Shakespearean Playhouses Part 19

[Footnote 343: Cunningham, _Revels_, p. x.x.xviii.]

[Footnote 344: Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 221.]

[Footnote 345: Except carelessly, as when sometimes called "The Children of the Chapel."]

For a time, no doubt, affairs at the playhouse were at a standstill.

Evans again sought to surrender his lease to Burbage, but without success.[346] Marston, having escaped the wrath of the King by flight, decided to end his career as a playwright and turn country parson. It was shortly after this, in all probability, that he sold his share in the Blackfriars organization to one Robert Keysar, a goldsmith of London, for the sum of 100.[347]

[Footnote 346: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p.

82.]

[Footnote 347: _Ibid._, pp. 81, 86, 89, 93.]

Keysar, it seems, undertook to reopen the playhouse, and to continue the Children there at his own expense.[348] From the proprietors he rented the playhouse, the stock of apparel, the furnishings, and playbooks. This, I take it, explains the puzzling statement made by Kirkham some years later:

This repliant [Kirkham] and his said partners [Rastell and Kendall] have had and received the sum of one hundred pounds per annum for their part and moiety in the premises without any manner of charges whatsoever [i.e., during Kirkham's management of the troupe prior to 1605].[349] And after that this replyant and his said partners had received the foresaid profits [i.e., after Kirkham and his partners had to give up the management of the Children in 1605], the said Children, which the said Evans in his answer affirmeth to be the Queen's Children [i.e., they are no longer the Queen's Children, for after 1605 they had been deprived of the Queen's patronage; but Kirkham was in error, for Evans with legal precision had referred to the company as 'The Queen's Majesty's Children of the Revels (for so it was often called)'] were masters themselves [i.e., their own managers], and this complainant and his said partners received of them, and of one Keysar who was interest with them, above the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds per annum only for the use of the said great hall, without all manner of charges, as this replyant will make it manifest to this honorable court.[350]

[Footnote 348: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p. 80 ff.]

[Footnote 349: That is, 33, more or less, a share. We have doc.u.mentary evidence to show that a share in the Red Bull produced 30, and a share in the Globe 30 to 40 per annum.]

[Footnote 350: Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 249. The yearly rental must have included not only the playhouse and its equipment, but the playbooks, apparel, properties, etc., belonging to the Children. These were on July 26, 1608, divided up among the sharers, Kirkham, Rastell, Kendall, and Evans.]

Under Keysar's management the Blackfriars troupe continued to act as the Children of the Revels. But, unfortunately, they had not learned wisdom from their recent experience, and in the very following year we find them again in serious trouble. John Day's _Isle of Guls_, acted in February, 1606, gave great offense to the Court. Sir Edward Hoby, in a letter to Sir Thomas Edwards,[351] writes: "At this time was much speech of a play in the Blackfriars, where, in the _Isle of Guls_, from the highest to the lowest, all men's parts were acted of two diverse nations. As I understand, sundry were committed to Bridewell."[352]

[Footnote 351: Birch, _Court and Times of James the First_, I, 60; quoted by E.K. Chambers, in _Modern Language Review_, IV, 158.]

[Footnote 352: Possibly an aftermath of the King's displeasure is to be found in the cancellation of Giles's long-standing commission to take up boys for the Chapel, and the issuance of a new commission to him, November 7, 1606, with the distinct proviso that "none of the said choristers or children of the Chapel so to be taken by force of this commission shall be used or employed as commedians or stage players." (The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 357.)]

The Children, however, were soon allowed to resume playing, and they continued for a time without mishap. But in the early spring of 1608 they committed the most serious offense of all by acting Chapman's _Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron_. The French Amba.s.sador took umbrage at the uncomplimentary representation of the contemporary French Court, and had an order made forbidding them to act the play. But the Children, "voyant toute la Cour dehors, ne laisserent de la faire, et non seulement cela, mais y introduiserent la Reine et Madame de Verneuil, traitant celle-ci fort mal de paroles, et lui donnant un soufflet." Whereupon the French Amba.s.sador made special complaint to Salisbury, who ordered the arrest of the author and the actors. "Toutefois il ne s'en trouva que trois, qui aussi-tot furent menes a la prison ou ils sont encore; mais le princ.i.p.al, qui est le compositeur, echapa."[353] The Amba.s.sador observes also that a few days before the Children of the Revels had given offense by a play on King James: "Un jour ou deux avant, ils avoient depeche leur Roi, sa mine d'Ecosse, et tous ses Favoris d'une etrange sorte; car apres lui avoir fait depiter le Ciel sur le vol d'un oisseau, et fait battre un Gentilhomme pour avoir rompu ses chiens, ils le depeignoient ivre pour le moins une fois le jour."[354]

As a result of these two offenses, coming as a climax to a long series of such offenses, the King was "extremement irrite contre ces marauds-la," and gave order for their immediate suppression. This marked the end of the child-actors at Blackfriars.

[Footnote 353: From the report of the French Amba.s.sador, M. de la Boderie, to M. de Puisieux at Paris, _Amba.s.sades de Monsieur de la Boderie en Angleterre_, 1750, III, 196; quoted by E.K. Chambers in _Modern Language Review_, IV, 158.]

[Footnote 354: The name of this play is not known; probably the King was satirized in a comic scene foisted upon an otherwise innocent piece. Mr. Wallace, in _The Century Magazine_ (September, 1910, p.

747), says: "From a doc.u.ment I have found in France the Blackfriars boys now satirized the King's efforts to raise money, made local jokes on the recent discovery of his silver mine in Scotland, brought him on the stage as drunk, and showed such to be his condition at least three times a day, caricatured him in his favorite pastime of hawking, and represented him as swearing and cursing at a gentleman for losing a bird." I do not know what doc.u.ment Mr. Wallace has found; the French doc.u.ment quoted above has been known for a long time.]

Naturally Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall, since there was "no profit made of the said house, but a continual rent of forty pounds to be paid for the same," became sick of their bargain with Evans. An additional reason for their wishing to withdraw finally from the enterprise was the rapid increase of the plague, which about July 25 closed all playhouses. So Kirkham, "at or about the 26 of July, 1608, caused the apparrels, properties, and goods belonging to the copartners, sharers, and masters" to be divided. Kirkham and his a.s.sociates took away their portions, and "quit the place," the one-time manager using to Evans some unkind words: "said he would deal no more with it, 'for,' quod he, 'it is a base thing,' or used words to such or very like effect."[355] Evans, thus deserted by Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall, regarded the organization of the Blackfriars as dissolved; he "delivered up their commission which he had under the Great Seal authorizing them to play, and discharged diverse of the partners and poets."

[Footnote 355: Fleay, _op. cit._, pp. 221-22.]

Robert Keysar, however, the old manager, laid plans to keep the Children together, and continue them as a troupe after the cessation of the plague. For a while, we are told, he maintained them at his own expense, "in hope to have enjoyed his said bargain ... upon the ceasing of the general sickness."[356] And he expected, by virtue of the share he had purchased from John Marston, to be able to use the Blackfriars Playhouse for his purpose.

[Footnote 356: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, pp.

83, 97.]

In the meanwhile Evans began negotiations with Burbage for the surrender of the lease: "By reason the said premises lay then and had long lyen void and without use for plays, whereby the same became not only burthensome and unprofitable unto the said Evans, but also ran far into decay for want of reparations ... the said Evans began to treat with the said Richard Burbage about a surrender of the said Evans his said lease."[357] This time Burbage listened to the proposal, for he and his fellow-actors at the Globe "considered that the house would be fit for themselves." So in August, 1608, he agreed to take over the building for the use of the King's Men.

[Footnote 357: _Ibid._, p. 87.]

Even after Evans's surrender of the lease, Keysar, it seems, made an effort to keep the Children together. On the following Christmas, 1608-09, we find a record of payment to him for performances at Court, by "The Children of Blackfriars." But soon after this the troupe must have been disbanded. Keysar says that they were "enforced to be dispersed and turned away to the abundant hurt of the said young men";[358] and the Burbages and Heminges declare that the children "were dispersed and driven each of them to provide for himself by reason that the plays ceasing in the City of London, either through sickness, or for some other cause, he, the said complainant [Keysar], was no longer able to maintain them together."[359] In the autumn of 1609, however, Keysar a.s.sembled the Children again, reorganized them with the a.s.sistance of Philip Rosseter, and placed them in Whitefriars Playhouse, recently left vacant by the disruption of the Children of His Majesty's Revels. Their subsequent history will be found related in the chapter dealing with that theatre.

[Footnote 358: _Ibid._, p. 90.]

[Footnote 359: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p.

97.]

When in August, 1608, Richard Burbage secured from Evans the surrender of the Blackfriars lease, he at once proceeded to organize from the Globe Company a syndicate to operate the building as a playhouse. He admitted to partnership in the new enterprise all of the then sharers in the Globe except Witter and Nichols, outsiders who had secured their interest through marriage with the heirs of Pope and Phillips, and who, therefore, were not ent.i.tled to any consideration. In addition, he admitted Henry Evans, doubtless in fulfillment of a condition in the surrender of the lease. The syndicate thus formed was made up of seven equal sharers, as follows: Richard Burbage, Cuthbert Burbage, Henry Evans, William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and William Slye. These sharers leased the building from Richard Burbage for a period of twenty-one years,[360] at the old rental of 40 per annum, each binding himself to pay annually the sum of 5 14_s._ 4_d._[361] The method of distributing the profits between the sharers (known as "housekeepers") and the actors (known as the "company") was to be the same as that practiced at the Globe.[362]

[Footnote 360: Twenty-one years was a very common term for a lease to run; but in this case, no doubt, it was intended that the lease of Blackfriars should last as long as the lease of the Globe, which then had exactly twenty-one years to run.]

[Footnote 361: Shortly after this agreement had been made William Slye died, and his executrix delivered up his share to Richard Burbage "to be cancelled and made void." See the Heminges-Osteler doc.u.ments printed by Mr. Wallace in the London _Times_, October 4, 1909. In 1611 Burbage let William Osteler have this share.]

[Footnote 362: The method is clearly explained in the doc.u.ments of 1635 printed by Halliwell-Phillipps, in _Outlines_, I, 312.]

Soon after this organization was completed, the King's Men moved from the Globe to the Blackfriars. They did not, of course, intend to abandon the Globe. Their plan was to use the Blackfriars as a "winter home," and the Globe as a "summer house."[363] Malone observed from the Herbert Ma.n.u.script that "the King's Company usually began to play at the Globe in the month of May";[364] although he failed to state at what time in the autumn they usually moved to the Blackfriars, the evidence points to the first of November.

[Footnote 363: See Wright, _Historia Histrionica_, Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 406.]

[Footnote 364: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 71.]

Such a plan had many advantages. For one thing, it would prevent the pecuniary losses often caused by a severe winter. In the _Poetaster_ (1601), Jonson makes Histrio, representing the Globe Players, say: "O, it will get us a huge deal of money, and we have need on't, for this winter has made us all poorer than so many starved snakes; n.o.body comes at us."[365] This could not be said of the King's Men after they moved to the Blackfriars. Edward Kirkham, a man experienced in theatrical finances, offered to prove to the court in 1612 that the King's Men "got, and as yet doth, more in one winter in the said great hall by a thousand pounds than they were used to get on the Bankside."[366]

[Footnote 365: Act III, scene iv. Cf. also Webster's Preface to _The White Devil_, acted at the Red Bull about 1610.]

[Footnote 366: Fleay, _A Chronicle History of the London Stage_, p.

248.]

Kirkham's testimony as to the popularity of the King's Men in their winter home is borne out by a pet.i.tion to the city authorities made by "the constables and other officers and inhabitants of Blackfriars" in January, 1619. They declared that to the playhouse "there is daily such resort of people, and such mult.i.tudes of coaches (whereof many are hackney-coaches, bringing people of all sorts), that sometimes all our streets cannot contain them, but that they clog up Ludgate also, in such sort that both they endanger the one the other, break down stalls, throw down men's goods from their shops, and the inhabitants there cannot come to their houses, nor bring in their necessary provisions of beer, wood, coal, or hay, nor the tradesmen or shopkeepers utter their wares, nor the pa.s.senger go to the common water stairs without danger of their lives and limbs." "These inconveniences" were said to last "every day in the winter time from one or two of the clock till six at night."[367]

[Footnote 367: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 91.]

As a result of this pet.i.tion the London Common Council ordered, January 21, 1619, that "the said playhouses be suppressed, and that the players shall from thenceforth forbear and desist from playing in that house."[368] But the players had at Court many influential friends, and these apparently came to their rescue. The order of the Common Council was not put into effect; and so far as we know the only result of this agitation was that King James on March 27 issued to his actors a new patent specifically giving them--described as his "well-beloved servants"--the right henceforth to play unmolested in Blackfriars. The new clause in the patent runs: "as well within their two their now usual houses called the Globe, within our County of Surrey, and their private house situate in the precinct of the Blackfriars, within our city of London."[369] At the accession of King Charles I, the patent was renewed, June 24, 1625, with the same clause regarding the use of Blackfriars.[370]

[Footnote 368: Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 311.]

[Footnote 369: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 281.]

[Footnote 370: _Ibid._, I, 282.]

In 1631, however, the agitation was renewed, this time in the form of a pet.i.tion from the churchwardens and constables of the precinct of Blackfriars to William Laud, then Bishop of London. The doc.u.ment gives such eloquent testimony to the popularity of the playhouse that I have inserted it below in full:

To the Right Honorable and Right Reverend Father in G.o.d, William, Lord Bishop of London, one of His Majesty's Honorable Privy Council. The humble pet.i.tion of the churchwardens and constables of Blackfriars, on the behalf of the whole Parish, showing that by reason of a playhouse, exceedingly frequented, in the precinct of the said Blackfriars, the inhabitants there suffer many grievances upon the inconveniences hereunto annexed, and many other.

May it therefore please your Lordship to take the said grievances into your honorable consideration for the redressing thereof. And for the reviving the order, which hath been heretofore made by the Lords of the Council, and the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, for the removal of them. And they shall, according to their duties, ever pray for your Lordship.

Reasons and Inconveniences Inducing the Inhabitants of Blackfriars, London, to Become Humble Suitors to Your Lordship for Removing the Playhouse in the Said Blackfriars: