Shakespearean Playhouses Part 3

[Footnote 32: See page 134.]

The second locality, Finsbury Field, had nearly all the advantages, and none of the disadvantages, of the Bankside. Since 1315 the Field had been in the possession of the city,[33] and had been used as a public playground, where families could hold picnics, falconers could fly their hawks, archers could exercise their sport, and the militia on holidays could drill with all "the pomp and circ.u.mstance of glorious war." In short, the Field was eminently respectable, was accessible to the city, and was definitely a.s.sociated with the idea of entertainment. The locality, therefore, was almost ideal for the purpose Burbage had in mind.[34]

[Footnote 33: See _The Remembrancia_, p. 274; Stow, _Survey_. The Corporation of London held the manor on lease from St. Paul's Cathedral until 1867.]

[Footnote 34: Doubtless, too, Burbage was influenced in his choice by the fact that he had already made his home in the Liberty of Sh.o.r.editch, near Finsbury Field.]

The new playhouse, of course, could not be erected in the Field itself, which was under the control of the city; but just to the east of the Field certain vacant land, part of the dissolved Priory of Holywell, offered a site in every way suitable to the purpose. The Holywell property, at the dissolution of the Priory, had pa.s.sed under the jurisdiction of the Crown, and hence the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen could not enforce munic.i.p.al ordinances there. Moreover, it was distant from the city wall not much more than half a mile. The old conventual church had been demolished, the Priory buildings had been converted into residences, and the land near the Sh.o.r.editch highway had been built up with numerous houses. The land next to the Field, however, was for the most part undeveloped. It contained some dilapidated tenements, a few old barns formerly belonging to the Priory, and small garden plots, conspicuous objects in the early maps.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE SITE OF THE FIRST PLAYHOUSES

Finsbury Field lies to the north (beyond Moor Field, the small rectangular s.p.a.ce next to the city wall), and the Holywell Property lies to the right of Finsbury Field, between the Field and the highway. Holywell Lane divides the garden plots; the Theatre was erected just to the north, and the Curtain just to the south of this lane, facing the Field. (From the _Map of London_ by Braun and Hogenbergius representing the city as it was in 1554-1558.)]

Burbage learned that a large portion of this land lying next to the Field was in the possession of a well-to-do gentleman named Gyles Alleyn,[35] and that Alleyn was willing to lease a part of his holding on the conditions of development customary in this section of London. These conditions are clearly revealed in a chancery suit of 1591:

The ground there was for the most part converted first into garden plots, and then leasing the same to diverse tenants caused them to covenant or promise to build upon the same, by occasion whereof the buildings which are there were for the most part erected and the rents increased.[36]

[Footnote 35: For a detailed history of the property from the year 1128, and for the changes in the ownership of Alleyn's portion after the dissolution, see Braines, _Holywell Priory_.]

[Footnote 36: Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 365. The suit concerns the Curtain property, somewhat south of the Alleyn property, but a part of the Priory.]

The part of Alleyn's property on which Burbage had his eye was in sore need of improvement. It consisted of five "paltry tenements,"

described as "old, decayed, and ruinated for want of reparation, and the best of them was but of two stories high," and a long barn "very ruinous and decayed and ready to have fallen down," one half of which was used as a storage-room, the other half as a slaughter-house. Three of the tenements had small gardens extending back to the Field, and just north of the barn was a bit of "void ground," also adjoining the Field. It was this bit of "void ground" that Burbage had selected as a suitable location for his proposed playhouse. The accompanying map of the property[37] will make clear the position of this "void ground"

and of the barns and tenements about it. Moreover, it will serve to indicate the exact site of the Theatre. If one will bear in mind the fact that in the London of to-day Curtain Road marks the eastern boundary of Finsbury Field, and New Inn Yard cuts off the lower half of the Great Barn, he will be able to place Burbage's structure within a few yards.[38]

[Footnote 37: I have based this map in large measure on the doc.u.ments presented by Braines in his excellent pamphlet, _Holywell Priory_.]

[Footnote 38: For proof see Braines, _op. cit._]

[Ill.u.s.tration: A PLAN OF BURBAGE'S HOLYWELL PROPERTY

Based on the lease, and on the miscellaneous doc.u.ments printed by Halliwell-Phillipps and by Braines. The "common sewer" is now marked by Curtain Road, and the "ditch from the horse-pond" by New Inn Yard.]

The property is carefully described in the lease--quoted below--which Burbage secured from Alleyn, but the reader will need to refer to the map in order to follow with ease the several paragraphs of description:[39]

All those two houses or tenements, with appurtenances, which at the time of the said former demise made were in the several tenures or occupations of Joan Harrison, widow, and John Dragon.

And also all that house or tenement with the appurtenances, together with the garden ground lying behind part of the same, being then likewise in the occupation of William Gardiner; which said garden plot doth extend in breadth from a great stone wall there which doth enclose part of the garden then or lately being in the occupation of the said Gyles, unto the garden there then in the occupation of Edwin Colefox, weaver, and in length from the same house or tenement unto a brick wall there next unto the fields commonly called Finsbury Fields.

And also all that house or tenement, with the appurtenances, at the time of the said former demise made called or known by the name of the Mill-house; together with the garden ground lying behind part of the same, also at the time of the said former demise made being in the tenure or occupation of the aforesaid Edwin Colefox, or of his a.s.signs; which said garden ground doth extend in length from the same house or tenement unto the aforesaid brick wall next unto the aforesaid Fields.

And also all those three upper rooms, with the appurtenances, next adjoining to the aforesaid Mill-house, also being at the time of the said former demise made in the occupation of Thomas Dancaster, shoemaker, or of his a.s.signs; and also all the nether rooms, with the appurtenances, lying under the same three upper rooms, and next adjoining also to the aforesaid house or tenement called the Mill-house, then also being in the several tenures or occupations of Alice Dotridge, widow, and Richard Brockenbury, or of their a.s.signs; together with the garden ground lying behind the same, extending in length from the same nether rooms down unto the aforesaid brick wall next unto the aforesaid Fields, and then or late being also in the tenure or occupation of the aforesaid Alice Dotridge.

And also so much of the ground and soil lying and being afore all the tenements or houses before granted, as extendeth in length from the outward part of the aforesaid tenements being at the time of the making of the said former demise in the occupation of the aforesaid Joan Harrison and John Dragon, unto a pond there being next unto the barn or stable then in the occupation of the right honorable the Earl of Rutland or of his a.s.signs, and in breadth from the aforesaid tenement or Mill-house to the midst of the well being afore the same tenements.

And also all that Great Barn, with the appurtenances, at the time of the making of the said former demise made being in the several occupations of Hugh Richards, innholder, and Robert Stoughton, butcher; and also a little piece of ground then inclosed with a pale and next adjoining to the aforesaid barn, and then or late before that in the occupation of the said Robert Stoughton; together also with all the ground and soil lying and being between the said nether rooms last before expressed, and the aforesaid Great Barn, and the aforesaid pond; that is to say, extending in length from the aforesaid pond unto a ditch beyond the brick wall next the aforesaid Fields.

And also the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife do by these presents demise, grant, and to farm lett unto the said James Burbage all the right, t.i.tle, and interest which the said Gyles and Sara have or ought to have in or to all the grounds and soil lying between the aforesaid Great Barn and the barn being at the time of the said former demise in the occupation of the Earl of Rutland or of his a.s.signs, extending in length from the aforesaid pond and from the aforesaid stable or barn then in the occupation of the aforesaid Earl of Rutland or of his a.s.signs, down to the aforesaid brick wall next the aforesaid Fields.[40]

And also the said Gyles and Sara do by these presents demise, grant, and to farm lett to the said James all the said void ground lying and being betwixt the aforesaid ditch and the aforesaid brick wall, extending in length from the aforesaid [great stone] wall[41] which encloseth part of the aforesaid garden being at the time of the making of the said former demise or late before that in the occupation of the said Gyles Allen, unto the aforesaid barn then in the occupation of the aforesaid Earl or of his a.s.signs.

[Footnote 39: The original lease may be found incorporated in Alleyn _v._ Street, Coram Rege, 1599-1600, printed in full by Wallace, _The First London Theatre_, pp. 163-80, and again in Alleyn _v._ Burbage, Queen's Bench, 1602, Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 267-75. The lease, I think, was in English not Latin, and hence is more correctly given in the first doc.u.ment; in the second doc.u.ment the scrivener has translated it into Latin. The lease is also given in part on page 187.]

[Footnote 40: This part of the property was claimed by the Earl of Rutland, and was being used by him. For a long time it was the subject of dispute. Ultimately, it seems, the Earl secured the t.i.tle, as he had always had the use of the property. This probably explains why Burbage did not attempt to erect his playhouse there.]

[Footnote 41: The doc.u.ment by error reads "brick wall" but the mistake is obvious, and the second version of the lease does not repeat the error. This clause merely means that the ditch, not the brick wall, const.i.tuted the western boundary of the property.]

The lease was formally signed on April 13, 1576, and Burbage entered into the possession of his property. Since the terms of the lease are important for an understanding of the subsequent history of the playhouse, I shall set these forth briefly:

First, the lease was to run for twenty-one years from April 13, 1576, at an annual rental of 14.

Secondly, Burbage was to spend before the expiration of ten years the sum of 200 in rebuilding and improving the decayed tenements.

Thirdly, in view of this expenditure of 200, Burbage was to have at the end of the ten years the right to renew the lease at the same rental of 14 a year for twenty-one years, thus making the lease good in all for thirty-one years:

And the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife did thereby covenant with the said James Burbage that they should and would at any time within the ten years next ensuing at or upon the lawful request or demand of the said James Burbage make or cause to be made to the said James Burbage a new lease or grant like to the same presents for the term of one and twenty years more, to begin from the date of making the same lease, yielding therefor the rent reserved in the former indenture.[42]

[Footnote 42: Quoted from Burbage _v._ Alleyn, Court of Requests, 1600, Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 182. I have stripped the pa.s.sage of some of its legal verbiage.]

Fourthly, it was agreed that at any time before the expiration of the lease, Burbage might take down and carry away to his own use any building that in the mean time he might have erected on the vacant ground for the purpose of a playhouse:

And farther, the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife did covenant and grant to the said James Burbage that it should and might be lawful to the said James Burbage (in consideration of the imploying and bestowing the foresaid two hundred pounds in forme aforesaid) at any time or times before the end of the said term of one and twenty years, to have, take down, and carry away to his own proper use for ever all such buildings and other things as should be builded, erected, or set up in or upon the gardens and void grounds by the said James, either for a theatre or playing place, or for any other lawful use, without any stop, claim, let, trouble, or interruption of the said Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife.[43]

[Footnote 43: Quoted from Burbage _v._ Alleyn, Court of Requests, 1600, Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 182.]

Protected by these specific terms, Burbage proceeded to the erection of his playhouse. He must have had faith and abundant courage, for he was a poor man, quite unequal to the large expenditures called for by his plans. A person who had known him for many years, deposed in 1592 that "James Burbage was not at the time of the first beginning of the building of the premises worth above one hundred marks[44] in all his substance, for he and this deponent were familiarly acquainted long before that time and ever since."[45] We are not surprised to learn, therefore, that he was "constrained to borrow diverse sums of money,"

and that he actually p.a.w.ned the lease itself to a money-lender.[46]

Even so, without a.s.sistance, we are told, he "should never be able to build it, for it would cost five times as much as he was worth."

[Footnote 44: That is, about 80.]

[Footnote 45: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 134; cf. p. 153.]

[Footnote 46: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 151. Cuthbert Burbage declared in 1635: "The Theatre he built with many hundred pounds taken up at interest." (Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, I, 317.)]

Fortunately he had a wealthy brother-in-law, John Brayne,[47] a London grocer, described as "worth five hundred pounds at the least, and by common fame worth a thousand marks."[48] In some way Brayne became interested in the new venture. Like Burbage, he believed that large profits would flow from such a novel undertaking; and as a result he readily agreed to share the expense of erecting and maintaining the building. Years later members of the Brayne faction a.s.serted that James Burbage "induced" his brother-in-law to venture upon the enterprise by unfairly representing the great profits to ensue;[49]

but the evidence, I think, shows that Brayne eagerly sought the partnership. Burbage himself a.s.serted in 1588 that Brayne "practiced to obtain some interest therein," and presumed "that he might easily compa.s.s the same by reason that he was natural brother"; and that he voluntarily offered to "bear and pay half the charges of the said building then bestowed and thereafter to be bestowed" in order "that he might have the moiety[50] of the above named Theatre."[51] As a further inducement, so the Burbages a.s.serted, he promised that "for that he had no children," the moiety at his death should go to the children of James Burbage, "whose advancement he then seemed greatly to tender."

[Footnote 47: The name is often spelled "Braynes."]

[Footnote 48: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 109.]

[Footnote 49: See Wallace, _op. cit._, pp. 139 _seq._]

[Footnote 50: That is, half-interest.]

[Footnote 51: Wallace, _op. cit._, p. 40.]

Whatever caused Brayne to interest himself in the venture, he quickly became fired with such hopes of great gain that he not only spent upon the building all the money he could gather or borrow, but sold his stock of groceries for 146, disposed of his house for 100, even p.a.w.ned his clothes, and put his all into the new structure. The spirit in which he worked to make the venture a success, and the personal sacrifices that he and his wife made, fully deserve the quotation here of two legal depositions bearing on the subject: