Shakespearean Playhouses Part 20

1. The shopkeepers in divers places suffer much, being hindered by the great recourse to the plays (especially of coaches) from selling their commodities, and having their wares many times broken and beaten off their stalls.

2. The recourse of coaches is many times so great that the inhabitants cannot in an afternoon take in any provision of beer, coals, wood, or hay, the streets being known to be so exceeding straight and narrow.

3. The pa.s.sage through Ludgate to the water [i.e., Water Lane] is many times stopped up, people in their ordinary going much endangered, quarrels and bloodshed many times occasioned, and many disorderly people towards night gathered thither, under pretense of attending and waiting for those at the plays.

4. If there should happen any misfortune of fire, there is not likely any present order could possibly be taken, for the disorder and number of the coaches, since there could be no speedy pa.s.sage made for quenching the fire, to the endangering of the parish and city.

5. Christenings and burials, which usually are in the afternoon, are many times disturbed, and persons endangered in that part, which is the greatest part of the parish.

6. Persons of honor and quality that dwell in the parish are restrained by the number of coaches from going out, or coming home in seasonable time, to the prejudice of their occasions. And some persons of honor have left, and others have refused houses for this very inconvenience, to the prejudice and loss of the parish.

7. The Lords of the Council in former times have by order directed that there shall be but two playhouses tolerated, and those _without the city_, the one at the Bankside, the other near Golding Lane (which these players still have and use all summer), which the Lords did signify by their letters to the Lord Mayor; and in performance thereof the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen did give order that they should forbear to play any longer there, which the players promised to the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (while he was Recorder of London) to observe, entreating only a little time to provide themselves elsewhere.[371]

[Footnote 371: Collier, _History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), I, 455.]

Bishop Laud endorsed the pet.i.tion with his own hand "To the Coun.

Table," and in all probability he submitted it to the consideration of the Privy Council. If so, the Council took no action.

But in 1633, as a result of further complaints about the crowding of coaches, the Privy Council appointed a committee to estimate the value of the Blackfriars Theatre and "the buildings thereunto belonging,"

with the idea of removing the playhouse and paying the owners therefor. The committee reported that "the players demanded 21,000.

The commissioners [Sir Henry Spiller, Sir William Beecher, and Laurence Whitaker] valued it at near 3000. The Parishioners offered towards the removing of them 100."[372] Obviously the plan of removal was not feasible, if indeed the Privy Council seriously contemplated such action. The only result of this second agitation was the issuance on November 20 of special instructions to coachmen: "If any persons, men or women, of what condition soever, repair to the aforesaid playhouse in coach, as soon as they are gone out of their coaches, the coachmen shall depart thence and not return till the end of the play."[373] Garrard, in a letter to the Lord Deputy dated January 9, 1633, says: "Here hath been an order of the Lords of the Council hung up in a table near Paul's and the Blackfriars to command all that resort to the playhouse there to send away their coaches, and to disperse abroad in Paul's Churchyard, Carter Lane, the Conduit in Fleet Street, and other places, and not to return to fetch their company, but they must trot afoot to find their coaches. 'Twas kept very strictly for two or three weeks, but now I think it is disordered again."[374] The truth is that certain distinguished patrons of the theatre did not care "to trot afoot to find their coaches," and so made complaint at Court. As a result it was ordered, at a sitting of the Council, December 29, 1633 (the King being present): "Upon information this day given to the Board of the discommodity that diverse persons of great quality, especially Ladies and Gentlewomen, did receive in going to the playhouse of Blackfriars by reason that no coaches may stand ... the Board ... think fit to explain the said order in such manner that as many coaches as may stand within the Blackfriars Gate may enter and stay there."[375]

[Footnote 372: The _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633_, p. 293.

The report of the commissioners in full, as printed by Collier in _New Facts_ (1835), p. 27, and again in _History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), I, 477, is not above suspicion, although Mr. E.K.

Chambers is inclined to think it genuine. According to this doc.u.ment the actors estimated the property to be worth 21,990, but the committee thought that the actors might be persuaded to accept 2900 13_s._ 4_d._]

[Footnote 373: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 99; 387.]

[Footnote 374: _The Earl of Strafforde's Letters_ (Dublin, 1740), I, 175.]

[Footnote 375: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 388.]

All this agitation about coaches implies a fashionable and wealthy patronage of the Blackfriars. An interesting glimpse of high society at the theatre is given in a letter written by Garrard, January 25, 1636: "A little pique happened betwixt the Duke of Lenox and the Lord Chamberlain about a box at a new play in the Blackfriars, of which the Duke had got the key, which, if it had come to be debated betwixt them, as it was once intended, some heat or perhaps other inconvenience might have happened."[376] The Queen herself also sometimes went thither. Herbert records, without any comment, her presence there on the 13 of May, 1634.[377] It has been generally a.s.sumed that she attended a regular afternoon performance; but this, I am sure, was not the case. The Queen engaged the entire building for the private entertainment of herself and her specially invited guests, and the performance was at night. In a bill presented by the King's Men for plays acted before the members of the royal family during the year 1636 occurs the entry: "The 5th of May, at the Blackfryers, for the Queene and the Prince Elector ... _Alfonso_." Again, in a similar bill for the year 1638 (see the bill on page 404) is the entry: "At the Blackfryers, the 23 of Aprill, for the Queene ... _The Unfortunate Lovers_." The fact that the actors did not record the loss of their "day" at their house, and made their charge accordingly, shows that the plays were given at night and did not interfere with the usual afternoon performances before the public.

[Footnote 376: _The Earl of Strafforde's Letters_ (Dublin, 1740), I, 511.]

[Footnote 377: The Herbert MS., Malone, _Variorum_, III, 167.]

The King's Men continued to occupy the Blackfriars as their winter home until the closing of the theatres in 1642. Thereafter the building must have stood empty for a number of years. In 1653 Sir Aston c.o.kaine, in a poem prefixed to Richard Brome's _Plays_, looked forward prophetically to the happy day when

Black, and White Friars too, shall flourish again.

But the prophecy was not to be fulfilled; for although Whitefriars (i.e., Salisbury Court) did flourish as a Restoration playhouse, the more famous Blackfriars had ceased to exist before acting was allowed again. The ma.n.u.script note in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_ (1631) informs us that "the Blackfriars players' playhouse in Blackfriars, London, which had stood many years, was pulled down to the ground on Monday the 6 day of August, 1655, and tenements built in the room."[378]

[Footnote 378: See _The Academy_, 1882, XXII, 314. Exactly the same fate had overtaken the Globe ten years earlier.]

CHAPTER XII

THE GLOBE

As related more fully in the chapter on "The Theatre," when Cuthbert and Richard Burbage discovered that Gyles Alleyn not only refused to renew the lease for the land on which their playhouse stood, but was actually planning to seize the building and devote it to his private uses, they took immediate steps to thwart him. And in doing so they evolved a new and admirable scheme of theatrical management. They planned to bring together into a syndicate or stock-company some of the best actors of the day, and allow these actors to share in the ownership of the building. Hitherto playhouses had been erected merely as pecuniary investments by profit-seeking business men,--Burbage,[379]

Brayne, Lanman, Henslowe, Cholmley, Langley,--and had been conducted in the interests of the proprietors rather than of the actors.[380] As a result, these proprietors had long reaped an unduly rich harvest from the efforts of the players, taking all or a large share of the income from the galleries. The new scheme was designed to remedy these faults.

[Footnote 379: That even James Burbage is to be put in this cla.s.s cannot be disputed.]

[Footnote 380: Cuthbert Burbage in 1635 says: "The players that lived in those first times had only the profits arising from the doors, but now the players receive all the comings-in at the doors to themselves and half the galleries from the housekeepers." (Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 317.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: RICHARD BURBAGE

(Reproduced by permission from a painting in the Dulwich Picture Gallery; photograph by Emery Walker, Ltd.)]

For partic.i.p.ation in this scheme the Burbages selected the following men: William Shakespeare, not only a successful actor, but a poet who had already made his reputation as a writer of plays, and who gave promise of greater attainments; John Heminges, a good actor and an exceptionally shrewd man of business, who until his death managed the pecuniary affairs of the company with distinguished success; Augustine Phillips and Thomas Pope, both ranked with the best actors of the day;[381] and William Kempe, the greatest comedian since Tarleton, described in 1600 as "a player in interludes, and partly the Queen's Majesty's jester." When to this group we add Richard Burbage himself, the Roscius of his age, we have an organization of business, histrionic, and poetic ability that could not be surpa.s.sed. It was carefully planned, and it deserved the remarkable success which it attained. The superiority of the Globe Company over all others was acknowledged in the days of James and Charles, and to-day stands out as one of the most impressive facts in the history of the early drama.

[Footnote 381: See, for example, Thomas Heywood's _Apology for Actors_ (1612). In enumerating the greatest actors of England he says: "Gabriel, Singer, Pope, Phillips, Sly--all the right I can do them is but this, that though they be dead, their deserts yet live in the remembrance of many."]

According to the original plan there were to be ten shares in the new enterprise, the Burbage brothers holding between them one-half the stock, or two and a half shares each, and the five actors holding the other half, or one share each. All the expenses of leasing a site, erecting a building, and subsequently operating the building as a playhouse, and likewise all the profits to accrue therefrom, were to be divided among the sharers according to their several holdings.

This organization, it should be understood, merely concerned the ownership of the building. Its members stood in the relation of landlords to the players, and were known by the technical name of "housekeepers." Wholly distinct was the organization of the players, known as the "company." The company, too, was divided into shares for the purpose of distributing its profits. The "housekeepers," in return for providing the building, received one-half of the income from the galleries; the company, for entertaining the public, received the other half of the income from the galleries, plus the takings at the doors. Those actors who were also "housekeepers" shared twice in the profits of the playhouse; and it was a part of the plan of the "housekeepers" to admit actors to be sharers in the building as soon as they attained eminence, or otherwise made their permanent connection with the playhouse desirable. Thus the two organizations, though entirely distinct, were interlocking.

Such a scheme had many advantages. In the first place, it prevented the company from shifting from one playhouse to another, as was frequently the case with other troupes. In the second place, it guaranteed both the excellence and the permanency of the company. Too often good companies were dissolved by the desertion of a few important members; as every student of the drama knows, the constant reorganization of troupes is one of the most exasperating features of Elizabethan theatrical history. In the third place, the plan, like all profit-sharing schemes, tended to elicit from each member of the organization his best powers. The opportunity offered to a young actor ultimately to be admitted as a sharer in the ownership of the building was a constant source of inspiration,[382] and the power to admit at any time a new sharer enabled the company to recruit from other troupes brilliant actors when such appeared; as, for example, William Osteler and Nathaniel Field, who had attained fame with the Children at Blackfriars and elsewhere. Finally, the plan brought the actors together in a close bond of friendship that lasted for life. Heminges was loved and trusted by them all. Shakespeare was admired and revered; three members of the troupe seem to have named their sons for him. Indeed, there is nothing more inspiring in a close study of all the doc.u.ments relating to the Globe than the mutual loyalty and devotion of the original sharers. The publication of Shakespeare's plays by Heminges and Condell is merely one out of many expressions of this splendid comradeship.

[Footnote 382: "The pet.i.tioners have a long time with much patience expected to be admitted sharers in the playhouses of the Globe and the Blackfriars, whereby they might reap some better fruit of their labour than hitherto they have done, and be encouraged to proceed therein with cheerfulness." (The Young Players' Pet.i.tion, 1635, printed by Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 312.)]

The plan of organization having been evolved, and the original members having been selected, the first question presenting itself was, Where should the new playhouse be erected? Burbage, Heminges, and the rest--including Shakespeare--probably gave the question much thought.

Their experience in Holywell had not been pleasant; the precinct of Blackfriars, they now well realized, was out of the question; so they turned their eyes to the Bankside. That section had recently become the theatrical centre of London. There were situated the Rose, the Swan, and the Bear Garden, and thither each day thousands of persons flocked in search of entertainment. Clearly the Bankside was best suited to their purpose. Near the fine old church of St. Mary Overies, and not far from the Rose and the Bear Garden, they found a plot of land that met their approval. Its owner, Sir Nicholas Brend, was willing to lease it for a long term of years, and at a very reasonable rate. They made a verbal contract with Brend, according to which the lease was to begin on December 25, 1598.

[Ill.u.s.tration: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Shakespeare seems to have been equally with Burbage a leader in erecting the Globe. In 1599 the building is officially described as "vna domo de novo edificata ... in occupacione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum."]

Three days later, on December 28, Richard and Cuthbert Burbage, having secured the services of the carpenter, Peter Street, and his workmen, tore down the old Theatre and transported the timber and other materials to this new site across the river; and shortly after the Globe began to lift itself above the houses of the Bankside--a handsome theatre surpa.s.sing anything then known to London playgoers.

In the meantime the lawyers had drawn up the lease, and this was formally signed on February 21, 1599. The company had arranged a "tripart.i.te lease," the three parties being Sir Nicholas Brend, the Burbage brothers, and the five actors.[383] To the Burbages Sir Nicholas leased one-half of the property at a yearly rental of 7 5_s._; and to the five actors, he leased the other half, at the same rate. Thus the total rent paid for the land was 14 10_s._ The lease was to run for a period of thirty-one years.

[Footnote 383: Exact information about the lease and the organization of the company is derived from the Heminges-Osteler and the Witter-Heminges doc.u.ments, both discovered and printed by Mr. Wallace.

And with these one should compare the article by the same author in the London _Times_, April 30, May 1, 1914.]

The five actors, not satisfied with tying up the property in the "tripart.i.te lease," proceeded at once to arrange their holdings in the form of a "joint tenancy." This they accomplished by the following device:

William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, and William Kempe did shortly after grant and a.s.sign all the said moiety of and in the said gardens and grounds unto William Levison and Thomas Savage, who regranted and rea.s.signed to every one of them severally a fifth part of the said moiety of the said gardens and grounds.[384]

[Footnote 384: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p.

53. Shakespeare's leadership in the erection of the Globe is indicated in several doc.u.ments; for example, the post-mortem inquisition of the estate of Sir Thomas Brend, May 16, 1599.]

The object of the "joint tenancy" was to prevent any member of the organization from disposing of his share to an outsider. Legally at the death of a member his share pa.s.sed into the possession of the other members, so that the last survivor would receive the whole. In reality, however, the members used the "joint tenancy" merely to control the disposition of the shares, and they always allowed the heirs-at-law to receive the share of a deceased member.