Shakespearean Playhouses Part 25

Pearson, IV, 84. We do not know when the play was written, but the reference is probably to the New Fortune, built in 1623. Heywood generally uses "picture" in the sense of "statue."]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE FORTUNE PLAYHOUSE (?)

The curious structure with the flag may be intended to mark the site of the Fortune. (From the so-called Ryther _Map of London_, drawn about 1630-40.)]

Nor is there any pictorial representation of the interior of the playhouse. In the absence of such, I offer the reader a verbal picture of the interior as seen from the stage during the performance of a play. In Middleton and Dekker's _The Roaring Girl_, acted at the Fortune, Sir Alexander shows to his friends his magnificent house.

Advancing to the middle of the stage, and pointing out over the building, he asks them how they like it:

_Goshawk._ I like the prospect best.

_Laxton._ See how 't is furnished!

_Sir Davy._ A very fair sweet room.

_Sir Alex._ Sir Davy Dapper, The furniture that doth adorn this room Cost many a fair grey groat ere it came here; But good things are most cheap when they're most dear.

Nay, when you look into my galleries, How bravely they're trimm'd up, you all shall swear You're highly pleas'd to see what's set down there: Stories of men and women, mix'd together, Fair ones with foul, like sunshine in wet weather; Within one square a thousand heads are laid, So close that all of heads the room seems made; As many faces there, fill'd with blithe looks Shew like the promising t.i.tles of new books Writ merrily, the readers being their own eyes, Which seem to move and to give plaudities; And here and there, whilst with obsequious ears Throng'd heaps do listen, a cut-purse thrusts and leers With hawk's eyes for his prey; I need not shew him; By a hanging, villainous look yourselves may know him, The face is drawn so rarely: then, sir, below, The very floor, as 't were, waves to and fro, And, like a floating island, seems to move Upon a sea bound in with sh.o.r.es above.

_All._ These sights are excellent![448]

[Footnote 448: _The Roaring Girl_, I, i. Pointed out by M.W. Sampson, _Modern Language Notes_, June, 1915.]

A closer view of this audience--"men and women, mix'd together, fair ones with foul"--is furnished by one of the letters of Orazio Busino,[449] the chaplain of the Venetian Emba.s.sy, who visited the Fortune playhouse shortly after his arrival in London in 1617:

The other day, therefore, they determined on taking me to one of the many theatres where plays are performed, and we saw a tragedy, which diverted me very little, especially as I cannot understand a word of English, though some little amus.e.m.e.nt may be derived from gazing at the very costly dresses of the actors, and from the various interludes of instrumental music and dancing and singing; but the best treat was to see such a crowd of n.o.bility so very well arrayed that they looked like so many princes, listening as silently and soberly as possible. These theatres are frequented by a number of respectable and handsome ladies, who come freely and seat themselves among the men without the slightest hesitation. On the evening in question his Excellency [the Venetian Amba.s.sador] and the Secretary were pleased to play me a trick by placing me amongst a bevy of young women. Scarcely was I seated ere a very elegant dame, but in a mask, came and placed herself beside me.... She asked me for my address, both in French and English; and on my turning a deaf ear, she determined to honour me by showing me some fine diamonds on her fingers, repeatedly taking off no fewer than three gloves, which were worn one over the other.... This lady's bodice was of yellow satin richly embroidered, her petticoat of gold tissue with stripes, her robe of red velvet with a raised pile, lined with yellow muslin, with broad stripes of pure gold. She wore an ap.r.o.n of point lace of various patterns; her head-tire was highly perfumed, and the collar of white satin beneath the delicately-wrought ruff struck me as extremely pretty.

[Footnote 449: "Diaries and Despatches of the Venetian Emba.s.sy at the Court of King James I, in the Years 1617, 1618. Translated by Rawdon Brown." (_The Quarterly Review_, CII, 416.) It is true that the notice of this letter in _The Calendar of State Papers, Venetian_, XV, 67, makes no mention of the Fortune; but the writer in _The Quarterly Review_, who had before him the entire ma.n.u.script, states positively that the Fortune was the playhouse visited. I have not been able to examine the ma.n.u.script itself, which is preserved in Venice.]

That the players were prepared to entertain distinguished visitors both during the performance and after is shown by a letter from John Chamberlain, July 21, 1621, to Sir Dudley Carleton. "The Spanish Amba.s.sador," he writes, "is grown so affable and familiar, that on Monday, with his whole train, he went to a common play at the Fortune in Golding Lane; and the players (not to be overcome with courtesy) made him a banquet, when the play was done, in the garden adjoining."[450]

[Footnote 450: Nichols, _The Progresses of King James_, IV, 67.]

Upon its completion the new building was occupied by the Admiral's Men, for whom it had been erected. This troupe of players, long famous under the leadership of Edward Alleyn, was now one of the two companies authorized by the Privy Council, and the chief rival of the Chamberlain's Men at the Globe. Henslowe was managing their affairs, and numerous poets were writing plays for them. They continued to act at the Fortune under the name, "The Admiral's Men," until May 5, 1603, when, as Henslowe put it, they "left off play now at the King's coming."[451]

[Footnote 451: Greg, _Henslowe's Diary_, I, 174.]

After a short interruption on account of the plague, during a part of which time they traveled in the provinces, the Admiral's Men were taken under the patronage of the youthful Henry, Prince of Wales, and in the early spring of 1604 they resumed playing at the Fortune under their new name, "The Prince's Servants."

[Ill.u.s.tration: EDWARD ALLEYN

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

For a time all went well. But from July, 1607, until December, 1609, the plague was severe in London, and acting was seriously interrupted.

During this long period of hardship for the players, Henslowe and Alleyn seem to have made an attempt to hold the troupe together by admitting its chief members to a partnership in the building, just as the Burbages had formerly admitted their chief players to a partnership in the Globe. At this time there were in the troupe eight sharers, or chief actors.[452] Henslowe and Alleyn, it seems, proposed to allot to these eight actors one-fourth of the Fortune property. In other words, according to this scheme, there were to be thirty-two sharers in the new Fortune organization, Alleyn and Henslowe together holding three-fourths of the stock, or twelve shares each, and the eight actors together holding one-fourth of the stock, or one share each. A doc.u.ment was actually drawn up by Henslowe and Alleyn, with the name of the leader of the Fortune troupe, Thomas Downton, inserted;[453] but since the doc.u.ment was not executed, the scheme, it is to be presumed, was unsuccessful--at least, we hear nothing further about it.[454]

[Footnote 452: See the Company's Patent of 1606, in The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 268.]

[Footnote 453: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 13.]

[Footnote 454: For an ordinance concerning "lewd jiggs" at the Fortune in 1612, see _Middles.e.x County Records_, II, 83.]

On November 6, 1612, the death of the young Prince of Wales left the company without a "service." On January 4, 1613, however, a new patent was issued to the players, placing them under the protection of the Palsgrave, or Elector Palatine, after which date they are known as "The Palsgrave's Men."

On January 9, 1616, Henslowe, so long a.s.sociated with the company and the Fortune, died; and a year later his widow, Agnes, followed him. As a result the entire Fortune property pa.s.sed into the hands of Alleyn.

But Alleyn, apparently, did not care to be worried with the management of the playhouse; so on October 31, 1618, he leased it to the Palsgrave's Men for a period of thirty-one years, at an annual rental of 200 and two rundlets of wine at Christmas.[455]

[Footnote 455: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 27; Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, II, 260.]

On April 24, 1620, Alleyn executed a deed of grant of lands by which he transferred the Fortune, along with various other properties, to Dulwich College.[456] But he retained during his lifetime the whole of the revenues therefrom, and he specifically reserved to himself the right to grant leases for any length of years. The transference of the t.i.tle, therefore, in no way affected the playhouse, and Alleyn continued to manage the property as he had been accustomed to do in the past.

[Footnote 456: The deed is printed by Young, _op. cit._, I, 50. The Fortune property, I believe, is still a part of the endowment of the college.]

His services in this capacity were soon needed, for on December 9, 1621, the Fortune was burned to the ground. Alleyn records the event in his _Diary_ thus: "_Memorandum._ This night at 12 of the clock the Fortune was burnt." In a less laconic fashion John Chamberlain writes to Sir Dudley Carleton: "On Sunday night here was a great fire at the Fortune in Golding-Lane, the fairest playhouse in this town. It was quite burnt down in two hours, and all their apparel and playbooks lost, whereby those poor companions are quite undone."[457]

[Footnote 457: Birch, _The Court and Times of James the First_, II, 280. Howes, in his continuation of Stow's _Annals_ (1631), p. 1004, attributes the fire to "negligence of a candle," but gives no details.]

The "poor companions" thus referred to were, of course, the players, who lost not only their stock of apparel, playbooks, and stage furniture, but also their lease, which a.s.sured them of a home. Alleyn, however, was quite able and ready to reconstruct the building for them; and we find him on May 20, 1621, already organizing a syndicate to finance "a new playhouse" which "there is intended to be erected and set up." The stock of the new enterprise he divided into twelve equal shares, which he disposed of, as the custom was, in the form of whole and half shares, reserving for himself only one share.[458] The plot of ground on which the old playhouse stood he leased to the several sharers for a period of fifty-one years at an annual rental of 10 13_s._ 10_d._ a share, with the express condition that the building to be erected thereon should never be used for any purpose other than the acting of stage-plays. The sharers then proceeded to the task of constructing their playhouse. It was proposed to make the new building larger[459] and handsomer than the old one, and to build it of brick[460] with a tiled roof--possibly an attempt at fireproof construction. It was decided, also, to abandon the square shape in favor of the older and more logical circular shape. Wright, in his _Historia Histrionica_, describes the New Fortune as "a large, round, brick building,"[461] and Howes a.s.sures us that it was "farre fairer"

than the old playhouse.[462] We do not know how much the building cost. At the outset each sharer was a.s.sessed 83 6_s._ 8_d._ towards the cost of construction,[463] which would produce exactly 1000; but the first a.s.sessment was not necessarily all that the sharers were called upon to pay. For example, when the Globe was rebuilt each sharer was at first a.s.sessed "50 or 60," but before the building was finished each had paid more than 100. So the Fortune may well have cost more than the original estimate of 1000. In 1656 two expert a.s.sessors appointed by the authorities of Dulwich College to examine the playhouse declared that "the said building did in our opinions cost building about two thousand pound."[464] This estimate is probably not far wrong. The playhouse was completed in June or July of 1623, and was again occupied by the Palsgrave's Men.[465]

[Footnote 458: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, pp. 28-30; 112. The names of the sharers are not inspiring: Thomas Sparks, merchant tailor; William Gwalter, innholder; John Fisher, barber-surgeon; Thomas Wigpitt, bricklayer; etc.]

[Footnote 459: Prynne, _Histriomastix_, Epistle Dedicatory.]

[Footnote 460: The writer of the ma.n.u.script notes in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_ (see _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314), who is not trustworthy, says that the Fortune was burned down in 1618, and "built again with brick work on the outside," from which Mr.

Wallace a.s.sumed that he meant that the building was merely brick-veneered. If the writer meant this he was in error. See the report of the commission appointed by Dulwich College to examine the building (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 95).]

[Footnote 461: Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 408.]

[Footnote 462: Stow, _Annals_, 1631.]

[Footnote 463: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 29. Half-shares were 41 13_s._ 4_d._, which Murray (_English Dramatic Companies_) confuses with whole shares.]

[Footnote 464: Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, p. 95. This estimate was made after the interior of the building had been "pulled down," and hence refers merely to the cost of erection.]

[Footnote 465: For an account of "a dangerous and great riot committed in Whitecross Street at the Fortune Playhouse" in May, 1626, see Jeaffreson, _Middles.e.x County Records_, III, 161-63.]

On November 25, 1626, Edward Alleyn died, and the Fortune property came into the full possession of Dulwich College. This, however, did not in any way affect the syndicate of the Fortune housekeepers, who held from Alleyn a lease of the property until 1672. According to the terms of this lease each of the twelve sharers had to pay a yearly rental of 10 13_s._ 10_d._; this rental now merely went to the College instead of to Alleyn.

In 1631 the Palsgrave's Men seem to have fallen on hard times; at any rate, they had to give up the Fortune, and the playhouse was taken over, about December, by the King's Revels, who had been playing at the small private playhouse of Salisbury Court.[466] The Palsgrave's Men were reorganized, taken under the patronage of the infant Prince Charles, and placed in the Salisbury Court Playhouse just vacated by the King's Revels.

[Footnote 466: For details of this move see the chapter on the Salisbury Court Playhouse.]

In 1635 there was a general shifting of houses on the part of the London companies. The King's Revels left the Fortune and returned to their old quarters at Salisbury Court; the Prince Charles's Men, who had been at Salisbury Court, moved to the Red Bull; and the Red Bull Company transferred itself to the Fortune.

The stay of the Red Bull Company at the Fortune was not happy. Towards the end of 1635 the plague was seriously interfering with their performance of plays;[467] and on May 10, 1636, the Privy Council closed all theatres, and kept them closed, except for a few days, until October 2, 1637.[468] This long inhibition not only impoverished the actors and drove them into the country, but came near ruining the lessees of the Fortune, who, having no revenue from the playhouse, could not make their quarterly payments to the College. On September 4, 1637, the Court of a.s.sistants at Dulwich noted that the lessees were behind in their rent to the extent of 132 12_s._ 11_d._; "and,"

the court adds, "there will be a quarter's rent more at Michaelmas next [i.e., in twenty-five days], which is doubted will be also unpaid, amounting to 33 1_s._ 4_d._"[469] The excuse of the lessees for their failure to pay was the "restraint from playing."[470]

[Footnote 467: Young, _The History of Dulwich College_, I, 114.]

[Footnote 468: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 391, 392; Malone, _Variorum_, III, 239.]