’s _Three -Ladies of London_ (1584), which leads Fleay, 36, 40, to infer that -Leicester’s men played at the Bull from 1560 to 1576. - -[1080] App. D, Nos. lx-lxii. - -[1081] Tarlton, 13, 24. - -[1082] Birch, _Elizabeth_, i. 173, from _Lambeth MS._; Spedding, viii. -314. - -[1083] Cf. App. I. - -[1084] Machyn, 238. - -[1085] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 277. The play may have only been rehearsed, -so that the identification of it by Fleay, 36, with _The Irish Knight_ -shown at Court by Warwick’s men on 18 Feb. 1577 is untenable, and with -it vanishes all ground for the assignment of the inn by Fleay, 40, to -Rich’s men in 1568–70, Lane’s in 1571–3, Warwick’s in 1575–80, and -Hunsdon’s in 1582–3. - -[1086] Tarlton, 24. - -[1087] Harben, 65. - -[1088] Tarlton, 21. Apparently the Queen of Sheba, and not Pocahontas, -was the original _Belle Sauvage_. - -[1089] App. C, No. xiv. - -[1090] App. C, No. xxii. The description reads like a compliment to -Lyly, but does not justify the inference of Fleay, 39, that the Chapel -boys played at the Bel Savage from 1559 to 1582. - -[1091] Arber, ii. 526. - -[1092] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 7, 10, 11, 14; cf. the quotation from G. -Silver, _Paradoxe of Defence_ (1599), in Adams, 13. - -[1093] Wallace, _N. U. S._ xiii. 82, 89. - -[1094] Tarlton, 23. - -[1095] App. D, No. ci. Fleay, 89, has no other material than these -notices and an unjustifiable assumption of identity between the two -companies for assigning the house to Leicester’s (1586–8) and Strange’s -(1589–91). - -[1096] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317; cf. p. 425. - -[1097] Stowe, _Survey_ (ed. Kingsford, ii. 262, 369), ends his account -of Holywell in the 1598 edition, ‘And neare therevnto are builded two -publique houses for the acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies, and -Histories, for recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, -the other the Theatre: both standing on the South-west side towards -the field’. This is omitted from the 1603 edition, probably not so -much, as has been suggested, because Stowe shared the Puritan dislike -of the stage, as because in 1603 the Theatre was gone and the Curtain -little used. Stowe’s draft (_c._ 1598) in _Harl. MS._ 538 runs, ‘Neare -adjoyning are builded two houses for the shewe of Activities, Comedies, -tragedies and histories, for recreation. The one of them is named the -Curtayn in Holy Well, the other the Theatre.’ No contemporary map shows -the Theatre, although that of Agas (_c._ 1561) gives a good idea of the -Halliwell district before it was built. The representation from the -seventeenth-century ‘Ryther’ map, given as the Theatre by Baker, 135, -is presumably the Curtain. - -[1098] Braines (1915), 4; Stopes, 185. - -[1099] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 345; Braines (1915), 5, 21. - -[1100] Latin translations of parts of the lease are recited in -pleadings of 1600 and 1602 (Wallace, 166, 268), and the description of -parcels agrees with that in the draft lease of 1585, similarly recited -in 1600 (Wallace, 169); cf. Braines (1915), 8. - -[1101] The position of the well in Chassereau’s _Survey of Shoreditch_ -(1745) seems to me to bear out this identification, although, as -Braines (1915), 4, points out, we do not know Chassereau’s authority. -Under Burbadge’s lease all Giles Allen’s tenants in Holywell were to -have access to the well. Stowe, _Survey_, i. 15, describes the holy -well as ‘much decayed and marred with filthinesse purposely laide -there, for the heighthening of the ground for garden plots’. It is -clearly distinct from Dame Agnes a Cleere’s well, which was outside -Holywell, towards the north (Stowe, _Survey_, i. 16; ii. 273; Stopes, -192). - -[1102] _Tarlton’s News out of Purgatory_ (S. R. 26 June 1590), in -_Tarlton_, 54, 105, ‘I would needs to the Theatre to a play, where -when I came, I founde such concourse of unrulye people, that I thought -it better solitary to walk in the fields, then to intermeddle myselfe -amongst such a great presse. Feeding mine humour with this fancie, -I stept by dame Anne of Cleeres well, and went by the backside of -Hogsdon, where, finding the sun to be hotte, and seeing a faire tree -that had a coole shade, I sat me downe to take the aire, where after I -had rested me a while, I fell asleepe.... And with that I waked, and -saw such concourse of people through the fields that I knew the play -was doon.’ - -[1103] Braines (1915), 27. Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 351, put the site -on the present Deane’s Mews, but this is too far south, and does not -allow for the interposition of Rutland’s holding between Holywell Lane -and Allen’s. The shoring up of the barn to the Theatre is testified to -in Wallace, 227, 231, 243. The exact site therefore cannot have been -far east of the Curtain Road, which apparently occupies the strip of -void land held by Burbadge between the old priory wall and the ditch -bordering Finsbury fields. - -[1104] Wallace, 134, 141, 153. - -[1105] Ibid. 39. - -[1106] Ibid. 139. - -[1107] Wallace, 142 (Miles), 152 (Nicoll). - -[1108] App. D, No. xxxiv. - -[1109] Wallace, 135. - -[1110] Ibid. 140. - -[1111] Ibid. 151 (Nicoll). - -[1112] Ibid. 152 (Nicoll). - -[1113] Wallace, 73 (Bett), 102, 119 (Ralph Miles), 137 (Collins), 143 -(Robert Miles), 152 (Nicoll), 157. - -[1114] Ibid. 53, 107, 111 (Hyde), 73 (Bett), 143 (Robert Miles), 103, -120 (Ralph Miles). Brayne’s will was proved 10 Aug. 1586 (Wallace, 14). - -[1115] Ibid. 104 (Ralph Miles), 146 (Robert Miles). - -[1116] Ibid. 16, 55, 108 (Hyde), 73 (Bett), 145 (Miles). - -[1117] Ibid. 46. - -[1118] Wallace, 86 (Bett), 115 (Bishop), 122 (Ralph Miles). - -[1119] Ibid. 109 (Hyde), 134 (Griggs), 137 (Collins), 106 (Ralph -Miles), 139, 148 (Robert Miles). - -[1120] Ibid. 83 (Bett), 88 (Gascoigne), 90 (James). - -[1121] Ibid. 87 (Bett). - -[1122] Griggs (Wallace, 134) puts Brayne’s expenditure at 1,000 marks -and Burbadge’s at under £100; Collins (Wallace, 137) agrees as to -Brayne’s and puts Burbadge’s at about £50; Miles (ibid. 141) says -Brayne spent £600 or £700 in cash or credit and Burbadge about £50 in -cash and material; Lanman (ibid. 148) had heard that the building cost -1,000 marks; Giles Allen (ibid. 164) valued it at £700 in 1599. - -[1123] Robert Miles put Burbadge’s total profits from tenements and -play-house in eight or nine years before 1592 at 2,000 marks, but in -1600 he only put the aggregate profits of James and Cuthbert from the -play-house by itself at 1,000 marks (Wallace, 147, 263). Giles Allen -(ibid. 198) put them at £2,000. Ralph Miles in 1592 had heard that -Burbadge had received £700 or £800 in rents and profits since Brayne’s -death in 1586 (ibid. 106). John Alleyn, a more disinterested witness, -confirms this estimate, putting the figure at £100 or 200 marks a year -for the five years before 1592 (ibid. 102). - -[1124] Wallace, 76 (Ellam), 77 (Hudson). - -[1125] Ibid. 47. - -[1126] Wallace, 59 (C. Burbadge), 62 (J. Burbadge), 97, 114 (Bishop), -100, 126 (Alleyn), 105, 121 (Ralph Miles). - -[1127] Ibid. 49, 66. - -[1128] Ibid. 101, 127 (Alleyn). The two depositions are not quite -consistent as to dates. From that of 6 Feb. 1592, one would infer that -the dispute between Burbadge and the Admiral’s was at the time of -the contempt of 16 Nov. 1590. The second, of 6 May 1592, apparently -corrects the first, by giving the date of the insult to the Lord -Admiral as ‘about a yere past’. The point is of importance, as bearing -upon the length of the stay of the Admiral’s and Strange’s (cf. ch. -xiii) at the Theatre. No doubt Mrs. Brayne, who came ‘dyvers tymes’ to -the Theatre, continued her applications after laying her affidavit of -contempt. - -[1129] Wallace, 153. - -[1130] Wallace, 156. - -[1131] Ibid. 161, 263. Miles still held Burbadge’s bonds in 1600. - -[1132] Ibid. 137, ‘iron worke which the said Braynes bestowed vppon the -same Theater’. - -[1133] Cf. ch. xviii. - -[1134] Wallace, 62 (Burbadge), 88 (Bett), 125 (Alleyn), 149 (Lanman). - -[1135] Cf. pp. 358, 362. This evidence outweighs the rather slight -grounds on which T. S. Graves, _The Shape of the First London Theatre_ -(_South Atlantic Quarterly_, xiii. 280), conjectures that it may have -been rectangular. - -[1136] G. Harvey, _Letter Book_, 67, suggests in 1579 that he may be -asked by Leicester’s, Warwick’s, Vaux’s or Rich’s men, or ‘sum other -freshe starteup comedanties’ for ‘sum malt conceivid comedye fitt for -the Theater, or sum other paintid stage’ (cf. p. 4). It is a pity he -was not more precise. - -[1137] Cf. App. C, Nos. xxii, xxx. Fleay, 40, 88, 145, identifies _The -Play of Plays_ in which Delight was a character with the _Delight_ -shown at Court by Leicester’s on 26 Dec. 1580, and _Caesar and Pompey_, -which Gosson does not quite clearly assign to the Theatre at all, -with the _Pompey_ shown by Paul’s on 6 Jan. 1581; and conjectures -successive occupations by Leicester’s (1576–83), Paul’s (1582), Queen’s -and Hunsdon’s (1584), Queen’s and Oxford’s (1585), Queen’s (1586–93), -Chamberlain’s (1594–7). He was unlucky in omitting the Admiral’s from -his guesses. - -[1138] Cf. App. D, Nos. xliii, xliv. - -[1139] Wallace, 201 (Cuthbert Burbadge), 239 (Smith), 240 (May), 242 -(Tilt). - -[1140] Ibid. 11. - -[1141] Cf. App. D, No. lxxiv. - -[1142] Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (_Works_, i. 197). Harington, -_Metamorphosis of Ajax_ (1596), speaks of a vulgar word ‘admitted -into the Theater with great applause by the mouth of Mayster Tarlton, -the excellent comedian’. It was near the Theatre that the writer of -_Tarltons Newes of Purgatorie_ (Tarlton, 54) had his dream of the dead -actor. - -[1143] Cf. App. C, No. xl. - -[1144] Lodge, _Wits Miserie_ (1596), ‘pale as the visard of the ghost -which cried so miserably at the Theator, like an oister wife, Hamlet, -revenge’. In T. M., _Black Book_ (1604), is a mention of ‘one of my -divells in D^r Faustus, when the olde Theatre crackt and frighted the -audience’. This was presumably before 1592, as _Dr. Faustus_ seems to -have been continuously in Henslowe’s hands from the beginning of that -year. Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 363, quotes an allusion of Barnaby Rich -in 1606 (_Faultes Faults, and Nothing Else but Faultes_, 7) to ‘Gravets -part at the Theatre’, but this must not be pressed as a reference to -the long-destroyed house. - -[1145] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 6, 11, 12, 46; cf. App. D, Nos. lxii, -lxviii. - -[1146] Cf. ch. xi, p. 371. - -[1147] T. W., _Sermon at Paul’s Cross_ (3 Nov. 1577), ‘Beholde the -sumptuous Theatre houses’; Northbrooke (S. R. 2 Dec. 1577), 85, -‘places ... builded for such Playes and Enterludes, as the Theatre and -Curtaine is’; Stockwood, _Sermon at Paul’s Cross_ (24 Aug. 1578), ‘the -Theatre, the Curtayne, and other places of Playes in the Citie ... -the gorgeous Playing place erected in the fieldes ... as they please -to have it called, a Theatre’; _News from the North_ (1579), ‘the -Theaters, Curtines ... and such places where the time is so shamefully -mispent’; T. Twyne, _Physic for Fortune_ (1579), i. xxx, 42, ‘the -Curteine or Theater; which two places are well knowen to be enimies -to good manners: for looke who goeth thyther evyl, returneth worse’; -Stubbes (S. R. 1 March 1583), i. 144, ‘flockyng and runnyng to Theaters -and Curtens ... Venus pallaces’; Field (1583), ‘the distruction bothe -of bodye and soule that many are brought unto by frequenting the -Theater, the Curtin and such like’; Rankins (1587), f. 4, ‘the Theater -and Curtine may aptlie be termed for their abhomination, the chappell -_adulterinum_’; Harrison, _Chronologie_ (1588), i. liv, ‘It is an -evident token of a wicked time when plaiers wexe so riche that they can -build suche houses’. - -[1148] App. D, Nos. XXXV, lxxiv. It appears to have been thought a -good example to frequenters of the Theatre that the locality should -occasionally be used for a public execution. Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), -749, 750, records the hanging of W. Gunter, a priest from beyond the -seas, ‘at the Theater’ on 28 Aug. 1588, and of W. Hartley, another -priest, ‘nigh the Theator,’ on 1 Oct. 1588; cf. Halliwell-Phillipps, -i. 351, from _True Report of the Inditement of Weldon, Hartley, and -Sutton, who Suffred for High Treason_ (1588). - -[1149] Sir A. Ashley to Sir R. Cecil (_Hatfield MSS._ vii. 504). - -[1150] Cf. ch. ix. In addition to the occasions described above, -the Theatre and Curtain are particularly referred to in the City’s -complaint to Walsingham on 3 May 1583, and in the Council’s inhibitions -of 29 Oct. 1587, where the ‘Liberty’ of Holywell is clearly pointed at -in the allusion to ‘places priviledged’, and 23 June 1592 (App. D, Nos. -lxix, lxxx, xc). - -[1151] App. D, No. xlii. The County records also contain entries of a -recognisance by ‘James Burbage of Shorditch gent.’, Henry Bett, and -[Cuthbert] Burbage in the Strond, yeoman’, on 6 April 1592, for the -former’s appearance at the next Middlesex sessions, and a similar -recognisance of ‘James Burbage of Hallywell, yeoman’, on 11 Sept. 1593 -(Jeaffreson, i. 205, 217); but there is nothing to show the nature of -the proceedings. - -[1152] Cf. App. C, No. xxv. - -[1153] App. D, No. cx. - -[1154] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_, sat. v: - - ‘but see yonder, - One, like the unfrequented Theater, - Walkes in darke silence and vast solitude’. - -[1155] Wallace, 169, 183, 191, 214, 218. - -[1156] Ibid. 72, 76, 226. - -[1157] Ibid. 232, 235. - -[1158] Wallace, 195, 203, 212, 216, 220, 238. Robert Miles took -occasion of the negotiations to renew his old claim by petitioning -in the Court of Requests for an interest in the new lease. The -proceedings, so far as preserved, are inconclusive (ibid. 158). -Meanwhile Cuthbert Burbadge was co-operating with Giles Allen in -defending a claim made by the Earl of Rutland to the ‘debateable’ -ground, and remained a party to the consequent litigation in 1602, long -after the Theatre had disappeared (Stopes, 184). - -[1159] Wallace, 184, 196, 204. - -[1160] Ibid. 221. - -[1161] Ibid. 164, 179, 197, 217, 222, 238, 278. The dates are not -quite certain; possibly the 20 Jan. of _Allen v. Street_ was an error. -Allen’s Answer in the Court of Requests places the whole transaction -‘aboute the feast of the Natiuitie’, and this in his Star Chamber suit -becomes ‘aboute the eight and twentyth day of December’, without any -suggestion that more than one day was occupied. - -[1162] Ibid. 163. - -[1163] Ibid. 181. - -[1164] Wallace, 186, 215, 220. - -[1165] Ibid. 285. - -[1166] Ibid. 267, 275. - -[1167] Aubrey, ii. 12, on the authority of J. Greenhill, says that Ben -Jonson ‘acted and wrote, but both ill, at the Green Curtaine, a kind -of nursery or obscure play-house, somewhere in the suburbes’ (I thinke -towards Shoreditch or Clarkenwell), and on that of Sir Edward Shirburn -that Jonson killed Marlowe, ‘on Bunhill, comeing from the Green-Curtain -play-house’. Hoxton, where Jonson killed Gabriel Spencer, is of course -not far from Bunhill, and both are in the Holywell neighbourhood. -Probably Aubrey, in giving a name to the theatre, is babbling of green -frieze, rather than green fields. Steevens and Malone (_Variorum_, iii. -54) committed themselves to the view that ‘the original sign hung out -at this play-house was the painting of a curtain striped’. - -[1168] Thomas Wilkins was perhaps related to George Wilkins the -dramatist, who was buried at Shoreditch 9 Aug. 1613. Sir William Allen -is not known to have had anything to do either with Edward Alleyn or -with Giles Allen, the ground-landlord of the Theatre. Lanman was 54 on -30 July 1592. We cannot assume that the name is merely an orthographic -variant of that of Laneham. - -[1169] Reproduced in Ordish, 40. - -[1170] Reproduced in Baker, 36, 135, with a photographic enlargement of -the building, wrongly identified with the _Theatre_. It is shown as a -round or hexagonal structure, with a large flag, standing in the middle -of a square paled plot; but too much stress must not be laid on what is -probably only a cartographic symbol. Immediately south of it is Bedlam. -Kiechel tells us that the house had three galleries, and de Witt that -it was an ‘amphitheatrum’ (cf. pp. 358, 362). In the epilogue to _Three -English Brothers_ (1607) it is a ‘round circumference’. - -[1171] Cf. p. 393. - -[1172] Fleay, 40, 88, 145, 201, 300, assigns it as follows: Sussex’s -(1576–83), Arundel’s and Oxford’s (1584), Howard’s and Hunsdon’s -(1585), Oxford’s (1586–8), Pembroke’s (1589–97), Chamberlain’s -(1597–9), Derby’s (1599–1600), uncertain company (1601), Queen Anne’s -(1604–9), Duke of York’s (1610–23). But, of course, this _is_ guessing. - -[1173] Tarlton, 16. If _Tarlton’s Jig of a Horse Load of Fools_, taken -from a manuscript of Collier’s (Tarlton, xx), is genuine, that also was -given at the Curtain. - -[1174] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 4, 12, 43, 44, 46. - -[1175] Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (S. R. 8 Sept. 1598), Sat. v: - - if my dispose - Perswade me to a play, I’le to the Rose, - Or Curtaine, one of Plautus comedies, - Or the patheticke Spaniards tragedies; - -and in the _Preludium_, of a ‘Cittizen ... comming from the Curtaine’. - -[1176] _Scourge of Villainy_ (1598), xi. 37 (_Works_, iii. 372): - - Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? Faith now I know - I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow - Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo. - Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio? - Now I have him, that ne’er of ought did speak - But when of plays or players he did treat-- - Hath made a commonplace book out of plays, - And speaks in print: at least what e’er he says - Is warranted by Curtain plaudities. - -[1177] Cf. p. 365. - -[1178] Jeaffreson, i. 259. - -[1179] Heath, Epigram 39; Wither, _Abuses_, i. 1; ii. 3. - -[1180] Cf. App. C, No. lix. - -[1181] _Variorum_, iii. 54, 59; Ordish, 106, from _Vox Graculi_ (1623) -and Jeaffreson, iii. 164. - -[1182] A writer in the _Daily News_ for 9 April 1898 identifies the -site of the theatre, without giving any evidence, as ‘between Clock -Passage, Newington Butts, Swan Place, and Hampton Street’; cf. _9 N. -Q._ i. 386. - -[1183] App. D, Nos. xlvi, lxxvi, xcii. - -[1184] Cf. p. 373. - -[1185] C. W. Wallace in _N. U. S._ xiii. 2, ‘as shown by a contemporary -record to be published later’. - -[1186] _A Woman is a Weathercock_, III. iii. 25. - -[1187] Rendle, _Antiquarian_, viii. 60, ‘Among the early Surveys, 1 -Edward VI, we see that this was not merely a name--the place was a -veritable Rose Garden, and paid £1 3_s._ 4_d._ by the year, and the -messuage called the Rose paid £4’. - -[1188] _Close Roll 6 Edw. VI_, p. 5, m. 13; cf. Rendle, _Bankside_, xv; -_H. P._ 1. - -[1189] _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 13, quoted in Henslowe, ii. 25. But in -ii. 43 Dr. Greg misdescribes the Rose as on the west of the Barge, -Bell, and Cock. - -[1190] _Henslowe Papers_, 1. - -[1191] Ibid. 2. - -[1192] Henslowe, i. 209. - -[1193] Cf. Dekker, _Satiromastix_, 1247, ‘th’ast a breath as sweet as -the Rose, that growes by the Beare-garden’. - -[1194] G. L. Gomme, _The Story of London Maps_ (_Geographical Journal_, -xxxi. 628), ‘1588. Henchley.--Item, we present Phillip Henchley to -pull upp all the pylles that stand in the common sewer against the -play-house to the stopping of the water course, the which to be done by -midsomer next uppon paine of x^s yf it be undone. x^s (done)’. Wallace, -in _The Times_ (1914), says that these records mention the theatre -as ‘new’ in April 1588, and show other amercements during the next -eighteen years. - -[1195] Dr. Greg, in Henslowe, ii. 46, is, I think, successful in -showing that all the dated building entries belong to 1592 and not to -1591 or 1593. I suppose the scattered entries with the date ‘1591’ to -have been written in first, and the continuous account under the date -‘1592’ added later, probably after Henslowe had changed the year-date -in his play-entries, which seems to have been on 6 May. - -[1196] Henslowe, i. 7. - -[1197] App. D, No. xcii. - -[1198] The words ‘Chomley when’ appear with other scribbles by Henslowe -on the first page of the diary (Henslowe, i. 217). - -[1199] Cf. p. 402. - -[1200] Henslowe, i. 4. - -[1201] Henslowe, i. 178. - -[1202] Ibid. ii. 55. - -[1203] Wallace, in _The Times_ (1914). - -[1204] Rendle, _Bankside_, xv, quotes - - In the last great fire - The Rose did expire, - -and adds ‘but when that was, I am not clear’. It reads like Collier. - -[1205] I cannot endorse the suggestion of Dr. Martin (cf. p. 378) -that the ‘Globe’ of Visscher (1616) was really the Rose. Baker, 165, -reproducing a cut from Hollar (1640), also misnames the Globe as the -Rose. - -[1206] Young, ii. 241. - -[1207] _Variorum_, iii. 56. I should have been happier if Malone had -quoted _verbatim_, but I do not see that Adams, 160, explains away the -statement by suggesting that a source for Malone’s ‘error’ is a note on -p. 66, where he again cites Herbert for fencing at the Red Bull in 1623. - -[1208] _E. S._ xliii. 341; _Index to Remembrancia_, 277. It appears -from _Hatfield MSS._ vi. 182, 184, that in May 1596 Langley was -concerned in some negotiations about a missing diamond claimed by the -Crown; cf. p. 396. - -[1209] Printed from a contemporary copy in the Guildhall by W. Rendle -in Appendix to Part II of _Harrison’s Description of England_ (_N. S. -S._, 1878) and Adams, 162. The original is held by the steward of the -manor. - -[1210] App. D, No. cii. - -[1211] Cf. p. 361, and for the reliability and value of the record as -evidence for the structure and staging of theatres, chh. xviii, xx. - -[1212] _S. v. L._ 352, ‘the said howse was then lately afore vsed to -have playes in hit’. - -[1213] Ibid., ‘the Defendant should be allowed for the true value -thereof out of the Complainantes moytie of the gains for the seuerall -standinges in the galleries of the said howse which belonged to them’. -As ‘which’ may follow on ‘moytie’, I see no reason for Wallace’s -inference (360) that the galleries were structurally divided between -the two parties, instead of the takings being shared. - -[1214] Cf. ch. xiv (Pembroke’s) and ch. xxii (Nashe). - -[1215] _S. v. L._ 353 (6 Feb. 1598), ‘the said Defendant hath euer -synce had his said howse contynually from tyme to tyme exercysed with -other players to his great gaines’. - -[1216] App. D, No. cxiv. - -[1217] App. D, No. cxv. - -[1218] App. C, No. lii. - -[1219] Cf. p. 362. - -[1220] App. D, No. cxxiii. - -[1221] Manningham, 130; Gawdy, 93. - -[1222] Ch. xxiii (Vennar). - -[1223] _E. S._ xliii. 342. - -[1224] Act v, sc. i. - -[1225] P. Norman, _The Accounts of the Overseers of the Poor of Paris -Garden, 1608–71_ (1901, _Surrey Arch. Colls._ xvi. 55), from _Addl. -MS._ 34, 110, and again by C. W. Wallace as a new discovery in _E. S._ -xliii. 390. The amounts are £4 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1611, £5 3_s._ 4_d._ in -1612, £5 5_s._ in 1613, £3 0_s._ 10_d._ in 1614, 19_s._ 2_d._ in 1615, -and £3 19_s._ 4_d._ in 1621. - -[1226] It can hardly have been open at the time of the Watermen’s -petition early in 1614 (cf. p. 370). - -[1227] Herbert, 63; _Variorum_, iii. 56. Rendle, in _Antiquarian -Magazine_, vii. 211, notes a ‘licence for T. B. and three assistants -to make shows of Italian motion, at the Prince’s Arms, or the Swan’ in -1623; cf. Herbert, 47. - -[1228] Cf. p. 376. - -[1229] _N. U. S._ xiii. 279; cf. p. 399. - -[1230] Wallace, in _The Times_ (1914), ‘Ac de et in vna domo de novo -edificata cum gardino eidem pertinenti in parochia S^{ci} Salvatoris -praedicta in comitatu Surria praedicta in occupacione Willielmi -Shakespeare et aliorum’. - -[1231] Cf. p. 364. - -[1232] A rather fantastic argument of Ordish, 85, for the Curtain on -the ground of the martial character of the neighbourhood is answered by -Murray, i. 99. - -[1233] _E. M. O._ 4368. - -[1234] _O. v. H._ l. 110. - -[1235] _O. v. H._ l. 99; _W. v. H._ 313. - -[1236] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317. - -[1237] _W. v. H._ 314. - -[1238] _Century_ (Aug. 1910), 508; cf. p. 424. - -[1239] _W. v. H._ 314. - -[1240] _O. v. H._ l. 194. - -[1241] _W. v. H._ 319. - -[1242] Ibid. 317. Wallace dates the admission of Condell in 1610, but -this seems to be an error. - -[1243] _O. v. H._ l. 97; _W. v. H._ 321. - -[1244] Rye, 61, from _Relation_ of Hans Jacob Wurmsser von Vendenheym, -‘Lundi 30 [April 1610] S. E. [Prince Lewis Frederick of Württemberg] -alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire ou l’on joue les Commedies, y fut -representé l’histoire du More de Venise’; cf. p. 369 on visit of Prince -of Hesse-Cassel in 1611. - -[1245] _W. v. H._ 320. - -[1246] Stowe, 926. Jonas, 104, cites another record of the date from A. -Hopten, _A Concordancy of Yeares_ (1615). - -[1247] Birch, _James_, i. 253. - -[1248] L. Pearsall Smith, _Letters of Wotton_, ii. 32. - -[1249] Winwood, iii. 469. - -[1250] Arber, iii. 528, ‘Simon Stafford ... a ballad called the sodayne -Burninge of the Globe on the Bankside in the Play tyme on Saint Peters -day last 1613’; ‘Edward White ... a doleful ballad of the general -ouerthrowe of the famous theater on the Banksyde called the Globe &c. by -William Parrat’. - -[1251] Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, i. 310, ‘from a manuscript -of the early part of the seventeenth century, of unquestionable -authenticity, preserved in the library of Sir Mathew Wilson, Bart., of -Eshton Hall, co. York’. The Eshton Hall collection, originally formed -by John Hopkinson in 1660, has recently been sold, with the verses, to -Mr. G. D. Smith of New York. The ‘Sonnett’ was first printed [by Joseph -Haslewood] in _The Gentleman’s Magazine_ (1816), lxxxvi. 114, ‘from an -old manuscript volume of poems and therefrom by Collier, i. 371, and -Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 225. - -[1252] _Taylors Water-Works_ (1614), reprinted as _The Sculler_ (1630, -_Works_, 515), ep. 22 of 3rd series. - -[1253] _Underwoods_, lxii, written later than the Fortune fire of 9 -Dec. 1621. - -[1254] _Histriomastix_, 556. - -[1255] Birch, _James I_, i. 329. - -[1256] Cf. p. 374. - -[1257] _W. v. H._ 320. - -[1258] Ibid. 321. - -[1259] A later statement by Shank in the _Sharers Papers_ puts it at -£1,400. Heminges describes Witter’s ‘parte’ by a slip as one-sixth -instead of one-seventh of the moiety. If the £120 was one-twelfth of -the total cost, his figure (£1,440) would agree with that of Shank. -Professor Wallace says in _The Times_ of 2 Oct. 1909, ‘This amount is -in fact excessive.... I have other contemporary documents showing the -cost was far less than £1,400.’ - -[1260] _W. v. H._ 323; Wallace in _The Times_ (1914). - -[1261] _O. v. H._ ll. 245 sqq. - -[1262] Lambert, _Shakespeare Documents_, 87. - -[1263] _W. v. H._ 323. - -[1264] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 312. - -[1265] Cf. ch. xi. There was a much rougher type of audience at the -Globe; cf. Shirley, _Prologue at the Globe, to his Comedy called ‘The -Doubtful Heir’, which should have been presented at the Blackfriars_, -quoted in _Variorum_, iii. 69. - -[1266] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). - -[1267] Wallace in _The Times_ (1914). Bodley seems to have acquired -a dubious title to hold the land in his own right in 1608, raised a -fine of £20 for recognizing the players’ lease in 1609, and a fine of -£2 on Heminges for leave to build his taphouse in 1615. Matthew Brend -recovered the property through the Court of Wards, after the end of his -minority, in 1622. - -[1268] Rendle, _Bankside_, xvii, from _Southwark Vestry Papers_. Brend -was knighted in 1622. - -[1269] Cf. p. 374. Wallace, in _The Times_ (1914), makes Matthew -Brend’s lease end on 25 Dec. Yet he puts the destruction after the -expiration of the lease. - -[1270] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 58. - -[1271] Martin, 158. - -[1272] Stopes, _Burbage_, 196; Martin, 169; from _Close Roll, 3 Car. -I_, pt. 23, m. 22. - -[1273] Martin, 174. - -[1274] A. Hayward, _Autobiography of Mrs. Piozzi_, ii. 33. - -[1275] _History of St. Saviour’s_ (1795), 231. - -[1276] T. Pennant, _London_ (1791), 60, ‘A little west of S. Mary -Overies (in a place still called Globe Alley) stood the Globe.... I -have been told that the door was very lately standing’; Concanen and -Morgan, 224, ‘Several of the neighbouring inhabitants remember these -premises being wholly taken down about fifty years ago, having remained -for many years in a very ruinous state: avoided by the young and -superstitious as a place haunted by those imaginary beings called evil -spirits’. - -[1277] Martin, 165, 177. It is probably a mere coincidence that John -Knowles held a garden next the Globe site in 1599. - -[1278] Rendle, _Bankside_, xix; _Antiquarian_, viii. 216. - -[1279] Chalmers, _Apology_ (1797), 114, ‘I maintain, that the Globe -was situated on the Bank, within eighty paces of the river, which has -since receded from its former limits; that the Globe stood on the site -of John Whatley’s windmill, which is at present used for grinding -colours; as I was assured by an intelligent manager of Barclay’s -brewhouse, which covers, in its ample range, part of Globe Alley; -and that Whatley’s wind mill stands due south from the western side -of Queenhythe by the compass, which I set for the express purpose of -ascertaining the relative bearings of the windmill to the opposite -objects on the Thames’; W. Wilson, _History and Antiquities of -Dissenting Churches_ (1814), iv. 148, 175, ‘In former days there stood -here [in Globe Alley] a theatre called the “Globe”.... Near to this -place stood the meeting-house.... Its dissolution took place about the -year 1752.... It is at present used for warehousing goods. A mill was -also erected over it for the purpose of grinding bones’; R. Wilkinson, -_Londina Illustrata_ (1819), i. 135, ‘Upon the disuse of the theatre, -its site ... was formed into a meeting-house.... Afterwards a mill -was erected here to grind bones; and it is at present appropriated -for the purpose of grinding stones and similar materials’. The plan, -however, which accompanies Wilkinson’s text, assigns the theatre to an -improbable site some way west of the meeting-house. The Globe Alley -meeting-house was built in 1672; it appears in a list of 1683, and is -marked on Rocque’s map of 1746 on Rendle’s favourite site. Wilson only -says the meeting-house was near the Globe; Wilkinson identifies the -sites. Chalmers mentions the windmill, but not the meeting-house. I may -add that a line drawn south from the west of Queenhithe would pass west -of any possible site for the Globe. Malone’s ‘nearly opposite to Friday -Street, Cheapside’ (_Variorum_, iii. 63) can also only be approximate. - -[1280] Cf. facsimile from token-book in Martin, 157. - -[1281] Concanen and Morgan, _History of St. Saviour’s_ (1795), 224, -‘It was situated in what is now called Maid lane; the north side and -building adjoining, extending from the west side of Counter-alley to -the north side of the passage leading to Mr. Brook’s cooperage; on -the east side beyond the end of Globe-alley, including the ground on -which stood the late parish workhouse, and from thence continuing -to the south end of Mr. Brook’s passage. Under this building was -Fountain-alley, leading from Horseshoe-alley into Castle-lane.’ This -account appears to make the site extend farther north than Dr. Martin -allows for, right up, indeed, to Maid Lane. - -[1282] Plan of 1810 in R. Taylor, _Londina Illustrata_, ii. (1825) 136; -plan of 1818 in Taylor, _Annals of St. Mary Overy_ (1833), 140. - -[1283] Martin, 171. One cannot lay much stress upon hearsay locations -of the site by employees of the brewery (Martin, 183), or the discovery -of underground staging still farther south than Dr. Martin’s site on a -spot which in 1599 must have been well within Winchester Park (Martin, -201), or of a stone inscribed ‘[T]heayter’, just south of Globe Alley -(Martin, 184). - -[1284] Martin, 164. - -[1285] A Clink poor relief assessment of 1609 (Collier, _Alleyn -Memoirs_, 91; Warner, 49) shows two names, each assessed for ‘halfe the -parke’; this would hardly be the Bishop’s. The token-books also show -persons resident in the park, but here the order of the entries points -to a locality south of Maiden Lane, near the gate of the Bishop’s Park -(_11 N. Q._ xii. 143). - -[1286] Wallace in _The Times_ (1914). Dr. Martin explains (_11 N. Q._ -xii. 161) that, in order to conduct their patrons from Bankside to the -play-house south of Maiden Lane, ‘the owners of the Globe had erected a -bridge over the ditches and quagmire of Maid Lane’. - -[1287] Dr. Wallace says that all these records were made by the -Commissioners ‘in dealing with the property of Brend and others on the -north side’ of Maiden Lane. But there is no reference to ‘the north -side’ in the actual record. Bingham had, and Sellers may have had, more -than one plot in the neighbourhood. - -[1288] Cf. p. 379. - -[1289] _R. I. B. A. Journal_, 3rd series, xvii. 26. - -[1290] Halliwell-Phillipps (_Calendar of Shakespeare Rarities_, 81) -had a document of 1653 concerning a sewer ‘in Maide Lane nere the -place where the Globe play-house lately stood’, which he considered as -establishing the exact locality of the theatre. It is probably now in -America. - -[1291] Cf. p. 436. - -[1292] I ought not to have suggested in _The Stage of the Globe_, 356, -that the first Globe might have been rectangular. - -[1293] _Variorum_, iii. 67. - -[1294] _Henslowe Papers_, 14; Henslowe, ii. 56. - -[1295] _Henslowe Papers_, 16. - -[1296] Ibid. 25. - -[1297] Ibid. 108. - -[1298] Printed by W. W. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 4, from _Dulwich -Muniments_, 22; also in _Variorum_, iii. 338, and Halliwell-Phillipps, -_Illustrations_, 81; _Outlines_, i. 304. - -[1299] _Quarterly Review_, ccviii. 442; _Architectural Review_, -xxiii. 239. Models by Mr. Godfrey are at the Columbia and Illinois -Universities (Adams, 277). M. W. Sampson has pointed out in _M. L. N._ -for June 1915 (cited by Adams, 279) that the passage in _The Roaring -Girl_ (1611), i. 1, where Sir Alexander Weargrave displays his house to -his friends, is really a description of the Fortune when ‘Within one -square a thousand heads are laid’. - -[1300] _Henslowe Papers_, 25. - -[1301] Ibid. 11. - -[1302] App. D, Nos. cxvii, cxviii, cxxi, cxxii, cxxiv. - -[1303] Cf. ch. viii and App. D, No. cl. - -[1304] _Henslowe Papers_, 110. - -[1305] Cf. ch. xi. - -[1306] _Henslowe Papers_, 64. - -[1307] Ibid. 25. - -[1308] Ibid. 27. - -[1309] Birch, _James I_, ii. 270. - -[1310] Cf. ch. xi. - -[1311] Birch, _James I_, ii. 280. - -[1312] Young, ii. 225. - -[1313] _Henslowe Papers_, 28. - -[1314] Cf. App. I. It is this second house that is represented as a -small angular flagged building in the ‘Ryther’ maps. - -[1315] _Fortnightly Review_ (May 1916). - -[1316] W. J. Lawrence in _Archiv_ (1914), 301; cf. p. 520. - -[1317] Adams, 284, gives the history of the Fortune during 1621–49. - -[1318] A Boar’s Head on the Bankside, which belonged to Henslowe in -1604 and previously to Alleyn (Henslowe, ii. 30), was apparently not an -inn. - -[1319] E. Gayton, _Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot_ (1654), 277, ‘Sir -John of famous memory; not he of the Boares Head in Eastcheap’. Neither -the text nor the stage-directions of _Henry IV_ name the Boar’s Head; -but the references to Eastcheap (_1 Hen. IV_, I. ii. 145, 176; II. iv. -16, 485; _2 Hen. IV_, II. i. 76; II. ii. 161) are sufficient, and when -Prince Hal asks (_2 Hen. IV_, II. ii. 159) ‘Doth the old boar feed -in the old frank?’, Bardolph answers, ‘At the old place, my lord, in -Eastcheap’. Doll Tearsheet (II. iv. 250) calls Falstaff a ‘whoreson -little tidy Bartholomew boar-pig’. - -[1320] Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 258. Harben, 88, however, suggests that -the name was transferred to this house from another on the north side -of Great Eastcheap in St. Clement’s. - -[1321] Stowe, _Survey_, i. 126; ii. 72. I suppose the inn is identical -with the ‘Blue Bore Inne’ marked by Ogilby (1677). The site is at No. -30 on the north of Aldgate High Street (Harben, 87). - -[1322] Dasent, vi. 168. - -[1323] App. D, No. cxxx. The description of this letter in the _Index -to Remembrancia_, 355, as referring to ‘the Boar’s Head in Eastcheap’ -has proved misleading. - -[1324] App. D, Nos. cxxv, cxxix, cxxxv. - -[1325] Cf. ch. xiii (Anne’s). - -[1326] Adams, 17; cf. ch. xiii (Duke of York’s). The further suggestion -of Adams, 8, that Rawlidge in 1628 (cf. p. 360) wrote ‘Whitefriars’ -for ‘Whitechapel’ is less plausible. Rawlidge is only dealing with -play-houses within the City. - -[1327] Adams, 17, identifies the site with Boar’s Head Yard, between -Middlesex Street and Goulston Street, Whitechapel. But this is the -house of 1557 (v. _supra_) within the liberties. Rocque (1746) shows -an oval site, just east of Church Lane and south of the church of St. -Mary, Whitechapel, which rather suggests an amphitheatre, but may be -merely a churchyard. - -[1328] _Henslowe Papers_, 59. - -[1329] Cf. p. 374. - -[1330] The section is reproduced in Adams, 294. - -[1331] Not the mercer Stone who sold stuffs to the Admiral’s in 1601 -and 1602 (Henslowe, ii. 313); he was doubtless William Stone (Knt. in -1604). - -[1332] _W. v. H._ 296. Professor Wallace has confused this 1_s._ 6_d._ -with the profits of Woodford’s seventh, and thinks that a gatherer got -one-eighteenth of the receipts. - -[1333] I think the inference is that the gallery profits were divided -in the proportion of seven-eighteenths to the housekeepers and -eleven-eighteenths to the players. - -[1334] No order seems to have been made as to the gatherer’s place. - -[1335] _Knight of the Burning Pestle_, IV. i. 43. - -[1336] _Travels of the Three Brothers_ (ed. Bullen, p. 88). - -[1337] Dekker, _Works_, iv. 97; cf. p. 367. - -[1338] Jeaffreson, ii. 64, 86. - -[1339] Wither, _Abuses Stript and Whipt_ (1613), i. 1, - - ‘His poetry is such as he can cull - From plays he heard at Curtain or at Bull’; - -_Albumazar_, II. i. 16, ‘Then will I confound her with -compliments drawn from the plays I see at the Fortune and Red Bull, -where I learn all the words I speak and understand not’; Gayton, 24, -‘I have heard that the poets of the Fortune and Red Bull had always -a mouth-measure for their actors (who were terrible tear-throats) -and made their lines proportionable to their compass, which were -sesquipedales, a foot and a half’. - -[1340] Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 107; _D. N. B._ s.v. Alleyn. The -_Diary_ (Young, ii. 51) runs: - -‘Oct. 1, 1617. I came to London in the coach and went to the red Bull. -2^d. - -Oct. 3. I went to the red bull and ℞ for the younger brother but 3. 6. -4, water 4^d.’ - -_The Younger Brother_ was entered in the Stationers’ -Register in 1653, but is not extant. - -[1341] Heywood, _Pleasant Dialogues and Dramas_, 247. - -[1342] Adams, 300. - -[1343] Prynne, _Epistle_ to _Histriomastix_ (1633); W. C., _London’s -Lamentation for her Sins_ (1625), ‘Yet even then, Oh Lord, were the -theatres magnified and enlarged’. - -[1344] _Fortnightly Review_ (May 1916). - -[1345] Cf. App. I. - -[1346] Cf. ch. xviii, _Bibl. Note_. - -[1347] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 250; cf. i. 53, 68, 72; ii. 244 (Durham -Priory), 246 (Thetford Priory), 247 (Winchester College), 248 -(Magdalen, Oxford). - -[1348] Strutt, _Sports and Pastimes_ (ed. Cox), 195. - -[1349] Rendle, _Old Southwark_, f. p., 31. - -[1350] It is also, although unnamed, in Smith’s drawing of 1588, but -that is probably based on Agas. - -[1351] William Fitzstephen (_c._ 1170–82) in J. C. Robertson, -_Materials for the History of Becket_ (R. S.), iii. 11, ‘In hieme -singulis feré festis ante prandium ... pingues tauri cornipetae, seu -ursi immanes, cum objectis depugnant canibus’. - -[1352] Erasmus, _Adagia_, 3354, ‘Sed intolerabilius est quod apud -Britannos complures alunt greges ursorum ad saltationem, animal -vorax et maleficum’. I owe the correct reference to Mr. P. S. Allen. -Presumably ‘greges’ is no more than ‘numbers’. - -[1353] Collier, i. 42, from _Harl. MS._ 433. - -[1354] _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 11. Collier, who owned this document, -or some other modern, has substituted the name of John Dorrington. -A copy, exemplified for Morgan Pope on 18 Nov. 1585, is at Dulwich; -cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 1. Long became steward of Paris Garden in 1536 -(Kingsford, 159). - -[1355] Collier, i. 194, from list of fees payable by the Treasurer of -the Chamber in 1571 (_Cotton MS._ Vesp. C. xiv), ‘keapers of Beares and -Mastives, iij. Item to Mathew Becke, Sergeaunte of the beares, for his -wages per ann. 12^l 10^s 7½^d. Item to Symon Powlter, yoman, per ann. -14^l 6^s 3^d. Item to Richard Darryngton M^r and kepar of the bandogges -and mastives, per ann. 21^l 5^s 10^d’. Similarly, the Treasurer’s -_Declared Account_ for 1594–5 (_Pipe Roll_, 542) shows a total payment -to keepers of Bears and Mastiffs of £48 12_s._ 8½_d._ There is an error -in one or other entry of 10_s._ - -[1356] The Privy Council Acts record warrants _inter alia_ to Ralph in -1574 (Dasent, viii. 257), Thomas in 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, and 1580 -(ix. 121, 153, 335; x. 148; xi. 70, 392), Ralph in 1581 (xii. 321), and -Edward in 1581 and 1582 (xiii. 115, 311). Edward Bowes seems to have -held the Keepership of Dogs, but disclaimed having a fee of £15 17_s._ -4_d._ at the subsidy of 1588 (_M. S. C._ i. 355). - -[1357] Earlier licensees were William Payne and Simon Powlter (> 1574). -Wistow (_c._ 1575), John Napton, Morgan Pope (_c._ 1585–7), Thomas -Burnaby (_c._ 1590–4), and perhaps others; cf. p. 464; Wallace in _The -Times_ (1914); Kingsford, 171–8. - -[1358] _Alleyn Memoirs_, 213; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 4. - -[1359] Henslowe, i. 71. Some payments of June 1597 on account of a -privy seal and a patent for Alleyn (Henslowe, i. 200) may relate to -this. - -[1360] _Henslowe Papers_, 98. Possibly an undated letter from Arthur -Langworth to Alleyn (_Henslowe Papers_, 99), in which he refers to -Bowes’s illness and protests against a charge of not giving Alleyn -sufficient help in procuring some ‘place’, relates to this. But it is -allusive and obscure. - -[1361] _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxviii. 18; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 12. - -[1362] Probably Bowes had also held this keepership with his -Mastership, as he was drawing a fee from the Chamber in 1596 (Henslowe, -i. 128). - -[1363] Muniment 19 in the _Dulwich MSS._ is a warrant of 24 Nov. 1599 -by Meade to a deputy; cf. Henslowe, ii. 38. A list of fees _c._ 1600 -in _Henslowe Papers_, 108, shows, under the general heading ‘Parris -garden’, only two keeperships, instead of the three of 1571, that of -Bears at £12 8_s._ 1½_d._, and that of Mastiffs at £21 5_s._ 10½_d._ - -[1364] _Henslowe Papers_, 12; cf. Henslowe, ii. 37. - -[1365] Receipts by or on behalf of Dorrington dated Jan. and April -1602 are in _Henslowe Papers_, 101; Henslowe, i. 212. Each is for a -quarter’s ‘rent’ of £10, and the earlier is specified as ‘for the -commissyon for the Bear-garden’. A letter of May 1600 from Dorrington -to Henslowe asking him and Meade to have the ‘games’ ready for Court -is in _Henslowe Papers_, 100. In 1603 Henslowe spent 16_s._ 4_d._ ‘for -sewinge at the cort’, on petitions to Dorrington, the Lord Chamberlain, -and the Council, the drawing of two licences, and ‘our warent for -baytynge’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 109). I think that from 1603, if not -earlier, he had a regular appointment as deputy to Dorrington. On 18 -April 1604 he received the Treasurer of the Chamber’s reward as ‘Deputy -Master of the Game’. - -[1366] _Alleyn Memoirs_, 213; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 4. - -[1367] _S. P. D. Jac. I, 1603–10_, p. 134. - -[1368] _Henslowe Papers_, 101; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, x, p. 167. It appears -from a memorandum of Alleyn’s in _Henslowe Papers_, 107, that he paid -£250 for his share. - -[1369] _Henslowe Papers_, 104. - -[1370] This is recited in a warrant to one of their deputies in -_Henslowe Papers_, 18. - -[1371] Henslowe, ii. 38. Dr. Greg gives many interesting details of the -business, and of the relations of the Masters with their agents, for -which I have not space. Others, of Bowes’s time, are in Dasent, ix. 9; -xiii. 101. - -[1372] _Sydney Papers_, ii. 194 (12 May 1600), ‘This day she appointes -to see a Frenchman doe feates upon a rope, in the Conduit court. To -morrow she hath commanded the beares, the bull and the ape to be baited -in the tiltyard. Upon Wednesday she will have solemn dawncing’; cf. -_Epicoene_, iii. 1, ‘Were you ever so much as look’d upon by a lord or -a lady, before I married you, but on the Easter or Whitsun-holidays? -and then out at the banqueting-house window, when Ned Whiting or George -Stone were at the stake?’ George Stone was killed during the visit of -Christian of Denmark in 1606 (_H. P._ 105). The Court practice was -followed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. Payments to the bearward of -Paris Garden for pastime showed at the Conduit Heads are in Harrison, -iv. 322. - -[1373] Machyn, 198. - -[1374] Ibid. 270; Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 305; ii. 469; Walsingham, -_Journal_, 42; Boississe, i. 345. There is a spirited description of a -baiting before Elizabeth at Kenilworth on 14 July 1575 in _Laneham’s -Letter_ (Furnivall, _Captain Cox_, 17); but I do not suppose that these -were the London bears. Leicester, whose cognizance was the bear and -ragged staff, doubtless kept his own ursine establishment. - -[1375] Rye, 123. - -[1376] _Pipe Office Declared Account_, 543, m. 194. - -[1377] Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 835, 865, 895. - -[1378] Translated by F. Madden in _Archaeologia_, xxiii. 354. - -[1379] Machyn, 198. - -[1380] Translated by G. von Bülow in _2 Transactions of Royal Hist. -Soc._ ix. 230, from a manuscript in the possession of Graf von der -Osten at Plathe, Pomerania. I add for the sake of completeness the -following lines from the _Hodoeporica_ (1568, ed. 2, 1575), 224, of N. -Chytraeus, whose visit was probably _c._ 1565–7: - - Opposita in Tamesis ripa, longa area paruis - Distincta aspicitur tectis, vbi magna canum vis - Vrsorumque alitur diuersarumque ferarum, - Quae canibus commissae Anglis spectacula praebent, - Hospitibusque nouis, vincti dum praelia miscent, - Luctantes aut ungue fero, vel dentibus uncis. - -[1381] Cf. ch. xviii. - -[1382] Translated in Rye, 45. - -[1383] Cf. p. 362. - -[1384] Hentzner, 196; cf. p. 363. - -[1385] G. Binz in _Anglia_, xxii. 460, ‘Man pfleget auch alle Sontag -vnndt mittwochen zu Londen, yenseits desz wassers den Berenhatz zu -halten.... Der Schauplatz ist in die Ründe gebauwen, sind oben herumb -viel geng, darauf man zusicht, vnden am boden vnder dem heiteren -Himmel ist es nicht besetzet. Da bande man in mitten desz platzes -einen grossen Beeren an ein stock am langen seil an.... Wie wir die -stegen hinunter kamen, gungen wir hinder den schauwplatz, besahen die -Englischen docken, deren bey 120 in einem bezirk beysamen, yedoch -yetwederer in einem sonderbahren ställin an einer kettin angeheftet -wahren.’ - -[1386] _Hatfield MSS._ xi. 382. - -[1387] G. von Bülow in _2 Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc._ vi. 16, -‘16 Sept. Auf den Nachmittag haben wir den Bär u. Stierhetze zugesehen -... wohlmehr as 200 Hünde an selbigem Ort in einem besonderen Häuslein -unterhalten’. - -[1388] Rye, 61. - -[1389] Rye, 133. - -[1390] _Englische Studien_, xiv. 440. - -[1391] _Epigram_ xliii: - - Publius, student at the common law, - Oft leaves his books, and for his recreation, - To Paris Garden doth himself withdraw, - Where he is ravished with such delectation, - As down among the bears and dogs he goes; - Where, whilst he skipping cries, ‘To head! to head!’ - His satin doublet and his velvet hose - Are all with spittle from above bespread: - When he is like his father’s country hall, - Stinking with dogs and muted all with hawks; - And rightly on him too this filth doth fall, - Which for such filthy sports his books forsakes, - Leaving old Ployden, Dyer, Brooke alone, - To see old Harry Hunks, and Sacarson. - -[1392] _Merry Wives_, I. i. 306. - -[1393] Dekker, _Work for Armourers_ (1609, _Works_, iv. 98), ‘At length -a blind bear was tied to the stake, and instead of baiting him with -dogs, a company of creatures that had the shapes of men and faces of -Christians (being either colliers, carters, or watermen) took the -office of beadles upon them, and whipped Monsieur Hunkes till the blood -ran down his old shoulders’. - -[1394] _Coryats Crudities_ (1611), i. 114, ‘Hunks of the Beare-garden -to be feared if he be nigh on’. - -[1395] Cf. p. 453. Nashe, _Strange News_ (1592, _Works_, i. 281, also -names ‘great Ned’ and adds ‘Harry of Tame’. In 1590 Burnaby had at the -Bear Garden ‘Tom Hunckes’, ‘Whitinge’, ‘Harry of Tame’, three other -bears, three bulls, a horse, an ape. A ‘great’ bear was worth £8 or -£10, a bull £4 or £5 (Kingsford, 175). - -[1396] _Puritan_, iii. 5, ‘How many dogs do you think I had upon me?... -almost as many as George Stone, the bear; three at once’. - -[1397] _Henslowe Papers_, 106. - -[1398] _Copley Accounts_, s. a. 1575, in _Collectanea Genealogica et -Topographica_, viii. 253, ‘Gyven to the master of Paryshe Garden his -man for goynge with Thos. Sharples into Barmensy Street to see certen -mastyve dogges’. - -[1399] R. Crowley, _One and thyrtye Epigrammes_ (1550, ed. E. E. T. -S.), 381: - - And yet me thynke those men be mooste foles of all, - Whose store of money is but verye smale, - And yet euerye Sondaye they will surely spende - One peny or two, the bearwardes lyuyng to mende. - At Paryse garden, eche Sundaye, a man shall not fayle - To fynde two or thre hundredes for the bearwardes vaile. - One halpenye a piece they vse for to giue, - When some haue no more in their purse, I belieue; - -Jonson, _Execration upon Vulcan_ (_Works_, iii. 322): - - a threatning to the bears, - And that accursed ground, the Paris-garden; - -Taylor, _Bull, Bear and Horse_ (1638): - - And that we have obtained again the game, - Our Paris Garden flag proclaims the same. - -Cf. Sir John Davies’ lines already quoted; also Dekker, -ii. 125 (_News from Hell_), iv. 109 (_Work for Armourers_), &c., &c. - -[1400] Stowe, _Annales_, 695. - -[1401] _Henslowe Papers_, 15, 104. Miss Dormer Harris kindly tells me -that the Coventry Corporation rewarded the ‘Bearward of palace Garden’ -in 1576–7. - -[1402] Cf. p. 411. - -[1403] Malone, _Variorum_, xix. 483; Rendle, _Bankside_, iii; -_Antiquarian_, vii. 277; Ordish, 128. - -[1404] _Annales Monasterii de Bermundseia_, s. a. 1113 (Luard, -_Annales Monastici_, iii. 432), ‘Hoc anno Robertus Marmion dedit -hidam de Wideflete cum molendino et aliis pertinentibus suis monachis -de Bermundeseye’; _Register of Hospital of St. John_, s. a. 1420 -(_Monasticon Anglicanum_, vi. 819), ‘Haec sunt statuta et ordinationes -concernentia locum privilegiatum vocatum Parishgardyn, alias dictum -Wideflete, sive Wiles, cum pertinentiis, facta per Johannem nuper -Ducem Bedfordiae, firmarium ibidem, anno Domini mccc[c]xx’ [Rules for -a sanctuary, with a dominus, senescallus, ballivus, constabularius, -and societas, follow]; _Liber Fundatorum of St. John_ (ibid. vi. 832), -‘Molendina de Wideflete cum gardino vocato Parish-gardin ... tenentur -de Abbate de Barmondesey’ (1434). Kingsford, 157, traces the manor -through Bermondsey priory, the Templars, and St. John’s Hospital to the -Crown in 1536. - -[1405] Blount, _Glossographia_ (ed. 4, 1674), 469, quotes _Close Roll, -16 Rich. II_, dorso ii. Kingsford, 156, translates the writ, which -is abstracted (Sharpe, _Letter Book H_, 392), ‘Writ to the Mayor -and Sheriffs to proclaim ordinances made in the last Parliament at -Winchester to the effect that the laystall or latrine (fimarium sive -sterquilinium) on the bank of the Thames near the house of Robert de -Parys be removed, and a house be built on its site for the use of -butchers, where they may cut up their offal and take it in boats to -mid-stream and cast it into the water at ebb-tide.... Witness the King -at Westminster 21 Feb. 16 Rich. II’. The ordinance is recorded in _Rot. -Parl._ iii. 306. - -[1406] _Index to Remembrancia_, 478. - -[1407] Brewer, xxi. 2. 88, ‘a licence for Thomas Fluddie, yeoman of -your Majesty’s bears, to bait and make pastime with your Graces bears -at the accustomed place at London, called the Stewes, notwithstanding -the proclamation’ (Sept. 1546); Machyn, 78, ‘The sam day [9 Dec. 1554] -at after-non was a bere-beytyn on the Banke syde, and ther the grett -blynd bere broke losse, and in ronnyng away he chakt a servyng man by -the calff of the lege, and bytt a gret pesse away, and after by the -hokyll-bone, that within iij days after he ded’. - -[1408] Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_ (ed. 1846), v. 388. Collier, iii. -94, cites ‘a book of the expenses of the Northumberland family’ to the -effect that the earl went to Paris Garden to behold the bear-baiting in -1525–6. Ordish, 129, criticizes this on the ground that the statement -is not in the _Northumberland Household Book_ printed by Percy. It was -in fact a different book, from which Collier, i. 86, gives entries, -of which one is of boat-hire from and to ‘Parys gardyn’. But there is -nothing about bear-baiting. - -[1409] _Account of Treasurer of Chamber_, s. a. 1515 (Brewer, ii. -1466), ‘Hen. Anesley, conveying the King’s barge from Greenwich to -Parys Garden, 16^d’. - -[1410] Ordish, 127. - -[1411] In _Shaw v. Langley_ (1597) the Swan is described as ‘in the -oulde Parrisgardin’, although there is no specific mention of baiting -(_E. S._ xliii. 345, 355). - -[1412] Fleetwood, writing to Burghley on 13 July 1578 (Rendle, -_Antiquarian_, vii. 274, from _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxxv. 21), describes -intrigues of the French ambassador ‘on the Thames side behind Paris -Garden toward Lambeth, in the fields ... I got a skuller to Paris -Garden, but the place was dark and shadowed with trees, that one man -cannot see another unless they have _lynceos oculos_ or els cattes -eys, shewing how admirable a place it was for such doings. The place -is that boowre of conspiracies, it is the college of male cownsell.... -There be certain _virgulta_ or eightes of willows set by the Thames -near that place; they grow now exceeding thick, and a notable covert -for confederates to shrowd in; a milkmade lately did see the French -ambassador land in that _virgulta_’. - -[1413] The ring, without a name, is also shown in Smith’s drawing -(1588), but this is probably based on one of the maps. - -[1414] Rendle, _Antiquarian_, viii. 57, from _Exchequer Depositions, 18 -Jac. I_. The depositions also mention a bull-house built in a dog-yard, -a bear-house, a hay-house, a pond for the bears to wash in, and a pond -for dead dogs. Kingsford, 175, gives fuller extracts. - -[1415] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 54. A short passage in i. 95 adds nothing. - -[1416] Stowe (1615), 695. - -[1417] Halliwell, _Dr. Dee’s Diary_ (C. S.), 18; App. C, No. xxxi; App. -D, No. lxiv. The ballad of which four stanzas are given by Collier, i. -244, is presumably a forgery. - -[1418] More, _Works_ (ed. 1557), 208, ‘This is much like as at Beuerlay -late, whan much of the people beyng at a bere baytyng, the church -fell sodeinly down at euensonge tyme, and ouer whelmed some that than -were in it: a good felow, that after herde the tale tolde, “lo”, quod -he, “now maie you see what it is to be at euensong whan ye should be -at the bere baytynge”. How be it, the hurt was not ther in beinge at -euensonge, but in that the churche was falsely wrought’. - -[1419] App. D, No. lxx. - -[1420] Rendle, _Antiquarian_, viii. 57. - -[1421] Rendle, _Antiquarian_, viii. 57; _Bankside_, xxx, with map. - -[1422] The tithes were for ‘the bear garden and for the ground -adjoining to the same where the dogs are’ (Rendle, _Bankside_, v). -It was for Morgan Pope that Bowes’s patent as Master of the Game was -exemplified in 1585; cf. p. 450. - -[1423] Henslowe, ii. 25, from _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 13, and _Dulwich -MS._ iv. 21. - -[1424] Henslowe, i. 71, ‘Ano do 1595 the xxviij^{th} of Novembere -Reseved of M^r Henslow the day and yeare abov written the som of syx -poundes of curant mony of England and is in part of a mor som [yf he -the sayd] by twyxt the sayd Phillyp Henslow and me consaning a bargen -of the beargarden I say Reseved vj^{ll}. By me John Mavlthouse. Wittnes -I E Alley.’ I take the words in square brackets, which are cancelled -in the diary, to represent ‘if he proceed’. In Henslowe, i. 43, are -further receipts for 40_s._ ‘in part of the bargen for the tenymentes -on the bankes syd’ in Dec. 1595, and sums of £10, £20, and £4 for -unspecified purposes in Jan. and Feb. 1596. Kingsford, 177, gives the -date of Henslowe’s purchase. - -[1425] Henslowe, i. 209; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 109. - -[1426] Henslowe, ii. 25. - -[1427] _Henslowe Papers_, 107. I agree with Dr. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 30, -39) that it is difficult to see what a lease from Thomas Garland to -Henslowe and Alleyn in 1608 of a close called Long Slip or Long Meadow -in Lambeth can have had to do with the baiting. But Alleyn added the -word ‘Bear-garden’ to the original endorsement ‘M^r Garlands lece’ -(_Henslowe Papers_, 12). Perhaps the land was used for some subsidiary -purpose in connexion with the Garden. - -[1428] _Henslowe Papers_, 110; _Architectural Review_, xlvii. 152. - -[1429] Full text in _Alleyn Memoirs_, 78; abstract in _Henslowe -Papers_, 102. - -[1430] Henslowe, i. 214; cf. p. 189 (_supra_). - -[1431] Cf. p. 458. - -[1432] Cf. ch. xviii. - -[1433] _Henslowe Papers_, 19, from Dulwich Muniment 49; also printed in -_Variorum_, iii. 343. Muniment 50 is Katherens’ bond, and Muniment 51 -a sub-contract of 8 Sept. 1613 with John Browne, bricklayer, to do the -brickwork for £80. - -[1434] Cf. p. 370. - -[1435] Taylor, _Works_ (1630), 304, with a reply by Fennor and -rejoinder by Taylor. Incidentally Taylor mentions the arras of the -theatre and the tiles with which it was covered. - -[1436] The Southwark vestry order of 1 May 1598 (App. D, No. cxv) seems -to connect him with ‘play-houses’, but I doubt whether anything but the -bear garden is meant. - -[1437] Cf. _Satiromastix_, 1247, ‘Th’ast a breath as sweet as the Rose -that growes by the Beare-Garden’. - -[1438] _Alleyn Memoirs_, 159. - -[1439] Ordish, 235. No date can be assigned to _A North Countrey Song_ -in _Wit and Drollery_ (1656): - - When I’se come there [to Paris Garden], I was in a rage, - I rayl’d on him that kept the Beares, - Instead of a Stake was suffered a Stage, - And in Hunkes his house a crue of Players. - -[1440] Collier, iii. 102. - -[1441] Cf. p. 375. - -[1442] Ordish, 244. A Bearsfoot Alley shown farther to the east by -Rocque (1746) may derive from one of the earlier baiting-places. - -[1443] C. W. Wallace in _The Times_ (30 April 1914), ‘We present John -Wardner William Sellors and all the land holders or their tenantes that -holde anie landes gardeines ground or tenementes abbutting vpon the -common sewer leadinge from Sellors gardin to the beare garden to cast -clense and scoure their and euerie one of their seuerall partes of the -common sewer by Candlemas nexte vpon paine of euerie pole then vndone -... ij^s’. - -[1444] Cf. p. 458. - -[1445] E. Hake, _Newes out of Poules Churchyarde_ (1579), Sat. v: - - What else but gaine and money gote - Maintaines each Saboth day - The bayting of the Beare and Bull? - What brings this brutish play? - -Many of the attacks on plays (App. C) also refer to -baiting. - -[1446] App. D, No. lxxxiv. - -[1447] App. D, No. cxxxii. - -[1448] ‘In the late quenes tyme fre libertie was permited with -owt restrainte to bayght them which now is tacken a way frome vs -especiallye one the Sondayes in the after none after devine service -which was the cheffest meanes and benefit to the place’; cf. p. 452. - -[1449] Cf. p. 375. - -[1450] _Henslowe Papers_, 88, 125. - -[1451] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 277, from _P. R. 13 Jac. I_, pt. 20; -also by Collier, i. 381, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 46, from the Signet -Bill, misdescribed as the Privy Seal, of 31 May. - -[1452] Cf. App. D, No. clvii. - -[1453] Cf. App. D, No. clx. Collier, i. 384, without giving his -authority, says that the Corporation reported the carrying out of this -mandate ‘before three days had elapsed’. - -[1454] Shaw. ii. 107. Sir Thomas Saunders had the same lodgings _c._ -1551 (cf. p. 478, n. 4; _M. S. C._ ii. 120). - -[1455] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars); _M. S. C._ ii. 93, 110, 120. - -[1456] W. P. Baildon, _Black Books of Lincoln’s Inn_, iv. 263; C. F. R. -Palmer, _The Friar-Preachers of Holborn, London_ (_Reliquary_, xvii. -33, 75). - -[1457] Stowe, _Survey_, i. 9, 27, 40, 64, 339; ii. 14, 44, 89; (1720) -i. 3. 177; Halle, ii. 150; Nicolas, _Acts of Privy Council_, _passim_; -_Rot. Parl._ v. 171; Clapham, 58; _V. H._ i. 498; Brewer, iv. 2483; -Riley, _Memorials of London_, 90; Baldwin, 154, 261, 355, 358, 499; -Gairdner, _Paston Letters_, i. 426, ‘for the ease of resorting of the -Lordys that are withinne the toun’. - -[1458] _V. H._ i. 498. - -[1459] Brewer, iii. 2. 1053. - -[1460] Ibid. xiii. 2. 215. - -[1461] Rymer, xiv. 609; Brewer, xiii. 2. 320. - -[1462] _M. S. C._ ii. 3. - -[1463] Ibid. ii. 4, 6, 8, 109, 114. Cawarden had had a lease of part of -the property on 4 April 1548. - -[1464] Stowe (1720), i. 3. 178. - -[1465] Printed from _Journal_, 14, f. 129, as appendix to _Memoranda, -References, and Documents relating to the Royal Hospitals of the City -of London_ (1836). - -[1466] Stowe (1720), i. 3. 178. Portinari was a pensioner _c._ 1526 -(Brewer, iv. 871), and he was aged 64 in 1572 (_M. S. C._ ii. 52). He -was a Florentine by birth and an engineer by profession (_Sp. P._ ii. -399; Winwood, i. 145). - -[1467] _B. M. Lansd. MS._ 155, f. 80^v. - -[1468] _M. S. C._ ii. 2, 5, 103, 127; Stowe (1598), i. 339; _Athenaeum_ -(1886), ii. 91; Dasent, xxvi. 448; xxvii. 13. - -[1469] In 1585 the Lord Mayor asked that the Blackfriars might -contribute to the musters (Stowe, ed. Strype, i. 3. 180). In 1588 -and 1593 requisitions for a levy were sent to the chief officer, i. -e. the constable, and the inhabitants (Dasent, xv. 428; xxiv. 30). -But in 1589 similar action was taken through the Lord Mayor (Dasent, -xvii. 118). A local dispute was referred to Richard Young and another -Middlesex justice in 1591, with whom the Lord Mayor was joined because -a City company was involved (Dasent, xx. 245, 283). Young and others -again received the Council’s instructions, after they had heard the -inhabitants, on a building matter in 1591 (Dasent, xxi. 337). At a time -of danger in 1592 the keeping of a midsummer watch was committed to -Lord Cobham (Dasent, xxii. 551). - -[1470] Stowe (1720), i. 3. 183; Dasent, iii. 235 (Letter of 14 March -1551 ‘to the Maiour of London to suffer the Lorde Cobham, the Lorde -Wardein, and others dwelling within the Blacke Freres t’enjoye their -liberties there’). The riot was put down by Sir Thomas Saunders, Sir -Henry Jerningham, and William More. - -[1471] Stowe (1720), i. 3. 183. - -[1472] Stowe, ed. Strype (1720), i. 3. 184. The Blackfriars papers -added by A. Munday in 1618 appear to be all notes and examinations -taken by Sir Thomas Saunders, who appealed to the Earl of Arundel for -support. - -[1473] Dasent, viii. 240, 257. - -[1474] Dasent, x. 429; xii. 19. Pending a decision the Lord Mayor was -directed ‘not to intermeddle in any cawse within the saide liberties, -savinge onlie for the punishment of fellons as heretofore he hath don’. -The report dated 27 Jan. 1580 is printed by Ingleby, 250, from the -Bridgewater MSS. It seems to be genuine. Collier does not print it, -although he mentions it (_New Facts_, 9) in connexion with a forged -Privy Council order which he dates 23 Dec. 1579. Wallace, ii. 22, -describes an unprinted statement of the City’s case, dated 27 Jan. -1579, in _Letter Book_ Z, f. 23^v. - -[1475] Dasent, xv. 137; Stowe (1720), i. 3. 177. - -[1476] This may be the undated petition relating both to the -Blackfriars and the Whitefriars in _B. M. Lansd. MS._ 155, f. 79^v. - -[1477] Wallace, i. 174, from _Loseley MSS._, bundle 425. - -[1478] _M. S. C._ ii. 124; cf. Dasent, xiii. 76. - -[1479] Dasent, xxvi. 448. Lord Hunsdon and Sir John Fortescue, both -residents in or near the Blackfriars, sat on the commission with the -chief justices. Lady Russell records the want of a steward and bailiff -to keep order in 1597 (_Hatfield MSS._ vii. 298). - -[1480] Dasent, xxvii. 13; xxx. 134, 149; cf. App. D, No. cxxvi. - -[1481] W. de G. Birch, _Historical Charters and Constitutional -Documents of the City of London_, 142. James is said to have made the -City pay for the rebuilding of the Banqueting House (cf. ch. i) in -return for this extension of jurisdiction (Goodman, ii. 176). Collier, -_N. F._ 20, 22, 32, although ignorant of the charter, quotes documents -relating to the status of the Blackfriars in 1608, of which two at -least, a note of the interest of the players in the theatre and a -letter in their favour signed ‘H. S.’, are forgeries (Ingleby, 244, -246, 256). - -[1482] _M. S. C._ ii. 66, 114; cf. Cawarden’s i. p.m. in Fry, _London -Inquisitiones Post Mortem_, i. 191. - -[1483] The general lie of Blackfriars can be gathered from Stowe -(1598), i. 313; ii. 11, with the maps described in the _Bibl. Note_ to -ch. xvi, and the modern ordnance maps. The earlier maps are largely -picturesque, and notably place far too much of the precinct on the -east of Water Lane. But they seem to preserve certain details, such as -the arches over the north to south highway. The old lines of the roads -appear to have been preserved at the rebuilding after the great fire of -1666. I have added some details from other sources. - -[1484] _M. S. C._ ii. 115. - -[1485] The reconstructed map of London by Emery Walker in C. L. -Kingsford’s edition of Stowe gives this name in error to Water Lane. - -[1486] The 1586 documents in Stowe (1720), i. 3. 178, state that the -prior held of the lord of St. John’s, ‘who did make the bridge at the -Thames’. Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 454, however, quotes a Declared Account of -1550 for ‘the ereccion and buyldynge ... of two bridges thone at the -Blackfreers and thother at the Temple’. Under Elizabeth the liberty -maintained the bridge as well as that at Bridewell (_Lansd. MS._ 155, -f. 80^v). The tenure from St. John’s is also alleged (1587) in Dasent, -xv. 137. It is rather curious that in an endorsement of the survey of -St. John’s in 1586–7 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 47) that house, although in -Clerkenwell, is described, perhaps by a slip, as in the Blackfriars. - -[1487] _M. S. C._ ii. 115. For the ‘turngate’ cf. _M. S. C._ ii. 114; -Strype (1720), i. 3. 184. This, with the great gate, and the gates at -the Thames and Fleet bridges, made up the four gates of conventual -times. The gate, over which Shakespeare had a house, where Ireland Yard -debouches into St. Andrew’s Hill, was probably of later date. - -[1488] _M. S. C._ ii. 6, 11, 109. - -[1489] The upper gate is described in a lease as ‘a gate of the Citie -of London’ (_Loseley MS._ 1396, f. 44). It may have been a relic of the -pre-1276 wall. Its site is shown on the Ordnance map. The lower gate is -visible in the maps of Braun and Agas. It seems to have carried Charles -V’s gallery over the roadway to the guest-house. - -[1490] _M. S. C._ ii. 9, 107, 110; Clapham, 64. - -[1491] The details for the rest of this paragraph are mainly taken -from Crown surveys of 1548 and 1550 (_M. S. C._ ii. 6, 8), and from a -memorandum by Cawarden on the grants anterior to his own (_M. S. C._ -ii. 1, 103), and Professor Feuillerat’s notes of the original patents -which illustrate this. - -[1492] _M. S. C._ ii. 9, 107, 114; Clapham, 62; _London Inquisitiones -Post Mortem_, ii. 115. - -[1493] Ibid. 9, 10, 112. - -[1494] Ibid. 111, 113. - -[1495] Ibid. 110; Clapham, 63. - -[1496] Ibid. 10, 110, 114. - -[1497] Ibid. 3. - -[1498] Some vaulted fragments stood until 1900 at a spot which must -have been just east of the school-house. Possibly they formed part of -the provincial’s lodging. They are shown in a plan of _c._ 1670–80 -(Clapham, 71), and their condition in 1900 was carefully recorded -(Clapham, 69, 70, 78). Only a fragment of wall is now _in situ_, just -north of what is now the west end of Ireland Yard, but appears on the -seventeenth-century plan as Cloister Court. It must, however, have run -out from the south-east corner of the cloister towards the east. The -name Cloister Court has now passed to a yard farther south. - -[1499] Clapham, 68; cf. p. 486. - -[1500] Clapham suggests, plausibly enough, that the description (_c._ -1394) of a Dominican house in _Pierce the Ploughmans Crede_ (ed. Skeat, -_E. E. T. S._ 153–215) was based upon the London Blackfriars. The -following passages relate to the cloister and refectory. - - Þanne kam i to þat cloister . & gaped abouten - Whouȝ it was pilered and peynt . & portred well clene, - All y-hyled wiþ leed . lowe to þe stones, - And y-paued wiþ peynt til . iche poynte after oþer; - With kundites of clene tyn . closed all aboute, - Wiþ lauoures of latun . louelyche y-greithed.... - - ... Þanne was þe chaptire-hous wrouȝt . as a greet chirche, - Coruen and couered . and queyntliche entayled; - Wiþ semlich selure . y-set on lofte; - As a Parlement-hous . y-peynted aboute.... - - ... Þanne ferd y into fraytour . and fond þere an oþer, - An halle for an heyȝ king . an housholde to holden, - Wiþ brode bordes aboute . y-benched wel clene, - Wiþ windowes of glas . wrouȝt as a Chirche.... - - ... Chambers wiþ chymneyes . & Chapells gaie; - And kychens for an hyȝe kinge . in castells to holden, - And her dortour y-diȝte . wiþ dores ful stronge; - Fermery and fraitur . with fele mo houses, - And all strong ston wall . sterne opon heiþe, - Wiþ gaie garites & grete . & iche hole y-glased; - And oþere houses y-nowe . to herberwe þe queene. - -[1501] _M. S. C._ ii. 1. - -[1502] Ibid. 13, 115. - -[1503] Ibid. 6, 8, gives the texts of two surveys (_a_) of the property -leased to Cawarden on 4 April 1548, (_b_) of that included in his grant -of 12 March 1550. - -[1504] Ibid. 7, 12, 35; cf. p. 499. - -[1505] _London Inquisitiones Post Mortem_, i. 191; cf. _M. S. C._ ii. -4, 12. - -[1506] Stowe (1598), i. 341; _Athenaeum_ (1886), ii. 91; _M. S. C._ ii. -2, 127; Hennessy, 88; _Loseley MSS._ - -[1507] _M. S. C._ ii. 103. - -[1508] Ibid. 92, 117. - -[1509] Ibid. 21, 31, 92, 126. - -[1510] Ibid. 21, 93, 119. They were let to Henry Knowles in 1565 and -had been earlier occupied by Roger Lygon, Lady Parr, and Sir Thomas -Saunders. Later Nicholas Saunders had them. - -[1511] Ibid. 117, 124, 125, show Anthony Browne, probably, as tenant in -1560, Henry Lord Hunsdon, probably, in 1584 and 1585, and Ralph Bowes -in 1596. - -[1512] Dasent, xxi. 402, gives a Privy Council letter of 18 August -1591 to the Lord Mayor requiring him to repair the supply pipe from -Clerkenwell; cf. p. 494. - -[1513] (1548) ‘A Cuchin yarde, an owlde Cuchyn, an entre or passage -Ioyninge to the same, conteyninge in lengethe 84 fote, abuttinge to -the lane aforseide on the weste side, being in breddethe at that ende -68 fote, Abuttinge ageanste an owlde butery on the easte side, being -in breddethe at that ende 74 foote, Abuttinge to M^r Portynarys parler -nexte the lane on the Southe side, And to my lorde Cobhames brick -wall and garden on the Northe syde. An owlde buttery and an entrye or -passage with a greate stayre therin, with Sellers therunder, with a -hall place at the vpper ende of the stayre and an entere there to the -ffrater ouer the same buttery, all which conteyne in lengethe 36 foote -and in breddethe 95 foote, abuttinge to the cloyster on the Este side, -the Cuchin on the weste side, to the lorde Cobhams howse on the Northe -syde, and on the Sowthe side to a blynd parlour that my lorde warden -did clame. - -A howse called the vpper frater conteyninge in lengethe 107 foote -and in breddethe 52 foote, abuttinge Sowthe and easte to my ladye -Kingestons howse and garden, Northe to a hall where the kinges revelles -lyes at this presente, and weste towardes the seide Duchie Chamber and -M^r Portynaryes howse. - -[Sidenote: Memorandum my lorde warden clamethe the seide hall, parlour, -Cutchin and Chaumber.] - -A hall and a parlour vnder the seide frater of the same lengethe -and breddethe, A litle Cuchen conteyning in lengethe 23 foote and -in breddethe 22 foote abuttinge to the aforseide lane on the weste, -towardes the seide parlour on the este, to M^r Portinarys howse on -the northe, and to a waye ledinge to my ladye Kingestons howse on the -southe, A litle Chamber with a voyde rome therunder, conteyning in -lengethe 26 fote, in breddeth 10 foote, abuttinge weste to the cuchin, -este to the parlour, northe to M^r Portinarys howse, and ye seid way to -my ladie Kingestons howse Sowthe, with 4 small Sellers or darke holes -therunder. - -A voyde rome, beinge an entre towardes the lytle cytchin and colehowse, -conteyning in lengeth 30 fote and in breddethe 17 fote. - -A Chamber called the Duchie Chaumber, with a darke loginge therunder, -conteyninge in lengthe 50 fote and in breddethe 16 foote, abuttinge -este ageanste the north ende of the seide ffrater, abuttinge weste on -M^r Portinaryes parlour ---- 66^s 8^d.’ - -(1550) ‘One Kitchyn yarde, an olde Kitchyn, an Entrie or passage -ioyneinge to the same, Conteineinge in lengthe 84 fote, abutinge to -the Lane aforesaid on the west side, beinge in bredethe at that ende -three score fowrtene fote, abutinge to M^r Portinareys parler next the -Lane on the southe side and to the Lord Cobham brickewall & gardeine -on the Northe side. One olde Butterie & a Entrie or passage with a -great staier therein, with Cellers therevnder, with a Hawle place at -the vpper ende of the staiers and a entrie there to the ffrater ouer -the same butterie, which all conteinethe in lengthe 95 fote and in -bredethe 36 fote, abuttinge to the Cloyster on thest side, the kitchyn -on the west side, to the Lorde Cobham howse on the northe side, and -on the southe side to a blinde parler that my Lord warden did Clayme. -One howse called the vpper ffrater conteinethe in Lengthe 107 fote and -in bredethe 52 fote, Abuttinge southe and est to the Ladie Kingston -howse and gardein, northe to a hawle where the Kinges Revelles -Liethe at theis presentes, and west towardes the Duchie Chamber and -M^r Portinareyes howse. A voide rome, beinge an Entrie towardes the -Litle Kitchyn & Cole howse, conteininge in Lengthe 30 fote and in -bredethe 17 fote. One Chamber called the Duchie chamber, with a darke -Lodginge there vnder, conteininge in Lengthe 50 fote and in bredethe -16 fote, abuttinge est agaynst the northe ende of the said ffrater, -and abuttinge west apon M^r Portinareys parler. All which premisses be -valued to be worthe by yere ---- iij^{li} vj^s viij^d.’ - -[1514] _M. S. C._ ii. 14, 24, 116, 117, 119, 120; cf. p. 482. The stone -gallery was removed in 1564. - -[1515] Ibid. 13, 16, 115. - -[1516] Ibid. 14, 16. - -[1517] Ibid. 7, 11, ‘an entrye or passage with a greate stayre therin’ -(1548, 1550), 21 ‘one entrye ledinge vnder parcell of the premysses -demysed from that end of the house of William More wherin John Horleye -his servaunt doth lodge’ (1560), 118, ‘the entre in the west ende -of the garden openyng into the same garden’ (1560), 31, ‘an entrye -leadynge from the sayde voyde ground into the sayd dwellynge howse or -tenement of the sayd Sir William More’ (1576), 63, ‘the dore entry way -voide ground and passage leadinge and vsed to and from the saide greate -yard nexte the saide Pipe Office’ (1596), 126, ‘the gate-house with -the appurtenances on the west side of the sayd monastery’ (1611), ‘the -great gate near the play-house’ (1617). - -[1518] _M. S. C._ ii. 20. - -[1519] Ibid. 14 (cf. 116), ‘vnius paris graduum ducentium a coquina -predicta vsque magnum claustrum’ (1546), 21, ‘the waye ledinge from the -house and garden of William More towards the Water Lane’, ‘one entrye -ledinge vnder parcell of the premysses demysed from the garden of -William More to the voide grounde’ (1560), 119. - -[1520] Ibid. 16. - -[1521] Ibid. 115. - -[1522] Ibid. 27, 29. - -[1523] The whole length of the Neville-Farrant holding is given in -1560 (_M. S. C._ ii. 20) as 157½ ft., and in 1576 (_M. S. C._ ii. 29) -as 156½ ft. As this included 37 ft. of the northern block, 119½ ft. or -120½ ft. seems to be left for the staircase and frater. The difference -between inside and outside measurements often causes confusion in old -surveys. - -[1524] _M. S. C._ ii. 62, 119; cf. p. 504. - -[1525] Ibid. 94. - -[1526] Cf. p. 513. - -[1527] _M. S. C._ ii. 105. - -[1528] The room is described as ‘intrale seu le parlour’ in Cawarden’s -grant of 1550. - -[1529] _M. S. C._ ii. 105, 124. There was yet another room under the -infirmary. One Kempe, an assign of Lady Kingston’s heir, tried to claim -the Parliament Chamber from Cawarden, on the strength of her grant of -the infirmary. - -[1530] Cf. p. 504. - -[1531] On Cheyne’s houses cf. p. 499. - -[1532] _M. S. C._ ii. 42–51. This hall is doubtless the ground-floor -frater referred to in a document of _c_. 1562 (_M. S. C._ ii. 105). - -[1533] Cf. p. 499. The ‘blinde parler that my Lord warden did clayme’ -and ‘the litle kitchyn and cole howse’ are mentioned in the survey of -1550 to define the position of other parcels. But the hall and parlour -might be held to be covered by the grant of the ‘howse called the vpper -frater’, and I do not know what the ‘little tenement’ near that held by -Kirkham from Cheyne was, if it was not the little chamber and kitchen. -It is noteworthy that the disputed rooms, after being included, with -a note of Cheyne’s claim, in the survey of 1548, were left out of -Cawarden’s lease of the same year. - -[1534] _M. S. C._ ii. 109. - -[1535] Brewer, ii. 2. 1494. - -[1536] _Tudor Revels_, 7. - -[1537] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 255; Wallace, i. 140. - -[1538] _Athenaeum_ (1886), ii. 91. - -[1539] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 430; cf. _M. S. C._ ii. 120; Wallace, i. 192. - -[1540] _M. S. C._ ii. 35. I do not know whether More deliberately -confused the Tents and Revels. - -[1541] Ibid. 52. - -[1542] Ibid. 105. - -[1543] Ibid. 14, 116; _Hist. MSS._ vii. 603. - -[1544] Ibid. 15. - -[1545] Only an abstract of title at the date of the sale exists -(Barrett, _Apothecaries_, 46), but Apothecaries’ Hall occupies the site -of these rooms. - -[1546] _M. S. C._ ii. 4, 9; Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 440. In 1552 Jane -Fremownte had succeeded Barnard (_M. S. C._ ii. 115), but she cannot -have had the whole of the original lodge, as her 4 ft. entry on Water -Lane is too small to have been the main access to the cloister. -Probably part had been granted to her neighbour, Sir George Harper. Nor -did all her holding pass to Cobham in 1554. Some of it was probably -added to the house on the north, which occupied the site of the old -church porch. - -[1547] _M. S. C._ ii. 44, 53; cf. p. 502. - -[1548] Ibid. 51, 121. - -[1549] Ibid. 16. - -[1550] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 210, 230, 242, 301; _Eliz._ 103, -107. - -[1551] _M. S. C._ ii. 118, ‘one other grete rome or vawte next the -ground next the entre in the west ende of the garden openyng into the -same garden wherin now the robes of the revelles do lye’ (Lease of 12 -Feb. 1560). - -[1552] _M. S. C._ ii. 19. - -[1553] Cf. p. 489. - -[1554] _M. S. C._ ii. 105, 118. - -[1555] Ibid. 119, 120. - -[1556] Wallace, i. 175. - -[1557] _M. S. C._ ii. 119. - -[1558] Ibid. 27; Wallace, i. 175. - -[1559] Wallace, i. 175. - -[1560] _M. S. C._ ii. 120. - -[1561] Ibid. 27. - -[1562] _Jahrbuch_, xlviii. 92; Wallace, i. 131. - -[1563] Ibid. 93; _M. S. C._ ii. 28; Wallace, i. 132. - -[1564] On the plays performed there, cf. chh. xii, xiii (Chapel, -Paul’s, Oxford’s). Collier appears to have been aware, probably from -the Lyly prologues and the reference in Gosson, _P. C._ 188, of the -existence of the earlier Blackfriars play-house, and to have dated it, -by a singular coincidence, in 1576. He knew nothing of the real facts, -but inferred (_H. E. D. P._ i. 219) that the undated petition of the -Blackfriars inhabitants, which is really of 1596, was of 1576, on the -strength of a reference in it to a banishment of the players from the -City, which an incorrect endorsement on a _Lansdowne MS._ (cf. App. D, -No. lxxv) had led him to place in 1575. This did not prevent him from -also assigning the petition, with a forged reply from the players, to -1596 (cf. p. 508). He proceeded to forge (_a_) an order dated 23 Dec. -1579 for the toleration of Leicester’s men at the Blackfriars (_New -Facts_, 9), and (_b_) a memorial by Shakespeare and others as Queen’s -men and Blackfriars ‘sharers’ in 1589 (_New Facts_, 11; cf. Ingleby, -244, 249). - -[1565] Cf. ch. xii (Chapel). - -[1566] _Jahrbuch_, xlviii. 99; Wallace, i. 152 (Will of Farrant, 30 -Nov. 1580), 153 (Anne Farrant to More, 25 Dec. 1580), 154 (Leicester to -More, 19 Sept. 1581), 158 (Anne Farrant to Walsingham, _c._ 1583), 159 -(Court of Common Pleas, _Farrant v. Hunnis_ and _Farrant v. Newman_, -1583–4), 160 (Court of Requests, _Newman and Hunnis v. Farrant_, 1584), -177 (Wolley to More, 13 Jan. 1587), 174 (Memoranda by More, _c._ 1587; -cf. Dasent, xv. 137). - -[1567] _M. S. C._ ii. 123. More’s rental of 1584 includes £50 from -Hunsdon for the mansion house, £20 from Oxford, £8 from Lyly; that of -1585 the same three sums, all from Hunsdon. But the two smaller sums -represent twice Farrant’s rent, which was £14. - -[1568] Kempe, 495; _M. S. C._ ii. 123; Wallace, i. 186 (More to -Hunsdon, 8 April 1586; Hunsdon to More, 27 April 1586; Hunsdon to More, -14 April 1590; More to Hunsdon, draft, 17 April 1590; More to Hunsdon, -18 April 1590). Did the Paul’s ‘boyes’ keep up connexion with the -Blackfriars by learning dancing and perhaps playing in Frith’s school? - -[1569] _M. S. C._ ii. 61, 93, 94, 98. - -[1570] Ibid. 123 (Skinner to More, 11 Oct. 1591). - -[1571] Ibid. 50, 54. - -[1572] This may have been Thomas Hale, Groom of the Tents, who was a -witness in the case (ibid. 44), or the Thomas Hall, musician, who in -1565 was sub-tenant of Frith’s garrets (ibid. 119). - -[1573] Ibid. 35 (memorandum by More), 36 (award by arbitrators), 40 -(depositions of More’s witnesses), 122 (notes of evidence by Pole’s -witnesses). - -[1574] On Bonetti’s career as a fencer, cf. Wallace, i. 187; _M. S. C._ -ii. 122; Reyher, 257; G. Silver, _Paradoxes of Defence_, 64. - -[1575] _M. S. C._ ii. 56; Wallace, i. 188 (Willoughby to More, July -1584), 190. - -[1576] Wallace, i. 189; _M. S. C._ ii. 122. I do not think the lease -of the fencing-school was in question between More and Bonetti. Both -Raleigh’s letter and the workmen’s petition imply house-building, not -mere internal repairs. Bonetti could have added no building to the -fencing-school except perhaps the kitchen which adjoined in 1596 (ibid. -61). But the western house had been extensively rebuilt by 1584. - -[1577] Ibid. 55. - -[1578] Ibid. 56. The whole description from ‘All w^{ch} six foote & a -halfe’ (l. 18) to ‘xxxix foote & viij inches’ (l. 29) is parenthetic, a -point which the punctuation obscures. - -[1579] Cf. chh. ii, xiii (Chamberlain’s). - -[1580] _M. S. C._ ii. 124; cf. p. 490. - -[1581] Ibid. 62; cf. p. 504. - -[1582] _M. S. C._ ii. 36, 47, 51, 122. - -[1583] Ibid. 36, 38, 56 (‘the tenemente of Margrett Poole on the south -and weste’), 70, 77, 81, 85, 125. Here must have been the chamber -which Thomas Blagrave, finding the butler’s lodging too small, hired -of Parson Wythers, Cheyne’s servant, from 1552 to 1560, and which Pole -still had in 1572 (ibid. 53). But if it was strictly ‘adjoininge’ to -his house he must have had the ‘little kitchen’ as well as the ‘little -chamber’. - -[1584] Ibid. 63, 71. - -[1585] Ibid. 125. An unfortunate hiatus in a document (ibid. 70) leaves -it uncertain whether Tice occupied one of Mrs. Pole’s houses or More’s -enlarged ‘little kitchen’. - -[1586] Ibid. 50. - -[1587] Cf. p. 504. - -[1588] Kempe, 496; Wallace, i. 195; _M. S. C._ ii. 125, misdated 1595. -The ‘other’ house was probably the mansion house, which was let to -Ralph Bowes on 3 March 1596 (cf. p. 497). Hunsdon died on 22 July 1596. - -[1589] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 299, from enrolment in R. O.; _M. S. C._ -ii. 60, from counterpart executed by Burbadge in _Loseley MS._ 348. - -[1590] I suppose that this was the old lavatory. If so, probably -Burbadge’s use terminated when this became a glass-house in 1601; cf. -p. 506. - -[1591] The account in Wallace, ii. 37, is not trustworthy; it assumes, -in lieu of the Duchy Chamber and staircase tower, a ‘north section’ of -the building 40 ft. from north to south. - -[1592] Cf. p. 498. - -[1593] Wallace, i. 196; ii. 38, is misleading here. - -[1594] _M. S. C._ ii. 70. - -[1595] Ibid. 76 (conveyance by Sir Richard Michelborne, George Pole, -and Charles Pole), 84 (conveyance by Richard and Elizabeth Mansell), -125. - -[1596] _Variorum_, iii. 62; Birch, ii. 426. - -[1597] H. R. Plomer, _The King’s Printing House under the Stuarts_ (_2 -Library_ ii. 353). - -[1598] _M. S. C._ ii. 83 (Recital of conveyance by trustees of Lady -Howard); cf. p. 512. - -[1599] Ibid. 98 (Recital of lease in deed of sale of 1609). - -[1600] Ibid. 93, ‘all that greate Vault or lowe roome adioyneing to -the said greate Garden lyeing and being at the south west end of the -said greate garden nowe vsed and imployed for a glassehowse’ (1609). -By 26 June 1601 (_M. S. C._ ii. 70) the way south of the kitchen yard -has become ‘the yard or way ... which leadeth towardes the glassehouse -nowe in the tenure of Sir Ierom Bowes’. Bowes had obtained a patent -for making drinking-glasses in 1592 and occupied a warehouse under the -church in 1597 (_D. N. B._). Dekker, _Newes from Hell_ (1606, _Works_, -ii. 97), says, ‘Like the Glass-house Furnace in Blacke-friers, the -bonefiers that are kept there neuer goe out’. - -[1601] _M. S. C._ ii. 92 (Deed of Sale). - -[1602] Ibid. 126. There is some confusion as to the position of Mrs. -Basil’s house. I think it was west of the gate-house. - -[1603] Ibid. 88 (Deed of Sale, misdated 1602). - -[1604] Ibid. 64. - -[1605] Ibid. 83; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, viii. 18 (Grant to trustees for -Lady Kildare). An _inquisitio_ on Cobham’s Blackfriars property (_1 -Jac. I_) appears to be amongst the Special Commissions and Returns in -the Exchequer (R. O. _Lists and Indexes_, xxxvii. 61). - -[1606] C. R. B. Barrett, _History of the Society of Apothecaries_, 42. -The existing Hall dates from 1669–70. John Downes (cf. App. I, No. iii) -and Pepys, i. 336, record the use of the older building by Davenant for -plays at the Restoration. So Farrant’s tradition survived. - -[1607] For text and discussion of bona fides cf. App. D, No. cvii. -Collier, having already assigned the document to 1576 (cf. p. 496), -uses it again for 1596 (_H. E. D. P._ i. 287). With it, in his first -edition (i. 297), he printed a reply, now in _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclx. -117, by Pope, Richard Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Shakespeare, Kempe, -Sly, and Tooley, on behalf of the players, which is palaeographically a -forgery (Ingleby, 289) and could not be genuine in substance, since it -refers to the Globe, which did not exist in 1596. - -[1608] Cf. p. 511. Wallace, ii. 53, thinks this an error or invention -of the City in 1619, because the Privy Council registers ‘giving all -the official acts of that body, record no such order’. But the Privy -Council registers notoriously do not record all the official acts of -that body (cf. ch. ii). The petitioners of 1619 are not likely to have -invented the ‘petition and indorsemente’ of 1596 to which they appealed. - -[1609] In the _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 (Halliwell-Phillipps, i. -317) Cuthbert and the other Burbadges then living say ‘now for the -Blackfriers, that is our inheritance; our father purchased it at -extreame rates, and made it into a play-house with great charge and -troble’. Further, Cuthbert was associated with Richard in buying -subsidiary property in 1601, 1610, 1612, and 1614 (cf. p. 505). But the -leases of 1600 and 1608 were by Richard alone, and under one of these -Cuthbert became his tenant. - -[1610] Cf. p. 511. - -[1611] Fleay, 211, 234, 240. - -[1612] Cf. ch. xii. - -[1613] Fleay, 224, 230, 245, 250. Evans maintained that the assignment -to Hawkins was absolute, to cover his liability under the bond to -Burbadge. But the court appears to have held that a reassignment was -intended, but that ‘the conveyance was never perfected and sealed’. - -[1614] Wallace, ii. 89, from unpublished document; _Evans v. Kirkham_ -in Fleay, 214. - -[1615] Ibid. 235. - -[1616] Ibid. 221, 231, 235, 246. - -[1617] The Burbadges say in the _Sharers Papers_ of 1635, ‘the more to -strengthen the service, the boys daily wearing out, it was considered -that house would be as fit for ourselves, and so purchased the lease -remaining from Evans with our money, and placed men players, which were -Hemings, Condall, Shakspeare, etc.’. They also say that the players had -their shares ‘of us for nothing’. Very likely they paid no fine, but -they had to pay their quota towards rent. It is reasonable to infer -that Thomas Evans was a relative and nominee of Henry Evans. Kirkham’s -allegation in the 1612 litigation that Henry Evans had shared in the -Blackfriars profits during the past four years (Fleay, 225) was not -seriously contested. - -[1618] Cf. ch. xiii. Collier (_New Facts_, 16) printed a document -professing to set out action taken by the City against scurrilities of -Kempe and Armin at Blackfriars in 1605. But this cannot be traced in -the City archives (S. Lee in _D. N. B._ s.v. Kempe), and the City did -not obtain control of the Blackfriars until 1608 (cf. p. 480). It is -probably a forgery. - -[1619] Cf. vol. i, p. 357. - -[1620] C. W. Wallace, _Advance Sheets from Shakespeare, the Globe, and -Blackfriars_ (p.p. 1909). - -[1621] _Sharers Papers_ in Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 312. Collier, -_Alleyn Memoirs_, 105, conjectures that Alleyn bought Shakespeare’s -interest in April 1612, and it appears from G. F. Warner, _Dulwich -MSS._ 115, 172, 174, that he forged entries in documents relating -to other property of Alleyn’s in Blackfriars, as a support to this -conjecture. - -[1622] Cf. p. 480. - -[1623] Text in Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 311, and Harrison, iv. 323, from -City _Repertory_, xxxiv, f. 38^v. The two petitions of the officials -and inhabitants are in _M. S. C._ i. 90, from _Remembrancia_, v. 28, -29. They are undated, but can be identified from a recital in the -order. The officials allege ‘that whereas in November 1596 divers -both honorable persons and others then inhabiting the said precinct -made knowne to the Lordes and others of the privie Counsell, what -inconveniencies were likelie to fall vpon them, by a common Play-house -which was then preparinge to bee erected there, wherevpon their Honours -then forbadd the vse of the said howse for playes, as by the peticion -and indorsemente in aunswere thereof may appeare.... Nevertheles ... -the owner of the said play-house doth vnder the name of a private howse -(respectinge indeed private comoditie only) convert the said howse to -a publique play-house.’ They dwell on the inconvenience caused by the -congested streets and the difficulty of getting to church ‘the ordinary -passage for a great part of the precinct aforesaid being close by the -play house dore’. - -[1624] Text in _M. S. C._ i. 280. - -[1625] Text in Collier, i. 455, from _S. P. D. Car. I_, ccv. 32, where -it is accompanied by copies of the Privy Council order and letter of -22 June 1600 (App. D, No. cxxiv) and the City order of 21 Jan. 1619. -Probably the copy of the petition of Blackfriars inhabitants in 1596 -(cf. p. 508), now in _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclx. 116, originally belonged to -this set of documents. - -[1626] _M. S. C._ i. 386. - -[1627] The report of the commissioners is printed by Collier, _New -Facts_, 27, and _H. E. D. P._ i. 477. It is confirmed by a memorandum -of Secretary Windebank in _S. P. D. Car. I_, ccli. p. 293, and I think -Ingleby, 304, is wrong in suspecting a forgery (cf. _M. S. C._ i. 386). -The commissioners allowed (_a_) £700 to Cuthbert and William Burbadge -for 14 years’ purchase of the rent of £50 reserved to them by lease, -(_b_) £1,134 for 14 years’ purchase of an interest in four tenements -rated at £75 and a piece of void ground to turn coaches at £6, (_c_) -£1,066 13_s._ 4_d._ for 100 marks apiece to 16 players for ‘the -interest that some of them haue by lease in the said Play-house, and in -respect of the shares which others haue in the benefits thereof’, and -for compensation for removal. Collier, _Reply_, 39, mentions but does -not print another document containing a summary of the players’ claim, -with notes by Buck. But Buck was long dead. A third valuation published -by Collier, in which Laz. Fletcher’s name occurs, is certainly a -forgery (Ingleby, 246). - -[1628] _M. S. C._ i. 386. - -[1629] Fleay, 211, 213. I suppose it was on this that Evans spent £11 -0_s._ 2_d._ in Dec. 1603 (Wallace, ii. 89). - -[1630] In _The Times_ of 12 Sept. 1906 Professor Wallace gives the -number of new suits as four; in _The Children of the Chapel at -Blackfriars_ (1908), 36, as twelve. Presumably the Court of Requests -suit of _Keysar v. Burbadge et al._, printed in _Nebraska University -Studies_, x. 336, is one of these. - -[1631] Wallace, ii. 39, 40, 41, 43, 49. - -[1632] Cf. p. 511. - -[1633] _M. S. C._ ii. 31, ‘all the Leds couerynge the premysses’ -(1576), 61, ‘the stone staires leadinge vpp vnto the Leades or route -over the saide seaven greate vpper romes oute of the saide seaven -greate vpper romes’ (1596). - -[1634] Wallace, ii. 40. - -[1635] Marston, _The Dutch Courtesan_, v. iii. 162. - -[1636] Cf. p. 425. - -[1637] R. Flecknoe, _Miscellania_ (1653), 141, ‘From thence passing -on to the Black-fryers, and seeing never a Play-bil on the Gate, no -Coaches on the place, nor Doorkeeper at the Play-house door, with his -Boxe like a Churchwarden, desiring you to remember the poor Players, I -cannot but say for Epilogue to all the Playes were ever acted there: - - Poor House that in dayes of our Grand-sires, - Belongst unto the Mendiant Fryers: - And where so oft in our Fathers dayes - We have seen so many of Shakspears Playes, - So many of Johnsons, Beaumonts & Fletchers.’ - -[1638] I do not know what value to attach to a print in the Gardiner -collection, reproduced by Baker, 44, 78, as representing the theatre. -It shows a Renaissance façade, which can have been no part of the -mediaeval building. Adams, 197, reproduces a painting of mediaeval -fragments found in rebuilding _The Times_ in 1872, small ground-floor -rooms divided by entries. But _The Times_ must cover the site of -Hunsdon House as well as that of the theatre. - -[1639] As an epilogue to this narrative and an example of how popular -history is written, I quote D. E. Oliver, _The English Stage_ (1912), -9, ‘Blackfriars House, a deserted monastery on the Thames side, was -granted by Edward VI in 1596 to the Court Players for their use -as a play-house, but it was not until the accession of Elizabeth -that it received official sanction as a recognized place of public -entertainment’. - -[1640] Jonas, 132, however, quotes from the register of St. Dunstan’s, -Whitefriars, with the date 29 Sept. 1607, ‘Gerry out of the play-house -in the Friars buried’, which suggests use of the theatre before 1608. -The King’s Revels may well have started by 1607. He also quotes, -without date, ‘We present one play-house in the same precinct, not -fitting these to be now tolerable’. - -[1641] I do not know why Adams, 312, identifies the play-house with a -cloister shown in Clapham’s plan. Surely it is more likely to have been -the hall also shown at the north-west corner. - -[1642] _P. C. Acts_ (1613–14), 166. One Sturgis had leased a house and -garden from Sir Edward Gorge, and sublet the garden to ‘one Rossetoe -Kynman and others, who goe aboute to erecte a p[l]aye house thereupon’. - -[1643] _M. S. C._ i. 91; cf. ch. xvii. The Blackfriars is still the -‘private house’ of the King’s men in the patent of 1619 issued to them -after this controversy. - -[1644] It is true that, when the prentices took up Whitefriars for _The -Hog Hath Lost His Pearl_ in 1613, the admission _per bullettini_ is -said to have been ‘for a note of distinction from ordinary comedians’. -But the companies had no need to continue any special system of -admission after they had the protection of their patents; Dekker -(_vide_ p. 523) speaks of gatherers at private houses in 1609. After -the Restoration, ‘ballatine, or tickets sealed for all doors and boxes’ -were introduced at the Duke’s Theatre in 1660 (R. W. Lowe, _Thomas -Betterton_, 75). - -[1645] Lawrence, i. 230; cf. App. D, No. xxxii. - -[1646] The earliest example is _The Troublesome Reign of King John_ -(1591). - -[1647] But ‘priuately’ is also used of strictly private performances on -the title-pages of _Caesar’s Revenge_ (1607) acted at Trinity College, -Oxford, and, later, W. Montague’s _Shepherd’s Paradise_ (1659) acted by -amateurs at Court. - -[1648] T. M., _Black Book_ (1604), in Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. -42, ‘arch tobacco-taker of England ... upon stages both common and -private’; _Malcontent_ (1604), ind., ‘we may sit upon the stage at the -private house’; _Sophonisba_ (1606), _ad fin._, ‘it is printed only -as it was represented by youths, and after the fashion of the private -stage’; Dekker, _Gull’s Horn Book_ (cf. App. H), ‘Whether therefore -the gatherers of the publique or priuate Play-house stand to receiue -the afternoones rent’; Dekker, _Seven Deadly Sins_ (1606, _Works_, ii. -41), ‘All the Citty lookt like a priuate Play-house, when the windowes -are clapt downe’; _Roaring Girl_ (1611), ii. 1, ‘the private stage’s -audience, the twelve-penny stool gentlemen’; _Daborne to Henslowe_ -(1613, _Henslowe Papers_, 79), ‘as good a play for your publique howse -as ever was playd’. - -[1649] Cf. Wright (App. I). - -[1650] Lawrence (_Fortnightly_, May 1916) has shown that the rebuilt -Fortune of 1623 and Red Bull of _c._ 1632 were probably roofed, and -Wright’s description confuses the two phases of these houses. - -[1651] Chapman’s _Byron_ (1625) is said to have been acted ‘at the -Blacke-Friers and other publique Stages’, Heywood’s _English Traveller_ -(1633), _A Maidenhead Well Lost_ (1634), and _Love’s Mistress_ (1636) -to have been ‘publikely acted’ at the Cockpit, and Shirley’s _Martyred -Soldier_ (1638) to have been acted ‘at the Private House in Drury Lane -and at other publicke Theaters’. This is exceptional terminology, but -shows the obsolescence of the distinction. - -[1652] Cf. ch. xvi. - -[1653] _Old Fortunatus_ (Rose, 1599), prol. 81, ‘this small -circumference’; _Warning for Fair Women_ (? Curtain, 1599), prol. 83, -88, ‘all this fair circuit ... this round’; _Hen. V_ (Curtain or Globe, -1599), prol. 11, ‘this cockpit ... this wooden O’; _E. M. O._ (Globe, -1599), prol. 199, epil. 4406, ‘this thronged round ... this faire-fild -Globe’; _Sejanus_ (Globe, 1603), comm. v, ‘the Globe’s fair ring’; -_Three English Brothers_ (Curtain or Red Bull, 1607), epil., ‘this -round circumference’; _Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (Globe, 1608), prol. 5, -‘this round’. On the other hand, _Whore of Babylon_ (Fortune, 1607), -prol. 1, ‘The charmes of Silence through this Square be throwne’. - -[1654] Ordish, 12. - -[1655] Before the Swan was built, Nashe wrote in _The Unfortunate -Traveller_ (1594), ‘I sawe a banketting house belonging to a merchant -that was the meruaile of the world.... It was builte round of green -marble like a Theater without’ (_Works_, ii. 282). - -[1656] Cf. chh. iv, xvi (introd.). - -[1657] _Atlantic Monthly_ (1906), xcvii. 369. - -[1658] Kirkman also says in the preface to _The Wits_ (1672), ‘I -have seen the Red Bull Play-house, which was a large one’; but he is -referring, more certainly than Wright, to the rebuilt house. - -[1659] Cf. Albright, 40; Lawrence, i. 12, and _E. S._ xxxii. 44. - -[1660] There is a dot in Wheatley’s facsimile over the second -well-marked ‘r’ of the word ‘orchestra’. Is it possible that Van -Buchell misread it ‘orchestia’? - -[1661] Cf. Brereton in _Homage_, 204. - -[1662] Cf. ch. xvi. - -[1663] The _Theatrum_ of Jonson’s 1616 Folio t.p. is oval, rather -than round, but it is safer to take this, in spite of its hut, as -representing Jonson’s notion of a classical theatre. - -[1664] Cf. ch. xvi. Graves, 32, tries to minimize the structural -influence of inn-yards on the theatres, and even doubts whether the -actors preferred to act in these ‘rather than in the great halls’. But -I do not think that he makes much of a case. Had the inns, indeed, -‘great halls’ at all? - -[1665] Gosson, _P. C._ (1582), ‘it is the fashion of youthes to go -first into the yarde, and to carry theire eye through every gallery’; -_Hamlet_, III. ii. 10, ‘tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to -split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable -of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise’; Dekker, _G. H. B._ -(1609), ‘your _Groundling_ and _Gallery-Commoner_ buyes his sport by -the penny ... neither are you to be hunted from thence, though the -Scar-crows in the yard hoot at you, hisse at you, spit at you, yea, -throw durt euen in your teeth’; _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), ind. 51, -‘the vnderstanding Gentlemen o’ the ground here, ask’d my iudgement’, -59, 79; _The Hog Has Lost His Pearl_ (1614), prol.: - - We may be pelted off for ought we know, - With apples, egges, or stones, -from thence belowe; - -W. Fennor, _Descriptions_ (1616): - - the understanding, grounded, men for their just reward, - Shall gape and gaze among the fools in the yard. - -So later, _Vox Graculi_ (1623), ‘they will sit dryer in -the galleries then those who are the understanding men in the yard’; - -Shirley, _The Changes_ (1632): - - Many gentlemen - Are not, as in the days of understanding, - Now satisfied with a Jig; - -Shirley, _The Doubtful Heir_ (1640), prol.: - - No shews, no frisk and, what you most delight in, - Grave understanders, here’s no target-fighting. - -[1666] _Proscenium_ is the proper classical word for the space in front -of the _scena_; cf. p. 539. - -[1667] Albright has no justification for introducing into his -reconstruction of a typical Shakespearian stage the tapering, instead -of quadrangular, platform which characterizes the late engraving in -_The Wits_, and to a less degree those in _Roxana_ and _Messallina_. - -[1668] Wegener, 125, collects examples of the use of traps. They -served, _inter alia_, for the representation of ‘hell-mouth’, which the -Elizabethan stage inherited from the miracle-plays (cf. p. 544), and -the space under the stage was known as ‘hell’; cf. Dekker, _News from -Hell_ (1606, _Works_, ii. 92, 139), ‘Mary the question is, in which of -the _Play-houses_ he [the Devil] would have performed his prize.... -Hell being vnder euerie one of their _Stages_, the Players (if they -had owed him a spight) might with a false Trappe doore haue slipt him -downe, and there kept him, as a laughing stocke to al their yawning -spectators.... Tailors ... (as well as Plaiers) haue a hell of their -owne, (vnder their shop-board).’ - -[1669] Cf. Graves, 41. The register of the association of Masters of -Defence (_Sloane MS._ 2530; cf. extracts in A. Hutton, _The Sword and -the Centuries_, 259) records many ‘prizes’ played at theatres and -theatrical inns during the sixteenth century; cf. App. D, Nos. lx-lxii, -_Case is Altered_, II. vii. 28, ‘First they [maisters of defence] are -brought to the publicke _Theater_’, and for later periods Henslowe, -i. 98 (the Rose, 1598), the fatal contest at the Swan in 1602, and -Herbert, 47, 81. For acrobats cf. App. D, No. cxxiii, on the use of the -Swan by Peter Bromvill in 1600. Henslowe, i. 98, 106, records loans in -connexion with vaulting performances with a horse, perhaps at the Rose, -in 1598 and 1599 by John Haslett or Hassett, who was also paid for -court performances (App. B) in 1603 and 1608. - -[1670] T. M. _Black Book_ (1604, Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 7) opens -with _Lucifer ascending, as Prologue to his own Play_: - - Now is hell landed here upon the earth, - When Lucifer, in limbs of burning gold, - Ascends the dusty theatre of the world,... - - ... my tortured spleen - Melts into mirthful humour at this fate, - That heaven is hung so high, drawn up so far, - And made so fast, nailed up with many a star; - And hell the very shop-board of the earth,... - - ... And now that I have vaulted up so high - Above the stage-rails of this earthen globe, - I must turn actor and join companies. - -Rails are shown in the late _Roxana_ and _Messallina_ engravings of -indoor stages. - -[1671] Cf. H. Logeman in _Anglia_, xix. 117. - -[1672] Dekker, _G. H. B._ (1609), ‘on the very Rushes where the Commedy -is to daunce ... must our fethered _Estridge_ ... be planted’ ... -‘Salute all your gentle acquaintance, that are spred either on the -rushes, or on stooles about you ... take vp a rush, and tickle the -earnest eares of your fellow gallants’; _1 Hen. IV_, III. i. 214, ‘She -bids you on the wanton rushes lay you down’. In _The Gentleman Usher_ -(_c. 1604_, Blackfriars), II. i. 72, ‘Enter Bassiolo with Servants, -with rushes and a carpet’, and Bassiolo says, - - lay me ’em thus, - In fine smooth threaves; look you, sir, thus, in threaves. - Perhaps some tender lady will squat here, - And if some standing rush should chance to prick her, - She’d squeak, and spoil the songs that must be sung.’ - -[1673] Lawrence, i. 39, 161. - -[1674] G. Harvey (1579, _Letter Book_, 67), ‘sum maltconceivid comedye -fitt for the Theater, or sum other paintid stage whereat thou and thy -liuely copesmates in London may lawghe ther mouthes and bellyes full -for pence or twoepence apeece’; Spenser, _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), -176, ‘That wont with comick sock to beautefie The painted Theaters’; -cf. Graves, 68. Coryat, i. 386, in 1608, found a Venice play-house -‘very beggarly and base in comparison of our stately Play-houses in -England: neyther can their Actors compare with us for apparell, shewes -and musicke’. So in _Case is Altered_, II. vii. 30, the plays in Utopia -(= England) are ‘set foorth with as much state as can be imagined’. - -[1675] App. I; but cf. p. 524, n. 1. - -[1676] _Malcontent_ (_1604_, Globe), ind., ‘Good sir, will you leave -the stage? I’ll help you to a private room’; cf. Sir J. Davies’ -epigram, _infra_. - -[1677] Wright, _Hist. Hist._ 407, ‘The prices were small (there being -no scenes)’. - -[1678] L. Wager’s _Mary Magdalene_ (1566) has a prologue which says -that the actors will take ‘halfpence or pence’ from the audience, -but this was probably used by strolling actors and continues the -miracle-play tradition. At almost the same date, a jest in _Merry -Tales, Wittie Questions and Quick Answers_ (1567, Hazlitt, _Jest -Books_, i. 145) tells how men stood at the gate of a play at -Northumberland Place, ‘with a boxe (as the facion is) who toke of euery -persone that came in a peny or an half peny at the least’. - -[1679] J. Mayne in _Jonsonus Virbius_ (1638): - - So when thy Fox had ten times acted been, - Each day was first, but that ’twas cheaper seen; - And so thy Alchemist played o’er and o’er, - Was new o’ the stage, when ’twas not at the door. - -[1680] G. Harvey (p. 530, _supra_); Lyly, _Pappe with an Hatchet_ -(_Works_, iii. 408); cf. _Martin’s Month’s Mind_ (1589, App. C, No. -xl). Lodge, _Scillaes Metamorphosis_ (1589), will not ‘tie my pen to -Pennie-knaves delight’, and S. Rowlands, _Letting of Humour’s Blood in -the Head Vein_ (1600), bids poets not ‘To teach stage parrots speak for -penny pleasure’; cf. _Case is Altered_, I. i. 104, ‘Tut, giue me the -penny, giue me the peny, I care not for the Gentlemen, I, let me haue a -good ground’. - -[1681] Cf. ch. xvi, introd. Field says in 1583 (App. C, No. xxxi), -‘Euery dore hath a payment, & euery gallerie maketh a yearely stipend’. - -[1682] _E. M. O._ (1599), ind. 425, ‘Let me neuer liue to looke as -highe as the two-pennie roome, againe’; T. Garzoni, _Hospitall of -Incurable Fooles_ (tr. 1600), epist., ‘a Player that in speaking -an Epilogue makes loue to the two pennie roume for a plaudite’; -_Satiromastix_ (1602), epil. 2690, ‘Are you pleas’d?... if you be not, -by’th Lord Ile see you all--heere for your two pence a peice agen -before Ile loose your company.... Good night, my two-penny Tenants’; -_Mad World, my Masters_ (_c._ 1604–6), v. ii. 36, ‘some ... that ... -took a good conceit of their parts into th’ two-penny room’; _Woman -Hater_ (1607), prol. 5, ‘I do pronounce this, to the utter discomfort -of all two-penny Gallery men, you shall have no bawdery’; _Fleire_ -(1607), ii. 30, ‘They (like your common players) let men come in for -twopence a peece’; Dekker, _News from Hell_ (1606, _Works_, ii. 96), -‘You may take him ... in the afternoones, in the twopeny roomes of a -Play-house, like a Puny, seated Cheeke by Iowle with a punke’, _Seven -Deadly Sins_ (1606, ii. 53), ‘_Sloth_ ... will come and sit in the -two-pennie galleries amongst the gentlemen, and see their knaveries -and their pastimes’, _The Dead Term_ (1608, iv. 55), ‘Players ... -prostitute themselues to the pleasures of euery two-penny drunken -Plebeian’, _Lanthorn and Candle-Light_ (1608, iii. 216), ‘Pay thy -twopence to a Player, in his gallerie maist thou sitte by a Harlot’, -_Raven’s Almanac_ (1609, iv. 184), ‘As if you sat in the moste -perspicuous place of the two-penny gallerie in a play-house’; _Roaring -Girl_ (1611), v. 1, ‘One of them is a nip; I took him once i’ the -two-penny gallerie at the Fortune’; &c., &c. - -[1683] Dekker, _Seven Deadly Sins_ (1606, _Works_, ii. 53), ‘Their -houses smoakt euery after noone with Stinkards who were so glewed -together in crowdes with the steames of strong breath, that when -they came foorth, their faces lookt as if they had beene per boyld’, -_Raven’s Almanac_ (1609, iv. 194), ‘Hee shall be glad to play three -houres for two pence to the basest stinkard in London, whose breth -is stronger than garlicke, and able to poison all the twelve penny -roomes’, _Work for Armourers_ (1609, iv. 96), ‘tearme times, when -the Twopeny Clients and Peny Stinkards swarme together to heere the -Stagerites’; _vide_ n. 2, _infra_, and p. 534, n. 1. - -[1684] _Satiromastix_ (1602), 1669, ‘a Gentleman or an honest Cittizen -shall not sit in your pennie-bench Theaters, with his Squirrell by his -side cracking nuttes ... but he shall be Satyr’d and Epigram’d vpon’; -T. M. _Black Book_ (1604), ‘penny-rooms at theatres’; T. M. _Ant and -Nightingale_ (1604), ‘stinkards sitting in the penny galleries of a -theatre, and yawning upon the players’; Dekker, _Gull’s Horn Book_ -(1609, _Works_, ii. 208), ‘thou ... hast vouchsafed to be acquainted -with penny galleries’; _Wit Without Money_ (_c._ 1614), iv. 1, ‘break -in at plays like prentices for three a groat, and crack nuts with the -scholars in peny rooms again’. - -[1685] A. Copley, _Wits, Fits and Fancies_ (1595; ed. 1614, p. 124), -tells of a man cast off by his brother, an actor, who sent him sixpence -in a sheet of paper, to show that, ‘though his brother had vowed not -in seven years to see him, yet he for his sixpence could come and see -him upon the stage at his pleasure’. If Platter’s 3_d._ was the highest -normal charge in the sixteenth century, the 6_d._ may represent a first -night’s charge. - -[1686] Most of the allusions to 6_d._ charges relate to private houses -(cf. p. 556), but Beaumont’s grammar lecture (cf. ch. xxiii) gives -this price for the Bankside, and T. M. _Black Book_ (1604, Bullen, -_Middleton_, viii. 41) has ‘I give and bequeath to you Benedick -Bottomless, most deep cut-purse, all the benefit of ... the sixpenny -rooms in play-places, to cut, dive and nim’. Later, _The Actors -Remonstrance_ (1643) professes that the players will not admit into -their ‘sixpenny rooms those unwholesome enticing harlots that sit -there merely to be taken up by prentices or lawyers’ clerks’; cf. -Lawrence, i. 36, who thinks that the lord’s rooms became the sixpenny -rooms. For the 1_s._ charge, cf. p. 533, n. 1, and _Malcontent_ (1604), -ind. 63, ‘I say, any man that hath wit may censure, if he sit in the -twelve-penny room’; Dekker, _G. H. B._ (1609), ‘When at a new play you -take up the twelve-penny rome next the stage; (because the Lords and -you may seeme to be haile fellow wel-met) there draw forth this booke, -read alowd, laugh alowd, and play the _Antickes_, that all the garlike -mouthed stinkards may cry out, _Away with the fool_’; _Hen. VIII_ -(_1613_), prol., ‘may see away their shilling’; Overbury, _Characters_ -(ed. Rimbault, 154, _The Proud Man_), ‘If he have but twelvepence in ’s -purse he will give it for the best room in a play-house’. - -[1687] They include women, and certainly look more like spectators than -actors or musicians. - -[1688] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), ep. 53: - - See you him yonder, who sits o’re the stage, - With the Tobacco-pipe now at his mouth? - -In _E. M. O._ (_1599_), 1390 (Q_{1}), Brisk is said to -speak of lords ‘as familiarlie as if hee had ... ta’ne tabacco with -them ouer the stage i’ the Lords roome’. Dekker-Wilkins, _Jests to -Make you Merry_ (1607, _Works_, ii. 292), has a jest of ‘one that sat -ouer the stage’ on a wench in the two-penny room. _Farmer-Chetham MS._ -(seventeenth-century, ed. Grosart, i. 104) has an epigram on Spongus, -who ‘Plays at Primero over the stage’. - -[1689] _Satiromastix_ (1602), 2612, ‘You must forsweare to venter -on the stage when your play is ended, and to exchange curtezies and -complements with gallants in the Lordes roomes’. The subject is well -discussed by Lawrence (i. 29), _The Situation of the Lords’ Room_. - -[1690] Sir J. Davies, _Epigrams_ (prob. < 1596), ep. 28, _In Sillam_, -‘He that dares take Tobacco on the stage’; ep. 3, _In Rufum_: - - Rufus the Courtier at the theatre - Leauing the best and most conspicuous place, - Doth either to the stage himselfe transfer, - Or through a grate doth show his doubtful face, - For that the clamorous frie of Innes of court - Filles vp the priuate roomes of greater prise: - And such a place where all may haue resort - He in his singularitie doth despise. - -It is not, I think, sitting on the stage that is -satirized in J. Hall, _Virgedemiarum_ (1597), i. 3, but a performance -by illiterate amateurs on a ‘hired Stage’. - -[1691] _C. Revels_ (_1601_), ind. 138: - -‘3. Child ... Here I enter. - -1. What, vpon the stage too? - -2. Yes: and I step forth like one of the children, and ask you, Would -you have a Stool, Sir? - -3. A Stoole Boy? - -2. I Sir, if you’le giue me sixe Pence, I’le fetch you one. - -3. For what I pray thee? what shall I doe with it? - -2. O God Sir! will you betraye your Ignorance so much? why, throne your -selfe in state on the stage, as other Gentlemen vse Sir’; - -_All Fools_ (_c. 1604_), prol. 30: - - if our other audience see - You on the stage depart before we end, - Our wits go with you all and we are fools. - -_Isle of Gulls_ (_1606_), ind., ‘But come boy, furnish us with -stools’.... ‘He [the author] is not on the stage amongst gallants -preparing a bespoke Plaudite’. - -_K. B. P._ (_1607_), ind. 41: - - _Wife below Rafe below._ - -_Wife._ Husband, shall I come vp husband? - -_Citizen._ I cunny. Rafe helpe your mistresse this way: pray gentlemen -make her a little roome, I pray you sir lend me your hand to helpe vp -my wife.... Boy, let my wife and I haue a cupple stooles.... Come vp -Rafe. - -It must not be assumed from this burlesque that women usually sat on -the stage, even at the private houses. - -[1692] _What You Will_ (1602), ind., ‘Let’s place ourselves within the -curtains, for good faith the stage is so very little, we shall wrong -the general eye else very much’; _Faery Pastoral_ (1603), author’s -note, ‘If so be that the Properties of any of These, that be outward, -will not serue the turne by reason of concourse of the People on the -Stage, Then you may omit the sayd Properties’. In _Wily Beguiled_ -(possibly a Paul’s play), 2021, comes the s. d. ‘Stands vpon a stoole’, -in a wood scene. - -[1693] _E. M. O._ (_1599_), 585 (Q_{1}), ‘Sit o’ the stage and flout; -prouided, you haue a good suit’; 1784, ‘rich apparell ... takes -possession of your stage at your new play’; _A Mad World, my Masters_ -(_c. 1604–6_), v. ii. 38, ‘The actors have been found i’ th’ morning -in a less compass than their stage, though it were ne’er so full of -gentlemen’; _Woman Hater_ (1607), i. 3, ‘All the Gallants on the stage -rise, vail to me, kiss their hand, offer me their places’. It is true -that _Roaring Girl_ (1611), ii. 1, has ‘the private stages audience, -the twelve-penny stool gentlemen’, but this may only point to a -higher price for a stool at the private house, and in any case cannot -outweigh the allusions of Davies and Jonson before the Blackfriars, or -probably Paul’s, were reopened, or T. M. _Black Book_ (1604, Bullen, -_Middleton_, viii. 42), ‘Barnaby Burning-glass, arch tobacco-taker of -England, in ordinaries, upon stages both common and private’; Dekker, -_G. H. B._ (1609), ‘Whether therefore the gatherers of the publique -or priuate Play-house stand to receiue the afternoones rent, let our -Gallant (hauing paid it) presently aduance himselfe vp to the Throne -of the Stage’ (cf. the whole passage on the procedure and advantages -of sitting on the stage, where Dekker clearly mingles traits of both -types of house, in App. H). Wallace, ii. 130, argues that the custom -was started at Blackfriars and was confined to the private houses, but -is hopelessly confuted by C. R. Baskervill in _M. P._ viii. 581. - -[1694] _Malcontent_ (1604, Globe), ind.: - -‘Enter W. Sly, a Tire-man following him with a stool. - -_Tire-man._ Sir, the gentlemen will be angry if you sit here. - -_Sly._ Why, we may sit upon the stage at the private house. Thou dost -not take me for a country gentleman, dost? dost think I fear hissing?... - -_Lowin._ Good sir, will you leave the stage? I’ll help you to a private -room. - -_Sly._ Come, coz, lets take some tobacco’; - -_M. D’Olive_ (1606, Blackfriars), IV. ii. 173, ‘I’ll take up some other -fool for the Duke to employ: every ordinary affords fools enow; and -didst not see a pair of gallants sit not far hence like a couple of -bough-pots to make the room smell?’ - -[1695] - - Yet, Grandee’s, would you were not come to grace - Our matter, with allowing vs no place. - Though you presume Satan a subtill thing, - And may haue heard hee’s worne in a thumbe-ring; - Doe not on these presumptions, force vs act, - In compasse of a cheese-trencher. This tract - Will ne’er admit our vice, because of yours. - Anone, who, worse than you, the fault endures - That your selues make? when you will thrust and spurne, - And knocke vs o’ the elbowes, and bid, turne; - As if, when wee had spoke, wee must be gone, - Or, till wee speake, must all runne in, to one, - Like the young adders, at the old ones mouth? - Would wee could stand due North; or had no South, - If that offend: or were Muscouy glasse, - That you might looke our Scenes through as they passe. - We know not how to affect you. If you’ll come - To see new Playes, pray you affoord vs roome. - -[1696] Wallace, ii. 142. - -[1697] Dekker, _G. H. B._ (1609), ‘You may ... haue a good stoole -for sixpence ... creepe from behind the Arras, with your Tripos or -three-footed stoole in one hand, and a teston mounted betweene a -forefinger and a thumbe in the other’; cf. pp. 535, n. 3, 536, n. 2. - -[1698] Cf. ch. xx. - -[1699] Godfrey (_Architectural Review_, xxiii. 239) has no authority -for his internal roofed staircases and landings in the narrow spaces -between the galleries and the sides of the stage. - -[1700] Henslowe made a ‘penthowsse shed at the tyeringe howsse doore’ -of the Rose in 1591. Doubtless the stage could also be reached from in -front; cf. the _K. B. P._ passage on p. 536. - -[1701] Gosson, _P. C._ (1582, App. C, No. xxx), tells how youths are -wont ‘to go first into the yarde, and to carry theire eye through euery -gallery’ in search of attractive company; cf. p. 532. - -[1702] Cf. p. 541, and ch. xi. - -[1703] Peacham, however, may be merely versifying the story of the -choleric justice and the provincial audience which laughed when he -‘first peept out his head’ in Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (_Works_, i. -188), and reading in a feature, in the process, of the stage as known -to himself; and the same applies to Davenant, _The Unfortunate Lovers_ -(_c. 1638_), prol., on the play-goers of old times: - - For they, he swears, to the theatre would come, - Ere they had din’d, to take up the best room; - There sit on benches, not adorn’d with mats, - And graciously did vail their high-crown’d hats - To every half-dress’d player, as he still - Through the hangings peeped to see how the house did fill. - -For Caroline practice, cf. T. Goffe, _Careless -Shepherdess_ ind.: - - I never saw Rheade peeping through the curtain, - But ravishing joy entered into my heart; - -also Tatham’s prologue for the Fortune players, when they -moved to the Red Bull in 1640: - - Forbear - Your wonted custom, banding tile and pear - Against our curtains, to allure us forth; - I pray, take notice, these are of more worth; - Pure Naples silk, not worsted. - -I defer a full consideration of stage hangings to the -chapters on staging; cf. vol. iii, p. 78. - -[1704] For the classical sense of _Scaena_, cf. the passage from -Vitruvius quoted in vol. iii, p. 3. Florio, _Dictionary_ (1598), -s.v. _Scena_, ‘a skaffold, a pavillion, or forepart of a theatre -where players make them readie, being trimmed with hangings, out of -which they enter upon the stage’, points to the identity of scene and -tire-house front. This structure has therefore precisely the double -function of the ‘domus’ of the court plays; cf. ch. xix. I owe the -quotation to Graves, 15, who adds, _The Englysshe Mancyne upon the -foure Cardynale Vertues_ (_c._ 1520), ‘a disgyser yt goeth into a -secret corner callyd a sene of the pleyinge place to chaunge his -rayment’, and Palsgrave, _Acolastus_ (1540), prol., ‘our scenes, that -is to saye, our places appoynted for our players to come forth of’. -The English ‘Mancyne’ is a translation, earlier than A. Barclay’s, of -Dominic Mancini’s _De Quatuor Virtutibus_ (1516), and the original -has only ‘Histrio, qui in scaenam vadit’. The notion of scena as not -a mere wall, but a shelter for performers, is mediaeval, and appears -to go back to an early definition from σκῆνος, a hut or tent, found, -e. g., side by side with the regular mediaeval misunderstanding of -the classical art of acting in Hugutius, _Liber Derivationum_, ‘Scena -est umbraculum siue locus obumbratus in theatro et cortinis coopertus -similis tabernaculis mercenariorum, quae sunt asseribus vel cortinis -opertae, et secundum hoc scena potest dici a scenos, quod est domus, -quae in modum domus erat constructa. In umbraculo latebant personae -larvatae, quae ad vocem recitatoris exigebantur ad gestus faciendos’; -cf. Herrmann, 280, W. Cloetta, _Komödie und Tragödie im Mittelalter_ -(1890), 38; _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 208. It is revised on humanist lines -by Jodocus Badius Ascensius in the _Praenotamenta_ to his Terence of -1502, ‘Intra igitur theatrum ab una parte opposita spectatoribus erant -scenae et proscenia, id est loca lusoria ante scenas facta. Scenae -autem erant quaedam umbracula seu absconsoria, in quibus abscondebantur -lusores, donec exire deberent. Ante autem scenas erant quaedam -tabulata, in quibus personae qui exierant ludebant.’ - -[1705] The _Roxana_ engraving shows a projecting building at the back -of the stage, but this can hardly be regarded as throwing light upon -sixteenth-century structure. - -[1706] _C. Revels_ (1601), ind. 160. The author is not ‘in the -Tiring-house, to prompt us aloud, stampe at the Booke-holder, sweare -for our Properties, cursse the poore Tire-man, rayle the Musique out -of tune’; _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), ind. 8, ‘I am looking, lest the -_Poet_ heare me, or his man, Master Broome, behind the Arras.... -Hee has (sirreuerence) kick’d me three, or foure times about the -Tyring-house, I thanke him, for but offering to putt in, with my -experience’; v. iii. 57, ‘I would be glad drinke with the young -company; which is the Tiring-house?’ - -[1707] _Every Woman in her Humour_, p. 354, ‘He would ... stamp and -stare (God blesse us,) like a play-house book-keeper when the actors -misse their entrance’; _R. J._ I. iv. 7, - - Nor no without-book prologue, faintly spoke - After the prompter, for our entrance. - -The actor’s signal for entrance was already his ‘cue’; -cf. _M. N. D._ III. i. 77, ‘And so every one according to his cue’; -_Isle of Gulls_, ii. 2, ‘you know your que’; ii. 3, ‘She hath entred -the Dutches iust at her que’. - -[1708] _2 Ant. Mellida_, II. i. 30, ‘The tiring man hath not glued on -my beard half fast enough’. A tireman appears in the inductions to -_Malcontent_, ‘Enter W. Sly, a Tire-man following him with a stool’, -and to _What You Will_, ‘Enter Tire-man with lights’. ‘Steven the -tyerman’ of the Admiral’s in 1596 is probably the Steven Magett of -other entries by Henslowe (i. 31, 44, 45). - -[1709] Speakers in the induction to _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614) are -the Booke-Holder and the Stage-Keeper, who ‘kept the _Stage_ in -Master _Tarletons_ time’, and whose work is ‘sweeping the _Stage_? or -gathering vp the broken apples for the beares within?’ - -[1710] The Fortune company, _c._ 1617 (_H. P._ 85), offer to employ a -dismissed ‘gatherer’ as ‘a nessessary atendaunt on the stage’ and to -mend garments. On 27 Dec. 1624 the Master of Revels (_Var._ iii. 112; -Herbert, 74) issued a warrant of protection for Nicholas Underhill, -Robert Pallant, John Rhodes, and eighteen others ‘all imployed by the -kings maiesties servantes in theire quallity of playinge as musitions -and other necessary attendantes’. In _Devil’s Charter_ (1607), 3016, -is the s. d. ‘Alexander vnbraced betwixt two Cardinalls in his study -looking vpon a booke, whilst a groome draweth the curtaine’. Is this -‘groom’ a character or an ‘attendant’? In any case attendants were -naturally, with musicians and even ‘gatherers’ (on whom cf. ch. xi), -used at need for supernumeraries; cf. the gatherers in the _Frederick -and Basilea_ plot (1597, _H. P._ 136) and _2 If You Know Not Me_ -(1606), p. 297, ‘Enter ... the waits in sergeants’ gowns’. The long -list of men and boys in the procession at the end of _1 Tamar Cham_ -(1602, _H. P._ 148) must have taxed all such resources. For the use -of boys as attendants, cf. _Bartholomew Fair_, V. iii. 65, ‘Ha’ you -none of your pretty impudent boyes, now; to bring stooles, fill -Tabacco, fetch Ale, and beg money, as they haue at other houses?’ -Seventeenth-century gossip (_Centurie of Prayse_, 417) made Shakespeare -join the stage as a ‘serviture’. - -[1711] Lawrence, i. 75, ii. 159; Wegener, 150; G. H. Cowling, _Music -on the Shakespearian Stage_, 29, 70, 80. I refer to Cowling and to E. -W. Naylor, _Shakespeare and Music_, for discussions of the instruments -used--drums, timbrels, bells (percussion instruments), sackbuts, -trumpets, horns (brass instruments), cornets, hautboys, recorders, -fifes (wood instruments), viols, lutes, citterns, pandores (string -instruments)--of such terms as ‘flourish’, ‘sennet’, ‘tucket’, ‘peal’, -‘alarum’, ‘consort’, and of other technical matters with which I am not -qualified to deal. The Admiral’s inventories of 1598 (_H. P._ 115, 116, -118) include ‘iij trumpettes and a drum, and a trebel viall, a basse -viall, a bandore, a sytteren ... j chyme of bells ... iij tymbrells ... -j sack-bute’. - -[1712] _Malcontent_, ind. 89. The additions for the King’s are ‘to -entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not-received custom of -music in our theatre’. But ‘abridge’ only means shorten, and there are -s. ds. for music between the acts of _Sejanus_ (Globe, _1603_) and in -the plot of _Dead Man’s Fortune_ (Admiral’s, _c._ 1590, _H. P._ 133); -cf. Dekker, _Belman of London_ (1608, _Works_, iii. 76), ‘These were -appointed to be my Actes, in this goodly Theater, the musicke betweene, -were the Singers of the Wood’. But such evidence is rare, and Lawrence, -i. 75, and Cowling, 67, do not discriminate sufficiently the practice -of the public theatres from that of the private theatres on the one -hand and the early neo-classic court plays on the other. Here music is -an integral part of the _intermedii_ or dumb-shows, which are little -more than survivals in the full-blown public drama; cf. F. A. Foster in -_E. S._ xliv. 8, and _Hamlet_, III. ii. 13, ‘inexplicable dumb-shows’. - -[1713] Cf. p. 551. - -[1714] _Alphonsus_, prol., ‘after you haue sounded thrise, let Venus be -let downe from the top of the Stage’; Heywood, _Four Prentices_, prol., -‘Do you not know that I am the prologue? Do you not see the long black -velvet coat upon my back? Have I not all the signs of the prologue -about me? Have you not sounded thrice?’; Dekker, _Satiromastix_, -epist., ‘In steed of the trumpets sounding thrice, before the play -begin, it shall not be amisse ... first to beholde this short Comedy of -Errors’; _G. H. B._ (cf. App. H), ‘untill the quaking prologue hath (by -rubbing) got cullor into his cheekes, and is ready to give the trumpets -their cue that hee’s upon point to enter’; _E. M. O._ (Q_{1}), 107, -‘Inductio, sono secundo’, 402, ‘Sound the third time. Enter Prologue’. -Jonson has a similar arrangement (F_{1}) in the private house plays -_Cynthia’s Revels_ and _Poetaster_, but probably the trumpets were -here replaced by more elaborate music; cf. _1 Ant. Mellida_, ind. 1, -‘the music will sound straight for entrance’; _What You Will_, ind. 1 -(s. d.), ‘Before the music sounds for the Act’; _C. Revels_ (Q_{1}), -1435, ‘Like an unperfect Prologue, at third musique’. Surely this is -the origin of the ‘first’, ‘second’, and ‘third’ (or ‘curtain tune’) -music of the Restoration and eighteenth-century overtures, described -by Lawrence, ii. 155. Exceptionally the prologue in Percy’s _C. and C. -Errant_ is between the second and third sounding. - -[1715] _Chaste Maid in Cheapside_, V. iv. 1 (s. d.), ‘There is a sad -song in the music-room’; cf. _Thracian Wonder_, IV. i. 182, ‘Pythia -speaks in the musick Room behind the Curtain’, 186, ‘Pythia above, -behind the curtains.’ But these, although early plays, are in late -prints, and the other examples of a music-room ‘above’ given by -Lawrence, i. 91, are Caroline. Jasper Mayne says of Jonson (1638, -_Jonsonus Virbius_), ‘Thou laid’st no sieges to the music-room’. My own -impression is that when the lord’s room over the tire-house was disused -by spectators (cf. p. 537) it became indifferently available for actors -and for music, and that here, rather than, as is possible, higher still -in the scenic wall, was the normal place for the seventeenth-century -music, when it was not needed elsewhere, or the space needed for -other purposes. The introduction of the high proscenium arch at the -Restoration caused difficulties, and various experiments were tried in -placing the music above (Lawrence, i. 91, 161; ii. 160; W. G. Keith, -_The Designs for the First Movable Scenery on the English Public Stage_ -in _Burlington Magazine_, xxv. 29, 85), before the modern situation was -adopted. - -[1716] Cf. ch. x. - -[1717] _R. J._, prol. 12, ‘the two hours’ traffic of our stage’; -_Alchemist_, prol. 1, ‘these two short hours’; _Hen. VIII_, prol. 13, -‘two short hours’; _T. N. K._, prol. 28, ‘Sceanes ... worth two houres -travell’; Heywood, _Apology_, 11 (Beeston’s c. v.), ‘two houres well -spent’; _Barth. Fair_, ind., ‘the space of two hours and a half and -somewhat more’. Perhaps plays tended to grow shorter. Fenton (1574) and -Northbrooke (1577–8) give ‘two or three houres’, and Whetstone (1578) -three hours (cf. App. C), but Dekker (cf. p. 533, n. 3) seems to regard -three hours as an exceptionally long period. - -[1718] Cotgrave, _French-English Dict._ (1611), s.v. Falot, ‘a cresset -light (such as they use in play-houses) made of ropes wreathed, pitched -and put into small and open cages of iron’; cf. Lawrence, ii. 13, who -thinks the cressets were part of the lighting of private houses. But -would they not smoke and smell badly, if used indoors? There is no -particular reason for translating the _lucernae_ of Christ Church hall -in 1566, with Schelling and Lawrence, as ‘cressets’. - -[1719] Nashe (iii. 329), epist. to _Astrophel and Stella_ (1591), -‘here you shal find a paper stage streud with pearle, an artificial -heau’n to ouershadow the faire frame’; _Wagnerbook_ (1594, cf. ch. -xx), ‘Now aboue all was there the gay Clowdes vsque quaque adorned -with the heavenly firmament, and often spotted with golden teares -which men callen Stars. There was liuely portrayed the whole Imperiall -Army of the faire heauenly inhabitauntes’; _Birth of Hercules_ (1597 -<), i. 1, s. d., ‘Ad comoediae magnificentiam apprime conferet ut -coelum Histrionium sit luna et stellis perspicue distinctum’; Heywood, -_Apology_ (_c. 1608_), 34, of the Roman theatre, ‘the covering of the -stage, which we call the heavens’; Cotgrave, _Dict._ (1611), s.v. -_Volerie_, ‘a place over a stage, which we call the heavens’. The same -word was used for the state over a throne; cf. Cotgrave, s.v. _Dais_, -‘a cloth of estate, canopie, or Heaven, that stands over the heads of -Princes thrones’. Graves, 24, gives examples of heavens used in Tudor -pageants. It is to be noted that the ‘heavens’ and ‘hell’ (cf. p. 528) -of a theatre continue characteristic features of mediaeval staging (cf. -_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 86, 137, 142); cf. _All Fools_, prol. 1: - - The fortune of a stage (like Fortunes selfe) - Amazeth greatest judgments; and none knowes - The hidden causes of those strange effects - That rise from this Hell, or fall from this Heaven. - -The theory of J. Corbin in _Century_ (1911), 267, that -the heavens was a mere _velarium_ or cloud of canvas thrown out from -the hut, will not fit the evidence; cf. Lawrence, ii. 6. - -[1720] Cf. vol. iii, p. 78. Is this, or the hut, the ‘garret’ of R. -M.’s _A Player_ (cf. p. 546)? - -[1721] I do not now regard as tenable my suggestion in _The Stage -of the Globe_ (_Stratford Town Shakespeare_, x. 351) that De Witt -represented as outstanding columns what were really mere pilasters in -the tire-house wall. - -[1722] Kempe, _Nine Days Wonder_, 6, ‘I remembred one of them to be -a noted Cut-purse, such a one as we tye to a poast on our stage, for -all people to wonder at, when at a play they are taken pilfring’; cf. -_Nobody and Somebody_, 1893, - - _Somebody_ - Once pickt a pocket in this Play-house yard, - Was hoysted on the stage, and shamd about it; - -also ch. xx, p. 75; ch. xxi, pp. 108, 141. - -[1723] For criticism of the drawing of the heavens and hut, cf. Graves, -22, and Brereton in _Homage_, 204. - -[1724] Henslowe paid in 1595 for ‘mackinge the throne in the heuenes’ -at the Rose; cf. R. M., _Micrologia_ (1629), in Morley, _Character -Writings_, 285, _A Player_, ‘If his action prefigure passion, he raves, -rages, and protests much by his painted heavens, and seems in the -height of this fit ready to pull Jove out of the garret where perchance -he lies leaning on his elbows, or is employed to make squibs and -crackers to grace the play’. Wegener, 133, gives examples of the use of -machines; for the throne, cf. vol. iii, p. 77. - -[1725] Field (1583, App. C, No. xxxi), ‘Those flagges of defiance -against God’; Vennar’s apology (1614) for _England’s Joy_ (1602, cf. -ch. xxiii). ‘The report of gentlemen and gentlewomens actions, being -indeed the flagge to our theatre, was not meerely falcification’; _A -Mad World, my Masters_ (1604–6), I. i. 38, III. iii. 143, ‘’Tis Lent in -your cheeks; the flag’s down’.... ‘The hair about the hat is as good as -a flag upo’ th’ pole, at a common play-house, to waft company’; Dekker, -_Raven’s Almanac_ (1609, _Works_, iv. 210), ‘Another ciuill warre doe -I finde will fal betweene players.... For it is thought that Flag will -be aduanced (as it were in mortall defiance against Flag)’; _Work for -Armourers_ (1609, _Works_, iv. 96), ‘Play-houses stand ... the dores -locked vp, the flagges ... taken down’; _Curtain-Drawer of the World_ -(1612), ‘Each play-house advanceth his flag in the aire, whither -quickly at the waving thereof are summoned whole troops of men, women, -and children’. The maps regularly show flags on the theatres. The Globe -fire in 1613 ‘did not spare the silken flagg’ (cf. p. 421). Heywood, -_Apology_, 22, mistranslates Ovid’s ‘Tunc neque marmoreo pendebant vela -theatro’ as: - - In those days from the marble house did waive - No sail, no silken flag, no ensign brave. - -[1726] Cf. p. 542; _Cynthia’s Revels_, ind., where the boys struggle -for the cloak; _Woman Hater_, prol. 1, ‘Gentlemen, Inductions are out -of date, and a Prologue in Verse, is as stale as a black Velvet Cloak, -and a Bay Garland’; _Birth of Hercules_ (1597 <), prol. 5, ‘Thepilogue -is in fashion; prologues no more’; and much later. _Coronation_, prol. -4, - - he - That with a little Beard, a long black Cloak, - With a starch’d face, and supple leg hath spoke - Before the plays the twelvemonth. - -The prologue appears to be a composite figure, partly -representing the poet, and deriving also in part from the presenter -of dumb-shows, in part from the Chorus of neo-classic tragedy, and in -part from the ‘exposytour in doctorys wede’, developed by miracle-plays -and moralities out of the Augustine of the _Prophetae_; cf. _Mediaeval -Stage_, ii. 52, 72, 153, 417, 423, 426, 429, 448; F. A. Foster in -_E. S._ xliv. 13; F. Lüders, _Prolog und Epilog bei Shakespeare_ -(_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, v. 274); Creizenach, 275. The short dramatic -inductions, often introducing actors _in propria persona_, favoured -by Jonson, Marston, and others about the beginning of the seventeenth -century, attempt to give new life to a waning convention. - -[1727] Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 141, 156. Drums and trumpets were -used as advertisements in the city at any rate until 1587 (App. C, Nos. -xvii, xxxi, xxxviii), and were traditional in the provinces up to the -middle of the eighteenth century (Lawrence, ii. 58). Parolles tells -us (_All’s Well_, IV. iii. 298) that Captain Dumain ‘has led the drum -before the English tragedians’. Henslowe (i. 118) bought a drum and two -trumpets for the Admiral’s ‘when to go into the contry’ in Feb. 1600. -In _Histriomastix_, ii. 80, ‘One of them steppes on the Crosse, and -cryes, A Play’. - -[1728] H. Moseley, pref. verses to F_{1} of Beaumont and Fletcher -(1647): - - As after th’ Epilogue there comes some one - To tell spectators what shall next be shown; - So here am I. - -This is, of course, only Caroline evidence; for the -continuance of the practice after the Restoration, cf. Lawrence, ii. -187. - -[1729] _Grindal to Cecil_ (1564, App. D, No. xv), ‘these Histriones, -common playours who now daylye, butt speciallye on holydayes, sett vp -bylles’; _Merry Tales, &c._ (1567; cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Vennar), ‘billes -... vpon postes about London’; Northbrooke (1577, App. C, No. xvi), -‘they use to set vp their billes vpon postes certain dayes before’; -Gosson, _S. A._ (1579, App. C, No. xxii), 44, ‘If players can ... -proclame it in their billes, and make it good in theaters’; Rankins -(1587, App. C, No. xxxviii), ‘sticking of their bills in London’; -Marston, _Scourge of Villainy_ (Bullen, iii. 302), ‘Go read each post, -view what is play’d to-day’; _Histriomastix_, v. 69, ‘Text-bills must -now be turned to iron bills’; _Warning for Fair Women_, (> 1599): - - ’Tis you have kept the Theatres so long, - Painted in play-bills upon every post. - That I am scorned of the multitude. - -Wither, _Abuses Stript and Whipt_ (1613), ii. 2: - - But, by the way, a Bill he doth espy, - Which showes theres acted some new Comedy. - -In _Bartholomew Fair_, v. iii. 6, Cokes ‘reads the Bill’ -of the motion; cf. Lawrence (ii. 55), _The Origin of the Theatre -Programme_. - -[1730] _Devil an Ass_, I. iv. 43, ‘Hee giues him the Play-bill’. - -[1731] Arber, ii. 477; iii. 575. - -[1732] _Henslowe Papers_, 106. - -[1733] Lawrence, ii. 240. - -[1734] Jonson, in printing plays, and following him the editors of -the Beaumont and Fletcher F_{1} often give the scene and the actors’ -names, and casts appear in _Duchess of Malfi_ (1623). But these are not -necessarily taken from any documents put before the audiences. - -[1735] Lawrence, ii. 154; cf. the stipulation in Burbadge’s lease (p. -387), and W. Fennor, _Compter’s Commonwealth_ (1617), 8, ‘he that first -comes in is first seated, like those that come to see playes’. - -[1736] Cf. p. 540 (Tatham), and the notices of Hentzner and Platter -(ch. xvi, introd.). In _K. B. P._ the wife comes with her pockets full -of sweetmeats, which she bestows upon the actors, liquorice (i. 77), -green ginger (ii. 279), sugar-candy (ii. 366), and her husband brings -beer (iii. 631). The liquorice would open Ralph’s pipes; cf. ch. xii -(Westminster) and _C. Revels_, ind. 215, ‘I would thou hadst some sugar -candyed, to sweeten thy mouth’; Overbury, _Characters_ (ed. Rimbault, -113, _A Puny-Clarke_), ‘Hee eats ginger-bread at a play-house’. - -[1737] Cf. pp. 534, 536 and Hentzner (ch. xvi, introd.); _C. Revels_, -ind. 122, ‘I haue my three sorts of Tabacco, in my Pocket, my light by -me’; _K. B. P._ i. 224, ‘Fie, this stinking Tobacco kils men, would -there were none in _England_, now I pray Gentlemen, what good does this -stinking Tobacco? do you nothing, I warrant you make chimnies a your -faces’; Dekker, _G. H. B._, ‘By sitting on the stage, you may ... get -your match lighted’; _Scornful Lady_, I. ii. 52, ‘They wear swords to -reach fire at a play’; _Sir Giles Goosecap_, IV. ii. 87 (street-scene), -‘By this fire, they do, my lord’. Burn, 84, cites a note by Sir J. -Caesar in _Lansd. MS._ 160, p. 302, of a speech by James in a Star -Chamber case of 1613, in which he advised gentlemen of the Temple not -to frequent plays, whence the smoke of tobacco and the presence of -painted ladies should deter them. - -[1738] W. Fennor, _Descriptions_ (1616), ‘I suppose this Pamphlet will -hap into your hands before a Play begin, with the importunate clamour -of “Buy a new Booke!” by some needy companion that will be glad to -furnish you with worke for a turned teaster’. Dekker, _G. H. B._ (cf. -App. H), recommends cards. - -[1739] _V. P._ xiv. 593, 599, records a charge against the ambassador -Foscarini (1611–15) of pursuing a woman, and ‘sometimes attending the -public comedies and standing among the people on the chance of seeing -her’. Foscarini said he only went three or four times to the play and -that the archduke’s ambassador and his wife did the same. It was given -in evidence that the ambassador Giustiniani (Dec. 1605–Oct. 1608) went -with the French ambassador and his wife to see _Pericles_ at a cost -of 20 crowns. This must have been at the Globe. For the presence of -harlots, cf. pp. 534, 535; vol. i, p. 255. - -[1740] Dekker, _G. H. B._ (1609, _Works_, ii. 201), ‘you can neither -shake our _Comick Theater_ with your stinking breath of hisses, nor -raise it with the thunder-claps of your hands’ (cf. also App. H); _Isle -of Gulls_, ind., ’Tis growne into a custome at playes if anyone rise -(especially of any fashionable sort) about what serious busines soeuer, -the rest thinking it in dislike of the play, tho he neuer thinks it, -cry “Mew! by Jesus, vilde!” and leaue the poore hartlesse children to -speake their Epilogue to the emptie seates’. Later a Gent. says, ‘See -it be baudy, or by the light I and all my friends will hisse’, and the -Prologue replies, ‘You shoulde not deale gentlemanlike with us els’; E. -Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), prol. to Sat., ‘It is the grand hisse to -a filthy play’; _Roaring Girl_, prol., ‘If that he finds not here, he -mews at it’; _T. and C._, epil.: - - my fear is this, - Some galled goose of Winchester would hiss; - -_Downfall of Robin Hood_, _ad fin._: - - if I fail in this, - Then let my pains be baffled with a hiss; - -_Devil an Ass_, III. v. 41: - - If I could but see a piece... - Come but to one act, and I did not care-- - But to be seene to rise, and goe away, - To vex the Players, and to punish their _Poet_-- - Keepe him in awe! - -[1741] _Isle of Gulls_, ind., ‘a prepared company of gallants to -aplaud his iests and grace out his play’; _Histriomastix_, ii. 137, -‘_Belch._’ ‘What’s an Ingle? _Posthaste._ One whose hands are hard as -battle doors with clapping at baldness’. For the special use of ‘ingle’ -(= ‘intimate’) in the sense of a patron of players, cf. _Poetaster_, -I. ii. 18, ‘What! shall I have my sonne a stager now? an enghle for -players? a gull? a rooke? a shot-clogge? to make suppers, and bee -laught at?’ - -[1742] Cf. p. 547, n. 1. - -[1743] _K. to K. a Knave_ (1594), _ad fin._; _Looking-Glass_, 2282; -_Locrine_, 2276; _2 Hen. IV_, epil. 35, ‘And so kneele down before -you; but indeed, to pray for the Queene’; _Two Wise Men and All the -Rest Fools_ (1619), epil., ‘It resteth that we render you very humble -and hearty thanks, and that all our hearts pray for the king and his -family’s enduring happiness, and our country’s perpetual welfare. _Si -placet, plaudite_’; cf. ch. xxii. - -[1744] Cf. ch. x. - -[1745] _M. N. D._ v. i. 360, ‘Will it please you to see the epilogue, -or to hear a Bergomask dance between two of our company?’; _Much Ado_, -v. i. 130, ‘Strike vp, pipers. _Dance_’; _A. Y. L._ V. iv. 182. - -[1746] Cf. ch. xiii (Leicester’s). - -[1747] Murray, ii. 206, 293, 304, 367, ‘upon the Q. players at the -dancing on the rop’ (1590, Bridgnorth), ‘vnto the Torkey Tumblers’ -(1589–90, Ipswich), ‘to certen playars, playinge uppon ropes at the -Crosse Keyes’ (1590, Leicester), ‘to the Quenes men when the Turke -wente vpon roppes at Newhall’ (22 April 1590, Norwich); _Coventry Corp. -MS._ A 7 (b), ‘the Queens players & the turk’ (1589–90, Coventry); -cf. Nashe, _Epistle to Strange Newes_ (1592, _Works_, i. 262), ‘Say I -am as verie a Turke as hee that three yeeres ago ranne vpon ropes’. A -Gloucester payment of 1594–5 for ‘a wagon in the pageant for the Turke’ -(Murray, ii. 285) may or may not refer to the acrobat of 1590. - -[1748] Cf. ch. xiv. - -[1749] Both Hentzner (1598) and Platter (1599) describe it; cf. ch. -xvi, introd. Platter saw it at both the Globe and the Curtain, where -it was ‘Englisch unndt Irlendisch’. Von Wedel also describes something -very much like a well-developed jig after a baiting on the Bankside in -1584 (cf. ch. xvi, Hope). - -[1750] Gosson, _P. C._ (1582; cf. App. C, No. xxx), ‘daunsing of -gigges’; _Much Ado_, II. i. 78, ‘Wooing ... is hot and hasty, like a -Scotch jig, and full as fantastical’; _Hamlet_, III. ii. 132, ‘O God, -your only jig-maker’; _E. M. O._ (Q_{1}), 1147, ‘a thing studied, and -rehearst as ordinarily at his comming from hawking, or hunting, as -a Iigge after a play’; _Jack Drum_, i. 404, ‘as the Iigge is cal’d -for when the play is done’; R. Knolles, _Six Bookes of a Commonweal_ -(1606), 645, ‘Now adayes they put at the end of euerie Tragedie (as -poyson into meat) a comedie or jigge’ (translating Bodin’s ‘obscoena -quadam fabula turpissimis ac sordidissimis narrationibus condita’); -Cotgrave (1611), ‘Farce ... also, the Iyg at the end of an Enterlude, -wherein some pretie knauerie is acted’; Dekker, _A Strange Horse Race_ -(1613, _Works_, iii. 340), ‘As I haue often seene, after the finishing -of some worthy Tragedy, or Catastrophe in the open Theaters, that the -sceane after the Epilogue hath been more blacke (about a nasty bawdy -jigge) then the most horrid sceane in the play was: The stinkards -speaking all things, yet no man understanding any thing’; cf. the late -Shirley allusion on p. 528. The term is sometimes more loosely used. -In _James IV_, 82, 88, 620, 636, 661, 666, 673, 1116, the speakers of -the Induction call the main action a jig; cf. _1 Tamburlaine_, prol. 1, -‘iygging vaines of riming mother wits’. Swaen (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlvi. -122) points out that a tune known as _The Cobler’s Jig_ would fit the -dialogue song by cobblers in _Locrine_, 569. Naylor, 124, gives some -account of jig tunes and derives the term from _giga_, an instrument of -the fiddle type. - -[1751] Cf. the quotation from _K. B. P._ on p. 557, and ch. v. - -[1752] Tarlton and Kempe (cf. ch. xv) are spoken of as acting in -‘merriments’. I doubt whether anything more technical is meant than -a farcical episode in a play, perhaps helped out with such ‘gags’ as -_Hamlet_, III. ii. 42, deprecates. - -[1753] Arber, ii. 297, 298, 571, 600, 601, 669, 670, 671; iii. 49, 50, -‘a newe Northerne Jigge’ (5 Jan. 1591), ‘the seconde parte of the gigge -betwene Rowland and the Sexton’ (16 Dec. 1591), ‘the thirde and last -parte of Kempes Jigge’ (28 Dec. 1591), ‘a merrie newe Jigge betwene -Jenkin the Collier and Nansie’ (14 Jan. 1592), ‘a plesant newe Jigge -of the broome-man’, ascribed in the margin to Kempe (16 Jan. 1595), ‘a -pleasant Jigge betwene a tincker and a Clowne’ (4 Feb. 1595), ‘a ballad -of Cuttinge George and his hostis beinge a Jigge’ (17 Feb. 1595), -‘Master Kempes Newe Jigge of the kitchen stuffe woman’ (2 May 1595), -‘Phillips his gigg of the slyppers’ (26 May 1595), ‘a pretie newe Jigge -betwene Ffrancis the gentleman Richard the farmer and theire wyves’ -(14 Oct. 1595), and ‘Kemps newe Jygge betwixt a Souldiour and a Miser -and Sym the clown’ (21 Oct. 1595); cf. ch. xv (Tarlton). Creizenach, -312, cites a list of jig titles by Hoenig in _Anzeiger für deutsches -Altertum_, xxii. 304. - -[1754] _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (_Works_, iii. 114). - -[1755] Henslowe, i. 70, 82. - -[1756] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_, Sat. v. - -[1757] App. D, No. cl; cf. the quotation from Dekker, _supra_; -_Hamlet_, II. ii. 522, of Polonius, ‘He ’s for a jig or a tale of -bawdry, or he sleeps’; Wither, _Abuses Stript and Whipt_ (1613), ii. -3, ‘a Curtaine Iigge, a Libell, or a Ballet’. Possibly the Middlesex -order has a bearing on the curious variant in the Epistle to Jonson’s -_Alchemist_ (1612), where some copies lament ‘the concupiscence of -jigges and daunces’, others of ‘daunces and antikes’. - -[1758] _The Black Man_ is in Kirkman’s _The Wits_ (1672), and _Singing -Simpkin_ is ascribed in undated texts to the Caroline Robert Cox, -but a tune of this name was known in Basle in 1592, and a German jig -of 1620 seems to be a translation; cf. Herz, 132; F. Bolte, _Die -Singspiele der englischen Komödianten und ihrer Nachfolger_ (1893, -_Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen_, vii); W. J. Lawrence (_T. L. S._ 3 -July 1919). - -[1759] A. Clark, _Shirburn Ballads_, 244 (cf. S. R. list, _supra_, s. -a. 1595), ‘M^r Attowel’s Jigge: betweene Francis, a Gentleman; Richard, -a farmer; and their wives’. It is in four scenes, sung respectively to -the tunes of ‘Walsingham’, ‘The Jewishe Dance’, ‘Buggle-boe’, and ‘Goe -from my windo’. In _Roxburghe Ballads_, i. 201; ii. 101, are ‘Clod’s -Carroll, a proper new jigg’, and ‘A mery new Jigge’. Collier’s ‘Jigge -of a Horse Loade of Fooles’ (_New Facts_, 18; cf. Halliwell, _Tarlton_, -xx) is probably a fake. - -[1760] Clark, 354, from _Bodl. Rawlinson Poet. MS._ 185 (_c._ 1590), ‘A -proper new ballett, intituled Rowland’s god-sonne’. It is to the tune -of ‘Loth to departe’. Nashe, _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, 76, -mentions this jig. Two parts of a ‘Rowlandes godson moralised’ were -entered in S. R. on 18 and 29 April 1592. Rowland is not a character, -and numerous German allusions to and adaptations of a jig beginning ‘Oh -neighbour Rowland’ (Herz, 134) have probably some other original. A -‘Roland and the Sexton’ is in the S. R. list, _supra_. A verse dialogue -in _Alleyn Papers_, 8, mentions ‘bonny Rowland’ and is probably a jig -of his cycle; another (p. 29) does not read to me like a jig. - -[1761] Cf. ch. xv (Tarlton, Wilson) and Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ -(_Works_, i. 244), ‘the queint Comaedians of our time, That when their -Play is doone, do fal to ryme’. Armin’s (q.v.) _Quips Upon Questions_ -(1600) are probably themes, or based upon the conception of themes. A -theme is introduced in _Histriomastix_, ii. 293. The Lord sets it: - - Your poetts and your pottes - Are knit in true-love knots, - -and a sixteen-line ‘song extempore’ by Posthaste follows. -The verses on ‘theames’ in Gascoigne’s _Posies_ (ed. Cunliffe, 62) are -not, I think, improvisations. - -[1762] Smith, _Commedia dell’ Arte_, 175; cf. M. J. Wolff, _Shakespeare -und die Commedia dell’ arte_ (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlvi. 1). - -[1763] _C. is A._ II. vii. 36, of the players in Utopia (England), -‘_Sebastian._ And how are their plaies? as ours are? extemporall? -_Valentine._ O no! all premeditated things’. The references of -Whetstone, _Heptameron_ (1582), _Sp. Tragedy_, IV. i. 163, Middleton, -_Spanish Gypsy_, IV. ii. 38, are specifically to French and Italian -practice, and so too, presumably, _A. C._ v. ii. 216, ‘The quick -comedians Extemporally will stage us’. The interpretation of Hamlet, -II. ii. 420, ‘For the law of writ and the liberty, these are the only -men’, is open, but Falstaff says in _1 Hen. IV_, II. iv. 309, ‘Shall we -have a play extempore?’ - -[1764] Hamlet, III. ii. 42; cf. _John a Kent and John a Cumber_, iii, -_ad fin._, ‘One of us Johns must play beside the book’. - -[1765] In _K. B. P._, ind. 94, where Ralph ‘should have playd -Jeronimo with a Shooemaker for a wager’; _Ratseis Ghost_ (1605, -Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 326), ‘I durst venture all the mony in my -purse on thy head to play Hamlet with him for a wager’; Dekker, _Jests -to Make You Merrie_ (1607, _Works_, ii. 282), ‘A paire of players, -growing into an emulous contention of one anothers worth, refusde to -put themselves to a day of hearing (as any Players would haue done) -but stood onely vpon their good parts’; cf. ch. xvi (Fortune), ch. xv -(Alleyn). - -[1766] Cf. ch. xi, p. 371. - -[1767] _2 Ant. Mellida_, prol., ‘within this round ... this ring’; cf. -p. 536. _Fawn_ (1604–6), prol., has ‘this fair-filled room’, but the -play was transferred to Paul’s from Blackfriars. - -[1768] For the existence of tiring-houses in private theatres, cf. -inductions to _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ (Paul’s) and _C. Revels_ -(Blackfriars). - -[1769] Cf. ch. xvii. - -[1770] _Dutch Courtesan_ (_c. 1603_, Blackfriars), V. iii. 162, ‘my -very fine Heliconian gallants, and you my worshipful friends in the -middle region’. - -[1771] Cf. Wright (App. I). For the origin of the term, cf. the c. v. -of L. Digges to Shakespeare’s _Poems_ (1640): - - Let but Beatrice - And Benedicke be seene, loe in a trice - The cockpit, galleries, boxes, are all full, - To hear Malvoglio that crosse-garterd gull. - -[1772] Dekker, _G. H. B._ (cf. App. H), with its mingling of ‘public’ -and ‘private’ features, cannot be relied on. The _Roxana_ and _Wits_ -engravings show spectators ‘over the stage’, but cannot be treated as -evidence for the private houses. The _Messallina_ engraving only shows -a window closed by curtains. - -[1773] Cf. p. 556, _infra._ - -[1774] _1 Ant. Mellida_ (Paul’s), prol., ‘select and most respected -auditors’; _What You Will_ (Paul’s), ind., ‘the female presence, the -genteletza, the women’; _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ (Paul’s), ind., -‘this choise selected influence’. But it was still mixed enough; cf. -Jonson’s c. v. to _Faithful Shepherdess_ (Revels, _c._ 1608–9): - - The wise and many-headed bench that sits - Upon the life and death of plays and wits-- - Composed of gamester, captain, knight, knight’s man, - Lady or pusill that wears mask or fan, - Velvet or taffata cap, rank’d in the dark - With the shop’s foreman, or some such brave spark, - That may judge for his sixpence. - -[1775] Cf. chh. i, x, and _M. L. R._ ii. 12. - -[1776] Jonson, _supra_; _Mich. Term_ (_c._ 1606, Paul’s), ‘sixpenny -fees all the year long’; Otho of Hesse-Cassel (1611, Whitefriars), -‘hier kostet der eingang einen halben schilling nur, da an andern orten -wohl eine halbe kron’; _Scornful Lady_ (1613–16,? Whitefriars), IV. i. -238, ‘I ... can see a play For eighteen-pence again: I can, my lady’; -_Wit Without Money_ (? 1614, Whitefriars), i. 1, ‘And who extoled -you in the halfcrown boxes, where you might sit and muster all the -beauties’. So later, Jonson, _Magnetic Lady_ (_1632_, Blackfriars), -ind., ‘the faeces or grounds of your people, that sit in the oblique -caves and wedges of your house, your sinful sixpenny mechanicks’. I am -rather puzzled by Percy, _C. and C. Errant_, ‘Poules steeple stands in -the place it did before; and twopence is the price for the going into -a newe play there’. Even in 1589 (cf. p. 532) the price at Paul’s was -4_d._ according to a Marprelate tract, and William Darrell in that year -paid 6_d._ (Hall, _Society in Elizabethan Age_, 211). - -[1777] In _Isle of Gulls_ (1606, Blackfriars), ind., a Gent. can only -see an act or two out, for ‘I lay in bed till past three a clock, slept -out my dinner and my stomache will toule to supper afore fiue’. Otho of -Hesse-Cassel (1611) says that the Whitefriars plays were at three, and -from Michaelmas to Easter only. Percy, on the other hand (cf. ch. xii), -says that the Paul’s boys were not allowed to begin before four, after -prayers, and the gates of Paul’s shut at six. So, too, _Ram Alley_ -(King’s Revels), epil., ‘Thus two hours have brought to end’. Gerschow -in 1602 (cf. ch. xii) says that the Chapel acted once a week; cf. -_Eastward Hoe_ (1605, Blackfriars), epil., ‘May this attract you hither -once a week’. - -[1778] Dekker, _Seven Deadly Sins_ (1606, Works, ii. 41), ‘All the -Citty lookt like a priuate Play-house, when the windowes are clapt -downe, as if some _Nocturnall_, or dismal _Tragedy_ were presently to -be acted’. - -[1779] _What You Will_ (1601, Paul’s), ‘Enter Atticus, Doricus, and -Philomuse, they sit a good while on the stage before the Candles are -lighted.... Enter Tier-man with lights’; _Mich. Term_ (1607, Paul’s), -‘Ours [terms] haue but sixpenny fees all the year long, yet we dispatch -you in two hours without demur: your suits hang not long here after -candles be lighted’; _Faithful Shepherdess_ (1608–9, Blackfriars), -Beaumont’s c. v., ‘Some like, if the wax lights be new that day’. Otho -of Hesse-Cassel (1611) says that the Whitefriars plays were ‘nur bei -lichtern’. Later we have G. Wither, _Fair Virtue_ (1622), 1781: - - those lamps which at a play - Are set up to light the day; - -Lenton, _The Young Gallants Whirligig_ (1629): - - spangled, rare perfumed attires, - Which once so glister’d at the torchy Friars. - -Cf. Lawrence (ii. 1), _Light and Darkness in the Elizabethan Theatre_; -also _E. S._ xlviii. 213. - -[1780] Cf. ch. xii; and for evidence of inter-act music, Lawrence, i. -81; Cowling, 68. Papers on _Early Elizabethan Stage Music_ in _Musical -Antiquary_ (Oct. 1909, Jan. 1913) show the origin of the musical -tradition in the earlier boy companies; for its seventeenth-century -development, cf. Wallace, ii. 114. - -[1781] _Faithful Shepherdess_ (1608–9, Blackfriars), Beaumont’s c. v.: - - Nor wants there those who, as the boy doth dance - Between the acts, will censure the whole play. - -In _K. B. P._ (1607, Blackfriars) a boy dances after Acts i and iii, -and the citizens comment, ‘I will haue him dance _Fading_; _Fading_ -is a fine Iigge’. After Act ii there are fiddlers. After Act iv Ralph -intervenes with a May Day speech. - -[1782] _2 Ant. Mellida_, V. i. 50, ‘Andrugio’s ghost is placed betwixt -the music-houses’; _Faery Pastoral_, s. ds., ‘Highest aloft and on -the Top of the Musick Tree the Title The Faery Pastoral. Beneath him -pind on Post of the Tree The Scene Eluida Forest Lowest of all ouer -the Canopie ΝΑΠΑΙΤΒΟΔΑΙΟΝ or Faery Chappell’.... ‘Here they shutt both -into the Canopie Fane or Trophey’; _Cuck Queenes and Cuckolds Errants_, -prol. by Tarlton, ‘standing at entrance of the doore and right vnder -the Beame I think Graves, 14, rightly explains ‘Trophey’ as ‘arch’, -on the analogy of its use for a triumphal arch in Dekker, _Coronation -Pageant_ (1603). The only other use of ‘canopy’ for a structural part -of a theatre seems to be in _Sophonisba_, iv. 1, ‘Play softly within -the canopy’.... ‘Syphax hasteneth within the canopy, as to Sophonisba’s -bed’. This is a Blackfriars play, but it might conceivably have been -written for Paul’s. - -Transcriber’s Notes: - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been - corrected silently. - -2. Where necessary, original spelling has been retained. - -3. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the - original. - -4. Hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been - retained as in the original. - - -5. Some words seem to have been written as one word, e.g. - thexecutor. These have been retained as in the original. - -6. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. - D^r. or X^{xx}. - -7. Italics are shown as _xxx_. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE (VOL 2 OF -4) *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |