Shakespearean Playhouses Part 18

Years he numbered scarce thirteen When Fates turned cruel, Yet three filled zodiacs had he been The stage's jewel; And did act, what now we moan, Old men so duly, As, sooth, the Parcae thought him one, He played so truly.[322]

[Footnote 321: _Father Hubbard's Tales_ (ed. Bullen, VIII, 77).]

[Footnote 322: Jonson, _Epigrams_, CXX, _An Epitaph on Salathiel Pavy, a Child of Queen Elizabeth's Chapel_.]

And Samuel Pepys records the effectiveness of a child-actor in the role of women: "One Kinaston, a boy, acted the Duke's sister, but made the loveliest lady that ever I saw in my life."[323]

[Footnote 323: _Diary_, August 18, 1660.]

Moreover, to expert acting these Boys of the Chapel Royal added the charms of vocal and instrumental music, for which many of them had been specially trained. The Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, who upon his grand tour of the European countries in 1602 attended a play at Blackfriars, bears eloquent testimony to the musical powers of the children: "For a whole hour before the play begins, one listens to charming [_kostliche_] instrumental music played on organs, lutes, pandorins, mandolins, violins, and flutes; as, indeed, on this occasion, a boy sang _c.u.m voce tremula_ to the accompaniment of a ba.s.s-viol, so delightfully [_lieblich_] that, if the Nuns at Milan did not excel him, we had not heard his equal in our travels."[324] In addition, the Children were provided with splendid apparel--though not at the cost of the Queen, as Mr. Wallace contends.[325] Naturally they became popular. On January 6, 1601, they were summoned to Court to entertain Her Majesty--the first recorded performance of the Children of the Chapel at Court since the year 1584, when Sir William More closed the first Blackfriars.

[Footnote 324: _The Diary of the Duke of Stettin-Pomerania_, printed in _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_ (1890). The diary was written by the Duke's tutor, Gerschow, at the express command of the Duke.]

[Footnote 325: It is hard to believe Mr. Wallace's novel theory that the Children of the Chapel were subsidized by Elizabeth, as presented in his otherwise valuable _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_.

Burbage and Heminges knew nothing of such a royal patronage at Blackfriars (see Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 236), nor did Kirkham, the Yeoman of the Revels (_ibid._, p. 248). Kirkham and his partners spent 600 on apparel, etc., according to Kirkham's statement.]

Perhaps the most interesting testimony to the success of the Chapel Children in their new playhouse is that uttered by Shakespeare in _Hamlet_ (1601), in which he speaks of the performances by the "little eyases" as a "late innovation." The success of the "innovation" had driven Shakespeare and his troupe of grown-up actors to close the Globe and travel in the country, even though they had _Hamlet_ as an attraction. The good-natured way in which Shakespeare treats the situation is worthy of special observation:

_Ham._ What players are they?

_Ros._ Even those you were wont to take delight in, the tragedians of the city.[326]

_Ham._ How chances it they travel? their residence, both in reputation and profit, was better both ways.[327]

_Ros._ I think their inhibition comes by means of the late innovation.

_Ham._ Do they hold the same estimation they did when I was in the city? are they so followed?

_Ros._ No, indeed, they are not!

_Ham._ How comes it? do they grow rusty?

_Ros._ Nay, their endeavour keeps in the wonted pace; but there is, sir, an aerie of children,[328] little eyases, that cry out on the top of question, and are most tyrannically clapped for 't. These are now the fashion, and so berattle the "common stages"--so they call them--that many wearing rapiers [i.e., gallants] are afraid of goose-quills, and dare scarce come thither.

_Ham._ What! are they children? who maintains 'em? how are they escoted? Will they pursue the quality no longer than they can sing?

[Footnote 326: The Children were acting light comedies such as _Cynthia's Revels_; the Lord Chamberlain's Men were acting _Hamlet_.]

[Footnote 327: Shakespeare's troupe is known to have been traveling in the spring of 1601.]

[Footnote 328: Cf. Middleton's _Father Hubbard's Tales_, already quoted, "a nest of boys." Possibly the idea was suggested by the fact that the children were lodged and fed in the building.]

The pa.s.sage ends with the question from Hamlet: "Do the boys carry it away?" which gives Rosencrantz an opportunity to pun on the sign of the Globe Playhouse: "Ay, that they do, my lord; Hercules and his load, too."

Shortly after the great dramatist had penned these words, the management of Blackfriars met with disaster. The cause, however, went back to December 13, 1600, when Giles and Evans were gathering their players. In their overweening confidence they made a stupid blunder in "taking up" for their troupe the only son and heir of Henry Clifton, a well-to-do gentleman of Norfolk, who had come to London for the purpose of educating the boy. Clifton says in his complaint that Giles, Evans, and their confederates, "well knowing that your subject's said son had no manner of sight in song, nor skill in music," on the 13th day of December, 1600, did "waylay the said Thomas Clifton" as he was "walking quietly from your subject's said house towards the said school," and "with great force and violence did seize and surprise, and him with like force and violence did, to the great terror and hurt of him, the said Thomas Clifton, haul, pull, drag, and carry away to the said playhouse." As soon as the father learned of this, he hurried to the playhouse and "made request to have his said son released." But Giles and Evans "utterly and scornfully refused to do" this. Whereupon Clifton threatened to complain to the Privy Council. But Evans and Giles "in very scornful manner willed your said subject to complain to whom he would." Clifton suggested that "it was not fit that a gentleman of his sort should have his son and heir (and that his only son) to be so basely used." Giles and Evans "most arrogantly then and there answered that they had authority sufficient so to take any n.o.bleman's son in this land"; and further to irritate the father, they immediately put into young Thomas's hand "a scroll of paper, containing part of one of their said plays or interludes, and him, the said Thomas Clifton, commanded to learn the same by heart,"

with the admonition that "if he did not obey the said Evans, he should be surely whipped."[329]

[Footnote 329: The full complaint is printed by Fleay, _op. cit._, p.

127.]

Clifton at once appealed to his friend, Sir John Fortescue, a member of the Privy Council, at whose order young Thomas was released and sent back to his studies. Apparently this ended the episode. But Clifton, nourishing his animosity, began to investigate the management of Blackfriars, and to collect evidence of similar abuses of the Queen's commission, with the object of making complaint to the Star Chamber. In October, 1601, Evans, it seems, learned of Clifton's purpose, for on the 21st of that month he deeded all his property to his son-in-law, Alexander Hawkins.[330] Clifton finally presented his complaint to the Star Chamber on December 15, 1601,[331] but his complaint was probably not acted on until early in 1602, for during the Christmas holidays the Children were summoned as usual to present their play before the Queen.[332]

[Footnote 330: _Ibid._, pp. 244-45.]

[Footnote 331: Wallace, _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_, p. 84, note 4.]

[Footnote 332: On December 29, 1601, Sir Dudley Carleton wrote to his friend John Chamberlain: "The Queen dined this day privately at My Lord Chamberlain's. I came even now from the Blackfriars, where I saw her at the play with all her _candidae auditrices_." From this it has been generally a.s.sumed that Elizabeth visited the playhouse in Blackfriars to see the Children act there; and Mr. Wallace, in his _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_, pp. 26, 87, 95-97, lays great emphasis upon it to show that the Queen was directly responsible for establishing and managing the Children at Blackfriars. But the a.s.sumption that the Queen attended a performance at the Blackfriars Playhouse is, I think, unwarranted. The Lord Chamberlain at this time was Lord Hunsdon, who lived "in the Blackfriars." No doubt on this Christmas occasion he entertained the Queen with a great dinner, and after the dinner with a play given, not in a playhouse, but in his mansion. (Lord Cobham, who was formerly Lord Chamberlain, and who also lived in Blackfriars, had similarly entertained the Queen with plays "in Blackfriars"; cf. also The Malone Society's _Collections_, II, 52.) Furthermore, the actors on this occasion were probably not the Children of the Chapel, as Mr. Wallace thinks, but Lord Hunsdon's own troupe. Possibly one of Shakespeare's new plays (_Hamlet_?) was then presented before the Queen for the first time.]

Shortly after this, however, the Star Chamber pa.s.sed on Clifton's complaint. The decree itself is lost, but the following reference to it is made in a subsequent lawsuit: "The said Evans ... was censured by the right honorable Court of Star Chamber for his unorderly carriage and behaviour in taking up of gentlemen's children against their wills and to employ them for players, and for other misdemeanors in the said Decree contained; and further that all a.s.surances made to the said Evans concerning the said house or plays or interludes should be utterly void, and to be delivered up to be canceled."[333]

Doubtless the decree fell with equal force upon Giles and the others connected with the enterprise, for after the Star Chamber decree Giles and Robinson disappear from the management of the playhouse. Evans was forbidden to have any connection with plays there; and for a time, no doubt, the building was closed.

[Footnote 333: Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 248.]

Evans, however, still held the lease, and was under the necessity of paying the rent as before. Then came forward Edward Kirkham, who, in his official capacity as Yeoman of the Revels, had become acquainted with the dramatic activities of the Children of the Chapel. He saw an opportunity to take over the Blackfriars venture now that Evans and probably Giles had been forbidden by the Star Chamber to have any connection with plays in that building. Having a.s.sociated with him William Rastell, a merchant, and Thomas Kendall,[334] a haberdasher, he made overtures to Evans, the owner of the lease. Evans, however, was determined to retain a half-interest in the playhouse, and to evade the order of the Star Chamber by using his son-in-law, Alexander Hawkins, as his agent. Accordingly, on April 20, 1602, "Articles of Agreement" were signed between Evans and Hawkins on the one part, and Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall on the other part, whereby the latter were admitted to a half-interest in the playhouse and in the troupe of child-actors. Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall agreed to pay one-half of the annual rent of 40,[335] to pay one-half of the repairs on the building, and in addition to spend 400 on apparel and furnishings for the troupe. Under this reorganization--with Evans as a secret partner--the Children continued to act with their customary success.

[Footnote 334: We find in Henslowe's _Diary_ a player named William Kendall, but we do not know that he was related to Thomas.]

[Footnote 335: The agreements remind one of the organization of the Globe. It seems clear that Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall held their moiety in joint tenancy.]

About a month later, however, Lord Hunsdon, the Lord Chamberlain, whose house adjoined Blackfriars, seems to have inquired into the affairs of the new organization.[336] What Kirkham told him led him to order Evans off the premises. Evans informs us that he was "commanded by his Lordship to avoid and leave the same; for fear of whose displeasure, the complainant [Evans] was forced to leave the country."[337] He felt it prudent to remain away from London "for a long s.p.a.ce and time"; yet he "lost nothing," for "he left the said Alexander Hawkins to deal for him and to take such benefit of the said house as should belong unto him in his absence."[338]

[Footnote 336: Fleay, _op. cit._, pp. 211-13; 216; 220.]

[Footnote 337: _Ibid._, p. 220.]

[Footnote 338: _Ibid._, p. 217.]

If we may judge from the enthusiastic account given by the Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, who visited Blackfriars in the September following, the Children were just as effective under Kirkham's management as they had been under the management of Giles and Evans.

It is to be noted, however, that Elizabeth did not again invite the Blackfriars troupe to the Court.

The death of the Queen in 1603 led to the closing of all playhouses.

This was followed by a long attack of the plague, so that for many months Blackfriars was closed, and "by reason thereof no such profit and commodity was raised and made of and by the said playhouse as was hoped for."[339] Evans actually "treated" with Richard Burbage "about the surrendering and giving up the said lease," but Burbage declined to consider the matter.

[Footnote 339: Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 235.]

Shortly after this the plague ceased, and acting, stimulated by King James's patronage, was resumed with fervor. The Blackfriars Company was reorganized under Edward Kirkham, Alexander Hawkins (acting for Evans), Thomas Kendall, and Robert Payne: and on February 4, 1604, it secured a royal patent to play under the t.i.tle "The Children of the Queen's Revels."[340] According to this patent, the poet Samuel Daniel was specially appointed to license their plays: "Provided always that no such plays or shows shall be presented before the said Queen our wife by the said Children, or by them anywhere publicly acted, but by the approbation and allowance of Samuel Daniel, whom her pleasure is to appoint for that purpose." At this time, too, or not long after, John Marston was allowed a share in the organization, and thus was retained as one of its regular playwrights.

[Footnote 340: For the patent, commonly misdated January 30, see The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 267. Mr. Wallace, in _The Century Magazine_ (September, 1910, p. 747), says that the company secured its patent "through the intercessions of the poet Samuel Daniel." It is true that the Children of Her Majesty's Royal Chamber of Bristol secured their patent in 1615 at the intercession of Daniel, but I know of no evidence that he intervened in behalf of the Blackfriars troupe.]

The success of the new company is indicated by the fact that it was summoned to present a play at Court in February, 1604, and again two plays in January, 1605. Evans's activity in the management of the troupe in spite of the order of the Star Chamber is evident from the fact that the payment for the last two court performances was made directly to him.

In the spring of 1604 the company gave serious offense by acting Samuel Daniel's _Philotas_, which was supposed to relate to the unfortunate Earl of Ess.e.x; but the blame must have fallen largely on Daniel, who not only wrote the play, but also licensed its performance. He was summoned before the Privy Council to explain, and seems to have fully proved his innocence. Shortly after this he published the play with an apology affixed.[341]

[Footnote 341: A letter from Daniel to the Earl of Devonshire vindicating the play is printed in Grosart's _Daniel_, I, xxii.]

The following year the Children gave much more serious offense by acting _Eastward Hoe_, a comedy in which Marston, Chapman, and Jonson collaborated. Not only did the play ridicule the Scots in general, and King James's creation of innumerable knights in particular, but one of the little actors was actually made, it seems, to mimic the royal brogue: "I ken the man weel; he is one of my thirty pound Knights."

Marston escaped by timely flight, but Jonson and Chapman were arrested and lodged in jail, and were for a time in some danger of having their nostrils slit and their ears cropped. Both Chapman and Jonson a.s.serted that they were wholly innocent, and Chapman openly put the blame of the offensive pa.s.sages on Marston.[342] Marston, however, was beyond the reach of the King's wrath, so His Majesty punished instead the men in control of Blackfriars. It was discovered that the manager, Kirkham, had presented the play without securing the Lord Chamberlain's allowance. As a result, he and the others in charge of the Children were prohibited from any further connection with the playhouse. This doubtless explains the fact that Kirkham shortly after appears as one of the managers of Paul's Boys.[343] It explains, also, the following statement made by Evans in the course of one of the later legal doc.u.ments: "After the King's most excellent Majesty, upon some misdemeanors committed in or about the plays there, _and specially upon the defendant's_ [Kirkham's] _acts and doings there_, had prohibited that no plays should be more used there," etc.[344] Not only was Kirkham driven from the management of the troupe and the playhouse closed for a time, but the Children were denied the Queen's patronage. No longer were they allowed to use the high-sounding t.i.tle "The Children of the Queen's Majesty's Revels"; instead, we find them described merely as "The Children of the Revels," or as "The Children of Blackfriars."[345]

[Footnote 342: See Dobell, "Newly Discovered Doc.u.ments," in _The Athenaeum_, March 30, 1901.]