Shakespearean Playhouses Part 28

But the spectators did not submit to this fine without a struggle.

Jeremiah Banks wrote to Williamson on September 16, 1655: "At the playhouse this week many were put to rout by the soldiers and had broken crowns; the corporal would have been entrapped had he not been vigilant."[514] And in the _Weekly Intelligencer_, September 11-18, we read: "It never fared worse with the spectators than at this present, for those who had monies paid their five shillings apiece; those who had none, to satisfy their forfeits, did leave their cloaks behind them. The Tragedy of the spectators was the Comedy of the soldiers.

There was abundance of the female s.e.x, who, not able to pay five shillings, did leave some gage or other behind them, insomuch that although the next day after the Fair was expected to be a new fair of hoods, of ap.r.o.ns, and of scarfs; all which, their poverty being made known, and after some check for their trespa.s.s, were civilly again restored to the owners."[515]

[Footnote 513: Hazlitt, _The English Drama and Stage_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 514: _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1655_, p.

336.]

[Footnote 515: For a further account of this episode see _Mercurius Fumigosus_, No. 69.]

At the period of the Restoration the Red Bull was among the first playhouses to reopen. John Downes, in his _Roscius Anglica.n.u.s_, writes: "The scattered remnant of several of these houses, upon King Charles' Restoration, framed a company, who acted again at the Bull."[516] Apparently the company was brought together by the famous old Elizabethan actor, Anthony Turner. From the _Middles.e.x County Records_ (III, 279) we learn that at first the players were interrupted by the authorities:

12 May, 1659.--Recognizances, taken before Ra: Hall, esq.

J.P., of William Wintershall and Henry Eaton, both of Clerkenwell, gentlemen, in the sum of fifty pounds each; "Upon condition that Antony Turner shall personally appear at the next Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be holden at Hicks Hall for the said County of Middles.e.x; for the unlawful maintaining of stage-plays and interludes at the Red Bull in St. John's Street, which house he affirms that they hire of the parishioners of Clerkenwell at the rate of twenty shillings a day over and above what they have agreed to pay towards the relief of their poor and repairing their highways, and in the meantime to be of good behaviour and not to depart the Court without license.--Ra: Hall." Also similar Recognizances, taken on the same day, before the same J.P., of the same William Wintershall and Henry Eaton, gentlemen, in the same sum of fifty pounds each; for the appearance of Edward Shatterall at the next. Q.S.P. for Middles.e.x at Hicks Hall, "to answer for the unlawful maintaining of stage-plays and interludes at the Red Bull in St. John's Street &c." S.P.R., 17, May, 1659.

[Footnote 516: Cf. Wright, _Historia Histrionica_, p. 412; and for the general history of the actors at the Red Bull during this period see the Herbert records in Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Doc.u.ments_.]

Later, it seems, they secured a license from the authorities, and thenceforth acted without interruption. Samuel Pepys made plans "to go to the Red Bull Playhouse" with Mrs. Pierce and her husband on August 3, 1660, but was prevented by business. An account of his visit there on March 23, 1661, is thus given in his _Diary_:

All the morning at home putting papers in order; dined at home, and then out to the Red Bull (where I had not been since plays came up again), but coming too soon I went out again and walked up and down the Charterhouse Yard and Aldersgate Street. At last came back again and went in, where I was led by a seaman that knew me, but is here as a servant, up to the tiring-room, where strange the confusion and disorder that there is among them in fitting themselves, especially here, where the clothes are very poor and the actors but common fellows. At last into the pit, where I think there was not above ten more than myself, and not one hundred in the whole house. And the play, which is called _All's Lost by l.u.s.t_, poorly done; and with so much disorder, among others, that in the musique-room, the boy that was to sing a song not singing it right, his master fell about his ears and beat him so, that it put the whole house in an uproar.

The actors, however, did not remain long at the Red Bull. They built for themselves a new theatre in Drury Lane, whither they moved on April 8, 1663;[517] and after this the old playhouse was deserted. In Davenant's _The Play-House to Be Let_ (1663), I, i, we read:

Tell 'em the Red Bull stands empty for fencers:[518]

There are no tenants in it but old spiders.

[Footnote 517: After November 8, 1660, they acted also in Gibbon's Tennis Court in Clare Market, which they had fitted up as a theatre; see Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Doc.u.ments_, p. 34.]

[Footnote 518: See Pepys' _Diary_, April 25, 1664.]

CHAPTER XV

WHITEFRIARS

The district of Whitefriars, lying just outside the city wall to the west, and extending from Fleet Street to the Thames, was once in the possession of the order of White Friars, and the site of an important monastery; but in Elizabeth's time the church had disappeared, most of the ancient buildings had been dismantled, and in their place, as Stow tells us, were "many fair houses builded, lodgings for n.o.blemen and others." Since at the dissolution of the monasteries the property had come into the possession of the Crown, it was not under the jurisdiction of the London Common Council--a fact which made Whitefriars, like Blackfriars, a desirable refuge for players seeking to escape the hostility of the city authorities.[519] One might naturally expect the appearance of playing here at an early date, but the evidence is slight.[520]

[Footnote 519: Whitefriars pa.s.sed under city control in 1608 by grant of King James I, but certain rights remained, notably that of sanctuary. This has been celebrated in Shadwell's play, _The Squire of Alsatia_, and in Scott's romance, _The Fortunes of Nigel_.]

[Footnote 520: Prynne, in _Histriomastix_ (1633), p. 491, quotes a pa.s.sage from Richard Reulidge's _Monster Lately Found Out and Discovered_ (1628), in which there is a reference to a playhouse as existing in Whitefriars "not long after" 1580. By "playhouse" Reulidge possibly meant an inn used for acting; but the whole pa.s.sage, written by a Puritan after the lapse of nearly half a century, is open to grave suspicion, especially in its details. Again Richard Flecknoe, in _A Short Discourse of the English Stage_ (1664), states that the Children of the Chapel Royal acted in Whitefriars. But that he confused the word "Whitefriars" with "Blackfriars" is shown by the rest of his statement.]

The first appearance of a regular playhouse in Whitefriars dates from the early years of King James's reign. With our present knowledge we cannot fix the date exactly, yet we can feel reasonably certain that it was not long before 1607--probably about 1605.

The chief spirit in the organization of the new playhouse seems to have been the poet Michael Drayton, who had secured a patent from King James to "erect" a company of child actors, to be known as "The Children of His Majesty's Revels."[521] Obviously his hope was to make the Children of His Majesty's Revels at Whitefriars rival the successful Children of Her Majesty's Revels at Blackfriars. In this ambitious enterprise he a.s.sociated with himself a wealthy London merchant, Thomas Woodford, whom we know as having been interested in various theatrical investments.[522] These two men leased from Lord Buckhurst for a short period of time a building described as a "mansion house" formerly a part of the Whitefriars monastery: "the rooms of which are thirteen in number, three below, and ten above; that is to say, the great hall, the kitchen by the yard, and a cellar, with all the rooms from the Master of the Revells' office as the same are now severed and divided."[523] The "great hall" here mentioned, once the refectory of the monks, was made into the playhouse. Its "great" size may be inferred from the fact that there were ten rooms "above"; and its general excellence may be inferred from the fact that it was leased at 50 per annum, whereas Blackfriars, in a more desirable location and fully equipped as a theatre, was rented for only 40.

[Footnote 521: Fleay, Murray, and others are wrong in a.s.suming that this troupe was merely a continuation of the Paul's Boys. So far as I can discover, there is no official record of the patent issued to Drayton; but that such a patent was issued is clear from the lawsuits of 1609, printed by Greenstreet in _The New Shakspere Society's Transactions_ (1887-90), p. 269.]

[Footnote 522: He was part proprietor of the Red Bull. In the case of Witter _v._ Heminges and Condell he was examined as a witness (see Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London a.s.sociates_, p. 74), but what connection, if any, he had with the Globe does not appear.]

[Footnote 523: Greenstreet, _The New Shakspere Society's Transactions_ (1887-90), p. 275.]

From an early seventeenth-century survey of the Whitefriars property (see the opposite page), we are able to place the building very exactly. The part of the monastery used as a playhouse--the Frater--was the southern cloister, marked in the plan, "My Lords Cloyster." The "kitchen by the yard" mentioned in the doc.u.ment just quoted is clearly represented in the survey by the "Scullere." The size of the playhouse is hard to ascertain, but it was approximately thirty-five feet in width and eighty-five feet in length.[524] In the London of to-day it extended roughly from Bouverie Street to Ashen-tree Court, and lay just north of George Yard.

[Footnote 524: The stipple walls, in the original survey colored gray, were of stone; the thinner walls of the adjoining "tenements," in the original colored red, were of brick.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: A PLAN OF WHITEFRIARS

A portion of an early seventeenth-century survey of the Whitefriars property. The playhouse adjoined the "Scullere" on the south. (This survey was discovered in the Print Room of the British Museum by Mr.

A.W. Clapham, and reproduced in _The Journal of the British Archaeological a.s.sociation_, 1910.)]

Of the career of the Children under the joint management of Drayton and Woodford we know almost nothing. But in March, 1608, a new management a.s.sumed charge of the troupe, and from this point on the history of the playhouse is reasonably clear.

The original lease of the building, it seems, expired on March 5, 1608. But before the expiration--in the latter part of 1607 or in the early part of 1608--Drayton and Woodford secured a new lease on the property for six years, eight months, and twenty days, or until December 25 (one of the four regular feasts of the year), 1614. In February, 1608, after having secured this renewal of the lease, Thomas Woodford suddenly determined to retire from the enterprise; and he sold his moiety to one David Lording Barry,[525] author of the play _Ram Alley_. Barry and Drayton at once made plans to divide the property into six shares, so as to distribute the expenses and the risks as well as the hoped-for profits. Barry induced his friend, George Androwes, to purchase one share, and hence the lawsuit from which we derive most of our knowledge of the playhouse. From this suit I quote below the more significant part relating to the new organization:

Humbly complaining, sheweth unto your honorable lordship, your daily orator, George Androwes, of London, silkweaver, that whereas one Lordinge Barry, about February which was in the year of our Lord 1607 [i.e., 1608], pretending himself to be lawfully possessed of one moiety of a messuage or mansion house, parcel of the late dissolved monastery called the Whitefriars, in Fleet Street, in the suburbs of London, by and under a lease made thereof, about March then next following, from the right honorable Robert, Lord Buckhurst, unto one Michael Drayton and Thomas Woodford, for the term of six years, eight months, and twenty days then following, for and under the yearly rent of fifty pounds reserved thereupon; the moiety of which said lease and premisses, by mean a.s.signment from the said Thomas Woodford, was lawfully settled in the said Lordinge Barry, as he did pretend, together with the moiety of diverse play-books, apparel, and other furnitures and necessaries used and employed in and about the said messuage and the Children of the Revels,[526]

there being, in making and setting forth plays, shows, and interludes, and such like. And the said Lordinge Barry ...

being desirous to join others with him in the interest of the same, who might be contributory to such future charges as should arise in setting forth of plays and shows there, did thereupon ... solicit and persuade your orator to take from the said Barry an a.s.signment of a sixth part of the messuage, premisses, and profits aforesaid.

[Footnote 525: By a stupid error often called Lodowick Barry. For an explanation of the error see an article by the present writer in _Modern Philology_, April, 1912, IX, 567. Mr. W.J. Lawrence has recently shown (_Studies in Philology_, University of North Carolina, April, 1917) that David Barry was the eldest son of the ninth Viscount b.u.t.tevant, and was called "Lording" by courtesy. At the time he became interested in the Whitefriars Playhouse he was twenty-two years old.

He died in 1610.]

[Footnote 526: At this time the Children of Blackfriars had lost their patent, so that the Children at Whitefriars were the only Revels troupe.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: MICHAEL DRAYTON

(From a painting in the National Portrait Gallery, London: photograph copyrighted by Emery Walker, Ltd.)]

This pa.s.sage gives us an interesting glimpse of Drayton and Barry in their efforts to organize a syndicate for exploiting the Children of His Majesty's Revels. They induced several other persons to buy half-shares; and then they engaged, as manager of the Children, Martin Slaiter,[527] a well-known and thoroughly experienced actor. For his services as manager, Slaiter was to receive one whole share in the organization, and lodgings for himself and his family of ten in the building. The syndicate thus formed was made up of four whole-sharers, Michael Drayton, Lordinge Barry, George Androwes, and Martin Slaiter, and four half-sharers, William Trevell, William Cooke, Edward Sibthorpe, and John Mason.[528]

[Footnote 527: Also spelled Slater, Slaughter, Slather, Slawghter.

Henslowe often refers to him as "Martin."]

[Footnote 528: Mr. Wallace (_The Century Magazine_, 1910, Lx.x.x, 511) incorrectly says that Whitefriars was held by "six equal sharers."]

The "great hall" had, of course, already been fitted up for the acting of plays, and the new lessees did not at first contemplate any expenditure on the building. Later, however,--if we can believe Androwes,--they spent a not inconsiderable sum for improvements. The Children already had certain plays, and to these were added some new ones. Among the plays in their repertoire were Day's _Humour Out of Breath_, Middleton's _Family of Love_, Armin's _The Two Maids of Moreclacke_, Sharpham's _Cupid's Whirligig_, Markham and Machin's _The Dumb Knight_, Barry's _Ram Alley_, and Mason's _The Turk_. The last two writers were sharers, and it seems likely that Drayton, also a sharer and experienced as a dramatist, contributed some plays towards the stock of the company.

The new organization, with bright prospects for success, was launched in March, 1608. Almost at once, however, it began to suffer from ill luck. In April the Children at Blackfriars, by their performance of _Byron_, caused King James to close all playhouses in London. How long he kept them closed we do not know, but we find the lessees of Whitefriars joining with the three other London companies in seeking to have the inhibition raised. As the French Amba.s.sador informed his Government: "Pour lever cette defense, quatres autres compagnies, qui y sont encore, offrent deja cent mille francs, lesquels pourront bien leur en ordonner la permission."[529]

[Footnote 529: Letter of M. De La Boderie, the French Amba.s.sador to England; quoted by E.K. Chambers, _Modern Language Review_, IV, 159.]

Even if this inhibition was shortly raised, the Whitefriars organization was not much better off, for in July the plague set in with unusual violence, and acting was seriously if not wholly interrupted for the next twelve months and more. As a result, the profits from the theatre did not come up to the "fair and false flattering speeches" which at the outset Barry had made to prospective investors, and this led to bad feeling among the sharers.

The company at Blackfriars, of course, was suffering in a similar way.

On August 8, 1608, their playhouse was surrendered to the owner, Richard Burbage, and the Children being thus left without a home were dispersed. Early in 1609, probably in February, Robert Keysar (the manager of the Blackfriars troupe), Philip Rosseter, and others secured the lease of the Whitefriars Playhouse from Drayton and the rest of the discontented sharers, and rea.s.sembled there the Children of Blackfriars. What became of the Whitefriars troupe we do not know; but it is highly likely that the new organization took over the better actors from Drayton's company. At any rate, we do not hear again of the Children of His Majesty's Revels.

When Keysar and this new troupe of child-actors moved into Whitefriars, Slaiter and his family of ten were expelled from the building. This led to a lawsuit, and explains much in the legal doc.u.ments printed by Greenstreet. Slaiter complained with no little feeling that he had been "riotously, willfully, violently, and unlawfully, contrary to the said articles and pretended agreement [by which he had been not only engaged as a manager, but also guaranteed a home for the period of "all the term of years in the lease"], put and kept out of his said rooms of habitation for him, this defendant, and his family, and all other his means of livelihood, thereby leaving this defendant and his whole family, being ten in number, to the world to seek for bread and other means to live by."[530]