Shakespearean Playhouses Part 33

Beeston made this the occasion to organize a new company called "Queen Henrietta's Men"; and when the theatres were allowed to reopen, about December, 1625,[597] this new company was in possession of the c.o.c.kpit. But the reputation of the playhouse seems not to have been enhanced by the performances of this troupe. In 1629, Lenton, in _The Young Gallant's Whirligig_, writes sneeringly:

The c.o.c.kpit heretofore would serve his wit, But now upon the Friars' Stage he'll sit.

[Footnote 597: In the _Middles.e.x County Records_, III, 6, we find that on December 6, 1625, because "the drawing of people together to places was a great means of spreading and continuing the infection ... this Court doth prohibit the players of the house at the c.o.c.kpit, being next to His Majesty's Court at Whitehall, commanding them to surcease all such their proceedings until His Majesty's pleasure be further signified." Apparently the playhouses in general had been allowed to resume performances; and since by December 24 there had been no deaths from the plague for a week, the special inhibition of the c.o.c.kpit Playhouse was soon lifted.]

And in the following year, 1630, Thomas Carew in verses prefixed to Davenport's _Just Italian_, attacks the Red Bull and the c.o.c.kpit as "adulterate" stages where "noise prevails," and "not a tongue of th'

untun'd kennel can a line repeat of serious sense." Queen Henrietta's Men probably continued to occupy the building until May 12, 1636, when the theatres were again closed on account of a serious outbreak of the plague. The plague continued for nearly a year and a half, and during this time the company was dissolved.[598]

[Footnote 598: "When Her Majesty's Servants were at the c.o.c.kpit, being all at liberty, they dispersed themselves to several companies."

(Heton's Patent, 1639, _The Shakespeare Society Papers_, IV, 96.)]

Before the plague had ceased, early in 1637, "Mr. Beeston was commanded to make a company of boys."[599] In the Office-Book of the Lord Chamberlain we find, under the date of February 21, 1637: "Warrant to swear Mr. Christopher Beeston His Majesty's Servant in the place of Governor of the new company of The King's and Queen's Boys."[600] The first recorded performance by this new company was at Court on February 7, 1637.[601] On February 23, the number of deaths from the plague having diminished, acting was again permitted; but at the expiration of one week, on March 2, the number of deaths having increased, all playhouses were again closed. During this single week the King's and Queen's Boys, we may suppose, acted at the c.o.c.kpit.[602]

[Footnote 599: Herbert Ma.n.u.script, Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]

[Footnote 600: Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers,"

Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_, XLVI, 99. In 1639 Heton applied for a patent as "Governor" of the company at Salisbury Court.]

[Footnote 601: On May 10 Beeston was paid for "two plays acted by the New Company." See Stopes, "Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," in the Shakespeare _Jahrbuch_, XLVI, 99.]

[Footnote 602: Herbert Ma.n.u.script, Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]

On May 12, Beeston was arrested and brought before the Privy Council for having allowed his Boys to act a play at the c.o.c.kpit during the inhibition.[603] In his apology he explains this as follows: "Pet.i.tioner being commanded to erect and prepare a company of young actors for Their Majesties's service, and being desirous to know how they profited by his instructions, invited some n.o.blemen and gentlemen to see them act at his house, the c.o.c.kpit. For which, since he perceives it is imputed as a fault, he is very sorry, and craves pardon."[604]

[Footnote 603: The Malone Society's _Collections_, I, 392.]

[Footnote 604: _The Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1636-1637_, p.

254.]

On September 17, 1637, "Christopher Beeston, His Majesty's servant, by pet.i.tion to the Board, showed that he hath many young actors lying unpractised by reason of the restraint occasioned by infection of the plague, whereby they are much disabled to perform their service, and besought that they might have leave to practise. It was ordered that Beeston should be at liberty to practise his actors at Michaelmas next [September 29], if there be no considerable increase of the sickness, nor that there die more than died last week."[605]

[Footnote 605: _Ibid._, _1637_, p. 420.]

On October 2, 1637, the plague having abated, all playhouses were opened, and the King's and Queen's Boys, Herbert tells us, began to play at the c.o.c.kpit "the same day."[606] Here, under the popular name of "Beeston's Boys," they enjoyed a long and successful career, which ended only with the prohibition of acting in 1642.

[Footnote 606: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 240.]

In 1639 Christopher Beeston died, and the position of Governor of the Boys was conferred upon his son, William Beeston, who had long been a.s.sociated in the management of the company,[607] and who, if we may believe Francis Kirkman, was admirably qualified for the position. In dedicating to him _The Loves and Adventures of Clerico and Lozia_, Kirkman says:

Divers times in my hearing, to the admiration of the whole company, you have most judiciously discoursed of Poesie: which is the cause I presume to choose you for my patron and protector, who are the happiest interpreter and judge of our English stage-plays this nation ever produced; which the poets and actors of these times cannot (without ingrat.i.tude) deny; for I have heard the chief and most ingenious acknowledge their fames and profits essentially sprung from your instruction, judgment, and fancy.

[Footnote 607: He is referred to as their Governor on August 10, 1639; see Malone, _Variorum_, III, 159.]

But in spite of all this, William Beeston's career as Governor was of short duration. About the first of May, 1640, he allowed the Boys to act without license a play that gave great offense to the King.

Herbert, the Master of the Revels, writes of this play that it "had relation to the pa.s.sages of the King's journey into the north, and was complained of by His Majesty to me, with command to punish the offenders."[608] In the Office-Book of the Lord Chamberlain, under the date of May 3, 1640, we read:

Whereas William Beeston and the company of the players of the c.o.c.kpit, in Drury Lane, have lately acted a new play without any license from the Master of His Majesty's Revels, and being commanded to forbear playing or acting of the same play by the said Master of the Revels, and commanded likewise to forbear all manner of playing, have notwithstanding, in contempt of the authority of the said Master of the Revels, and the power granted unto him under the Great Seal of England, acted the said play, and others, to the prejudice of His Majesty's service, and in contempt of the Office of the Revels, [whereby] he and they and all other companies ever have been and ought to be governed and regulated: These are therefore in His Majesty's name, and signification of his royal pleasure, to command the said William Beeston and the rest of that company of the c.o.c.kpit players from henceforth and upon sight hereof, to forbear to act any plays whatsoever until they shall be restored by the said Master of the Revels unto their former liberty. Whereof all parties concernable are to take notice, and conform accordingly, as they and every one of them will answer it at their peril.[609]

[Footnote 608: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241.]

[Footnote 609: Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), II, 32; Stopes, _op. cit._, p. 102.]

Herbert records in his Office-Book:

On Monday the 4 May, 1640, William Beeston was taken by a messenger and committed to the Marshalsea by my Lord Chamberlain's warrant, for playing a play without license.

The same day the company at the c.o.c.kpit was commanded by my Lord Chamberlain's warrant to forbear playing, for playing when they were forbidden by me, and for other disobedience, and lay still Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday, at my Lord Chamberlain's entreaty, I gave them their liberty, and upon their pet.i.tion of submission subscribed by the players, I restored them to their liberty on Thursday.[610]

[Footnote 610: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 241. Herbert did not forget Beeston's insubordination, and in 1660, in issuing to Beeston a license to use the Salisbury Court Playhouse, he inserted clauses to prevent further difficulty of this kind (see _Variorum_, III, 243).]

To this period of Beeston's imprisonment I should refer the puzzling Epilogue of Brome's _The Court Beggar_:

There's wit in that now. But this small Poet vents none but his own, and his by whose care and directions this Stage is govern'd, who has for many years, both in his father's days, and since, directed Poets to write and Players to speak, till he trained up these youths here to what they are now.

Aye, some of 'em from before they were able to say a grace of two lines long to have more parts in their pates than would fill so many Dry-vats. And to be serious with you, if after all this, by the venomous practice of some, who study nothing more than his destruction, he should fail us, both Poets and Players would be at loss in reputation.

His "destruction" was wrought, nevertheless, for as a result of his indiscretion he was deposed from his position as Governor of the King's and Queen's Company, and William Davenant was appointed in his place. In the Office-Book of the Lord Chamberlain under the date of June 27, 1640,[611] appears the following entry with the heading, "Mr.

Davenant Governor of the c.o.c.kpit Players":

Whereas in the playhouse or theatre commonly called the c.o.c.kpit, in Drury Lane, there are a company of players authorized by me (as Lord Chamberlain to His Majesty) to play or act under the t.i.tle of The King's and Queen's Servants, and that by reason of some disorders lately amongst them committed they are disabled in their service and quality: These are therefore to signify that by the same authority I do authorize and appoint William Davenant, Gent., one of Her Majesty's servants, for me and in my name to take into his government and care the said company of players, to govern, order, and dispose of them for action and presentments, and all their affairs in the said house, as in his discretion shall seem best to conduce to His Majesty's service in that quality. And I do hereby enjoin and command them, all and every of them, that are so authorized to play in the said house under the privilege of His or Her Majesty's Servants, and every one belonging as prentices or servants to those actors to play under the same privilege, that they obey the said Mr. Davenant and follow his orders and directions, as they will answer the contrary; which power and privilege he is to continue and enjoy during that lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, _alias_ Hucheson, hath or doth hold in the said playhouse, provided he be still accountable to me for his care and well ordering the said company.[612]

[Footnote 611: Stopes (_op. cit._) dates this June 5, but Collier, Malone, and Chalmers all give June 27, and Mrs. Stopes is not always quite accurate in such matters.]

[Footnote 612: Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), II, 32, note 1.]

Under the direction of Davenant the company acted at the c.o.c.kpit until the closing of the theatres two years later.

The history of the playhouse during the troubled years that followed is varied. In the churchwarden's account of St. Giles's Parish is found the entry: "1646. Paid and given to the teacher at the c.o.c.kpit of the children, 6_d._"[613] Apparently the old playhouse was then being temporarily used as a school.

[Footnote 613: John Parton, _Some Account of the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles in the Fields_, p. 235.]

Wright, in his _Historia Histrionica_, tells us that at the outbreak of the civil war most of the actors had joined the royal army and served His Majesty, "though in a different, yet more honorable capacity." Some were killed, many won distinction; and "when the wars were over, and the royalists totally subdued, most of 'em who were left alive gathered to London, and for a subsistence endeavored to revive their old trade privately. They made up one company out of all the scattered members of several, and in the winter before the King's murder, 1648, they ventured to act some plays, with as much caution and privacy as could be, at the c.o.c.kpit." John Evelyn records in his _Diary_, under the date of February 5, 1648: "Saw a tragicomedy acted in the c.o.c.kpit after there had been none of these diversions for many years during the war." Trouble, however, was brewing for these daring actors. As Wright records: "They continued undisturbed for three or four days, but at last, as they were presenting the tragedy of _The b.l.o.o.d.y Brother_ (in which Lowin acted Aubery; Taylor, Rollo; Pollard, the Cook; Burt, Latorch; and, I think, Hart, Otto), a party of foot-soldiers beset the house, surprised 'em about the middle of the play, and carried 'em away in their habits, not admitting them to shift, to Hatton House, then a prison, where, having detained them some time, they plundered them of their clothes, and let 'em loose again."[614]

[Footnote 614: Hazlitt's Dodsley, XV, 409.]

In 1649 the interior of the building was sacked, if we may trust the ma.n.u.script note entered in the Phillipps copy of Stow's _Annals_ (1631): "The playhouse in Salisbury Court, in Fleet Street, was pulled down by a company of soldiers set on by the sectaries of these sad times, on Sat.u.r.day the 24 day of March, 1649. The Phoenix, in Drury Lane, was pulled down also this day, being Sat.u.r.day the 24 day of March, 1649, by the same soldiers."[615] In the pa.s.sage quoted, "pulled-down" merely means that the stage and its equipment, and possibly a part of the galleries and the seats, were wrecked, not that the walls of the building itself were thrown down.

[Footnote 615: See _The Academy_, October 28, 1882, p. 314. The soldiers here mentioned also "pulled down on the inside" the Fortune playhouse.]

In 1656 Sir William Davenant undertook to create a form of dramatic entertainment which would be tolerated by the authorities. The Lord Protector was known to be a lover of music. Sir William, therefore, applied for permission to give operatic entertainments, "after the manner of the antients," the "story sung in recitative music," and the representation made "by the art of perspective in scenes." To such entertainments, he thought, no one could object. He was wise enough to give his first performances at Rutland House; but in 1658 he moved to the c.o.c.kpit, where, says Aubrey, "were acted very well, _stylo recitativo_, _Sir Francis Drake_ and _The Siege of Rhodes_ (1st and 2d parts). It did affect the eye and ear extremely. This first brought scenes in fashion in England; before at plays was only a hanging."

Thus the c.o.c.kpit had the distinction of being the first English playhouse in which scenery was employed, and, one should add, the first English home of the opera.[616]

[Footnote 616: For a discussion of Davenant's attempts to introduce the opera into England, see W.J. Lawrence, _The Elizabethan Playhouse_ (Second Series), pp. 129 ff.]

Later in the same year, 1658, Davenant exhibited at the c.o.c.kpit _The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru_; but this performance excited the suspicion of the authorities, who on December 23 sent for "the poet and the actors" to explain "by what authority the same is exposed to public view."[617]

[Footnote 617: Malone, _Variorum_, III, 93; Collier, _The History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (1879), II, 48.]

"In the year 1659," writes John Downes in his _Roscius Anglica.n.u.s_, "General Monk marching then his army out of Scotland to London, Mr.

Rhodes, a bookseller, being wardrobe-keeper formerly (as I am informed) to King Charles the First's company of commedians in Blackfriars, getting a license from the then governing state,[618]

fitted up a house then for acting, called the _c.o.c.kpit_, in Drury Lane, and in a short time completed his company." If this statement is correct, the time must have been early in the year 1659-60, and the company must have attempted at first to play without a proper license.