Transcriber’s Notes

This e-text is based on the printed edition of ‘Shakespeare and the Stage,’ by Maurice Jonas, from 1918. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation have been retained, but punctuation and typographical errors have been corrected.

Illustrations, as well as facsimiles of book titles and exemplary book pages, have been moved between two paragraphs for reasons of clarity and comprehensibility. As a consequence, page references for illustrations have been removed, because in most cases they are no longer consistent with the original. Some title lines of the facsimile pages seem to be cropped at the upper end. These errors originate from the printed book; the rest of the titles cannot be retrieved.

Some sections in the original have been printed in black letter, which is illustrated by using the ‘Old English Text MT’ font in the electronic version. If this font cannot be installed in the reader device, these passages will be displayed in sans-serif standard typeface.

The chapters in the original book have been numbered inconsistently; the correct numbering scheme has been applied to this electronic version.

Repeated, missing or inconsistent quotations have been adopted from the original without modifications. No changes have been made to passages copied from Shakespeare’s plays by the author; some suspected errors have not been corrected.

SHAKESPEARE AND THE STAGE

The interior of the Swan Theatre. Drawn by De Witt in 1596.

SHAKESPEARE
AND THE STAGE

WITH A COMPLETE LIST OF THEATRICAL TERMS USED BY SHAKESPEARE IN HIS PLAYS AND POEMS, ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, & EXPLANATORY NOTES

BY

MAURICE JONAS

AUTHOR OF “NOTES OF AN ART COLLECTOR AND MASUCCIO.”

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

LONDON:
DAVIS AND ORIOLI
24 MUSEUM STREET
MCMXVIII

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
BY THE WESTMINSTER PRESS,
411A, HARROW ROAD, LONDON, W.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER I
THE EARLY DRAMA

The beginning of the English drama dates from a late period in the history of this country. Until the reign of Elizabeth, dramatic literature was really non-existent. During the Middle Ages, the religious drama held complete sway over the populace, producing such an abiding effect that no other kind of performance was tolerated. In England the first germs of a dramatic nature emanated from the church, chiefly in connection with the festival at Eastertide. At this time of the year the ritual was solemnized in a highly theatrical fashion. Processions marched round the sacred edifice, various scenes from the Gospels were introduced, accompanied by music and song. The festivals of Christmas and Corpus Christi were observed with great enthusiasm, sacred episodes taken from church history were acted with such fervour and ecstasy that the congregation remained spellbound during the service.

The next development in the evolution of the drama is the representation of the liturgical play, written in Latin, gradually being superseded by the religious play written in the vernacular; the scenes depicted consisted chiefly of episodes in connection with the Birth of the Saviour, also of events narrating the Lives of the Saints, together with other legendary characters.

All these scenes were called Miracle Plays, a name by which in this country all religious dramas were known, regardless of the origin of their source. In course of time these first offshoots of the ordinary service had grown to such dimensions that it was found impracticable that these spectacles should be presented inside the church, consequently, a larger space outside was deemed more convenient, but still remaining within the precincts. Even this innovation was not entirely successful, as the ground allotted for the performance was not extensive enough for the numerous throng that assembled on these occasions. Then a further step was taken by transferring the scene of action from the sacred precincts to the open spaces within the town. The development of the drama was greatly accelerated by this innovation. During the period that these plays formed part of the religious service, the clergy only were allowed the privilege of assuming the different characters, but when spectacular episodes were added to the ordinary ritual they became secularized by calling in the aid of the various guilds, assisted by professional entertainers. By these means the plays gradually lost their religious significance, finally being regarded as a popular form of amusement. By an act of Pope Gregory in 1210, the priests were forbidden to officiate in these interludes in any capacity, even if held inside the church. After the act had been confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1227, the clergy were strictly prohibited from joining the open-air performance.

The important Festival of Corpus Christi, founded by Pope Urban IV in the year 1264, was ratified years later by the Council of Vienne strictly enforcing its celebration. In England this very Corpus Christi day was, above all others, chosen for the representation of important plays composed in dramatic form chiefly from events connected with the religious history of the civilized world. There are extant several groups of plays which, during the Middle Ages, were regularly performed before appreciative audiences. Four of these “cycles” as they were termed, namely, the York, Townley, Chester, and Coventry plays, have been published and edited by competent scholars. The York cycle contains forty-eight pieces, most of which are derived from biblical subjects. These plays were written during the fourteenth century, and were acted by members of the different guilds.

In the “Ordo Paginorum” of 1415 a detailed list is given of the whole forty-eight interludes. “The order of the Pageants of the Play of Corpus Christi in the time of the mayoralty of William Alne, in the third year of the reign of Henry V, anno 1415, compiled by Roger Burton, town clerk.”

Forty-eight different Companies took part in this pageant, commencing with the Tanners and ending with the Mercers. These crude compositions were still being exhibited during the greater portion of Shakespeare’s lifetime; their total suppression followed in the first decade of the seventeenth century. Although these plays continued until so late a date, signs of their waning interest were apparent in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, when a more ambitious type of drama gradually superseded the old Morality play. The New Comedy displays more inventive genius in dramatic construction, together with greater skill in treating the literary dialogue, and a wider sympathy and ingenuity in the development of character, thus appealing to a more educated section of the public. The first real comedy written in the English language is entitled “Ralph Roister Doister,” and was composed about the year 1550. By this composition an enormous stride in advance was made compared with earlier dramatic pieces.

Many of the characters are moulded on classical models, whilst others still bear traces of an allegorical nature. Other plays quickly followed based on similar types. The first English tragedy called “Gorboduc or Ferrex and Porrex,” produced about this period, was likewise founded on classical lines. Henceforth the Miracle play was doomed, and hereafter budded forth a new drama, the full blossom thereof culminating in the immortal works of William Shakespeare.

The construction of the open-air stage, where the Miracle plays were exhibited, totally differed from any kind of stage adopted by Europeans for the last three hundred years. The inn-yard performance presents a greater likeness to our present theatre than the primitive shows represented before our ancestors of the Middle Ages compared with the inn-yard performances. These Miracle plays were performed for over three centuries, and formed the only dramatic fare of the English people during this long period. The Miracle play can fitly be described as an isolated production, the successive stages can be plainly regarded as an organic whole, beginning with birth, developing into maturity, eventually drifting into decline and decay, finally ending in total extinction. The plays of a later date, and the conditions under which they were produced, owed little or nothing beyond a trifling debt to their forerunners.

When the Miracle plays emerged from the church and became secularized, the performances took place in the open streets. These exhibitions consisted of two kinds, one being stationary, and generally acted in the market place, or other convenient open space, such as the village green, or they were divided into separate stations or points, or as we should now say districts, each station being visited by the several pageants or movable stages, which formed a kind of processional ceremony. The actual acting place was a kind of platform resting on trestles, with planks thrown across; this primitive stage was fixed on wheels and was drawn by horses from one street to another, and as they arrived at each station a performance was given. By this method a large concourse of people could witness the entertainment in ease and comfort. What a contrast in comparison to a performance of a Greek play, when twenty thousand people were seated in a public theatre and watched with enthusiasm and delight the tragic masterpieces of Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and the biting satirical comedies of Aristophanes, and pray remember that these great plays were written and performed about two thousand years before these puny dramatic efforts of our own people. In large towns like York, sixteen stations were erected to satisfy the demands of the public. In a small town about three or four would supply all needs. At Coventry the latter number proved sufficient. Six stations are mentioned in a pageant acted at Beverley. The length and duration of the plays varied at different places. Three days were allotted to the Chester plays, other towns managed in quicker time, finishing their programme in a single day.

These one-day performances usually commenced at daybreak. Newcastle was not quite so enthusiastic, conforming more with our modern ideas, commencing their pageant a little after mid-day, corresponding almost with our matinée. The most trustworthy account of a performance of a Miracle play is that described by Archdeacon Roger, who witnessed one of the plays at Chester during the Whitsun holidays in the year 1594.

“Every company had his pageant, or parte, which pageants weare a high scafolde with two rowmes, a higher and a lower, upon four wheels. In the lower they apparelled themselves, and in the higher rowm they played, beinge all open on the tope that all behoulders mighte heare and see them. The places where they played them was in every street. They begane first at the abye gates, and when the first pageant was played it was wheeled to the high crosse before the mayor, and so to every streete and soe every streete had a pageant playinge before them at one time, till all the pageants for the daye appointed were played, and when one pageant was neare ended, worde was brought from streete to streete that so they might come in place thereof exceedinge orderlye and all the streets have their pageants afore them, all at one time playinge together, to see which plays was great resorte, and also scafoldes and stages made in the streets in these places where they determined to play their pageants.”

The Miracle plays are frequently mentioned by Chaucer, a verse in the Miller’s Tale included among the Canterbury Tales, informs us how Joly Absolom, the parish priest, played Herod “in a Scafolde hie.” Shakespeare refers to the ranting of the actors that prevailed in these entertainments in the proverbial phrase “out Herod’s Herod,” Herod being a well-known character in the Miracle play. May we not indulge in the fancy that John Shakespeare took his eldest son, William, over to Coventry to witness one of these shows, this town being distant only a few miles from Stratford-on-Avon?

In a most fascinating book written by the late Professor Haigh, of Oxford University, entitled The Attic Theatre, the author gives an exhaustive and detailed account of the ancient Greek theatre from the earliest times until its extinction. After the perusal of this admirable work, the reader may well be amazed at the paucity of reliable information concerning our own theatre. The distinguished author analyses each of his statements with remarkable accuracy before pronouncing judgment. The wealth of illustration brought to bear on the subject is truly remarkable, placing before the reader an exact account of how a play was produced in those remote times by graphically describing the conditions with such minuteness and intelligence that the reader can visualize the acted play from the printed page. Many other points of a theatrical interest are discussed in this fascinating book, which should be read by everyone who takes the least interest in the drama. After studying this detailed account of theatrical events, existing so many centuries past, we naturally expect from the innumerable writings of the Elizabethan age an ample and exact account of how a play was represented during that era. Unfortunately in this instance our expectations will remain unrealized, stage history not being deemed worthy of chronicling in those spacious times.

Professor Lawrence, of Dublin, is specially to be congratulated on his brilliant articles and essays in Shakespearean dramatic and theatrical subjects. It would be a consummation devoutly to be wished if the erudite author would undertake to write a history of the early stage on the same lines as adopted by the author of The Attic Theatre.

AN EARLY TYPE OF STAGE

Reproduced by kind permission of Professor G. P. Baker.

CHAPTER II
INN-YARDS

When Shakespeare first arrived in London, which is now generally assigned to the year 1586, there existed in the Metropolis two permanent theatres, called respectively The Theatre and The Curtain. Shakespeare’s dramatic connection with the stage commenced probably about 1590, but where his first plays were produced records are found wanting. Personally I am strongly in favour of his early plays being acted at the Theatre. Students are agreed that Shakespeare joined the company of actors known as the Earl of Leicester’s servants, in which the celebrated Burbages, both father and son, were included. The first named was the builder and manager of The Theatre; therefore, the inference is quite logical that Shakespeare acted in the playhouse to which his company was attached.

Before the public theatres were erected the actors set up their stages at the inn-yards, and many early and important plays were presented in these places. That acting took place in these localities is beyond question, and it is within the bounds of possibility that Shakespeare’s earliest contributions to the drama may have been first produced in these impromptu play places, otherwise inn-yards.

The names of several of these London inn-yards are well known, both from contemporary literature and documentary records; unfortunately little information can be gleaned of their connection with the drama. These resorts were fairly well suited for stage plays. The fore part of the yard corresponded to the pit of a modern provincial theatre, with the exception that standing room only was provided. The galleries that surrounded the yard accommodated the better class of spectators, probably a space at the back of the stage supplied the needs of a dressing room. How the play was produced, the manner in which the scenes were indicated, the number of stage properties used and other details connected with the drama are questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered; the historian in search of full information on these subjects seeks in vain. However much we may deplore the loss of written documents elucidating this period of our early drama, we possess proof that the acting companies of the Earl of Leicester, Lord Strange, the Admiral’s and other noblemen’s companies frequently gave performances in these places. Although Southwark, the pleasure seeking resort of Londoners, was plentifully supplied with inn-yards, many becoming quite famous, namely, The Tabard, White Hart, Cross Keys, George, and several others, there exists no record or reference that any company of actors set up their stage in any one of those taverns named above. As already stated, little is known of the conditions under which theatrical companies acted in those impromptu places of entertainment.

In connection with these taverns one great difficulty arises of a rather perplexing nature, namely, how was the money collected during one of these performances? Devoid of any reliable information, every reader who is interested in the question must work out a theory for himself, relying on his own conclusion for the solution. My own particular theory is that, whenever the players announced a performance they hired the premises for the afternoon, with the right of charging admission for anyone entering the yard or the rooms in the gallery surrounding the building. As these last could be entered through the inn proper, money takers were stationed at the door or doors of all the private entrances and also at the place where the general public entered. In confirmation of the above, an account of a quarrel may be quoted from Halliwell-Phillipps’s “Illustrations to Shakespeare”: “Whilst the Queen’s players were performing at Norwich a man named Wynsdon endeavoured to gain admission without payment. An altercation ensued, during which the money box was upset. The disturbance had a tragic sequel, so far as regards the originator of the quarrel, as he received a sword thrust from one of his pursuers, from which he succumbed.” The above written testimony proves that some kind of system existed, whereby money could be taken at the doors before gaining admission. The entire subject of plays produced at inn-yards requires special treatment by a trained Shakesperean scholar. The subject is a difficult one, necessitating patient research, exact knowledge of sixteenth century theatrical customs and much leisure, but finally the student will be amply rewarded by the interest and fascination which the theme evokes. Printed matter has been ransacked in the hope of throwing light on the subject, but with poor results. Original research among the MSS. of the British Museum and the documents stored at the Record Office must be henceforth the order of the day. Considering so little is known in connection with this interesting subject, reference to similar theatrical conditions in Spain during the Elizabethan period may interest the reader. In Madrid plays were performed in a corral, which, in Spanish, signifies a courtyard of a private house, corresponding in England to our inn-yard. The stage was erected at the back of the yard, in all cases being a movable one, the majority of the audience viewing the performance standing in the court-yard. From the windows of the surrounding houses the better class of spectators watched the play. The entire building was open to the sky, fine weather being absolutely necessary for a continuous performance.

Two years before a permanent theatre was erected in London, these “corrals” were partly roofed, besides providing seats and benches. An awning was thrown across to protect the spectators in the unroofed courtyard from the glare of the sun. From these facts it will be noted that from 1574–1576 theatrical performances were given in Madrid under better conditions than those of any other country. Regular organized theatres did not exist in France, Italy, Russia, or any other European city except England and Spain until the beginning of the seventeenth century. Although for a short period Spanish playgoers were provided with more comforts than any other known theatre, the honour of erecting the first organized theatre in Europe must be awarded to English enterprise.

The chief taverns with inn-yards in which the different companies of actors pitched their tents are seven in number, although several others, whose names are unrecorded, were similarly used for the same purpose. The seven known are “The Bull,” in Bishopsgate Street; “The Bull,” “Cross Keys,” and “The Bell,” in Gracechurch Street; “The Belle Savage” on Ludgate Hill; “The Boar’s Head,” in Eastcheap, and “The Boar’s Head” in Aldgate Without. “The Bell” was situated in Gracechurch Street. A reference to this inn is mentioned in the Revel’s Account: “A well counterfeit from ‘The Bell’ in Gracious Street.” This and two others are the only known references to this tavern being used as a playhouse. Even this quotation is rather vague. Probably “the well” refers to a play called “Cutwell,” which was performed at Court during Shrovetide, 1577, by the Earl of Warwick’s company, the actors having previously appeared at “The Bell” in the same piece.

Reproduced by kind permission from Professor G. P. Baker’s The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1907.

A Stage Play in progress at an inn-yard.

Reproduced by kind permission of Professor G. P. Baker.

A typical inn-yard in Elizabethan times used by the players for the acting of their plays.

This event is mentioned by Richard Rawlidge in a tract entitled “A Monster lately found out, or scourge of Tipplers,” published in 1628. Prynne also mentions this inn in a pamphlet against stage plays in 1632. The best known resort of the actors during the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign was “The Bull” in Bishopsgate Street, being frequently noticed in documents and literature. “The Bull” stood on the left hand side of Bishopsgate Street going towards Shoreditch from the west, exactly opposite St. Helen’s Place, formerly known as Little St. Helen’s. This inn luckily escaped the great fire in 1666, a disaster of such magnitude that, fortunately, has not befallen any other famous city of such great renown and dimensions. “The Bull” remained in situ two centuries after that disastrous event, only to be pulled down by the iconoclasts of our own day in 1866.

There exists a letter from the Earl of Warwick, dated July 1st, 1582, addressed to the Lord Mayor of London, in which he requests that his servant, John Davis, may be allowed to play at “The Bull,” in Bishopsgate Street. In answer to a second letter from the Earl of Warwick, the Lord Mayor still refuses the license on account of the plague. The restrictions in connection with the theatres in time of plague were very stringent. By command of the Authorities, all places of amusement were immediately closed if more than thirty deaths occurred during the week. On cessation of the plague the theatres, by permission, resumed their normal course. In the last years of the sixteenth century, Anthony Bacon, brother of the celebrated Francis Bacon, occupied lodgings near “The Bull,” much against the wish of his mother, who feared that his servants might be corrupted by living so near the scene of dramatic entertainment. This same inn was the resort of Hobson, the well-known Cambridge carrier. In one of the rooms hung his portrait with a hundred pound bag under his arm; underneath was written “The Fruitful Mother of a Hundred more.” The next notice is one of great importance and interest, containing a definite statement of a play being acted at “The Bull,” besides naming the title of the play, “An excellent Jest of Tarlton’s suddenly spoken at ‘The Bull’ in Bishopsgate Street.”

“There was a play of Henry the Fifth, wherein the Judge was to take a box of the eare, and because he was absent that should take the blow, Tarlton himselfe, ever forward to please, tooke upon him to play the same Judge, and Kenel then playing Henry the Fifth, hit Tarlton a sound boxe indeed, which made the people laugh, the more because it was he, but anon the Judge goes in and immediately Tarlton, in his clownes cloathes, comes out and asks the actor what news? O, saith one, hadst thou been here thou shouldst have seen Prince Henry hit the Judge a terrible box of the eare. What, man, said Tarlton, strike a judge! It is true in faith said the other. No other like, said Tarlton, and it could not be but terrible to the Judge when the report so terrifies me that methinks the blow remains still on my cheeke that it burns againe. The people laughed at this mightily, and to this day I have heard it commended for rare, for no marvel, for he had many of these. But I would see our clowns do the like in these days, no I warrant ye, and yet they thinke well of themselves too.” The play in which the prince strikes the judge is taken from “The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth containing the Honourable Battell of Agincourt. As it was played by the Queens Majesties Players, London. Printed by Thomas Creede, 1598.” A unique copy of this book is in the Bodleian Library. This play is much earlier than Shakespeare’s “Henry the Fifth,” and may be considered the source out of which Shakespeare created one of his great masterpieces. Gosson, in his “School of Abuse,” published in 1559, refers to a comedy entitled “The Jew,” performed at “The Bull,” describing the “greediness of worldly chusers and venomous minds of Usurers.” There is hardly a shadow of a doubt that this play is the same on which, many years later, Shakespeare founded his own “Merchant of Venice.” The plot of the “worldly chusers,” or what is now termed the “casket scene,” is related in the Gesta Romanorum a collection of tales and jests written originally in Latin, an English translation of which existed, circa, 1515, printed by the famous Wynkyn de Worde, several reprints appearing between 1571–1601. I possess a copy in black letter dated 1672, proving the popularity of the book during many generations. The Bond, or pound of flesh, story is taken from a collection of tales called “Il Pecorone by Ser Giovanni Fiorentino,” written in the year 1378; the first printed edition appeared in 1558. A copy of this rare book is in the Grenville collection, bequeathed by the owner to the British Museum. I was thus able to read the story in the beautiful original edition. I possess a copy of this book, which formerly belonged to Professor Dowden, bearing the imprint “In Milano, 1554,” with the name of the publishers of the genuine edition of 1558, four years previously to the genuine first edition. This imprint is a false one, the entire book being issued in 1740. I also possess a thick quarto edition of a book entitled The Orator, containing one hundred discourses on various subjects. In each essay the pros and cons of the case in dispute are thoroughly investigated after the manner of books on rhetoric, which were fashionable with the early Greek writers. Declamation numbered 96 strikingly resembles the trial scene in the “Merchant of Venice”; this book may have been read by Shakespeare before he composed the “Merchant of Venice,” which is assigned by most students to the year 1597. The Declamation opens as follows: “Of a Jew who would have for his debt a pound of flesh of a Christian.” Spenser, the famous poet, when writing to his friend, Gabriel Harvey, the well-known Cambridge scholar, signs himself “He that is fast bound unto thee in more obligations than any merchant of Italy to any Jew there.” This letter was in reply to one of Harvey’s, dated 1579; enclosed therein was a whimsical bond between the two friends in allusion to the bond of the Jew in the play. Evidently these two students had witnessed a performance of the Jew at “The Bull,” in which the bond story played a prominent part. When Shakespeare’s play was entered at Stationer’s Hall the description ran thus: “A book of the Merchant of Venyce or otherwise called the Jew of Venyce.” John Florio, an Italian refugee, refers to “The Bull” in a book called the First Frutes, published in 1578: “Shall we go to a playe at ‘The Bull’ or else to some other place?” By the above reference plays continued to be acted at inn-yards even after the erection of public theatres.

“The Bell Savage” was situated on the north side of Ludgate Hill, immediately outside the City gates. The site is now occupied by the publishing firm of Cassell and Co. This inn is included in the five enumerated by Rawlidge, where stage plays were enacted. The inn is not mentioned by name, but simply as one on Ludgate Hill. Stephen Gosson notes that at this inn two prose plays were acted, further adding that these plays were free from all immorality and obscenity. “The two prose plays played at ‘The Belsavage.’ Where you shall find never a word without wit, never a line without pith, never a letter placed in vain. Neither with amorous gestures wounding the eye, nor with slovenly talk hurting the ears of the chaste hearer.” George Gascoigne, in the prologue to one of his plays, called the “Glass of Government,” 1575, refers to this inn: “The Belsavage fair as affording merry jests and vain delights.” In Lamborde’s “Perambulation of Kent” there is another reference to this inn as a place of amusement: “Those who go to Paris Garden, the Belsavage or Theatre to behold bear baiting, interludes, or fence plays must not account of any pleasant spectacle unless they first pay one penny at the gate, another at the entry of the scaffold, and a third for a quiet standing.” In Shakespeare’s play of “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” in answer to a question a boy replies: “Why, sir, is this such a piece of study the dancing horse will tell you.” This horse, named Morocco, was a famous draw in Elizabethan times, being shown at “The Bull,” in Bishopsgate Street. One Banks, a Staffordshire man, exhibited him throughout England and a great part of the continent. When in Rome, Banks and his horse were supposed to have been burnt for witchcraft, but this is doubtful. The author of the above statement is Ben Jonson, in one of his epigrams, “Old Banks the Juggler and his learned horse burned beyond the sea.” Morocco was a bay horse and performed some very clever tricks; amongst them was counting how much money was in a man’s purse, signalling the answer by stamping with his hoof an equal number of times as there were coins in the purse. When his master told him to fetch the veriest knave in all the company he would always make towards his own keeper, thereby causing much merriment. The well-known Elizabethan dramatist, Thomas Dekker, mentions him as the dancing horse who stood on the top of Saint Paul’s whilst a number of asses stood braying below. Many writers of the period refer to this animal, and he may well be dubbed the literary horse. A curious tract, entitled “Moroccius Extaticus, or Bank’s Bay Horse in a Trance,” with a woodcut depicting the horse on his hind legs and two dice in front of him, was published in 1596. Three copies of this pamphlet are known, one is in the British Museum. The Huth exemplar, sold in 1911, fetched £110. I read the copy in the British Museum, but nothing is related about the horse. The book is a political satire on the land question. The name of the La belle sauvage has given rise to many ingenious guesses respecting the derivation, and Stow says the owner was named Isabella Savage and that she bequeathed the inn to the Cutlers’ Company. The Spectator would name it after a French play entitled “La Belle Sauvage.” Another states it was christened after Lady Arabella Savage, with a sign of a wild man and a bell. By the discovery of a document the matter was finally set at rest, wherein it was stated that the tavern was known as “Savage’s Inn,” otherwise called “The Bell on the Hoop.” By degrees the two names became confused, eventually becoming known as “The Bell Savage.”

“The Cross Keys” stood on the north side of Gracechurch Street, adjacent to the well-known Elizabethan tavern “The Queen of Saba,” kept by the Queen’s famous jester, Richard Tarlton. Many said he was a frequent visitor at “The Cross Keys” in order to note the fashions of the day, not in apparel only, but in manners, morals and customs of the period. This inn is not mentioned by Rawlidge as one of the public inn-yards where plays were performed before the year 1580. We catch a glimpse of “The Cross Keys” by an order of the Lord Mayor, dated November, 1589, forbidding the players acting in the City on account of having appeared in a controversial play in connexion with the Martin Marprelate affair. This Marprelate question occupied a similar position amongst the Elizabethan public as the Pusey tract controversy in mid-Victorian days. The discussion ranged over a theological question which was taken up by the dramatists of the Tudor period, with much acrimonious feeling and much throwing about of brains on both sides. Shakespeare abstained from taking part in this fierce and bitter controversy. When the order was executed only two companies were playing in the City, The Admiral’s and Lord Strange’s men, the latter company included Shakespeare as a member. Both companies were promptly summoned before the Court. The Admiral’s men obeyed the summons, but Lord Strange’s company deliberately refused and acted the same afternoon at “The Cross Keys.” Again they were summoned, and two of their number committed to prison. “The Cross Keys” was certainly one of the City’s regular play places, in proof of which the same company, but under different patronage, is found five years later playing in this identical inn-yard. A petition to the Lord Mayor, dated October the eighth, 1594, emanating from Lord Hunsdon, who was then Lord Chamberlain, prays the Lord Mayor if he would allow his players to continue acting at “The Cross Keys,” “where my company of players have accustomed for the better exercising their quality and for the service of Her Majesty, if need so require, and may your Lordship permit and suffer them so to do the which I pray you, rather to do for that they have undertaken to me, that there heretofore they began not their plays till towards four o’clock they will now begin at two and have done towards four o’clock and five, and will not use any drum or trumpet at all for the calling of the people together, and shall contribute to the poor of the parish where they play according to their abilities.”

This is one of the few authentic notices concerning Lord Strange’s men setting up their stages at an inn-yard. If it could be proved definitely that “The Cross Keys” was their principal place of acting between the years 1589–1594, then we must be prepared to admit that many of Shakespeare’s early plays were first acted under these primitive and rough and ready conditions. I am not an adherent of this theory, holding the opinion that all his plays were first produced at regular built theatres; afterwards there may have been a revival performance at inn-yards for want of better accommodation, but all this is very problematical. Not possessing any records designating the actual place of the first performance of Shakespeare’s plays, we are forced, therefore, to indulge in speculative theories. As I have repeatedly stated, this important question has not been sufficiently investigated, and a monograph on the subject by a Shakesperean scholar would be specially welcome.

At “The Cross Keys,” Banks exhibited his wonderful performing horse.

The most famous of all inns where plays were acted was unhesitatingly “The Boar’s Head,” in Eastcheap, exactly where now stands the statue of William the Fourth. The old site was swept away when the new approach was made to London Bridge. The only instance of a play being produced there is fortunately extant, and is contained in a letter to the Lord Mayor from the Lords of the Council, dated March 31st, 1608, granting permission to the servants of the Earl of Oxford and the Earl of Worcester to play at “The Bore’s Head,” in Eastcheap. This letter is preserved in the “Remembrancia,” a collection of papers now safely housed in the Guildhall. On the succession of James the First the Worcester men became the servants of Queen Anne, the consort of the King. Among the Calendars and State Papers is a licence for the actors to perform plays in their usual houses, “The Curtain” and “The Bore’s Head.” This tavern is, above all others, specially renowned, as it was here that Shakespeare selected as the meeting place of Falstaff, Prince Hal, and their boon companions. The tavern is alluded to in Shakespeare’s play of “King Henry the Fourth” in the following lines: “Doth the old boar feed in the old Frank,” and Bardolph answers: “At the old place, my Lord, in Eastcheap.”

Several inns existed in this locality, namely, “The Plough,” “The Chicken,” “The Three Kings,” and many others, but none with any sign that could be confounded with “The Boar’s Head.” The nocturnal roysterings of Prince Hal are not the invention of the poet. Stow relates how the Prince, with his two brothers, created such a riot in Eastcheap that they were brought before the magistrate. William Gascoigne, the Chief Justice, required the Mayor and Aldermen for the citizens to justify the Prince’s arrest and put themselves in the King’s grace. The Aldermen answered they had done their best according to the law to maintain the peace, therefore the Chief Justice in the King’s name remitted his ire and dismissed them. This William Gascoigne is the same judge who, according to tradition, was struck in the face by Prince Hal, whereupon the Prince, at the Judge’s order, was committed to the King’s Bench. Maitland, the historian of London, states that an inscription under the sign of “The Boar’s Head” notified that “this is the chief tavern in London.” The original inn was burnt to the ground in the great fire, immediately being rebuilt, and having for its sign a large boar’s head of stone, with the date underneath—1668; the sign is now exhibited in the crypt of the Guildhall. This second building was likewise destroyed, but in this instance not by fire, being demolished when an improvement scheme was formed for the widening of the approach to London Bridge. Many years before its demolition, this tavern had been converted into two houses, numbered respectively 2 and 3, Great Eastcheap; one of these houses was occupied by a gunsmith. A curious relic of “The Boar’s Head” is a carved figure about 12 inches high representing Falstaff. This figure stood on a bracket placed on one side of the doorway, outside the inn, another figure of the same period representing Prince Hal, stood on the opposite side. A water-colour drawing of Falstaff was presented to the Guildhall by Mr. Burgin, Dean of Chichester. A more important memento of this inn is a carved boxwood bas-relief of a boar’s head, set in a circular frame formed by the tusks of two boars, mounted in silver. An inscription at the back reads “Wm. Brooke, Landlord of ‘The Bore’s Head,’ Eastcheap, 1566.” The relic was sold at Christie’s in 1855, and is now in the possession of Mr. Burdett Coutts. In Shakespeare’s time the landlord at “The Bore’s Head,” was one John Rhodway, of Ventnor, who was buried in the churchyard of St. Michael’s, Crooked Lane, 1623. This church was also demolished in making improvements in this district. There are several allusions to this tavern in the literature of the day; one of special significance is mentioned in Gayton’s Festivous Notes, 1654: “Sir John of ‘The Bore’s Head,’ in Eastcheap.” Was it a coincidence or of a set purpose that Sir John and his wild companions assembled at this inn for their midnight revels? There was another “Boar’s Head” in Southwark, the property of a real Sir John Falstaff, who died in 1460.

“The Red Bull” in Clerkenwell is mentioned, by Larwood and Hotten in their history of sign-boards, as a place where the players acted. This is surely an error, as “The Red Bull” was always a regular playhouse from its opening in 1600 until all the theatres were closed by Act of Parliament.

A “Boar’s Head” tavern existed in Aldgate Without, where plays were represented. The following notice is copied from the Harleian MSS., No. 285: “At St. James’s the V day of September, 1557, A letter to the Lord Mayor of London to give order forthwith that some of his officers do forthwith repair to the Boreshed Without Aldgate, where the Lords are informed a lewd play called ‘A sack full of News’ shall be played this day, the Players whereof he is willed to apprehend and comit to safe warde, until he shall hear further from hence and to take their playbooks from them and to send the same hither. At Westr. the VI day of September, 1557.” Neither this inn nor the one of the same name in Eastcheap is mentioned by Rawlidge. The number of taverns in the City of London at this period must be reckoned by hundreds, most of them having inn-yards adjoining the premises, thus affording a convenient acting place for the players. That so many inns abounded in London may account for the meagre notice taken of them, scenes of everyday occurrence being less likely to be chronicled than events which rarely happen.

CHAPTER III
THE THEATRES

Unfortunately for lovers of Shakespearean drama no vestige of any early Elizabethan theatre exists; in some instances even the very sites are forgotten; in others, the plots of ground on which each theatre stood are disputed. When the Shakespeare Reading Society placed a tablet on the site of the first Globe Theatre, the handsome bronze plaque was erected on the south side of Park Street, which has lately been proved to be a palpable error, the real site of this historic building being situated on the north side. The localities where stood the early English theatres have changed so out of all recognition during the last two centuries that only an antiquarian who has access to old deeds can with any degree of certainty fix the limits of old houses and public buildings. Nothing remains to-day but the bare names of the streets, indicating in a few cases the places of entertainment in Elizabethan times. During Shakespeare’s lifetime there existed in London eleven regular theatres, a brief account of each of these will be chronicled in the following pages:

THE THEATRE

The first public theatre in London was situated in the parish of Shoreditch and quite appropriately named “The Theatre.” When visiting to-day this depressing neighbourhood, similar districts being dotted over all the London area, an observer immediately concludes that the governing authorities of the London districts must be a most corrupt body; how else can one account for the state of the filthy slums and the appalling ignorance of the inhabitants? Which, after all, is not so surprising when only the gorgeous gin-palace is allowed to flourish. As for demolishing a slum alley, perish the thought! It would offend the aristocratic and titled owner, whose property must be protected at all costs. If I were on a Board Council, not only would I confiscate the property and quickly sweep it off the face of the earth, but would heavily fine and imprison the owners as being pests to society. Shoreditch, God help us! is an awful place. The thought that Shakespeare’s plays were first produced in this neighbourhood seems to cast a stigma on his name, and that the present state of affairs should exist after three hundred years of social progress! Something is rotten in the parish of Shoreditch. How could any modern institution or artistic building flourish in such a fetid and vicious locality, where the London County Council only permits the public-house to flaunt its vile face before the public gaze. A new terror is now added to the grand historic city of London and its outer boundaries by the glaring posters of the Cinema theatre depicting every sort of horrid crime so that a stranger must conclude that Englishmen are for the most part thieves and vicious characters, caring for little else but scenes of a most depraved nature.

Until quite recently the site of the theatre was identified with a plot of ground formerly occupied by Deane’s Mews, situated in the neighbourhood of the present King John’s Court. This site had never been questioned until the appearance of the London County Council pamphlet giving the details where the structure was erected. Halliwell-Phillipps first described the site as being on the Deane’s Mews property in his Illustrations to Shakespeare. The pamphlet mentioned above is the work of Mr. W. W. Braines, whose untiring efforts and keen critical research have succeeded in revealing the exact spot on which the first theatre was erected. For years past I had searched in vain for Deane’s Mews but without success; in fact, this place was becoming to be regarded as a myth, no one having heard of such a name. A friend of mine, Mr. Charles Edwards, a fellow member of the Stock Exchange, had presented me with a handsome folio volume, giving details of all improvements in the Metropolitan area within the last fifty years. This compilation has been enriched with a wealth of plans, exact measurements and the necessary explanatory notes reflecting the greatest credit on the accomplished editor, Mr. Percy Edwards, a brother of my friend. On referring to this book I found Deane’s Mews plainly marked, which stood about 200 ft. south of the true site. The Mews was swept away in the construction of Gt. Eastern St. in 1873–76, and its site is now covered by the latter thoroughfare.

On leaving the City at the junction between Wormwood Street and Camomile Street, where formerly stood the gate entrance to the City, called Bishopsgate, we will proceed down Bishopsgate towards Norton Folgate, thence passing into High Street, Shoreditch. From the High Street we soon reach New Inn Yard, turning up this lane, at a distance of 120 yards we arrive near the site of The Theatre, which was situated about fifty feet north of this street and within a few feet of the east side of the Curtain Road. In earlier times this district formed part of the celebrated Holywell Priory. A detailed account of this ancient abbey would be a welcome addition to the ecclesiastical and topographical history of London. I hope this little volume from which the above details are taken will be consulted by all Londoners, a perusal of which might instil into their minds a greater interest in the past history of their wonderful city. Actual experience teaches me that few people take any intelligent interest in the subject or any other which does not in some particular manner add to their commercial prosperity. Naturally, where so many neglect the pleasures of the mind, the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the people pass unnoticed, otherwise any person totally unacquainted with the history of the City of London would be looked upon as a common lout, fitting only to herd with the base-minded.

I know from actual experience that few people take any intelligent interest in this great and all-absorbing subject. I have, alas, met several so-called educated men and women who have freely acknowledged that they are quite indifferent concerning the history of the past, although no subject of any importance can be thoroughly discussed without allusion to previous events. This attitude almost of revulsion exhibited by so many people for past history must have some deeply based reason for its existence. Many would explain this contempt for the past by the greater attraction of the wonderful world of science and mechanical transport. In my opinion, the real cause of this feeling is that the greater part of the population set up their idols to the worship of sport, which the public schools and universities ever delight to honour, and which, in my mind, is a public scandal which should be inquired into, and the authorities that encourage such wild orgies, severely reprimanded. The fascinating study of literature and art fill no void in the daily routine of their lives, a state of affairs greatly to be regretted; the welfare of the future generation rests with the teachers of the elementary schools, who should endeavour to foster in the young a genuine love for literature and all the arts that tend in elevating the mind. My enquiry why so few take any interest in these refining studies is generally met with the foolish and ill-bred answer that no immediate benefit is derived from these studies, as if the delights of the mind can be gauged by material benefits.

One more parting shaft. A governing corporation that sanctioned the demolition of Crosby Hall ought themselves to be demolished, or at least hounded out of the City by the citizens that placed them in power.

Although this theatre was situated outside the City boundary, the distance from the Metropolis was so short that Londoners were able to reach their destination without undue discomfort and fatigue. Notwithstanding that The Theatre was surrounded by fields, this obstacle proved to be of a negligible quantity. The novelty of the building and the vigorous dramatic force of the plays appealed to a populace ever seeking for amusement, and made this playhouse a success from its inauguration until its final destruction nearly a quarter of a century later. Londoners of to-day would consider any place surrounded by fields a pretty fair distance from the Metropolis, but towards the end of the sixteenth century the country could be reached in about a quarter of an hour by sharp walking from any point in the City, which at that date constituted London proper. The reason that Burbage, the proprietor, sought a locality for his projected theatre outside the centre of the business life of the City was primarily on account of the intense puritanical hatred against all theatrical entertainments, the mark of the beast being shown by the Lord Mayor and Corporation, who threatened with ejectment all the players from the City. The crisis came in 1576, when an order was promulgated by which all places of amusement were to be closed. This order principally affected all inn-yards where plays were held, also bear and bull baiting establishments. Driven almost to desperation, the players resolved on quitting the City before the order was set in motion. James Burbage, one of the leading actors in the Earl of Leicester’s Company, was by trade a joiner, and quite appropriately the builder of the first organized theatre not only in England but in modern Europe. This momentous decision proved of untold benefit in the course of the development of the drama, besides protecting his company from molestation and persecution. This almost inspired act prepared the way for the mighty genius who holds the world in awe, who was thus able to profit by this vast improvement and decisive innovation in the dramatic world. By taking this bold step the object of the City Fathers was completely frustrated, and their deep-laid schemes, in which the poor player was to be totally annihilated, recoiled on their own heads. The new venture was an instant success, instilling into the drama fresh blood and a long lease of life, daily growing more popular and prosperous and drawing within the charmed circle every class of citizen, with the exception of the puritan brigade.

The site chosen by Burbage for his first theatre was within the precincts of the ancient Priory of Holywell, a celebrated landmark in early Tudor times. The Priory was an ancient foundation originally built in the second decade of the twelfth century. The ground on which it stood was bequeathed by a Canon of St. Paul’s to a religious body of women known as the Benedictine Nuns. The building remained in their possession until the total suppression of all monastic orders in this country by the Mandate of Henry the Eighth. The Dissolution began about the year 1538, but the total extinction of the Abbey, including the Chantries, Chapels, and Churches, was not finally accomplished until ten years later. The last notice of the Priory as a living centre can be traced to the year 1539, when Sybilla Newdigate, the prioress, delivered up her house to the King. The suppression of the Monasteries was one of those drastic acts by which means the King defied the spiritual and temporal power of Rome, and proclaimed to the English people that he alone was supreme head of the Church in England.

The origin of the name Holywell is traceable to a well which existed in the parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, early in the twelfth century. The exact site of this well is unknown, but somewhere in close proximity to the new theatre. One authority states explicitly that it is discoverable, but now concealed from view in the present Bateman’s Row. An interesting relic of the ancient Priory can still be seen in the shape of an old stone wall about 50 ft. long, in a timber yard in High Street, Shoreditch. I must candidly admit that I have not seen this relic, but its existence is vouched by excellent authority. Immediately succeeding the Dissolution, the Priory was demolished and let out on building leases to various tenants. Stow, the London historian, writes: “Thence up to the late dissolved Priory, called Holywell, a house of Nuns. The Priory was valued at the Suppression to having lands £293 by year and was surrendered in 1539. The Church thereof being pulled down, many houses have been builded for the lodging of noblemen, of strangers and of others.” When the old Abbey was portioned into estates, one important lot fell into the hands of Henry Webb, who eventually disposed of it to Christopher Bumsted, who disposed of the same property to Giles Allen, from whom James Burbage took over a lease in 1576. All the minute particulars respecting the site of The Theatre are mostly due to a protracted lawsuit between Giles and Burbage, the records of which have been fortunately preserved, and were made public by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. The lease granted by Giles to Burbage contained a curious clause to the effect that Burbage was willing to accept a lease for twenty-one years provided that, at the termination of that period, the said Burbage, having expended the sum of not less than two hundred pounds on the building in the course of ten years, should have the option of taking down and removing the same to any locality he might select. A further clause also provided for an extension of the lease after the expiration of 21 years. For the present we will pass over the first 21 years and come to the critical year in the affairs of this playhouse. When the first lease was on point of expiry, James Burbage commenced negotiations for an extension of time, but unfortunately, while these particulars were being discussed, the original lessee, James Burbage died. By his will the interest of his Shoreditch property devolved upon his two sons, Richard and Cuthbert, the former being the famous actor; of the latter little is known, he may have been an actor in his brother’s company. The two sons, in an interview with Allen, the owner of the property, now demanded afresh an extension of the lease, Allen would have acceded to their request provided they paid an additional ten pounds a year and further stipulated that after five years from the signing of the new lease they must be prepared to use the property for other purposes than theatrical entertainments.

The new lease was never signed; nevertheless, for a brief period the Burbages remained in possession. No one will deny but that the tenants had a very uncomfortable and insecure tenure of the premises. The lessees must have realized the perilous position of their tenancy, which was liable to foreclosure at any moment. Being faced with this predicament they hit upon a desperate remedy. As stated above, a clause was inserted in the original lease whereby they had the right in pulling down and removing the said building. No sooner had they resolved upon this expedient than the plan was quietly carried into effect, thereby causing the lawsuit with Giles Allen, and incidentally throwing light on the early annals of the theatre. The following paragraph is an extract from Allen’s Bill of Complaints against Cuthbert Burbage, who “unlawfully combining and confederating himself with the said Richard Burbage and one Peter Street, William Smith, and divers other persons to the number of twelve, to your subject unknown, did about the eighth and twentieth day of December, in the one and fortieth year of your Highness’ reign, and since then your Highness’ last and general pardon by the confederacy aforesaid notoriously assemble themselves with divers and many unlawful and offensive weapons as namely, swords, daggers, billes, axes, and such like, and so armed did then repair unto the said Theatre, and then and there armed as aforesaid in very riotous, outrageous and forcible manner, and contrary to the laws of your Highness’ realm, attempted to pull down the said Theatre whereupon divers of your subjects, servants and farmers, then going about in peaceable manner to procure them from that their unlawful enterprise, that the said riotous persons aforesaid, notwithstanding procured then thereon with great violence, not only then and there forcible and riotously resisting your subjects, servants and farmers, and also then and there pulling down, breaking and throwing down the said Theatre in very outrageous and violent and riotous sort to the great disturbance and terrifying, not only of your subjects, said servants and farmers, but of divers others of your Majesty’s loving subjects there near inhabiting and having so done did then also in most forcible and riotous manner take and carry away from thence all the wood and timber thereof unto the Bankside in the parish of St. Overyes and there erected a new playhouse with the said timber and wood!”

All the world knows that the said new playhouse was the famous Globe Theatre, the glory of the Bankside and the scene of Shakespeare’s everlasting creations. Stow, the historian of London, in the first edition of the Survey of the City of London, mentions The Theatre by name in the following paragraph: “The church thereof being pulled downe, many houses have been builded for the lodging of noblemen of strangers borne and other. And neare thereunto are builded two publique houses for the acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies and Histories for recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, the other the Theatre, both standing on the Southwest side towards the field.” The last few lines from “Whereof to field” were omitted in the second edition in 1603. The learned editor of the latest and best edition of this famous book, Charles Kingsford, M.A., by a slip of the pen, in a note to this passage, refers to the Curtain as having been demolished in 1600; of course, it should be the Theatre, and the date should be 1598. The field mentioned by Stow formed part of the well-known Finsbury Fields, the playground of Elizabethan Londoners; these fields abutted on Moorfields, which formed the boundary of North-East London. Many citizens took advantage of these open fields and used them as a short cut to the playhouse, generally going thither on horseback. This manner of approaching the playhouse may account for the tradition that Shakespeare on his first arrival in London held horses outside the building.

Sometime in 1576 the players were safely installed in the new building, notwithstanding the removal from the precincts of the City, persecution soon dogged their footsteps, inaugurated by a bitter attack from the puritan section of the community. The onslaught came from a clergyman in a book entitled A Treatise against Dicing, Dancing and Interludes with other idle pastimes, published in 1577. The author of this venomous tirade rebuking all kinds of amusement was John Northbroke, a preacher and procurator for the Bristol Clergy in the Synod of London. The tract is in the form of a dialogue between Youth and Age.

“Youth. Do you speak against these places also which are made up and builded for such plays and interludes as The Theatre and Curtain are and other such like places tendes.”

“Age. Yea, truly for I am persuaded that Satan hath not a more speedy way and fitter school to work and teach his desire to bring men and women into his snare than these places and plays and theatres are, and therefore necessary that these places and plays should be forbidden and dissolved and put down by authority.”

One of the earliest references to the recently built theatres was made by Thomas Wilcox, a notorious divine, on December 9th, 1576, whose life will be found in the Dictionary of National Biography. He referred to the Theatre and the Curtain as “those sumptuous theatre houses.”

The earliest references to The Theatre, by name, is mentioned in an order of the Privy Council, dated 1st August, 1577, “for the avoiding of the sickness likely to happen through the heat of the weather and assemblies of the people of London to plays,” measures should be taken that “such as are and do use to play without the Liberties of the City ... as the theater and such like, shall forbear any more to play until Mighelmas be past.”

After an interval of one year from the Rev. Northbroke’s outburst another preacher mounted the pulpit, delivering a vigorous sermon in denunciation of “The Theatre.” This divine was a schoolmaster named Stockton, headmaster of Tonbridge School, where he held indisputable sway, widely known as a severe disciplinarian, and a writer of many devotional works. The following is an extract from a sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross: “Have we not houses of purpose built with great charges for the maintenance of them, and that without the Liberties, as who shall say ‘There let them say what they will we will play.’ I know not how I might with the godly learned especially more discommend the gorgeous playing places erected in the fields than term it as they please to have it called a Theatre. Will not a filthy play with a blast of a trumpet sooner call thither a thousand than an hour’s tolling of the bell bring to a sermon a hundred? Nay, even here in the City, without it be at this place and some other ordinary audience where you shall find a rehearsal of company, whereas if you visit to the Theatre the Curtain and other places of players in the City you shall on the Lord’s Day have their places with many other that I cannot reckon so full as possible they can throng.”

In most ages, even the present one, the clergy have persistently set their faces against play acting without sufficiently analysing the reasons for their embittered attacks, therefore their testimony must be accepted as prejudiced partisans, which neither voice the view of the populace nor of the cultured classes. Contemporary records afford ample proof that the stage was frequented by all sorts and conditions of people, the rowdy section seeming to predominate, only the puritanical section, chiefly composed of the middle classes, kept aloof. The popularity of the drama, acclaimed by the upper classes, saved it from complete annihilation, otherwise the authorities would have banished every player beyond the City walls. The sole cause of hatred against the players can only be accounted for by the strong puritanical feeling existing in the breasts of the City Fathers, which expressed itself in denouncing with unseemly rage and bitterness any kind of entertainment in which the citizens evinced the slightest pleasure. Any pretext, however flimsy, was seized upon with avidity, thereby exhibiting their petty spite against the players. When the plague raged the theatres were closed. If any act of disturbance occurred the theatres were closed. On Saints’ days, Holydays and Festivals the theatres were closed. Orders were frequently issued permitting stage plays only on certain days in the week. Every device was instituted in their endeavour to persecute the poor player, but, in spite of all these tyrannical enactments, the drama continued to flourish exceedingly, attracting hundreds of people who found employment in connexion with the stage.

Another early reference to the Theatre is found in a volume of a contemporary author. John Florio, an Italian refugee, who instructed the English aristocracy in the niceties of the Italian language, in a book entitled Dialogues and Proverbs First Frutes, published in 1578, is the following passage: “We will go into the Fields. Let us go to the Theatre to see a comedie. What pastimes are they in England on holidays? Of all sortes of pastyme, as Comedies, Tragedies, leaping, dancing, playes of defence, Baiting of Beasts, etc.” The above paragraph is in the form of a dialogue. This reference is rarely met with, I believe Mrs. Carmichael Stopes was the first to point it out. “In the year 1580, Burbage was summoned before the Middlesex Court on a charge of bringing together unlawful assemblies of people to hear and see certain colloquies or interludes called plays, exercised by James Burbage and divers other persons unknown, at a certain place called The Theatre, in Halliwell, in the aforesaid county. By reason of which unlawful assembly of the people great affrays, assaults and tumults and quasi-insurrections and divers other misdeeds and enormities have been then and there done and perpetrated by very many ill-disposed persons to the great disturbance of the peace.” This statement is a gross exaggeration, but its very overstatement suffices in explaining the attitude the authorities assumed in the extreme measures adopted by them in suppressing play-acting. How unfair and unjust appear the means by which a body of English magistrates endeavoured to abolish theatrical institutions. No statement was too false, no lie uttered was deemed sinful; the airiest motive was seized upon with eagerness if by such means any discredit was cast upon the acting fraternity. For years they were harassed, tormented and bandied about from place to place, and this persecution lasted even whilst the greatest dramatic literature of all time was daily being represented before an ever increasing and admiring public.

For this drastic treatment we may seek some condonement and extenuating circumstances in the religious belief of the country, the people being chiefly guided by the clergy, who instilled in them the belief that all things connected with the stage were injurious and harmful to the community. Imbued with these ideas the clergy considered themselves justified by using every means in their power in overthrowing and abolishing the stage out of the kingdom. Many of these reverend fanatics were admitted on the Council of Administration, who continually persisted in their endeavours to oust the players, at any rate, out of the City; in furtherance of their plans they preached the sinfulness of the drama in order to drive away the people from the playhouses. Their pleadings were partially successful; by continual exhortations they succeeded in poisoning the minds of the middle classes, who accordingly absented themselves from all places of amusement. The chief patrons of the drama were drawn from the upper and lower classes much in the same way as the Turf to-day exercises on the same classes, the middle class in this instance displaying great good sense and morality by staying away from such an unhealthy and discreditable amusement.

Although the Corporation were powerful enough in forcing the players from places under their control, they were powerless in suppressing play-acting during the entire reigns of Elizabeth and James. The year 1584 was memorable on account of a disturbance which occurred outside the Theatre, thereby causing the assembly of a great crowd. Quickly seizing this event as an excuse, the authorities petitioned that this building and the Curtain should be pulled down. The Court considered the punishment too drastic; nevertheless, the Corporation persisted, eventually obtaining letters ordering the demolition of both theatres: “Upon Sunday my Lord sent 2 Aldermen to the Court for the suppressing and pulling down of the Theatre and Curtain for all the Lords agreed thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlain and Mr. Viech, but we obtained a letter to suppress them all. Upon the same night I sent for the Queen’s players and my Lord Arundel his players, and they all well nigh obeyed the Lords’ letters. The chiefest of her Highness’ players advised me to send for the owner of the Theatre, who was a stubborn fellow, and to bind him. I did so. He sent me word that he was my Lord Hunsdon’s man, and that he would not come to me, but he would in the morning ride to my Lord. Then I sent the under Sheriff for him, and he brought him to me, and at his coming he shouted me out very Justice, and in the end I showed him my Lord his master’s hand, and then he was more quiet, but to die for it he would not be bound. And then I, minding to send him to prison, he made suit that he might be bound to appear at the Oyer and determined the which is to-morrow, where he said he was sure the Court would not bind him, being a counselor’s man, and so I have granted his request, where he shall be sure to be bound or else is like to do worse.”

Again, for fear of riots, official notices were distributed that the Theatre be closed. “There shall be no plays at the Theatre or other usual place where the same are commonly used.” These orders were frequently circulated; whether they were put into execution is doubtful. Considering the restrictions that hemmed around the poor player, Shakespeare’s lament that through ill-fortune he became a player need cause no surprise, considering the persecution that was directed against the theatrical profession.

A passage in Dante’s “Inferno” might, with slight alterations, exactly fit the actions of our own civic authorities during the reign of Elizabeth. “As in the Venetian Arsenal, the pitch boils in the winter time wherewith to caulk their rotten ships. But, looking down into the chasm, I could see nothing except the bubbles that its boiling raised. And as I looked at it fixedly and wondered, my guide drew me back hastily, saying, ‘Look! look!’ And when I turned I saw behind us a black devil come running along the rocks. Oh, how wild his face, oh, how bitter his action, as he came with his wings wide, light upon his feet, on his shoulder he bore a sinner grasped by both haunches, and when he came to the bridge foot he cried down the pit: ‘Here’s an Alderman from the City of London; put him under that I may fetch more for the land is full of such.’”

Before the total destruction of The Theatre there is a reference to the “unfrequented Theatre” in Skialetheia, a series of satires entered in the Stationers’ Register on the 15th September, 1598.

The literature of the day barely mentions the name of The Theatre, yet this building had flourished for over a period of twenty years. Stow mentions the Theatre once, only to be withdrawn from his second edition, possibly the sour old Puritan, condemned in his heart all play acting, and fervently desired the expulsion of all actors, plays, and their authors from the domain of the City. The antiquary, Stow, may well represent a type of the better class citizen utterly unsympathetic with the new drama, and entirely adverse to all kinds of amusement. This prejudiced feeling may account for the complete silence in any of his works of theatrical life, which during his time was daily growing into importance and significance. We have explained the silence of the old topographer, but how can we interpret the passing over of this side of London life by all literary coteries. The Metropolis swarmed with writers of books and pamphlets dealing with contemporary events, most of the authors were connected with the theatrical world, yet you may search in vain thousands of books in the expectation of finding any critical or explanatory notices of the stage. The conspiracy of silence is so well maintained that we are left almost unacquainted with theatrical conditions which governed the Elizabethan stage, whilst of the Greek stage which flourished over two thousand years previously we have minute particulars in all its branches. Why such a great novelty, as an enclosed theatre should not have been freely discussed, written about, and above all, criticised, remains one of the mysteries of the age? Fortunately, a few foreigners from among the throng who visited these shores jotted down their experiences of London, including therein the amusements of the town, not forgetting to describe briefly a list of theatres.

No drawing, print, or any kind of illustration depicting the first theatre erected in London has been handed down to us. Under these circumstances conjectural reconstruction of its walls is quite permissible, although extreme caution is necessary when guided by imaginary probabilities. The information we possess regarding the later theatres may in some measure help us in forming a fairly accurate account of the early theatres. A period of over twenty years had elapsed between the building of The Theatre and that of the Fortune; concerning the latter, interesting details are forthcoming. Between these dates the type may have altered and improvements been introduced, which is only natural considering the long interval. We obtain our first glimpse of the early theatre buildings from quite a most unexpected quarter.

Samuel Kiechel, a foreigner, visited England in 1585. On his arrival in London he patronised several places of amusement, recording in his Diary the impressions and facts of his journey. The following extract is taken from his published journal; the notice about the stage only concerns us. “There are some peculiar houses in which are so constructed that they have about three galleries one above the other. It may indeed happen that the players take from £10 to £12 at a time, particularly if they act anything new, when people have to pay double. And that they perform nearly every day in the week, notwithstanding that plays are forbidden on Friday and Saturday; this prohibition is not observed.”

Contemporary literature informs us that the exterior of The Theatre was round, either hexagonal or octagonal, differing little from the illustrations as shown in maps of the period. Nash, in the Unfortunate Traveller, writes: “I saw a banquetting house belonging to a merchant that was the marvel of the world. It was built round, of green marble like a Theatre without.”

As will be seen above, only scraps of evidence are available in piecing together the reconstruction of The Theatre; as regards the interior absolutely nothing definitely is known beyond the important statement that three galleries surrounded the building. The first theatre was not solely devoted to dramatic entertainments, as records exist of fencing matches and other exhibitions of skill taking place there. Stow, the historian, notes that “activities were produced within its walls.” The word “activities” denotes tumbling, rope dancing, vaulting and other acrobatic feats. Halliwell-Phillipps publishes a letter dated July 1st, 1582, from the Earl of Warwick to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, requesting them to allow his servant, John David, to play at “The Bull” in Bishopsgate Street, or in some other convenient place. On the 23rd of the same month the Earl again wrote to the Lord Mayor complaining of the treatment and disgrace put upon his servant in not being allowed to play for prizes after the publication of his bills. The following day the Earl received a reply from the Lord Mayor saying he had not refused permission for his servant to play for prizes, but had granted him a licence, only restraining him from playing in an inn for fear of the infection, and had appointed him to play in an open space at the Leaden Hall. Not having availed himself of the permission for fourteen days, and the infection increasing, it became necessary to prohibit the assembly of the people to his play within the City, but permission had been granted him to perform in the open fields. “I have herein yet further done for your servant what I may, that is that if he may obtain lawfully to play at The Theatre or other open place out of the City, he hath and shall have my permission with his company, drums and show, to pass only through the City, being not upon the Sunday, which is as much as I may justify in this season, and for that cause I have with his own consent appointed him Monday next.”

Another reference occurs in the following year, in which the Lord Mayor writes to the Justice of the Peace, praying for the assistance of the Corporation in preventing a breach of the peace by refusing the people permission to congregate about “The Theatre.” Gosson, in both his prose works, The School of Abuse and Plays Confuted in two Actions, mentions two plays usually produced at the Theatre, namely, “The Blacksmith’s Daughter” and “Cataline’s Conspiracy”; the former is mentioned in Plays Confuted and the latter in The School of Abuse, 1579.

The most interesting notice in connexion with plays acted at The Theatre will be found in a paragraph from Thomas Lodge’s book entitled Wit’s Miserie or the World’s Madness, 1596, in which a reference is made to the old play of “Hamlet,” whose authorship is generally assigned to Thomas Kyd, the writer of the famous “Spanish Tragedy,” the most popular drama of the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare himself refers to this play more than once. Although the old “Hamlet” is lost there are excellent grounds for presuming that this play is the main source of Shakespeare’s supreme masterpiece of “Hamlet,” the greatest achievement in the dramatic literature of the world. The paragraph in reference to the Theatre reads as follows: “He looks as pale as the vizard of the ghost which cries so miserably at the Theatre like an oysterwife Hamlet revenge.” The Theatre is again referred to by Middleton in the Black Book, 1604: “He had a head of hair like one of the devils in Dr. Faustes when the old Theatre cracked and frightened the audience.”

A foreign prince visited these shores in 1596, and wrote a poem in commemoration of the event, dated the same year as his visit. He writes that London possesses four theatres, which are utilized not only for dramatic purposes but for baiting of bulls, besides cock fighting. Another early reference to The Theatre occurs in a rare pamphlet called “Tarlton’s Newes out of Purgatory,” published without date, but definitely known to be printed either in 1590 or earlier. The passage is as follows: “And forsooth upon Whitsun Monday last I would needs to the Theatre to a play when I came I found such a concourse of unrulye people that I thought it better solitary to walk in the fields. Feeding my humour with this fancy, I stept by Dame Anne of Cleares well where after I had rested awhile I fell asleep.” Nash, the dramatist, mentions Tarlton as playing at the Theatre in a pamphlet named “Pierce Penilesse,” 1592. Stow, in his survey of London, mentions this well; the origin of the name is founded on a sordid story of old London. A rich London widow, named Annis Cleare, who, matching herself with a riotous courtier in the time of Edward II, who vainly consumed all her wealth and leaving her in much poverty, there she drowned herself, being then but a shallow ditch or running water. Mr. Kingsford, in his learned edition of the Survey, notes “that this well was near Paul’s St., Finsbury, in the neighbourhood of which there still is a St. Agnes Terrace. The name of St. Agness Clare Fields continued till a hundred years ago.” I wandered all over this district in the hope of finding St. Agnes Terrace, but my search was fruitless. On my return I consulted the London County Council’s directory of the Streets of London, and after looking through that ponderous volume for over one hour, I found that the terrace was formerly a part of what is now Tabernacle Street, the old name being abolished in 1884.

During the early years of the theatres the stage was merely a platform, which could be easily removed when necessary; as before mentioned, the theatres were used for other than dramatic performances. The stage platform jutted out far into the yard, the technical name for the space allotted to the audience. The spectators who occupied this part of the building were called the groundlings. The yard surrounded the platform on three sides, the stage buildings occupying the fourth, the audience reaching up as far as the barrier, which divided the stage from the auditorium. The roof was open to the sky, the actors protecting themselves from the elements by erecting a kind of lean-to or pent-house, sloping down from the tiring house; this contrivance was technically called the “Heavens” or “shadow,” either thatched or tiled. At the rear of the stage was the tiring-house, sometimes used as an inner-stage, when not required by the actors, and was concealed by a curtain. Above the inner stage stood a balcony, flanked on both sides by rooms for noblemen or gentry. These special places were known as the Lords’ rooms. Over the second story rose a turret, from which commanding view a flag fluttered announcing the immediate performance of a play. Only two doors of entry were considered necessary, one in front of the house admitting the audience to the yard and galleries, and a second situated at the back of the building, used by the actors and better class of spectators who occupied the expensive seats. The reason for the limited number of doors can be explained by the terms of agreement between the lessee and the actors. Burbage did not lease his theatre to a company of actors, but shared the risk of the undertaking with them, receiving for his share the money taken for the galleries, the players dividing among themselves the rest of the proceeds. This arrangement, in course of time, was subject to alterations. The same system, with slight variations, was adopted in all theatres during the Shakespearean era.

The chief action of the play took place on the outer stage, no curtain of any description concealing this part of the stage either before or after or during the performance, the only curtain or tapestry in lieu of a curtain noticeable was that dividing the inner from the outer stage, and even beyond Shakespeare’s time this ever open stage existed. When the Theatre was first erected in 1576 there may have been no inner stage, and the entire change of properties may have been placed in sight of the audience. The Theatre was built entirely of wood, and only good fortune must have saved the building from being destroyed by fire. The Theatre, no doubt, stood in its own grounds, and this isolated position accounts for its withstanding the accidents which all wooden buildings are more or less subject. All performances in a public theatre were enacted during the day time, in the afternoon between the hours of two and five or three and six. The theatre, not being lighted, necessarily enforced the closing of the play before dusk. The acting of a play lasted between two to three hours; a Shakespearean drama would take nearer three than two hours to perform, sometimes even longer, even in those days the blue pencil was liberally used, many passages being cut, not on account of dramatic propriety but merely to shorten the performance. On entering an Elizabethan theatre the first object that met the eye of the spectator was a placard announcing the name of the play for the afternoon. Although theatre posters were put up in different parts of the City and on the theatre walls, informing the public of the date of a given play, unforeseen circumstances sometimes prevented the advertised play being performed. Unfortunately none of these bills has survived. How interesting would be the perusal of the play bill announcing the first performance of “Hamlet.” That these placards were affixed to posts is corroborated by the following anecdote related by Taylor, the water-poet, in one of his pamphlets. “A merchant was riding down Fleet Street at a great pace, when he was stopped by an actor, who questioned him as to the name of the play being acted. The merchant was indignant at being thus waylaid, and asked the man why he had stopped him; the answer he made was ‘I took you for the post you went so fast.’”

How a play was presented before a public audience when first produced at The Theatre cannot be satisfactorily solved, the subject dealing with all branches of theatrical customs, has never been thoroughly investigated, owing chiefly to want of the necessary literary materials; every writer on the subject may thus air his theories without much fear of contradiction, the critics themselves disagreeing how far scenic decorations had advanced during the Shakespearean era. Though the little we do know on this thorny subject would seem to militate against scenery of any description being employed, I have always held the opinion that the stage was not so bare of scenic effects as most historians of the early stage would have us believe. Stage properties of every size and description were extensively used by all companies of players of any importance. With respect to the stage, the general view maintained is that the outer stage or platform of The Theatre closely resembled the stage of a French theatre during the performance of a play of Molière’s; in that case the Elizabethan stage would be absolutely bare with the exception of a table and a couple of chairs. Experience convinces me that in the course of time this theory will be thoroughly revolutionized, and proof will be forthcoming that scenic effect with certain limitations, flourished during the Shakespearean age.

As previously stated, the title of the play was exhibited on the stage, printed or written in large text letters. Some writers affirm that the title was exposed in full view of the audience from the balcony of the stage. Exact confirmation on these minor details cannot be expected. When the play advertised on the posts differed from the one actually performed, the playgoer was entitled to have his money refunded provided he quitted the theatre.

Three blasts of a trumpet announced the beginning of a play, and a flag was displayed flying from the turret showing that a play was in progress. The spectators in the yard, being unprovided with seats, were left standing during the entire performance.

I remember years ago visiting a theatre in Vienna, where a musical comedy was acted, and where all the occupants of the parterre, or pit, viewed the play standing, as no seats of any kind were provided in this part of the theatre.

How a change of scene was notified, if indeed any change was made, nothing definitely is known. The most likely plan adopted lacking painted scenery, would be by what is technically known as locality boards, something resembling the device employed by the modern music hall artist engaged in character sketches. A board is placed in a prominent position of the stage in full view of the audience with the name of the character assumed by the performer, the board being changed on each separate occasion when a different character is assumed. Apply this method in the changing of the scene in an Elizabethan theatre and then you can better understand Shakespeare’s exhortation in his prologues of “Henry V” when he urges the audience that their imagination must fill up the void caused by want of necessary scenery. To our modern notions the number of scenes in a Shakespearean play is quite bewildering; the very number precludes the idea that the scene was changed at all. The question is such a difficult one, and of such an intricate and technical nature that further discussion at our present state of knowledge would only confuse the reader without providing him with a key for its solution.

The primitive device of locality boards was sarcastically alluded to by Sir Philip Sidney in his “Defence of Poesie”: “What childe is there that coming to a Play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters on an olde doore, doth believe that it is Thebes. You shall have Asia on the one side and Africa on the other and so many other under Kingdoms that the player when he cometh in must even begin with telling where he is or else the tale will not be conceived. Now ye shall have three ladies walk to gather flowers and then we must believe the stage to be a garden. By and by we have news of a shipwreck in the same place, and then we are to blame if we accept it not for a rock. Upon the back of that comes out a hideous monster with fire and smoke, and then the miserable beholders are bound to take it for a cave. While in the meantime two armies fly in represented with four swords and bucklers, and then what hard heart will not receive it for a pitched field.”

In reading the above paragraph the reader must bear in mind that this ironical criticism was penned many years before Shakespeare commenced his dramatic career. During the long interval several improvements may have taken place in stage effects, so that a Shakesperean play may have been produced under more promising conditions than Sidney’s statement would allow.

An interesting chapter could be written explaining the mode of payment existing at these times on entering an inn-yard or theatre when a play was in progress. On the erection of the public theatres our information, although scanty, becomes a trifle more definitive; unfortunately no light is thrown on the methods in vogue at the inn-yards, although we learn that payment was collected on entering a theatre. As we should naturally expect, the system is different in many respects from modern methods. From literary sources we gather that a man, or even a woman, was stationed at the entrance door of a theatre, in his hand he held a box into which everyone who entered dropped a penny; note well that the money was always deposited in the box and not handed over into the keeping of the boxholder, by which act we must regretfully conclude that Elizabethan doorkeepers were in no way more trusted than our ’bus and tram conductors of the present day, more’s the pity! This preliminary payment admitted the playgoer into the yard, where he could remain without further fee; if a more comfortable place was desired, the disbursement of an extra penny provided for him a seat or stool in the topmost gallery. At this stage we learn how the extra money was collected. At each separate entrance of the different parts of the house stood a doorkeeper, technically known as a “gatherer.” This system of payment was adopted on account of the lessee of the theatre sharing in the profits of the house instead of, as in modern times, leasing the building into the hands of a third party, only receiving the rent and taking no share in the proceeds of the house.

In a lawsuit respecting the different shares claimed by each shareholder, Cuthbert Burbage, the son of the original builder of The Theatre, states that his father, James Burbage, borrowed large sums of money at interest with which he built the first playhouse known as The Theatre. The players that lived in these times, 1576–1597, had only the profits arising from the doors, but now the players receive all the comings in at the doors to themselves. By the term “housekeepers” is meant the proprietors, those that are responsible for the rent and money laid out in connexion with the managing of a theatre.

The entrance fee for seats in the lowest tier of the gallery was sixpence, twelvepence was the charge for a seat in the Lords’ room; these boxes were partitioned off from the other seats in the lowermost gallery. Rooms and boxes were also provided on each side of the balcony, which formed part of the stage buildings; these seats were also expensive, but in later years they were abandoned on account of the poor view, and also for the evil repute into which they had fallen. These high-price seats equalled the price of a stall at our present West End theatres. Whether these charges ruled at all Elizabethan theatres during the last decade of the sixteenth century cannot be definitely affirmed, but considering the conservatism maintained in theatrical customs, for generations, no doubt, only slight changes were introduced. Whether seats were allowed on the stage of “The Theatre” is nowhere recorded; most probably this was a much later custom. Even at the Globe Theatre, built twenty years after the erection of the first theatre, a well known historian of the stage positively asserts that seats on the Globe stage for privileged spectators were practically unknown.

A list of plays acted at the Theatre would have been a valuable and interesting document, but unfortunately no such account exists, in place thereof we must be thankful for the known fragmentary records. Gosson, in his School of Abuse, 1579, mentions the Blacke Smith’s Daughter and Catalins Conspiracies “usually brought into the Theatre”; he likewise refers to “the history of Cæsar & Pompey and the Playe of the Fabic, at the Theatre.” The old “Hamlet” and Marlowe’s “Dr. Fauste” were also produced there.

The last order issued against The Theatre appeared in 1597 from the office of the Privy Council to certain of the Middlesex Justices to the effect that “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stage, and by resort and confluence of bad people, hath given direction that these playhouses that are erected and built only for such purposes, shall be plucked down, namely, The Curtain and The Theatre near to Shoreditch. They were accordingly commanded to send for the owners of the Curtain theatre or any other common playhouse and enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the stages, galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in, and to deface the same as they may not be employed again to such use.” This order was never enforced, but henceforth the Theatre as a playhouse was doomed, and after that year the actors quitted it for ever.

Many of the above details connected with the early theatres are derived from innumerable lawsuits caused by disputes among people engaged at the different theatres; these old cases have been unearthed and printed in extenso. Another source of information is obtained from the continual bickering, backbiting and petty annoyance emanating chiefly from the City authorities. These purse-proud, pompous and puritanical individuals endeavoured by any means and at all costs in suppressing theatres, players and playwrights with their followers. Through these jealousies, acrimonious actions, on both sides ensued, quite out of harmony with the innocent recreations of play-acting. Actions at law followed these unseemly outbursts, thanks to which we are indebted for many details concerning the early theatres. From the beginning of the history of the stage, the reader will observe that the players were always prohibited from erecting a theatre within the City boundaries. The favour of the Court saved the actors from being excluded altogether from the City; proof of this last statement will be found in the many instances of the actors setting up their stages in the yards of the City taverns and inns all through the reign of Elizabeth.

THE CURTAIN THEATRE

Within the same year of the building of the first playhouse in London, another appeared upon the scene. The plot of ground on which this second building stood was called the Curtene, and the theatre adopted this name, and not, as generally supposed, receiving its nomenclature from any theatrical accessory. Whether this establishment claimed rivalship with Burbage’s theatre, or was another speculative venture of this energetic and far-seeing man remains unknown, as few records exist in connexion with this second enterprise. Anyone in search of the actual site of the Curtain theatre must walk up Holywell Lane until the Curtain Road is reached, then turning on the left, proceed about one hundred paces along this road until we arrive at Hewitt Street, formerly known as Gloucester Street, and earlier still as Gloucester Row. In George II’s reign this alley bore the name of Curtain Court, and is thus named in Chassereau’s map of Shoreditch. On this very spot stood the Curtain theatre. Even so accurate a scholar as Professor Lawrence locates the theatre as being in Gloucester Street, whereas this street has for several years been known as Hewitt Street.

London topography is at times very misleading, and requires the proverbial patience of the time honoured prophet in unravelling many of its mysteries. Not a single inhabitant of Shoreditch could direct you to the site of the theatre and would stare in bewilderment if you enquired for Gloucester Street, even so slight an error can cause vexation and loss of time, which is my reason for pointing out this mistake. The form of the stage buildings, the auditorium, entrances and exits were in all probability similar in construction with that in vogue at the Theatre. No two theatres would exactly resemble one another in every petty detail, but how they differed we have no means of ascertaining, although this theatre was in existence for over three quarters of a century.

Amidst all the rubbish that was printed during this period, barely a reference is made concerning this place of amusement, which loomed so largely in the life of the citizens of London.

When the clergy denounced the playhouses, they invariably coupled the two theatres then in existence, The Theatre and The Curtain. In the memorials of the Council the two houses are likewise associated. An instance in which the Curtain alone is mentioned is of a most interesting nature. The production of “Romeo and Juliet” at the Curtain theatre brought forth the following verse, which appeared in John Marston’s book, entitled “The Scourge of Villanie”, 1598.

“Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? faith now I know

I set thy lips abroach from whence doth flow

Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.

Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio,

Now I have him nere of ought did speak,

But when of Plays or Players he did treat

Hath made a common place book out of plays,

And speaks in print at least what ere he says

Is warranted by Curtaine plaudites.

If ere you heard him courting Lesbia’s eyes

Say, courteous Sir, speaks he not movingly

From out some new pathetic Tragedy.

He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts what not

And all from out his huge long scraped stock of well-penned plays.”

THE

HECTOR

OF

GERMANIE,

OR

THE PALSGRAVE;

PRIME ELECTOR.

A New Play, an Honourable Hystorie.

As it hath beene publikely Acted at the Red Bull, and at the Curtaine, by a Companie of Young men of this Citie.

Made by W. SMITH, with new Additions.

Historia vita Temporis.

LONDON,

Printed by Thomas Creede, for Iosias Harrison, and
are to be solde in Pater-Noster Row, at the
Signe of the Golden Anker. 1615.

(Original Image)

A difficulty arises with the word “Curtain.” Does the word refer to the theatre of that name or is it a casual way of speaking of any theatre whereby attaching the modern theatrical meaning to the word? Expecting a solution ready at hand, I consulted Dr. Murray’s New English Dictionary, but in this case was grievously disappointed. The actual phrase “Curtain Plaudities” was quoted under the definition appertaining to Curtain or curtains without any reference being given to the Curtain Theatre, the quotation should have been omitted, rather than mislead the enquirer. Shakespearean students generally agree that the phrase refers to the theatre of that name, and there can be no question that this is the correct view, strongly supported by the fact that at so early a date the front stage curtain was entirely unknown. The transcriber of the manuscript from which the quarto edition of “Romeo and Juliet” was printed in 1599, inadvertently substitutes the name of Kemp, the actor, for the character he played, namely, Peter. This same Kemp was quite a noted personage in his day. In 1600 he published a book, Kemp’s Nine Daies Wonder Performed in a Dance from London to Norwich. Among other stories, he relates that once when staying at an inn at Burnwood two pickpockets claimed his acquaintance, “the officers bringing them to my inn. I justly denied their acquaintance, saving that I remembered one of them to be a noted cut purse, such a one as we tie to a post on our stage for all people to wonder at, when at a play they are taken pilfering.” In the Middlesex County Records there is a notice concerning the Recognizances for William Hawkins, he being charged with a purse taken at the Curtain.

One can scarcely credit the idea that these wonderful dramas of Shakespeare, so well constructed in the action of the plot, the delicacy and skill necessary in handling and writing the diverse stories of the play, the complex nature of the characters portrayed, the beauty of the rhythm of the verse, combined with the easy flow of dialogue, the possibility, I contend, is almost inconceivable that these plays were produced in the noisy and somewhat uncouth surroundings of an inn-yard. Every link in the chain of evidence only confirms my implicit belief that these masterpieces were first acted in an enclosed building, where the necessary quiet and seclusion could be obtained for the actors in worthily interpreting the mighty thoughts and inspired words of the almost divine author.

Although actual proof is wanting that Shakespeare’s company occupied continually the Theatre and the Curtain during the last decade of the sixteenth century, we may with certainty presume that these playhouses were the scene of Shakespeare’s first dramatic productions. The oft quoted suggestion that these plays first saw the light in an open air yard seems incredible, especially when a properly organized theatre was ready at hand, whose owner was father of the most prominent actor of the day, namely, Richard Burbage, a fellow actor of Shakespeare.

On several occasions the Curtain Theatre was threatened with total extinction. Fortunately the Bulls of excommunication never materialized, the building surviving all the attacks and thunderbolts which were hurled against her doors.

Immediately prior to the dismantling of the Theatre an order was signed by the Privy Council, and issued to the Justices of Middlesex, for the suppression of the theatres and all places of amusement in the following terms: “Her Majesty being informed that there are very great disorders committed in the common playhouses both by lewd matters that are handled on the stages and by resort and confluence of bad people, hath given direction that not only no play shall be used within London or about the City or in any public place during the time of summer, but also the playhouses that are erected and built only for such purpose shall be plucked down, namely, the Curtain and the Theatre near to Shoreditch, or any other within that county. These are, therefore, in Her Majesty’s name to charge and command you, that you take present order there be no more plays used in any public place within three miles of the City until Allhallows-tide next, and likewise that you do send for the owner of the Curtain Theatre and other common playhouses and enjoin them by virtue hereof forthwith to pluck down quite the stages, galleries and rooms that are made for people to stand in and so to deface the same as they may not be employed again to such use, which if they shall not speedily perform you shall advertize as that order may be taken to see the same done according to Her Majesty’s pleasure and commandment.”

The above order was issued in 1597, but was never executed. Three years later another attempt was made enforcing the closing of the Curtain, during the time that the Fortune Theatre was erected. Notwithstanding this order for utterly destroying the building, the good old theatre stood defiant, keeping the flag waving aloft in spite of all puritanical onslaughts for her downfall. The next year yet another mandate was issued ordering the abolition of the Curtain; afterwards no further commands threatening this theatre were circulated, the Curtain continuing its career until an Act of both Houses of Parliament finally closed the doors of all places of amusement.

A few years after the accession of King James, his consort, Anne of Denmark, extended her patronage unto a company of players who performed at the Curtain until 1609, when they acted at another theatre called the Red Bull. A most important point for consideration is whether, on transferring their allegiance to the new theatre, the Curtain was altogether abandoned.

This theatre is again noticed in Heath’s epigrams, 1610, where the Globe, Fortune and Curtain are mentioned as the three leading playhouses. A later notice occurs in the year 1613 in Wither’s Abuses Stript and Whipt.

“Base fellows whom mere time

Hath made sufficient to bring forth a rhyme,

A Curtain Jig, a libel a ballad.”

For many years the Curtain was let out on hire, but was chiefly occupied by dramatic companies. A play called “Hector” was acted at the Curtain by some young men of the City; the author of the play was Wentworth Smith, whose initials are identical with William Shakespeare. This same Wentworth Smith may be the author of several plays signed with the initials W. S. which appear on the title pages of many quarto editions of old plays. Although these plays are sometimes associated with our poet, there is absolutely no evidence in claiming them as his.

Another notice appears in Vox Graculi, or the Jackdaw’s Prognostication for 1623: “About this time new plays will be in more request than old, and if company come current to the Bull and Curtain there will be more money gathered in one afternoon than will be given to Kingsland Spittal in a whole month.” The last recorded notice yet discovered is dated 1627. Possibly the Curtain remained open until the order of Parliament suppressed the theatres in 1642, or when a more stringent act, compelled by force, the closing altogether. Whether the Curtain obeyed the first order in 1642, or waited until the forcible ejectment in 1647, is uncertain. Professor Lawrence states that the Curtain was pulled down in 1630, but no proof of this statement is forthcoming.

NEWINGTON BUTTS

In all books, both old and new, concerning theatrical matters in Elizabethan times, mention is made of a theatre existing in Newington Butts. This district was situated near St. George’s Fields in Southwark. Antiquaries, with imagination all compact, mark the ground where now stands Spurgeon’s Tabernacle as the site of the old theatre. Unfortunately, there is a lack of documentary evidence of any description definitely stating the existence of a regular built theatre in this locality. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence proving that play acting constituted one of the chief amusements of this neighbourhood.

Although not actually possessing any positive evidence of a theatre existing in this neighbourhood, we must accept as a certainty that either an inn-yard, town hall, or public theatre stood in this vicinity, otherwise there is no accounting for a passage in Henslowe’s Diary in which is recorded the event of the Lord Chamberlain’s men and the Lord Admiral’s men acting at Newington.

“In the name of God Amen Beginning at Newington My Lord Admiral’s men and my Lord Chamberlain’s men as followeth.” After this entry the Diary contains a list of plays acted by these companies from June 3rd until June 13th, 1594, then a line is drawn across the page, doubtlessly signifying that the engagement terminated. The next entry, dated June 15th, 1594, continues indefinitely until 1597. From June, 15th, 1594, all notices refer to plays acted at the Rose Theatre. Most writers credit all the performances to the Newington Butts Theatre, a palpable error, arising from insufficient study of the details connected with this period.

The list of plays acted by the two companies is as follows:

Out of these ten performances, six may with certainty be placed, on the credit side of the Lord Chamberlain’s men, the remaining four on those of the Admiral’s. The “Hamlet” was, of course, the old play attributed by all students to Thomas Kyd, the same play on which some years later Shakespeare founded his own “Hamlet.” “The Taming of a Shrew” is likewise an old play, upon which Shakespeare founded his “Taming of the Shrew”; the author of the old play is not known. Shakespeare changed the names of the principal parts, with the exception of Kate or Katherine, developed the characters by adding greater depth of feeling and making them living personalities instead of types of characters as in the earlier play. He likewise contrived that the different plots were more skilfully interwoven, and in every way improved upon the old play. “Andronicus” may be the play attributed to Shakespeare by the editors of the First Folio, or perhaps this drama was an earlier play of Marlowe’s or one of his disciples. Although this “Andronicus” finds a place in the First Folio, most critics agree that Shakespeare was not the author. At the most, he may have revised a few scenes and added touches here and there, but in no other way is he responsible for this revolting and barbarous play, doubtless written by some popular dramatist to please the ears and eyes of the groundlings, who simply revelled in these horrors, without ever being satiated, the appetite growing by what it fed on.

Even in our own day the disgusting and revolting posters exhibited in all our streets entice coppers from the populace; this demand for sensational and bloodthirsty scenes unites the Elizabethan age in matters of beastliness with these that prevail at the present day. In spite of three hundred years’ progress and free education and all the aids to refinement that lie at the door of all Londoners, the mass of the people clearly demonstrate by the class of their amusement how little they have materially benefited by their education, constantly demanding the villainous dreadfulness of low class entertainments instead of encouraging the refined pleasures of a Shakesperean performance.

Even the better educated classes cannot rise much above the red-nosed comedian or the cracked-voiced variety artist or to visit nightly some filthy so-called musical comedy or revue at a West End theatre, with courtesans posing as actresses, and low music-hall performers, introducing before a fashionable audience all sorts of vulgarisms and indecent jokes and styling themselves heaven-born actors and actresses, thus further insulting a noble profession.

Of “Hester and Assuerus” nothing is known beyond the name of the play. A foreign version with the same title is extant, perhaps copied or adapted from Henslowe’s play. Those four plays in 1594 belonged to the repertory of Lord Strange’s company; a few years previously they had been in the possession of another company, from whom they were purchased by Lord Strange’s men. The three remaining plays were the property of the Admiral’s men, namely Marlowe’s celebrated drama of the “Jew of Malta,” acted scores of times to an ever-admiring audience. The play called “Bellendon” has been identified with a play entered in the Stationers’ Register as “The True Tragedy and History of King Rufus the First, with the Life and Death of Belyn Dun, the first thief that ever was hanged in England.” The play is not extant.

“Cutlack” is also a lost play, probably alluded to in Guilpen’s “Skialetheia,” a series of epigrams and satires published in 1598:

“Clodius methinks looks passing big of late,

With Dunstons browes and Allens Cutlacks gate.”

The Diary alluded to so frequently is the famous theatrical account book kept by Philip Henslowe, whose stepdaughter married Edward Alleyn, the greatest actor of his day. On his retirement from the stage he purchased the Manor of Dulwich for £10,000. Henslowe’s connexion with the theatrical world lasted over a quarter of a century; how he drifted into the world of the theatre is a puzzle not easily solved, he being by trade a dyer; possibly his son-in-law may have persuaded him in investing money in theatrical ventures; at all events he controlled several places of amusement, and was on friendly terms with most of the playwrights and actors of his day. When he opened the Rose Theatre he entered in his Diary day by day a list of plays that were produced there. On the first production of a new play at his theatre he wrote the letters “n e” before the title; these may signify “new enterlude” or simply a contraction of the word “new.” Whenever the letters are found, they always indicate that the play was a new one, or an old play fresh-adapted for the requirements of up-to-date audiences. Many other matters were jotted down in this Diary, especially the sums of money lent to needy authors, or money advanced for new plays and other services, likewise money expended on his theatres and bear-baiting house, and a few entries of a private nature. This manuscript volume is chiefly helpful in deciding the date and authorship of several plays.

For benefits received we are apt to regard Philip Henslowe in a more favourable light than the illiterate, greedy and grasping theatre manager and pawnbroking usurer really deserves. Without exception this volume ranks as the most precious record of theatrical history for the Elizabethan period. Everyone interested in the subject must feel deeply grateful to Mr. W. W. Greg, who by his immense learning and untiring industry, has given to students an edition of the Diary beyond all praise. The original manuscript of this volume forms one of the treasures of Dulwich College, and reposes in the library of this excellent institution.

An important reference respecting the Newington Butts Theatre is contained in the following document issued by the Privy Council, circa 1592, granting the Rose Theatre company permission to open their doors, and further stating: “That not long since, upon some consideration, their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside, and enjoined them to play three days a week at Newington Butts, but they understand that the tedium of the way thither and for the fact that for a long time past no plays have been performed there on weekdays, makes the use of that house inconvenient, and also that the restraint is a cause of injury to a number of poor watermen, they therefore order that the Justices shall permit Lord Strange’s men or any other company to perform at the ‘Rose’ as usual.”

The next reference is of a more substantial character, as denoting the existence of some kind of playhouse, in all probability a regular theatre. Howe, in his continuation of Stow’s Annals, 1631, gives a list of the early theatres in London, adding besides one in former times at Newington Butts. In spite of this authentic statement, the Newington Butts Theatre has been declared a myth, and, until further evidence is forthcoming, is likely in thus remaining so. That a place of entertainment for the acting of plays existed in this neighbourhood has been proved beyond doubt.

Considering the number of years plays were acted here, how shall we account for the lack of notices respecting the building in which the plays were acted? Nothing more tantalizing can be recalled in the whole history of the early drama.

When, in the year the Lord Admiral’s men and the Lord Derby’s men played at Newington Butts, both companies had already enjoyed many years of prosperity, and therefore quite unlikely they would give ten consecutive performances at an inn-yard or on a stage erected in an open place. Henslowe, in his Diary, simply remarks: “Beginning at Newington my Lord Chamberlain’s men and my Lord Admiral’s men.” Even this entry does not assist us in determining the nature of the place where the plays were represented. It is to be regretted that Mr. Greg has not elucidated this puzzle for us, no one else but himself is capable of untying this knotty question.

Elizabethans themselves rarely allude to any of their theatres or places where plays were acted, the Newington Butts locality seemingly not deserving a passing notice.

THE ROSE THEATRE

The first authentic account of a theatre erected on the south side of the Thames is that of the Rose, in Southwark. In Norden’s map of London, dated 1593, there stands a round building marked “The Playhouse,” situated south-east of the Bear House, also depicted on the map. As the Rose was the only playhouse existing in the neighbourhood at this date, the logical inference is quite fair that the theatre is no other than the Rose. Even now there is still a Rose Alley in the district, which perpetuates the name of the old theatre.

The Rose Playhouse, from Norden’s Speculum Britanniæ, 1593.

Philip Henslowe, the famous owner of the Diary, was the proprietor and sole manager. Until the appearance of an article in The Times on April 30th, 1914, by Dr. Wallace, the first opening of the Rose was placed in 1592. Professor Wallace states that this theatre was built in 1587, and was mentioned for the first time in the “Sewer Records” in April, 1588, as then new.

Before the article was written, several writers had questioned the late date, but for lack of sufficient evidence the year 1592 was given in all text books as the correct date. This is a most important discovery, giving the citizens of London at this early date a third, or even a fourth, theatre, whereby the leading metropolitan companies could represent their plays at a properly constructed and organized theatre. Henslowe’s first notice of a public performance at the Rose is as follows:

“In the name of God, Amen, 1591, beginning the 19th of February, my Lord Strange’s men as followeth 1591.” Although in the above paragraph the actual name of the theatre is not mentioned, there can be no question that the Rose is intended. An undated warrant from the Privy Council states “that upon some considerations their Lordships restrained the Lord Strange’s servants from playing at the Rose on the Bankside.” Notwithstanding that the warrant is undated, several reasons indicate that the order was issued at the same time that Lord Strange’s men were playing at the Rose. The document describes the actors as servants of Lord Strange; now in 1593 Lord Strange became the Earl of Derby, the events narrated in the document referred to the previous year 1592. Henslowe’s 1591 is either a clerical error or a confusion between the regnal year and the legal one, which commenced on the 25th of March.

Another important entry is as follows: “A note of such carges as I have laid owt abowte my playe house in the year of our Lord, 1592, as ffoloweth.” Had Mr. Philip Henslowe lived in these days he would have stood a fair chance of being elected President of the “Nu Speling Sosieti”; a more illiterate and uneducated being would be difficult in discovering, and this ignorance is found in conjunction with a man who was on intimate terms of friendship with the foremost authors of his day. His Diary is a mass of absurdities in the way of spelling, particularly on the employment of capital letters, but his greatest achievement is reached in recording the different titles of the plays acted under his management:

“the gresyan comodey.

The Grecian comedy.

Seser and Pompe.

Cæsar and Pompey.

the frenshe docter.

The French Doctor.

doctor fostes.”

Doctor Faust.

and many other items equally ludicrous and illiterate.

In congratulating Mr. Greg on the wonderful manner in which he has grappled with this extraordinary document, one must sympathize with him in the arduous labour thereby entailed. The ingenious editor admits once being baffled; in this instance the difficulty was solved by another acute mind the late Mr. Fleay. The word which defied decipherment was “an Isapryse,” which Mr. Fleay identified as “nisi prius,” the correct solution.

The Rose Theatre, like the playhouses in Shoreditch, was erected outside the jurisdiction of the City of London. The site was not within the Gildable Manor, being situated within the Liberty of the Clink, becoming thereby amenable to the Justices of the Peace for Surrey. The Clink was the name of the noted prison in Southwark; the name is derived from the word “clink,” to fasten securely.

An estate called “The Little Rose” is first heard of in 1552, passing into the hands of Henslowe in 1558. In January, 1587, a deed of partnership was drawn up between Henslowe and a grocer named Cholmley. This deed states that a playhouse is to be erected at Henslowe’s cost, with the assistance of John Griggs, a carpenter, Cholmley paying £8 16s. in quarterly instalments, sharing in return half the receipts. Nothing further was known of this projected theatre before 1592 until Professor Wallace, in 1914, discovered a document among the “Sewer Records,” in which the theatre is named the Rose in 1588. From the year 1592 until 1603 theatrical performances were given at the Rose. Acting was not continuous, the theatre being closed for many months, chiefly owing to the plague. The Diary contains the following entries:

• From February 19th, 1592, until June 22nd, 1592.
• From December 29th, 1592, until Feb. 1st, 1593.
• From December 27th, 1593, until April 8th, 1594.
• From June 3rd, 1594, until Mar. 14th, 1595.
• From Easter Monday, 1595, until June 26th, 1595.
• From August 25th, 1595, until Feb. 27th, 1596.
• From April 12th, 1596, until July 18th, 1596.
• From Oct. 27th, 1596, until Nov. 15th, 1596.
• From Nov. 25th, 1596, until Feb. 12th, 1597.
• From May 3rd, 1597, until July 28th, 1597.
• From Oct. 11th, 1597, until Oct. 31st, 1597.
• From Nov. 26th, 1597, until the end of December.

“A just account of all such money as I have received of my Lord Admiral’s and my Lord Pembroke’s men as followeth, beginning the 21st of October, 1597.” The account commences on the aforesaid date and finishes on the 4th of March, 1598, twenty performances in all. There appeared the next entry as shown in the Diary:

“Here I Begigne to Receve the wholle gallereys from this daye beinge the 29th of July, 1598.” This contract lasted until the 19th of October, 1599, altogether forty-four performances. The titles of the plays are omitted; the entry is simply:

• By the 29th of July, 1598—xll xiiijs.

The next entry in the Diary in connexion with the Rose Theatre occurs on the 6th of October, 1599: “Heere I begine to Receve the gallereys again.” Representations were given from the 6th of October, 1599, until the 13th of July, 1600. After this entry the Diary only records the performances given at his newly-erected theatre, the Fortune in Golden Lane. The 13th of July, 1600, contains the last notice of the Rose until the year 1603, when the servants of the Lord Worcester occupied the theatre for a brief period. When the Worcester men left some time during 1603, nothing further is heard of this theatre until 1620, when prizefighters occupied the arena; also fencing matches were held. Rendle, in his account of the Bankside Theatres, notes that the Rose was burnt down, and he quotes a couplet as evidence of his statement:

“In the last great fire

The Rose did expire.”

Rendle adds: “When that was, I am not clear.” He gives no reference for the quotation.

Other investigators seem quite ignorant of this catastrophe. Professor Lawrence simply states that the Rose is last heard of in 1622, quite ignoring the fire couplet.

Two years before Henslowe’s lease expired, hints were casually intimated that in future the rent would be considerably increased. This drastic course roused the old manager’s anger up to boiling pitch, and he vowed he would sooner pull down the Rose in the same manner as the Burbages had acted some years earlier in connexion with the theatre. Anyhow, the Rose was not demolished, the terms upon which the interested parties agreed remain unknown. Alleyn, the former actor and Lord of the Manor of Dulwich, was still paying tithe on the estate as late as the year 1622.

A

CHAST MAYD

IN

CHEAPE-SIDE.

A
Pleasant conceited Comedy
neuer before printed.

As it hath beene often acted at the
Swan on the Banke-side, by the
Lady ELIZABETH her
Seruants.

By THOMAS MIDELTON Gent.

LONDON,

Printed for Francis Constable dwelling at the
signe of the Crane in Pauls
Church-yard.
1630.

(Original Image)

THE SWAN THEATRE

The second theatre erected on the Bankside was named the Swan, situated at the extreme western end, in the Manor of Paris Garden, represented to-day by the Blackfriars Road. The proprietor and builder was a well-known London citizen, named Francis Langley, holding an office under the Corporation, as one of the searchers of cloth, an appointment much coveted by well-to-do men.

When first the plans were laid out for building a theatre on the Paris Garden Estate, the puritan section of the Corporation rose up in arms, vehemently protesting against the scheme being carried out. In their eager desire in preventing such desecration, they appealed to the Lord Treasurer, praying that a warrant might at once be issued, forbidding the building from being completed. These proceedings took place in 1594.

The exact date of the opening is very uncertain and somewhat conflicting. First, we have the opposition against the building in 1594; secondly, the evidence of the Dutchman De Witte, who visited and described the Swan Theatre. De Witte’s biographer positively asserts that he only visited these shores once, that visit taking place in the year 1596. According to the evidence, we should expect the erection of the theatre between these dates, namely, 1594–6. Curiously enough, a third witness is introduced in the records of the minutes of St. Saviour’s Vestry stating that Mr. Langley’s new buildings shall be viewed, and that he and others shall be moved for money for the poor in regard to the playhouse and the tithes; this order is dated 1598.

How can we best reconcile these three different dates? The mention of Langley’s new buildings in 1598 somewhat weakens the statement that De Witte visited the theatre in 1596, and yet the fact cannot well be ignored. Until new documentary evidence is forthcoming the wisest course consists in simply declaring an open verdict.

Quite apart from the interest attached to any place of amusement in Elizabeth’s reign, the Swan Theatre has become famous, through a startling and sensational discovery, in the form of an authentic drawing depicting the interior of this building. The actual discovery of this important and interesting drawing was made by Dr. Thiele, librarian of the University of Utrecht, who found the drawing in a manuscript volume belonging to the University Library. This interior view is certainly the most interesting document in existence in connexion with the early history of the theatre. By a special act of courtesy on the part of the librarian, this precious manuscript containing the drawing was conveyed to this country and exhibited in the British Museum. A photograph of the drawing will be found as frontispiece to this volume. The text accompanying the drawing is as follows, omitting all extraneous matter:

(Fol. 131 verso).

Ex Observationibus Londinensibus Johannis De Witt.

Amphiteatra Londinij sunt iv visendae pulcritudinis quae a diversis intersigniis diuersa nomina fortiuntur: in iis varia quotidie scaena populo exhibetur. Horum duo excellentiora vltra Tamisim ad meridiam sita sunt a suspensis signis ROSA et Cygnus nominata: Alia duo extra vrbem ad septentrionem sunt, via qua itur per Episcopalem portam vulgariter Biscopgat nuncupatam. Est etiam (Fol. 132 recto) quintum sed dispari et structura, bestiarum concertationi destinatum, in quo multi vrsi, Tauri, et stupendae magnitudinis canes, discretis caueis & septis aluntur, qui (drawing occupies rest of page) (the words from quintum to qui being written underneath) ad pugnam adseruantur, iucundissimum hominibus spectaculum praebentes. Theatrorum autem omnium prestantissimum est et amplissimum id cuius intersignium est cygnus (vulgo te theatre off te cijn), quippe quod tres mille homines in sedilibus admittat, constructum ex coaceruato lapide pyrrtide (quorum ingens in Britannia copia est), ligneis suffultum columnis quae ob illitum marmoreum colorem, nasutissimos quoque fallere possent. Cuius quidem formam quod Romani operis vmbram videatur exprimere supra adpinxi.

The above extract is taken verbatim from the manuscript book belonging to Arend van Buchell, the friend and biographer of De Witte.

(Translation).

There are in London four theatres of noteworthy beauty which bear diverse names according to their diverse signs. In them a different action is daily presented to the people. The first two of these are situated to the southward beyond the Thames and named from the signs they display, The Rose and The Swan. Two others are outside the City towards the north, and are approached (per Episcopalim postern, in the vernacular, Bisopgate)—Bishopsgate. There is also a fifth of dissimilar structure devoted to beast baiting, wherein many bears, bulls and dogs of stupendous size are kept in separate dens and cages, which being pitted against each other, afford men a delightful spectacle. Of all the theatres, however, the largest and most distinguished is that whereof the sign is a swan, commonly called the Swan Theatre, since it contains three thousand persons and is built of a concrete of flint stone, which greatly abound in Britain, and supported by wooden columns painted in such excellent imitation of marble that it might deceive even the most cunning. Since its form seems to approach that of a Roman structure I have depicted it above.

Naturally such an important document was submitted to various severe tests regarding its authenticity, and on examination was satisfactorily proved to be quite genuine. The next question requiring an answer was not so easily settled. How came this drawing made by De Witte inserted in a manuscript copy of a volume belonging to his friend, Van Buchell. It cannot be the original drawing sketched by De Witte on the spot, as the paper on which the sketch is made is identical with the paper forming the leaves of the manuscript. The only conclusion possible is that Van Buchell copied the drawing and the letters sent or lent to him by his friend into his own commonplace book. Whether the drawing was faithfully copied cannot be definitely answered, as De Witte’s original is lost.

There is no reason in believing that Van Buchell deviated from the copy sent him. The description given by De Witte to his friend may have been orally delivered and Van Buchell may have made the sketch from memory according to the details narrated by De Witte. The biographer of Van Buchell states that he never visited England. De Witte’s biographer writes that he only visited this country in 1596, but this statement cannot be implicitly relied upon.

Arend van Buchell was a lawyer practising in Utrecht; his hobby was collecting pictures and prints; he was intimate with Cornelis Boissers, an engraver, and several painters and collectors of his day.

By referring to the text, the reader will notice that De Witte estimated the seating and standing capacity of the Swan roughly about three thousand. Of course this number is the result of guesswork, but surely the number is nearer the mark than three hundred, the estimate of a well-known writer and critic, who arrived at this conclusion by inferring that three thousand was a mistake for three hundred.

On turning to the frontispiece of this volume, the reader will observe that the arena contains three galleries: these galleries ran right round the theatre, each one containing three or four rows. By carefully examining the drawing, fourteen divisions can be counted in the top-most gallery. Between each division, seats, or standing room for three people, can be quite distinctly made out. Therefore the third part of the gallery shown in the sketch would hold forty-two persons in one row, the entire row encircling the theatre on three of its sides would contain one hundred and twenty-six people; multiply this number by eleven, the number of rows (four in the first and second tiers and three in the top one) we get a total of 1,386. Add to this another 700 standing in the yard, we get a grand total of 2,086, which in all probability was about the full capacity of the house.

Another point which is hotly debated is whether De Witte is correct in stating that the exterior of the theatre was built of stone. In Hentzner’s description of the London theatres in 1598 he positively asserts that they all were built of wood; naturally this counter assertion raises the question regarding the value to be placed on De Witte’s observations in general.

He could hardly mistake wood for stone, pointing out himself the difficulty in discerning wooden columns from marble ones. A possible solution might be that the Swan Theatre was not built when Hentzner described the theatres of London; they are not mentioned by name, which adds additional force to my theory.

On a close inspection of the drawing all the characteristics of an Elizabethan theatre are at once apparent. The first important feature is the division of the auditorium into three distinct tiers, one above the other, which the careful reader will remember seemed such a novelty to Samuel Kiechel, the foreigner, who visited London in 1585. At that date the Swan was not in existence, but the construction of an Elizabethan theatre only varied in small details during the length of her reign. On looking at the stage, one is not impressed with its elaborate or elegant appearance, a more primitive kind of structure is scarcely conceivable. There is no sign of a curtain either at the back or front. The turned columns support what is technically known as the “Heavens,” a kind of roof protecting the actors from the elements, and also serving as a sounding board. Mr. Ordish, in his fascinating and highly interesting study of the early London theatres, in describing this sketch, strangely observes that the “heavens” over the stage are not shown; this statement must surely be a clerical error, as they are quite clearly marked in the drawing.

The two doors served as exits and entrances, leading to and from the dressing room, inscribed in the sketch as “mimorum aedes.” The balcony was divided into boxes for playgoers who were willing to pay a higher price for their seats. When occasion required, part of the balcony was occupied by the musicians, and frequently by the actors themselves, especially in those scenes in which they appeared from above, as in the play of “Romeo and Juliet,” or when soldiers appear before the walls of a city.

From a spectator’s point of view, this part of the auditorium does not appear the most advantageous, as only the backs of the actors could be seen. Notwithstanding the bad position, these expensive seats were always in demand, some motive must have kept up the price of these boxes; the only one I can suggest is that they offered a degree of privacy to the occupants; furthermore, they had an entrance from the back of the stage, thus enabling the avoidance of the crowd by the seat-holders.

Over the balcony was a kind of hutch, where most likely the stage properties were stored. From an opening in this structure an attendant is seen sounding a trumpet, an intimation that the play is about to commence, although in this instance the warning is given while the play is in progress. The significance of this small detail is rather important, allowing us in presuming that De Witte drew the sketch after he had left the theatre, and therefore from memory, which in many small matters may have played him false.

The play which is being performed has all the appearance of a scene from Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” in which Olivia, Maria and Malvolio, with his staff of office, appear. Shakespeare’s play was composed a few years later, but a play with similar incidents may have been acted at this date.

An earlier play on the same subject that Shakespeare treated in “Twelfth Night” is generally supposed to have been presented on the stage. The roof of the hutch is surmounted by a flag, waving over the building, bearing for its sign a swan. With the exception of the stage, which was a movable one, the other parts of the stage buildings were permanent structures. The different sections of the house inscribed in the sketch are as follows: Over the topmost gallery is a sloping roof, which ran right round the theatre, inscribed on the right hand side facing the spectators with the word “tectum,” the Latin for roof. This part of the theatre was either tiled or thatched throughout. In one division of the lowermost gallery, in which were situated the best seats, a space therein, so described with the word “orchestra.” Professor Lawrence has written a very ingenious and learned dissertation on the meaning of this word, in which he proves conclusively that the place so marked was set apart for private boxes, called in the theatrical parlance of the day “The gentlemen’s rooms.”

The word orchestra, in this sense, has no connexion with the modern meaning of the word, or the ancient Greek definition, signifying a place reserved for dancing, also where the chorus accompanying a Greek play sang. The true meaning in the Shakesperean period denoted that part of the auditorium set aside for noblemen or those willing to pay a high price for their seats.

Cotgrave, in his English and French dictionary, published in 1611, defines orchestre as “the senators or noblemens’ places in a theatre, between the stage and the common seats.” The knowledge of this important fact in reconstructing intelligibly this part of an old theatre is a debt we owe to the ingenuity and learning of Professor Lawrence.

The word “sedilia” refers to the seats in the galleries, which proves that seating accommodation was provided in this part of the house, a fact which had been doubted for many years past.

The porticus was a colonnade or corridor running round the gallery furnished with columns supporting the galleries, and may have afforded standing room for spectators.

The Swan Theatre. From Visscher’s Map of London, 1616.

“Ingressus” refers to the steps leading to the galleries, being placed on both sides of the house. Other steps not shown in the sketch led to the second and third galleries. At this point were stationed the “gatherers,” who received the extra payment for entrance to these seats.

The structure behind the stage, inscribed “mimorum aedes,” is the tiring room for the actors making their exits and their entrances through the two doors placed one on each side. The word “proscænium” is the Latin word for stage, derived from the Greek word Skene, a booth or tent, in which the leader of the chorus in the early days of the Greek drama erected his dressing room. The same word scene, in our own days, bears many theatrical meanings almost identical with the word employed twenty-five hundred years ago, thus contradicting the belief of most people that we owe everything to the genius of the present generation.

The arena was the yard, in which stood the pit and gallery habitués of our day, the charge for this privilege being one penny.

I hope the reader will constantly refer to the [drawing] whilst reading this description, as it will materially help him in fully understanding the interior of an Elizabethan playhouse.

The Hope Theatre was modelled on the Swan. I here append the contract for the first-named theatre:

“The contractor, Katherens, is to take down the existing structure, and to build in its place another game house or plaie house fit for players to play in and for the game of bears and bulls. There is to be provided a tyre house and a frame to be carried or taken away and to stand upon tressels, sufficient to bear such a stage. It is agreed to build the same of such large compass, form, wideness and height as the playhouse called the Swan in the liberty of Paris Garden. And the said playhouse or game place to be made in all things and in such form and fashion as the said playhouse called the Swan, the scantling of the timbers, tiles and foundations as is aforesaid without fraud or covin.” The last word means conspiracy or collusion.

The separate items are:

1. Two staircases without and adjoining the playhouse of such largeness and height as the said playhouse called the Swan.

These stairs are not shown in the sketch; perhaps they were placed outside the building. It would be interesting to know the exact position.

2. “Heavens” over the stage to be borne and carried away without any posts or supporters to be fixed or set about the stage. Gutters of lead needful for carriage of water that shall fall about the same.

The “Heavens” in the Hope contract is different somewhat from the Swan, as the sketch plainly shows the columns supporting the “Heavens.”

3. Two boxes in the lowermost storey, fit and decent for gentlemen to sit in, and shall make the partition between the rooms as they are at the said playhouse called the Swan.

The boxes are marked “Orchestra” in the sketch.

4. Turned columns upon and over the stage.